{ "Definition": [ "Classify the sentiment polarity expressed in the following movie reviews.\n" ], "Positive Examples": [], "Negative Examples": [], "Instances": [ { "input": "Nothing in this film interested me. I thought the actors were asleep while they were performing. That's not laid-back Stanislofsky method, that's just walking-through and saying lines, I'm afraid. Kidman's performance is sad. The story is, however, mildly entertaining if you want to put up with the bad acting.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I can't see the point in burying a movie like this in sulfuric sarcasm, when it is in no way intended to be anything more than a vehicle to entertain children and prepare them for the next line of merchandise to beg madly about.

This is a fun movie. My children sat quietly through the entire thing and loved every minute of it. Granted, the villain is a bit over the top with his silly costume and maniacal laugher, but this is a lot more easier to take than the dark, gloomy, and very morbid Pokemon 3.

My children have been watching Pokemon since it started and they are soon getting to the ages where they will \"put off the childish things\" and move on to others. I am glad that we got to enjoy this together.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Now this is what a family movie should be! There are few films of recent years that have been targeted at families or children that really are worthy of their viewing public; but this IS one of them. My whole family came away from the film, awed, entertained, dazzled, and happy. We're still quoting little anecdotes from it here and there. The children LOVED it and so did we (hubbie and I are 36 and 32, respectively)!

Apart from its beautiful and striking animation, the characters (small as they may be, and imaginary as they are) are very well developed. There isn't one of them that you cannot empathize with. The personalities bringing these little creatures to life are well casted voice talents, combined with the skill and artistry of some of Disney's best animators. This is a film worthy of Walt Disney, himself. I think Mr. Disney would heartily approve of this new film... Flick, Dot and their fellow band of tiny heroes may become as popular as Mickey and Minnie in our time.

This is one the family leaves the theatre wanting to see again.. and buy to own on video or DVD. I'm eager to see it again.. to pick up what I might have missed the first time. (Never have I seen my children so quickly and vividly identify with and embrace characters before... my daughter is still talking about little \"Dot\".)

This film is funny, heartwarming, clever and great fun for the whole family!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Japanese \"Run Lola Run,\" his is one offbeat movie which will put a smile on just about anyone's face. Fans of Run Lola Run, Tampopo, Go!, and Slacker will probably like this one. It does tend to follow a formula that is increasingly popular these days of separate, seemingly unrelated vignettes, all contributing the the overall story in unexpected ways. catch it if you see it, otherwise wait for the rental.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "You MUST be kidding!!!! Let's entertain the possibility that Parker Posey is really an actress, and not just some entry in the \"quirk of the month club\" of actors. Really, unless this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek satire on David Mamet-- terse, confusing dialog delivered alternately in machine gun rapidity or monotone (think Ben Stein) blandness--or a flat out dry comedy; this film has got to be in the running for a Rotten Tomato Award---or worse.

As if the stiff and uncomfortable Posey weren't enough, we've got the stiffer and even more uncomfortable Jeff Goldblum. There's more wood in this film than a toothpick factory.

Adding to this already bizarre casting, are several other roles, all populated by forgettable actors, who look or sound like escapees from America's Next Top Model, Don Pardo, or even the kid, who pronounces the word \"been\" like \"bean\", which just brings our attention to the fact that there is so little to like about this film, we are analyzing his accent to guess if he's Canadian or not!! I think I laughed heartily in places that are supposed to be serious, and took seriously sections that are meant to be humorous. Even the soundtrack sounds like a caricature of Alarik Jans music for Mamet's \"The House of Games\". If taken as a spoof, the film is almost droll; if taken seriously, just a self-conscious piece of drek.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie was a major disappointment on direction, intellectual niveau, plot and in the way it dealt with its subject, painting. It is a slow moving film set like an episode of Wonder Years, with appalling lack of depth though. It also fails to deliver its message in a convincing manner.

The approach to the subject of painting is very elite, limited to vague and subjective terms as \"beauty\". According to the makers of this movie, 'beauty' can be only experienced in Bob-Ross-style kitschy landscape paintings. Good art according to this film can be achieved by applying basic (like, primary school level) color theory and lots of sentiment. In parts the movie is offending, e.g. at a point it is stated (rather, celebrated by dancing on tables) that mentally handicapped people are not capable of having emotions or expressing them through painting, their works by definition being worthless 'bullshit' (quote).

I do not understand how the movie could get such high rating, then again, so far not many people rated it, and they chose for only very high or very low grades.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Second Renaissance, part 1 let's us show how the machines first revolted against the humans. It all starts of with a single case, in which the machines claim that they have a right to live as well, while the humans state a robot is something they own and therefore can do anything with they want.

Although an interesting premise, the story gets really silly from then on with (violent!) riots between the robots and mankind. Somehow it doesn't seem right, as another reviewer points it, it's all a little too clever.

The animatrix stories that stay close to the core of the matrix (in particular Osiris) work for the best. As for Second Renaissance Part 1, I'd say it's too violent and too silly. 4/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "this is really films outside (not in a motel room). With real costumes (not only strings and swimsuits). You have to see this movie. it's the only porn movie I know that is worth watching between the sex scenes.

Bon Cinema

Laurent", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Any person with fairly good knowledge of German cinema will surely tell that numerous films about a young girl having troubles with her mother as well as her boy friend have been made in the past.If such a film is shown to people again,it would surely click provided if it has something new,fresh and captivating for today's challenging audiences. This is also true for German film maker Sylke Enders as her film's principal protagonist Kroko has been mistreated by everybody around her including her mother and boyfriend.She is bold enough to face any punishment as she has tried her hand at all kinds of criminal activities including shoplifting.Kroko was originally shot on DV to be blown afterwards to 35 mm format.Its technical virtuosity does not hamper our joys when we learn that Kroko would like to become a policeman as she feels that she is averse to the idea of becoming a run of the mill hairdresser.If someone were to state a positive aspect of Sylke Enders' film,it may well be Kroko's involvement with handicapped people as a result of a punishment.It is with Kroko that we learn that punks are human too with their unique joys and sorrows.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I thought the movie was OK but very disappointed that they didn't capture the true image of his life. I was so anticipating to see his mother being an actual Jamaican, that it's driving me crazy. Just watching the beginning of the movie told me that the movie was not accurate. Which I completely lost interest just a matter of seconds from the beginning of the movie. I'm very disappointed, that's like watching a biography story on Mark Anthony and having Arnold play the part. I don't know what the writer was thinking missing a valuable piece of the movie which I'm sure his mother played a huge role in his life. I will say the movie was OK besides the major Fla!!!!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Before George Clooney directed Sam Rockwell in his directorial debut \"Confessions of a Dangerous Mind\", they starred together in this movie. George Clooney also was involved with this movie as a producer, along with Steven Soderbergh, which shows that they really believed in this project. In potential this also seems like a fine and entertaining project, that is in the same line with movie-remakes such as \"Ocean's Eleven\" and \"The Italian Job\" but somehow this movie is only halve successful, or at least it isn't as good as it could had been.

The movie its characters are all being played by some fine well known actors but a shame is that the characters are not really given enough room to develop. Even though in their potential they could had turned into fun and enjoyable characters, they are now only characters that mildly entertain because mostly of some of the more quirky sequences that are in the movie. The fact that they are being played doesn't change much to this, even though they prevent their characters from ever becoming a total bore or perhaps even annoying, or anything like that at all.

It's of course due to the writing that the characters aren't used to their full potential. I can only assume that the original Italian movie \"I Soliti ignoti\" works out much better than this movie does. The movie relies too much on its simple story and predictable way of storytelling.

Nevertheless the movie is simply still a very fun one to watch maybe because of that very same simplicity. It's an harmless little caper movie, in which you simply shouldn't to worry much about the story. In that regard \"Welcome to Collinwood\" is still a movie that works out and simply serves its purpose well.

It's a movie that you won't regret watching once you've finished it but it also is a movie you can really easily do without ever seeing.

7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Stupid and just plain weird movie about some kid who becomes traumatized when he finds out Santa isn't real (???). He grows up and becomes an adult (Brandon Maggart) who makes lists of people who are naughty or nice. One Christmas he snaps and sets out to kill the naughty people--dressed as Santa of course.

Boring and just plain bad killer Santa movie. If you're looking for gore, it's not here. Only a few of the murders are shown and they're not that gory with VERY fake effects. Most of the movie just contains Brandon Maggart talking to himself and slowly going crazy. The script is trite, the acting is terrible and it leads to an ending which had me staring slack-jawed at the TV. Seriously, I had to rewind the tape and watch it again to make sure I wasn't hallucinating! Really REALLY poor ending.

If you want a scary Christmas flick rent \"Black Christmas\" (the original 70s version---NOT the terrible remake). Avoid this one at all costs.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the \"movers and shakers\" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like \"Roman Holiday\".

I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to \"bring the &*%#@#^ documents\" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!

The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: \"Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor\" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the \"natural\" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.

I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I understand what this movie was trying to portray. How the old are often ignored and treated like a bother, which means they end up feeling unappreciated and like their lives are empty.

I do not have a problem with this message, but I just feel that it could have been put across in a way that is not so painful to watch. I enjoy a good art movie but when a movie becomes too self-consciously arty (as in this case) the result is often frustrating. Including shots of a person packing a suitcase slowly that take 5 minutes try to make a point but just end up annoying the audience.

The female characters are very weak and you end up wanting to just tell them to pull it together. This is a movie you feel you should enjoy or rate highly and certainly has its' merits but I was just too frustrated watching it to ever recommend it to someone else. It might have a deeper message than other Roger Michell movies (for example: 'Notting Hill') but at least that was a movie you could enjoy watching.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I think if you were to ask most JW's whether they expect a miracle cure because of their faith, you will find they do not. I know I do not. What you will find instead is that they believe the promises Christ made of a resurrection. So, even even if the worst were to happen and we die while holding onto our integrity, Jehovah can, and will correct this.

It really gets down to a simple question: is God real to you or is this all just make believe? If he is real, and you trust him, you will follow his directions no matter what the short term outcome may be.

I had a heart attack about a year and a half ago. One in my family was horrified when she saw the words \"NO BLOOD\" written in large letters over my chart. I reasoned with her that if I were in a position that only a blood transfusion would save my life, would that be a good time to anger the only one could return me to life when the time came? She didn't get it -- God just isn't real enough to her. Too bad. I wish she could have the comfort a strong faith gives.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shô Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film is so unbelievable; - the whole premise is bunkum; the fact that a serial killer (vampire or otherwise) could fly around untraced and kill as many people as the film implies is laughable. The vampire himself would not look out of place in a Bela Lugosi film. Most of the acting is so wooden the actors should be treated for dry rot. I await the day when someone makes a decent film from a Steven King novel (with the exception, possibly, of Stand by Me). This film suffers from what most Stephen King films do - lack of money used for the \"special\" effects, poor actors, appalling characterisation and dialogue. This film is cheap, tacky and fails in everything it tries to do.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.

I was excited for the sequel to \"Wargames\" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and \"Wargames: The Dead Code\" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.

The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. \"The Dead Code\" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he \"wins\" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.

Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like \"He has expert knowledge of bio-terror\" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.

Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Tim (Gary Daniels) wants desperately to break into serious television reporting. When a job he begged for goes awry, he is fired. His beautiful but empty girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) says sayonara, too. Coming home, Tim is startled to discover his house has an uninvited visitor (Christopher Lloyd) from the planet Mars! Calling him Uncle Martin, Tim soon tries to help his new friend navigate life on earth. But, Martin gets in trouble wherever he goes, from the bathroom to the laundry room and more. Lovely Lizzie (Daryl Hannah) finally sees an opportunity to make time with Tim but the course of true love does not run smooth in this case, either. Soon everyone in television is stalking Tim, hoping for a story about a true alien. What's a man to do? For those who loved the old television show of the same name, with Bill Bixby and Ray Walston, this film is not worthy to tie the proverbial boots. Its truly, undeniably awful, with no plot and a reliance on supposed special effects which fall flat, too. Daniels is okay as the earthling but Lloyd is simply terrible as the alien, overacting up a storm. The rest of the cast is adequate, as are the costumes, set, and production details. Even if your children see the cover and beg for this film, convince them to pick out another flick at the video store. Be assured, kids and adults will find this movie a colossal bore, so opt for A Night at the Museum or Around the World in 80 Days instead.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A toothsome little potboiler whose 65-minute length doesn't seem a second too short, My Name is Julia Ross harks back to an English tradition of things not being what they seem -- Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes is one example. Out-of-work Julia Ross (Nina Foch) finds a dream job at a new employment agency in London, whose sinister representative seems very anxious to ascertain if she has living relatives or a boyfriend. After reporting to duty, she wakes up (Having Been Drugged) in a vast Manderley-like pile on the Cornish coast, supposedly as the barmy-in-the-crumpet wife of George Macready, who displays an alarming interest in knives and ice picks. His doting, enabling mum is the irresistible Dame May Whitty (this time a model of bustling efficiency on the other side of good-vs-evil than she occupied in The Lady Vanishes). The nightmare vision of this tale unfolds claustrophobically; we know what's going on but are powerless to tell poor Julia. This movie, curiously, is regularly accorded a place of honor as one of the earliest (and very few British) films noirs. I think it's closer to the Gothic old-dark-house tradition than the American one of wet cobblestones and urban corruption; it does, however, evince a more modern, psychoanalytic cast of mind. Whatever you call it, it remains a sharply satisfying thriller.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.

As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.

While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.

On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!

On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "pokemon the movie was a terrible film. unlike the first one, this is not a good film at all. the graphics were decent but the story was flat and no real drama was built up in it. in the first one the interaction between the characters were decent. the subtraction of brock and addition of tracey was bad. tracey really doesn't have much to say or do, and unlike brock offers no comic relief. the only good points is you get to see misty actually get jelous over ash, and her early brooding over being called his girlfriend was entertaining. overall this film isn't worth renting and the short movie before didn't do anything for me or my wife. and we do consider ourselves pokemon fans.oh well, maybe the next one will be better.cant ge t much worse", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "At first I was convinced that this was a made-for-TV movie that wasn't worthy of primetime. But after a few minutes of dumb-struck awe, I realized that there was at least comic value in the over-the-top stunts and c-movie acting. This movie would have gotten a 1 if my wife and I hadn't laughed so hard as we watched it in wonder that the actors could keep a straight face. It was like a less-funny spy version of The Big Hit (I laughed so much I actually bought the Big Hit DVD) with even-worse acting. We were disappointed that Nick chose to marry Elena, and not Jim, after all of the hugging and high-fives. A few rum and cokes will definitely help it go down easier.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie was made in Hungary i think. anyway,the countryside is gorgeous,the people who play the farming folks were totally fascinating. their horsemanship is awesome. I got more into the native people, the farm life, and how heroic they were trying to hide Brady from the evil Nazis who where looking for these parachutists. They even sacrificed their life in several instances. the young orphan lad that Brady befriends was a sweet kid. you will marvel at the riding i think, and the action of trying to evade the Nazis. it is entertaining and comic in some spots and very tragic in others. Ladies have hankies handy, as you will be devastated at the end. i own it, and have watched it several times. in other words, not just a one time around flick. its a keeper....", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Life Begins - and ends - in a typical 1930's maternity / recovery ward, where we view 48 hours in the lives of several high risk pregnant women, played by Loretta Young, Glenda Farrell, Clara Blandick (Aunty Em???), Vivienne Osborne, Dorothy Tree, and Gloria Shea, as they await to give birth. While the film features plot devices which seem far fetched today when maternity wards are much more controlled and restricted, it does offer us a look back in time to see what giving birth in a typical city hospital in 1932 was like for our grandmothers and great-grandmothers. I found the film fascinating and exceptionally moving.

Oddly enough, the most outstanding performance in this film comes from a male cast member, young Eric Linden as Jed Sutton, Grace's (Loretta Young) husband. What an actor! As a first time father, Jed is distraught and uneasy with hospital staff who seem to brush off his concerns about his wife as they might brush crumbs off a cafeteria table. I felt his every concern keenly. I'd like to see more of this actor's work. He had a very emotional voice, which was used to unforgettable effect in Gone With The Wind. In that film Eric played the young soldier whose leg was amputated without anesthesia, who screamed \"Don't cut! Don't cut!\" as Scarlett fled the hospital in horror. Chilling! Another great performance is from Aline MacMahon, who plays Miss Bowers, the nurse. Her character is a salt of the earth type, the kind of nurse we all hope to get for our hospital stays, who breaks the hospital rules constantly in order to show a more humane side of the medical profession.

Loretta Young did another superb acting job here as well, a very authentic and deeply felt performance as Grace. My, she is great in these precodes, I've really grown to appreciate her more as an actress the last few months.

Glenda Farrell played her role of a shrill unwed mother a little over the top for my taste (didn't anyone know back in 1932 that swigging brandy from a hot water bottle might be hazardous to unborn babies' health?) but her character redeems herself in the end.

Also in the cast was an uncredited Gilbert Roland, silent movie star, as a grieving Italian husband. His screen time was brief, but notable.

Life Begins is a must-see precode, try to catch it sometime on TCM, but remember to bring a few hankies to cry into. 9 out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "OK first of all let me say that i'm still amazed of how the plot sucks,

but than again its a movie that sequels a Steven segal movie only with no Steven segal omg!!!

just random low budget action scenes really no point i 'm still amazed i burned 90 min on this crap really !!

just rent a Jacky Chan movie or go see wwf more fun and has no and presume not to have and plot!!! plz plz plz avoid it!! btw the best actor playing there is bill goldberg and that says a lot!!

and no he doesn't play very well like i said plz avoid it pfff i still cant believe i wasted 90 min and spent 10 min more writing this!! :)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw the movie as a child when it was released in the theater and it was so bad that it became the makings of a family joke. If the ranking had a zero, this movie would get it. The dinosaurs were awful. The storyline was ridiculous. The acting really doesn't qualify to be called acting. The only reason I even remember the name of the movie so well is because my family still talks about how BAD it really was.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I contend that whoever is ultimately responsible for creating/approving the trailer for this movie has completely blundered. NO ONE I know wanted to see this movie based on the previews, and EVERYONE who actually saw it (that I know) absolutely loved it... The advertising campaign is disgrace/disaster/blunder.

Opened at #4 behind...

#1-Rush Hour, which I have not seen, average IMDb score of 7.4.

#2-The Bourn Ultimatum, which I have seen, awesome movie but 3rd week out, average IMDb score of 8.7 (deserving I would say).

#3-The Simpsons Movie, which I have seen, okay movie but 4th week out, average IMDb score of 8.1 (a bit high in my opinion).

#4-Stardust, average IMDb score of 8.4 (lower then Bourn, but that's been our for 3 weeks).

Whether it was poor scheduling or poor advertising I think that the powers that be behind this movie screwed up big time! This should have been advertised as an amazing movie that happens to be a fantasy/fairytale and not advertised as just another fairytale… Too bad :( Anyway- Now that I have very pointlessly ranted on-and-on... Awesome movie, go see it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When I was a kid it was Lex Barker's time as Tarzan. I often heard from older people that Johnny Weissmuller \"was\" Tarzan and I wouldn't understand why since I saw a couple of Weismuller's last films in the character and I thought he was sort of out of shape. It wasn't after many years that I came across \"Tarzan and His Mate\", and then I understood. Weismuller is in shape in this picture and has the presence and rugged looks the character demands not matched yet by other Tarzans such as Barker, Gordon Scott, Jock Mahoney, Denny Miller, Miles O'Keefe and Cristopher Lambert.

As for this film I was also surprised by the sensual presence of beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan a strong, self minded, active and \"no-inhibitions\" woman as Jane way ahead of the times in which the film was made (Tarzan pushes her into a pond naked as she is amused; one of the explorers kisses her by surprise and though she doesn't kiss him back she sort of let him do for a bit and makes no big deal out of it); such behaviors were unthinkable with the \"Janes\" to come such as Brenda Joyce, Vanessa Brown, Virginia Huston or Dorothy Hart, all playing sort of too perfect sweet vulnerable women making it hard to believe they could survive in a hostile place like the African jungle.

O'Sullivan character's sparkling personality steals the show out of Tarzan himself, except of course when it comes to action and Weismuller takes the lead easily; the combination is perfect. Another highlight in the movie is Cheeta's secondary role and not as the main lead like in later Tarzan pictures where she often saves the day.

\"Tarzan and His Mate\" stands as a fine product in its genre (Tarzan films) and perhaps as the best, though I have to admit that I also enjoyed \"Tarzan's Greatest Adventure\" (1959) made with a higher budget and a strong supporting cast (and in spite of the just acceptable Gordon Scott in the leading role with his too perfect \"all gymnasium\" physical looks that doesn't fit for a rustic ape man).

Good for Jane and her mate!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Don't think of this movies as just another kids movie - the whole family can enjoy it. Its a strange mix of a movie, as its seems to have a movie within it, but at least it does make sense at the end (unlike modern films!) It does give you all the elements of a film (decent plot, good characters - well it does star the Muppets, a list of lesser celebs* which films would clamour for) What is surprising, is the fact that it can be a roller coaster of emotions, some sad, some heartwarming, some funny and some serious - it all makes an enjoyable family film that everyone can watch together.

* The celebs in the film are actually top stars of the day but there is only one true star of the film and no one dare outshine Miss Piggy!!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Quite simply this shouldn't have been made. It's predictable and clichéd. The on screen chemistry which made the first \"My Girl\" so captivating is nowhere to be found here, and the acting as a whole is stilted and forced. The writing also leaves much to be desired, some of the 'memorable' lines such as \"earpeircing a barbaric custom\" are just shocking. Where \"My Girl\" provoked a genuine feelings of sadness and some genuinely funny moments, like so many sequels \"My Girl 2\" tries to recreate these emotions generated by the audience, and fails miserably. Maybe i'm being hard on this film because of how great the first one was, but quite honestly it insults the quality of the original with the sort of drivel this installment serves up. Surely this has to come close to \"Son of the mask\" as being one of the worst sequels of all time. In both cases, the old saying rings true; \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\".", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Eddie Murphy is one of the funniest comedians ever - probably THE funniest. Delirious is the best stand-up comedy I've ever seen and it is a must-have for anyone who loves a good laugh!! I've watched this movie hundreds of times and every time I see it - I still have side-splitting fun. This is definitely one for your video library. I guarantee that you will have to watch it several times in order to hear all the jokes because you will be laughing so much - that you will miss half of them! Delirious is hilarious!

Although there are a lot of funny comedians out there - after watching this stand-up comedy, most of them will seem like second-class citizens. If you have never seen it - get it, watch it - and you will love it!! It will make you holler!!! :-)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Slim Slam Slum is a sad and disappointing picture. There is absolutely no reason to this sorry excuse for a picture. Don`t go there, what ever you do, don`t. Watch TV-Shop for 10 hours straight instead. That way you will be slightly amused.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "That was great fun! I never read those Chester-Gould-comics but it's not necessary to know them. Maybe there were some inside jokes I didn't figure out but what the eye doesn't see the heart cannot grieve over. This is such an ironic, colourful film and the actors are good-humoured all together. The setting is similar to that in the „Batman` movies, but not as dark and grey. Okay, the story is not so original but there is a plot (which is not self-evident) and a more or less surprising ending.

With this movie, you could play an interesting game, if you watch it with friends. Don't watch the credits at the beginning and then look who's the fastest to find out who are the famous actors under their make-up!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Typical Troma-trash, this smutty 80's flick is considered one of the \"highlights\" of Lloyd Kaufman's notorious production studio, alongside \"The Toxic Avenger\" released one year earlier. \"The Toxic Avenger\" is far superior if you ask me, but this demented splatter-flick is nevertheless endurable as well; just make sure you leave your full brain capacity at the door. The events take place in Tromaville, a little town that proudly claims to be the toxic chemical capital of the world, and they certainly aren't lying. The safety precautions in the local nuclear power plant are substandard, to say the least (even Homer Simpson never was this nonchalant) and toxic waste seeps through to the nearby high school. The first intoxicated victim is the stereotypical nerd, who starts spurting green stuff out of all his body cavities, but his death is believed to be an accident because he had no less than TWO microwave ovens in his house! Oh, the humanity! Shortly after, however, the nuclear leaks also affect the school's weed plantation and thing really start to get messy. After smoking a joint at a party, the cutest couple in school produce a gigantic worm monster that settles in the basement and feeds on teenage scum. \"Class of Nuke 'em High\" is bottom-of-the-barrel horror film-making, with dialogs so dumb they hurt your ears and make-up effects that give a whole new meaning to the word tasteless. If you enjoy watching faces melting away, getting crushed or splitting in half, this is definitely a must-see! Unlike the aforementioned \"The Toxic Avenger\", this film suffers from a couple of really dull and overlong moments where nothing really significant happens, like for example when Chrissy and Warren try to figure out what's wrong with their hormones. The crude humor isn't as effective as in \"Toxic Avenger\" and the acting performances are unforgivably amateurish. Proceed only if you're an avid Troma-fanatic.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm no horror movie buff, but my wife's nieces and nephews are. So, I saw the first movie. It was gruesome, and tense, but not my taste. Still good though. For similar reasons, at this very moment, I am being exposed to a sequel.

The premise itself is beyond absurd. I can buy that disasters occur in the desert. I can buy that mutants exists. I can even buy that the events might be so weird and strange that the military may decide to get involved. It is unlikely, yes, but I'm willing to suspend my belief.

HOWEVER, under no circumstances am I willing to believe that the military squad assigned to recon such an area would be unable to fend off the mutants. Being a member of the United States Army, I can assure that while fresh recruits may lack the seasoned eyes and experience of combat soldiers, any such recruits would be integrated into a capable squad.

A squad of armed soldiers is not about to be taken out by a few mutants with knives. That's just the way it works. Squad movements, vastly superior firepower, and of course, radio support, would ensure nothing less than total victory. I'm not saying you wouldn't have casualties, but as soon as the area was verified as hostile, military training would take precedence, no-one would go off on their own even to use the bathroom.

And if it were discovered that the area was so infested with hostiles that the squad was unable to handle the danger, they would radio in for backup. And believe me, their radios would not be jammed, if there was a chance that normal radios would not do, the squad would have a military issue satellite phone. Chances are, if they were unable to check in every hour, a search would be called.

In order to accept this movie, you must accept that our soldiers are incompetent fools, with incompetent leaders, and an incompetent chain of command. While it may still be true that the most dangerous thing in the world is a lieutenant with a map and compass, our military forces are filled with intelligent, well-trained, competent soldiers. Mutants with knives are far below our ability to deal with.

With the whole execution of the movie depending solidly on the impossible to imagine, the film fails to deliver. Instead, we are expected to believe that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are incapable of dealing with even the most mediocre threats.

As a combat veteran, I find the movie insulting.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'll be short and to the point. This movie was an insult to any one with a room temperature IQ. Sorry liberals, feminists, etc. No women will ever be a Seal. They can forget about the draft or being in combat too. Ain't going to happen. You see, hard as it is to understand or accept, men and women are physically different.Regardless of the fact it is 2007,reality cannot change things in order for people to avoid having their feelings hurt. Men can't give birth or breast feed babies( Oh-I forgot about San Franfreako ).

Women lack the physical strength to be on par with men in a combat or other physically challenging situations. How many women play in the NFL or NHL? Lastly, I couldn't give a bloody hoot in hell if what I just wrote upsets you.Come to think of it - if this does upset you that only warms my heart more. I didn't write one thing that wasn't the truth. This imbecilic movie is nothing more than a comedy and a lousy one at that.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Finally, an indie film that actually delivers some great scares! I see most horror films that come out... Theatrical, Straight-To-DVD, cable, etc... and most of them suck... a few are watchable... even fewer are actually good... Dark Remains is one of the good ones. I caught a screening of this film at the South Padre Island Film Festival... the audience loved it... and my wife and I loved it! Having no name actors, I assume the budget on this film was pretty low, but you wouldn't know it... the film looks fantastic... the acting totally works for the film... the story is good... and the scares are great! While most filmmakers focus solely on the scares, they often forget about story and character development, two things that help to deliver the scares more efficiently. Brian Avenet-Bradley must know that character and story are important. He develops both to the point where you care about the characters, you know the characters, and are therefore more scared when they are in danger.

Watching horror films that cost anywhere from $80 million to $5000 to make, I find \"Dark Remains\" to be one of the gems out there. Check this film out!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My comment is limited generally to the first season, 1959-60.

This superb series was one of the first to be televised in color, and it was highly influential in persuading Americans that they had to buy a color television set, which was about $800 in 1959, the equivalent of more than $3,000 today. How many of us would pay that much for the privilege of watching a show transmitted by a cathode ray picture tube on a 17-inch screen? I was eleven when the series began, and I watched it from the beginning.

Watching it now, 50 years later, several things come to mind. First, many of the story lines involve the Comstock Lode and the heyday of silver mining, which dates to 1859. For 1859, the weapons and clothes are, for the most part, not authentic. (The haircuts are left out of the discussion.) That's basically a nitpick.

And, it would have been impossible for Ben to have arrived in the Lake Tahoe area in 1839 and to have amassed a 100-square mile ranch in the next twenty years. Pioneers were still trying to solve the Sierra Nevada problem as late as 1847, and the Gold Rush did not even begin until two years later.

Indians are not played by Native American actors. John Ford was using Native American actors in the 1920s. The Bonanza producers could have easily done so thirty years later. That is a major nitpick for me.

There are other time-line problems. In Season 1, Mark Twain appears, and he is depicted as a middle-aged man. Mark Twain was 24 years-old in 1859. The stories also vacillate between 1859-1860 (pre-Civil War) and what was more suitable for an 1880 time-frame. There are continuity problems, over and over.

It is somewhat off-putting, too, that there is so much killing in the first season. In time, the killing was reduced.

Many of the episodes take a socially liberal slant, which would be hard to believe, given the time-line, but give the writers credit for anticipating the seismic shifts in the Nation's attitudes beginning in the 1960s.

Having said all that, the acting is good, and I have come to conclude in my latter years that Adam's character was drawn better than any other's. I don't think Pernell Roberts ever got the credit he deserved. Also, Season 1 reinforces the fact that Dan Blocker (Hoss) was a good actor.

Many of the stories trace real historical events. The guest stars were interesting.

This was great family entertainment, and the series stands up very well by any measure.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "With all this stuff going down at the moment with MJ i've started listening to his music, watching the odd documentary here and there, watched The Wiz and watched Moonwalker again. Maybe i just want to get a certain insight into this guy who i thought was really cool in the eighties just to maybe make up my mind whether he is guilty or innocent. Moonwalker is part biography, part feature film which i remember going to see at the cinema when it was originally released. Some of it has subtle messages about MJ's feeling towards the press and also the obvious message of drugs are bad m'kay.

Visually impressive but of course this is all about Michael Jackson so unless you remotely like MJ in anyway then you are going to hate this and find it boring. Some may call MJ an egotist for consenting to the making of this movie BUT MJ and most of his fans would say that he made it for the fans which if true is really nice of him.

The actual feature film bit when it finally starts is only on for 20 minutes or so excluding the Smooth Criminal sequence and Joe Pesci is convincing as a psychopathic all powerful drug lord. Why he wants MJ dead so bad is beyond me. Because MJ overheard his plans? Nah, Joe Pesci's character ranted that he wanted people to know it is he who is supplying drugs etc so i dunno, maybe he just hates MJ's music.

Lots of cool things in this like MJ turning into a car and a robot and the whole Speed Demon sequence. Also, the director must have had the patience of a saint when it came to filming the kiddy Bad sequence as usually directors hate working with one kid let alone a whole bunch of them performing a complex dance scene.

Bottom line, this movie is for people who like MJ on one level or another (which i think is most people). If not, then stay away. It does try and give off a wholesome message and ironically MJ's bestest buddy in this movie is a girl! Michael Jackson is truly one of the most talented people ever to grace this planet but is he guilty? Well, with all the attention i've gave this subject....hmmm well i don't know because people can be different behind closed doors, i know this for a fact. He is either an extremely nice but stupid guy or one of the most sickest liars. I hope he is not the latter.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A large part of the scenes should be cut off. There is a lot of scenes that should have been cut off. For example the scene where the hunters mentions \"I got spiders on my dick\", \"I like dick\", playing in the mud scene, or a bar scene where a professional dinocroc hunters main job is a snake charmer.

How about other terribly incoherent scenes featuring a woman, Diane who wants to loose her virginity to a boyfriend who walks like he wears women's panties three sizes too small. While they make love, didn't they realized they are making it out next to the little boy who will soon run away and loose his head? Why did they do in a living room? I mean his head really flipped. How about the beach scene very reminiscent of Steven Spielberg's Jaws scene at Grant Lake. All these strange scene could easily be re-dubbed and billed as a comedy.

Here in my local town, the cineplex theaters had been advertising for months about Dinocroc, and I am glad I didn't watch it because I later found out it was shown only for 1 or 2 days before it was canceled. The movie was THAT bad. I suspected that Dinocroc was not a good movie looking at the preview. It features the leg of Dinocroc that looks like a child wearing green pajamas and slippers with claws and walks up and down like a 2 year old. It could easily passed over as Baby Geniuses.

If any students of movie making wants to learn what not to do this is a real classic trash. Such as Diane's boyfriend who walks like he had an advanced case of syphilis makes you wonder what the poor woman sees in this guy who looks drunk even before he get to drink beer. When this happens, who cares about Dinocroc? The panties man looked more more interesting than the entire movie of Dinocroc. His acting was so bad, he makes a much better replacement for Mr. Bean. MOVE OVER ROWAN ATKINSON, here is a man with a better comedic talent in a horror sci-fi flick. Perhaps the worse casting in the history of Hollywood.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is one of my favorites because it makes me think of all the choices I have made and how my life would change if my choices had been different. It plays right into the \" Multiple Universe \" theory.

The only thing that doesn't ring true is how Larry Burrows ( James Belushi)has such a hard time understanding what is going on, that everything has changed.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.

Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.

What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The rating is only a 5 because it's a movie that could have used better acting and direction (or at least music!). However, for the achievements of Walt Whitman, it deserves a 10. A previous poster calls the movie cheesy, however, I think it's a simple case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The film makers were apparently more interested in getting the story out there than to have a Hollywood shiny feature film. And for this, I applaud them - the fact it is non-mainstream reflects the life of Whitman as well. This film is more documentary than for the sake of acting. To be fascinated with a story such as this, when you rarely hear of these types of stories that shape current day mental health, is the most important thing. I found it a highly enjoyable look at history.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Teresa Pavlinek was a popular member of the Toronto Second City cast. She has done numerous guest spots and commercials up here in Canada. Finally someone has the sense to create a show for her. The supporting case seems quite good too. I have now watched the pilot several times and I still find it refreshing. Though, I am not sure why the show is listed as The Jane Show 2004. (I might be wrong) But as far as I am aware, the show was conceptualized in 2005 and appeared on Global TV in Canada in early 2006. It is a fresh idea and hopefully it does well. Too bad this couldn't be paired up with Corner Gas. Now I know Corner gas is on CTV, but the two shows would be great companion pieces.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Baby Face\" is a precode melodrama starring a very young Barbara Stanwyck, an almost unrecognizable George Brent, and Theresa Harris. It's about a girl who goes to the city to make good...or should I say make time. Stanwyck's father has been pimping her for one reason or another her whole life in dingy, depressed, filthy Erie, Pennsylvania. After her father dies, one older father type who knows what she's been through and truly cares about her future advises her to go to the big city and take advantage of opportunities there - and not the easy ones - and to take the high road in life. (Note that I saw the censored version and not the uncut - this part of the film was redone for the censors.) She and Chico (Harris) go to New York where Lily (nickname: Baby Face) decides the low road's a lot smoother and will get her where she wants to go a lot faster. In the movie's most famous scene, the camera moves us up the corporate ladder by taking us from floor to floor as Lily sleeps her way to the top. She finally corrals the big man himself and is able to quit her day job. Trouble follows, and she's soon involved in a huge scandal.

Stanwyck wears lots of makeup and for most of the film is cool as a cucumber as she seduces one man after another with no regrets, and she's great at playing the innocent victim. In one scene, she sits staring at a king's ransom in jewels while wearing a black dress that looks like it's decorated with diamonds at the top. Then she asks Chico for another case, and that's filled with more jewelry, plus securities. All in a day's work.

Theresa Harris was an interesting talent - she could be played down or glamorous, and was a talented singer and dancer as well. Here, she sings or hums the movie's theme, \"St. Louis Woman\" throughout. She worked in literally dozens of movies and is very good here as a friend of Stanwyck's, her best work being in the precode era. As a bizarre byproduct of the code, blacks were often given less to do in films after it was put in place.

Precode films could be more sexually blatant and therefore, though they're 70+ years old, seem more modern. Even though these films didn't have to have moral endings, Baby Face learns her lessons - how like life it is after all. There were several endings of this film, all with the same message. The one I saw had an added scene, but apparently, there were two other endings that didn't pass the censors. (There wasn't a code but there were always censors.) At any rate, it's a neat surprise. \"Baby Face\" is an important film in movie history - a must see.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When Sabrina first came onto our screens i was about 12, and therefore spent my teenage years watching the teenage witch get into all kinds of weird predicaments.

It was always one of my favourite programmes, the witchy feeling of sixties sitcom 'Bewitched' but this time the character was cooler. I always liked Sabrina because she was smart. She was also friendly and easy going which made her enjoyable to watch. The characters at the beginning were great; Harvey, Jenny, Libby, the quizmaster, Salem and Mr. Poole (my personal fave, shame he left so early on) Hilda and Zelda her aunts started off OK, but then became irritating.

I liked Mr. Kraft too as he was always that little bit closer to discovering Sabrina's secret. What i loved about the first three series was the original ideas, the discovering of the family secret and learning new spells but as it went on it became more predictable. Too many characters came and left, such as Valerie, Dreama and Brad and then they decided to do Sabrina at college which ruined it for me.

Sabrina became self-absorbed at college, there was less magic, no spell book, no aunts living with her and Roxie, Miles and Morgan were annoying.

The last series was boring, and i only watched to see what happened in the end. Not having Hilda and Zelda seemed wrong somehow and Miles was gone just like that. The last episode made me feel a lot better though (SPOILER)having Sabrina end up with Harvey on her wedding day to dullard Aaron was great! Overall a great programme if you forget the poor last two or three series which reminded me of so many teen shows. Magical.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.

As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as \"imagination\" and \"common sense\" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.

And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.

Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.

It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this film was totally not what i expected.

if this film was called something else no one would even notice the difference between the two.

its really strange because i cannot see the point . the prequel and sequel lets just say don't make sense, the don't even match . maybe i am naive but ain't a vol 1 & vol 2 meant to match up.

carlito was in jail in the 1st one and dies in the original, and in the prequel he lives and don't go jail.

the plot was OK , but they should have changed round some actors and some of the story line and the name of the film and it would have been a good film .

i really expected it to end like the other one started.

if some one has a opinion on this post it please.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "okay, this movie f*ck in' rules. it is without question one of the most technically inept pieces of cinema ever made. absolutely terrible, but you GOTTA see it. rent this with your buddies and come up with a drinking game or just have fun, it's hilarious. and the behind-the-scenes featurette proves it, you can do anything with paper plates and finger paint. awesome. okay, rent it just for this one scene: two characters are actually WALKING IN PLACE for about 3 minutes in a shot. the director (on the commentary) says \"yeah, the tracking was so smooth it looks like they're...\". yeah, right man, they are totally walking in place. it's so funny.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am dumbfounded that I actually sat and watched this. I love independent films, horror films, and the whole zombie thing in general. But when you add ninga's, you've crossed a line that should never be crossed. I hope the people in this movie had a great time making it, then at least it wasn't a total waste. You'd never know by watching it though. Script? Are you kidding. Acting? I think even the trees were faking. Cinematography? Well, there must've been a camera there. Period. I don't think there was any actual planning involved in the making of this movie. Such a total waste of time that I won't prolong it by commenting further.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those \"religious nuts,\" as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly.

1) \"Baby Face\" (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.

In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process.

2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many \"critics\" here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.

Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I can't believe people are looking for a plot in this film. This is Laural and Hardy. Lighten up already. These two were a riot. Their comic genius is as funny today as it was 70 years ago. Not a filthy word out of either mouth and they were able to keep audiences in stitches. Their comedy wasn't sophisticated by any stretch. If a whoopee cushion can't make you grin, there's no reason to watch any of the stuff these guys did. It was a simpler time, and people laughed at stuff that was funny without a plot. I guess it takes a simple mind to enjoy this stuff, so I qualify. Two man comedy teams don't compute, We're just too sophisticated... Aren't we fortunate?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is one of may all-time favourite films. Parker Posey's character is over-the-top entertaining, and the librarian motif won't be lost on anyone who has ever worked in the books and stacks world.

If you're a library student, RENT THIS. Then buy the poster and hang it on your wall. The soundtrack is highly recommendable too. I've shown this film to more library friends than any other -- they all fall in love with it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I rented this film on Netflix after it won all the Oscars, to see if it was really that good.

The Hurt Locker is a very realistic portrayal (for the most part) of a group of soldier's rotation in Iraq. The film centers around Will James, a reckless soldier who gets his adrenaline fix from taking risks, and defusing bombs.

Where this film seems to lack in my opinion is the Plot and Direction of the movie. This film has no clear plot unlike other films such as Black Hawk Down. What this film tries to do is focus more on the characters, and their different attitudes about the war. Bigelow does an okay job of focusing on the characters, but there are many points in the film where the dialogue seems to drag. Hurt Locker is 131 minutes long, yet it feels like a 3 hour movie.

One scene in the movie that was particularly awful, and ruined the films perfect credibility, was the sniping scene halfway through the movie. It was both unrealistic, and very long.

Overall, I thought this film was OKAY, but the reason I gave it a 6 instead of a 7, was because it was a major letdown for winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I felt like this film could have been so much better considering Saving Private Ryan lost Best Picture, but was much better than this film. Another notable mention is Black Hawk Down which only won 2 Oscars. I honestly do not know how this won best picture.

If you are looking for an action packed war flick, rent Black Hawk Down. This film will be forgotten in a year or two.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "as an actor I really like independent films but this one is amateur at best.

The boys go to Vermont for a civil service yet when the plane lands it flies over a palm tree - were the directors aware that palm trees are not in Vermont? Pines yes - palms no. And the same for the wedding service - again nice grove of palm trees.

When the boys are leaving VT they apparently could not get a ticket on any major airline since the plane that is filmed is Federal Express. Did they ship themselves Overnight in a crate? Come on guys little details like this separate an indi film from totally amateur.

The Christian brother is far gayer than Arthur with his bleached hair and tribal band tattoo. The two should have switched roles.

The minor characters are laughable and overact something terrible.

Applause to the directors for making a gay film but pay some attention to your locations and casting next time", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Really good horror flick featuring to of the greatest, Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Dr. Janos Rukh(Karloff)is on an expedition in Africa trying to find an ancient meteorite. After finding it, Rukh is poisoned by the its radiation. All he touches dies and the dark side of Rukh makes him become an egotistic murderer. His friend, Dr. Felix Benet(Lugosi)finds a limited remedy to the problem and at the same time realizes the radiation could be used for the good of mankind by curing diseases. The two fiends will battle over the radiations possibilities. Pretty good special effects. Others in the cast: Frances Drake, Frank Lawton, Beulah Bondi and Frank Reicher.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

How this film ever got a 6 star average is beyond me. The script is so banal, and frankly an insult to whomevers life it is based upon. The cinematography comes straight from the slick world of advertising, and the talented Ridley Scott should be ashamed. Demi Moore however, shows none a surprise by participating in this film, if one looks at her tracklist. All in all, a \"high concept\" style film that even Don Simpson would be ashamed of.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "After losing the Emmy for her performance as Mama Rose in the television version of GYPSY, Bette won an Emmy the following year for BETTE MIDLER: DIVA LAS VEGAS, a live concert special filmed for HBO from Las Vegas. Midler, who has been performing live on stage since the 1970's, proves that she is still one of the most electrifying live performers in the business. From her opening number, her classic \"Friends\", where she descends from the wings atop a beautiful prop cloud, Bette commands the stage with style and charisma from a rap-styled number called \"I Look Good\" she then proves that she has a way with a joke like few other performers in this business as she segues her way through a variety of musical selections. The section of the show where she salutes burlesque goes on a little too long but she does manage to incorporate her old Sophie Tucker jokes here to good advantage (even though she actually forgets one joke in the middle of telling it, but her ad-libbing until she remembers it is hysterical). Bette also treats us to \"Rose's Turn\" from GYPSY and the title tune from her smash film THE ROSE as well as a shameless plug for her hit movie THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. She brings the house down near the end with \"Stay with Me, Baby\" from THE ROSE and her only #1 hit record, \"Wind Beneath My Wings\" from BEACHES. It's a dazzling evening of musical comedy entertainment and for Midler fans, it's a must.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I missed the first 10 or so minutes of the movie but don't think watching it from the beginning would've made any difference. I found the film extremely boring and was disappointed with the acting. I remember Patrick Swayze and some of the other actors (Roy Marsden, for instance) in outstanding roles but they all disappointed here due to a very weak script. \"Kind Solomon's Mines\"...the very short part of the movie inside the \"mines\" was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I doubt that even a pre-school kid would've been spell-bound by watching the fight of the \"warriors\". The entire movie was reminiscent of a cheaply produced American TV series. Give me Indiana Jones any day!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Yet another Die Hard straight to video rip off with cardboard villains… How many more of these god awful cheaply (and badly) made rip off of the more popular action movies of the late 1980's and early 1990's are there still lurking out there? For the record (not that you will care really) this one is yet another blatant rip off of a combination of Die Hard, Under Siege and Speed 2 complete with a full complement of clichés and predictability.

The non descript villains are the usual selection of cardboard cut out gun toting thugs who are dispatched by various means as the film progresses, the hero naturally is an ex cop or something that has family and attitude problems and of course he brings along to the party not only the usual emotional baggage but also a matching piece of eye candy and his annoying son.

The supposed luxury cruise liner that is running between Florida and Mexico is carefully described as a cross between a liner and a ferry – this goes someway to explaining how come they appear to be larking around on a rusty cross channel ferry – in New Zealand! The acting is as wooden as the deck, the script woeful, the one liners predictable, the villains utterly inept and the plot has holes in it you could sail a boat through.

There seems to be a never ending tide of this sort of rip off straight to video rubbish polluting the late night slots of television and the DVD bargain bins of supermarkets everywhere (although even this film is so bad it has yet to see a DVD release yet but give it time!) Is there any chance of something at least half decently made, semi believable and most important ORIGINAL?!? No, I thought not…..", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is what the musical genre was made of. Humor, talent, romance, and action all rolled into one.

Frank Sinatra was wonderful. Nothing else needs to be said. Marlon Brando, although not a singer, did a great job winning the hearts of many with his portrayal of Sky Masterson. The fact that he couldn't sing added to his character. The ladies in the film were alright, but the men in the movie definitely stole the show.

It is a true classic that can be appreciated at any age. It connects with all audiences and makes you smile and laugh.

Definitely a movie to be watched and enjoyed!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Bourne Ultimatum - Jason Bourne (Matt Damon in his best role ever), the newest spy kid on the block, brings his quest for his identity to a close as he also seeks to end the CIA's latest program \"Blackbriar\" to make super assassins like himself.

I was so psyched for this one that I watched it's predecessors yesterday and today. Identity was as brilliant as I recall and Supremacy remains the weak (but still enjoyable) link in the chain for the weakest plot and, aside from a car chase which this film's chase easily tops, slight lacking in action and suspense.

Hoo boy, does Ultimatum have suspense! Even when you know Bourne will escape the authorities (and boy do these films spotlight the police as inept), it's still brilliant watching him do it. It's mind-boggling to think that two guys with handguns and mopeds can create 10x more suspense than anything those $150 million giant robots did in Transformers.

Chalk it up to Paul Greengrass, who has this idiosyncratic style of shooting stedicam a la documentary, even though he's filming characters that are far from ordinary, in places like CIA headquarters where no one within 10 miles would be allowed with a camcorder. He seemed to listen to my various complaints with Supremacy, as the action in Ultimatum is nothing less than awe-inspiring, with various implements used as weapons being a candlestick, a hardcover book (I'll never look at those the same way again) and an electric fan (Don't ask). The music also helped generate much suspense, and there was hardly ever a moment to not nail-bite over.

The acting is good, and the evolution of Julia Stiles' character \"Nicky\" put her situation into a new highly sympathetic light. Damon plays his signature role with reserve but competency (which sounds minor but that it genuinely looks like Matt Damon could evade the CIA and Interpol is something), but noticeable moments of poignancy as he still struggles to find his humanity. This longing of his for a real life could get boring, and almost did in Supremacy, but just works better in Ultimatum (better script).

I am reminded of a scene in \"Goldeneye\" (the only good Pierce Brosnan Bond film) in which Sean Bean's character asks James if the martinis ever silence the screams of all the men he's killed. Bourne regrets all the people he killed, and he considers (or at least made me consider) the meaning of action without purpose, life without meaning, and how the government has transformed men into resources. Albeit, resources that know Krav Maga and can make weapons out of anything.

Sidenote: it's always bothered me that, despite being a superspy and hunted by the CIA, Interpol, and the police nearly ANYWHERE he goes, that Bourne never thought to make even the smallest attempts to disguise his features or forge some new passports. Sunglasses maybe?

If you have a pulse and love action movies, than Bourne Ultimatum is for you. Hell, it's probably the best action film to come out this year. Of course, you'd be a fool to see it without watching the others first. It kind of drags a touch near the end, but I almost feel tempted to overlook that. This is the first \"3\" movie this summer to at least match, if not exceed, the original and that is saying something.

A-", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "you can tell they spent 5$ making this.it is a waste of your time... ugh.. there is not anything remotely good about this movie... .. i don't know why i kept watching it.. the chick is not hot. horrid acting.. you could do anything and its a better use of your time.. like watching TV playing shitty video games.. i feel robbed. simply robbed.. of my time . i have never made a review for a movie before as you can probably tell but this movie i felt like i needed to save the poor souls that are about to watch it and looking on IMDb before to see if its decent and looking at the comments. -there was no action- -no hot chicks- -no budget- -shittttttttttttttty acting- it screams bad movie. ****the WHOLE movie is in a room.***", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was a classic case of something that should never have been. Gloria was now a single mother, her husband had left her because she wouldn't live in some commune with him (he was mad that Reagan had been elected and wanted to turn his back on society). Right then and there I had problems with the series - come on, I say to myself, is this the same noble Michael Stivic that countered Archie Bunker's right winged philosophies? The series went on, but it just didn't have any pizazz. Whatever momentum Sally Struthers gained from All the Family was long gone. Maybe, if the series had been given another name and presented as being totally independent of All In The Family, it might have worked out. Ah well, that's show business.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In a poor village in Mexico, the Colonel (Fernando Luján) lives with his asthmatic wife Lola (Marisa Paredes) in an old house. Lola still grieves the death of their son Augustin some time ago. The colonel has been expecting for his pension of fighter in a war against Catholic church for almost twenty-seven years. However, for political reasons, the present government wants to forget this old fight. Without having any possession or money, but a valuable gamecock, they struggle to survival with the expectation of the acknowledgement letter from the government, recognizing the law and paying for the delayed pension. This slow and touching movie reflects the social and financial situation of most of the elder retired persons in third world countries. In Brazil, most of the retired persons has to survive with about US$ 80,00 per month. The debts of the colonel in the story were made to pay for a graveyard for his son, otherwise he would be buried as an indigent. Outstanding performance of the cast, in a very sad story that is reality in the poor countries. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): (`Não se Escreve ao Coronel') (Do not Write to the Colonel)

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.

I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: \"Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life.\" This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, \"Oprah,\" backwards. Spielberg isn't above such \"cuteness.\"

It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to.

The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear \"Action!\". The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands.

Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies.

With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If the only sex you've ever had is with a farm animal, then the tag line for this movie is probably still misleading.

This is by far one of the most boring movies I've had the pleasure to try and watch lately. I found the DVD lying around at my friend's house, and I made the sad mistake of not burning it.

I am unable to tell any details without spoiling the movie because there are only about 5 details to this movie. Just try to imagine someone making a movie about things on c-span only the fictional movie is 10 times less interesting than the most boring debate on c-span.

I think there is a conspiracy somewhere in this movie, but I was unable to tell exactly what it was after I gouched my eyeballs out and threw them at Richard Gere.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "While to most people watching the movie, this will be of little interest, but out of the many hundreds of movies dealing with magic and the occult in one form or another, this one is probably the best in many ways.

From The Golem to The Craft the subject seems to be of endless interest to the movie industry. The majority of movies which touch on it in any way do so childishly (for example \"Witchboard\", a true piece of utter garbage in every way) either taking the transcendental elements as cheap excuses for cheesy special effects or cardboard cutout villians (cf \"Warlock\"). More frequently the subject comes up in an hysterical religious context (in the various Revelations-oriented movies, the antichrist is inevitably an advocate of some kind of new-age style practice). Rarely, a movie seems to show at least some passing experience with magic as it is practiced in real life, but the presentation of the occult in such movies can at best be described as allegorical and not literal, or symbolic, or ... just not quite right.

I watched this movie again after many years tonight. I had seen it before on VHS; it is a dark, moody piece, and after watching it on DVD, I would say if you have any intention to watch this movie, watch it on DVD, don't watch it on VHS.

The darkness and moodiness are overpowering in VHS but in DVD the movie takes on a very different tone. I think Weir pushed the dark aspects intentionally for style, but when the movie is converted to the lower color medium of VHS this goes over the edge. DVD brings the movie to life again and I saw it differently.

Anyway, seeing it as if for the first time, I realized that the treatment of magic is extremely good in this movie. It's difficult to go into all the reasons why, I don't care to take the time to do so.

For anybody who's curious, anyway, if you want to see what it is like in real life, this movie is just very right on countless levels.

And for anybody who isn't, you really wasted a lot of time reading to this point.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My family goes back to New Orleans late 1600's early 1700's and in watching the movie I knew it was a history my grand-parents never talked about, but we knew it existed. I have cousins obviously black aka African Americans and others who can \"pass\" as white and chose not to. It's a hard history to watch when you realize that it's your family they're talking about and that Cane River is all a part of that history. It makes me want to cry and it makes me want to kick the 'arse' of my great grandfathers who owned those plantations and wonder in awe of how my great grandmothers of African heritage lived under that oppressive and yet aristocratic existence...And at the same time had I not come out of that history, I probably wouldn't be the successful business woman I am today living successfully in a fairly integrated world. The acting was both excellent and fair depending upon the actor, but it is a movie that NEEDED to be made. Anne Rice is incredible and I ask myself, why is she 'symbolically' writing about my family and I'm not. I recommend this movie to everyone. Leza", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.

The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.

As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.

*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.

In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The reason why people say that this movie scared them is because it did!! That means the movie purpose was felt by a few who did see it. When I first saw this Movie it scared me and made me think about life and religion. This is not a blood and gore scary type movie, but the kind that you would think that it may be possible for things to happen the way the movie was written. Of course non believers will say its only a sci-fi movie. Truth is, this movie is a must have for your thriller collection, even if it does have a religious view. If you are a fan of classic thrillers (Omen..etc) this is one of them and its a must have. I never saw the sequel (Distant Thunder), but I believe it picks up where this movie ends.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "CARRY ON MATRON was released in 1972 and it's becoming clear that the series has reached a natural end with the best entries like CLEO , UP THE KYBER and SCREAMING being from the mid to late 60s

In itself MATRON is by no means bad it's just that we've seen it all before with a thin plot ( A bunch of spivs trying to break into a hospital to steal a supply of contraceptive pills which they plan to sell to third world countries ) surrounded by gags of a slightly amusing though unsophisticated nature . I think that's where the problem lies - The gags aren't all that amusing with the unsophisticated nature starting to show its age . Did we need another movie that uses a man dressed up as a woman in order to drive the plot ? Perhaps the worst criticism I can make is that I saw CARRY ON MATRON this afternoon , less that twelve hours ago and I have a problem in trying to remember a very funny line . That's a serious problem for a comedy", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie has made me want to become a director, and Michelle Rodriguez is brilliant. How the hell wasn't she on mtv's top 25 under 25, she beats them all. This film definitely deserved the grand jury prize at sundance, best film i have ever seen.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "After just finishing the book the same day I watched the movie, I knew what was supposed to happen. I had high expectations of the movie, because of the rating. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 stars is that it was alright trying to be a movie. I have a couple main points for not liking this movie.

********** SPOILERS **********

1. The casting. Jack Nicholson barely fits into Jack Torrence's character. Also, I would have NEVER picked Shelly Duvall for Wendy. I pictured Wendy much differently. I can see why they picked Jack Nicholson though, the grin, the pointy eyebrows, but he's not supposed to really look 'evil'. He's supposed to look normal, and he turns evil. Also, they make one of the worst movie couples. Danny was alright, he needed more life though. He acted way to droney.

2. The screenplay. They cut out so many things that were in the book, and added things. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to in the movie were either deleted, changed, or handled wrongly. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to seeing (the hedge animals, the roque mallet, the elevator) were not in the movie, and it was 2 and half hours!! I was extremely irritated.

3. The Ending. The ending was changed completly, Halorann died, Jack froze to death, Wendy never got hurt...The Overlook didn't blow up. The Ending was so cool in the book, and the movie messed it up so horribly, I was apalled. Hallorann was never supposed to die, but Jack killed him with an ax. If they wanted to kill him, at least have Jack use a roque mallet. You never even saw a roque mallet during the whole movie.

There are other things that I didn't like about the movie, but there are things that were all right. The camera angels were cool, the blood coming out of the elevator (didn't happen in the book) was cool, but maybe I was too irritated that the movie didn't go with the book, to try to be scared at all. I reccomend reading the book, before you see this movie. I applaud Stephen King for actually agreeing to sign a contract to not dis Stanley Kubrik any more. I would never have done that, I would have taken all the rights I could get to yell at him all day. I can't wait to see the 6 hour version, at least it has the hedge animals.

Rating: 2/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When I ordered this from Blockbuster's website I had no idea that it would be as terrible as it was. Who knows? Maybe I'd forgotten to take my ADD meds that day. I do know that from the moment the cast drove up in their station wagon, donned in their late 70's-style wide collars, bell-bottoms and feathered hair, I knew that this misplaced gem of the disco era was glory bound for the dumpster.

The first foretelling of just how bad things were to be was the narration at the beginning, trying to explain what cosmic forces were at play to wreak havoc upon the universe, forcing polyester and porno-quality music on the would-be viewer. From the opening scene with the poorly-done effects to the \"monsters\" from another world and then the house which jumps from universe to universe was as achingly painful as watching an elementary school production of 'The Vagina Monologues'.

Throughout the film, the sure sign something was about to happen was when a small ship would appear. The \"ship\" was comprised suspiciously of what looked like old VCR and camcorder parts and would attack anyone in its path. Of course if moved slower than Bob Barker's impacted bowels, but it had menacing pencil-thin armatures and the ability to cast a ominous green glow that could stop bullets and equipped with a laser capable of cutting through mere balsa wood in an hour or two (with some assistance).

Moving on... As the weirdness and bell bottoms continue... We found out that they're caught in a \"Space Time Warp\". How do we garner this little nugget of scientific information? Because the oldest male lead tells his son that, in a more or less off-the-cuff fashion, like reminiscing about 'how you won the big game' over a cup of joe or an ice-cold bottle of refreshing Coca-Cola. Was pops a scientist? Nope, but he knew about horses and has apparently meddled as an amateur in string theory and Einstein's theories.

The recording I watched on DVD was almost bootleg quality. The sound was muddy and the transfer looked like it had been shot off a theater screen with the video recorder on a cell phone, other than that, it was really, really, really bad. (There's not enough 'really's' to describe it, really).

I know some out there love this movie and compare it to other cult classics. I never saw this film on its original release, but even back then I think I would've come to the same conclusion: bury this one quick.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "And this somebody is me. And not only me, as I can see here at IMDb or when leaving the theater. Why did the people love it? It's obvious: Everybody knows zombies by now (at least the Horror fans by heart and the others through the \"Dawn of the Dead\" reinvention or Resident Evil movies etc.)

Or at least they thought they knew everything about zombies ... that is until this movie came along. And you'll see zombies in a new light (perhaps). This is not a horror movie, although it does contain some violent scenes, but is rather a comedy. A satire to be precise. And it never runs out of steam! That is why I rated it so high. Pacing wise it's incredible, the acting is great and the script has no (obvious) mistakes ... quite the contrary: It's a gem and if you're only a little bit interested in zombies you ought to see it! And even if you dislike them, watch it! Because it's a great (comedy) movie!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.

Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.

The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.

Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.

The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.

Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "These days Spielberg's \"The Color Purple\" is mostly remembered for being nominated for eleven Oscars and winning zilch. What's even more alarming is that Spielberg himself wasn't even nominated for Best Director. Needless to say, the film-makers deserved more acclaim than they were accorded.

The story concerns the trials and tribulations of Celie Johnson (Whoopi Goldberg), an African-American woman dominated at first by her incestuous father and then by her abusive husband. The film spans several years and focuses mainly on Celie's relationships with the women around her. It's told from a decidedly female perspective but you needn't fear that it's a saccharine 'chick flick'.

The story is an interesting one, livened with humour at times although the central character's struggles are paramount. Some may not appreciate the change in tone towards the film's end but I didn't mind even though similar content in a lesser film would likely have me rolling my eyes.

The film received three Oscar nominations for acting: Whoopi Goldberg (Best Actress), Oprah Winfrey (Best Supporting Actress) and Margaret Avery (Best Supporting Actress). I think that Goldberg and Winfrey were certainly deserving and Danny Glover was unaccountably stiffed.

As already mentioned, Spielberg didn't receive a Best Director nomination for his efforts. Such an omission beggars belief, since Spielberg's direction here is top-notch. I'm not especially crazy about Quincy Jones's score but it's not below average by any means.

In the end, the story is a satisfying one, well-told by a master film-maker working from Pulitzer Prize-winning material. Give it a try and you'll probably be as baffled as I am about how it could be so poorly treated on Oscar night.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Please avoid this movie at all costs. This is without a doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen. Most movies have at least one redeeming value. This has none. Totally horrible!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one of my favorite films of all time. Al Pacino acting is at its best and the story is excellent. Too bad it didn't do to well in the 80's when it was first released because people didn't get a chance to experience this classic.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "One of the most nihilistic and brutal films I've ever seen, but also one of the most tragic and moving ones. This is an action-melodrama like the world has never seen it before. Sometimes the plot got me close to tears, while in the next moment delivering shocking revelations like a bone-crunching blow to the guts. Chilling performance by Edison Chen. The story of a HK-Cop and a Cambodian killer hunting each other down, while bit by bit losing their humanity, is a strong one. Featuring very little dialog in favor of haunting imagery and gritty camera-work, \"Dog bite Dog\" is pure HK-Bloodshed without the Heroism.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is great, the music \"with the exception of the very first song in the movie\" was awesome. The story line is awesome too, it's just basically a wonderfull movie, for ALL ages. I found the last battle scene awesome! Basically this was a great flick!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sergio Martino is a great director, who has contributed a lot to Italian genre cinema and, as far as I am considered, his Gialli from the 1970s are the undisputed highlights in his impressive repertoire. \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" aka. \"The Case Of The Scorpion's Tale\" of 1971 is one of these impressive films Martino has contributed to Italian Horror's most original sub-genre, and another proof that the man is a master of atmosphere, style and suspense. My personal favorite of the Martino films I've seen so far is still the insanely brilliant \"Your Vice Is A Locked Room And Only I Have The Key\" of 1972, followed by \"Torso\" (1973) and \"The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh\" (1971), all of which I personally like even more than this one. That's purely a matter of personal taste, however, as \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" is an equally excellent film that is essential for every fan of Italian Horror cinema and suspense in general.

The film, which delivers tantalizing suspense from the very beginning has a complex and gripping plot that begins with the mysterious demise of a millionaire who has died in a plane crash. Insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton) is assigned to verify the circumstances the insurance company which is due to pay a large sum to the deceased man's wife. Soon after Lynch begins to investigate, a person is brutally killed, which is just the beginning of a series of murders...

\"The Case of the Scorpion's Tail\" excellently delivers all the elements a great Giallo needs. The film is stunningly suspenseful from the beginning, the score by Bruno Nicolai is brilliant, the plot is wonderfully convoluted, and the killer's identity remains a mystery until the end. Regular Giallo leading-man George Hilton once again delivers an excellent performance in the lead. Sexy Anita Strindberg is absolutely ravishing in the female lead. The includes the great Luigi Pistilli, one of the most brilliant regulars of Italian genre-cinema of the 60s and 70s, and Alberto De Mendoza, another great actor who should be familiar to any lover of Italian cinema. Athens, where most of the film takes place, is actually a great setting for a Giallo. The atmosphere is constantly gripping, and the photography great, and Bruno Nicolai's ingenious score makes the suspense even more intense. Long story short: \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" is another excellent Giallo from Sergio Martino and an absolute must-see for any lover of the sub-genre! Stylish, suspenseful, and great in all regards!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Seriously, what is THIS? Hooper has made such classic films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then he made this god awful film, what happened? did he dip into the crack a little too much? This film is about some dude named Sam who has the ability to set things on fire,(Firestarter, anyone?) the acting was godawful, the plot was rubbish, and the special effects were extremely rubbish, they looked like something from the 70's. Van Damme should be pleased that Derailed is no longer the worst film ever, and what was with the ending? he started glowing blue, turned into a glowing blue blob, sucked out his girlfriends fire, and the film ended. WHAT WAS THAT? HUH? when the film ended I hoped the DVD would Spontaniously Combust to save me from my pain.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM.

DON'T THINK, OBEY, you'll thank me later.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Famous for introducing the world to Hedy Lamarr and full frontal nudity, but it's oh so much more. In fact, this is one of the pinnacles of cinematic poetry, up there with some of the seminal works of 1930s art cinema, in the same prestigious group as Under the Roofs of Paris, Tabu, Olympia, and even L'Atalante. It's nearly a silent, relying mostly on its miraculous images, and also its fantastic, symphonic score by Giuseppe Becce. It's a masterpiece of cinematography and music, yes, and also of editing, direction, writing, and acting. A good 90% of the film moves along perfectly. Machatý seems an expert at using motifs. Perhaps not as subtle as it could be, and perhaps a bit overused, but the appearances of objects like insects, lights, and horses carry the story forward beautifully. The small snatches of dialogue are, thankfully, unintrusive. They don't jar as much as one would imagine. The final bit is odd, to say the least. Reminiscent of Russian silents, we have a montage of workers. This barely makes sense in the course of the narrative, but it's so gorgeously done that I refuse to harp too much on that flaw. Ecstasy is a film that is desperately in need of rediscovery. It belongs amongst the best films ever made.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.

Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.

The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.

I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have to admit that I stuck this one out thinking something would have to happen, besides the dead body in the first scenes... and her disposal of him. I was wrong. It was a cinema verite of Betty hits the Beach encased for the first part by Mordant Morven. I really don't care what young lassies from Scotland do these days, who thy screw, what drugs they take. Visually, the stroll through the Cabo de Gata in Andalucia was pleasant and surely the high point for me. The nadir was the chop shop for her dead boyfriend. As the movie came to a close I had two thoughts... 1. That's all there is? 2. Now I see why her boyfriend killed himself. Rename it. \"Bare Bitch Boredom, or What I did on my trip to Spain.\" I'm such a sucker for sticking these things out.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.

cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments.

...robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.

All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).

The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.

The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.

The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "First of all, I ain't American or Middle-Eastern. Second of all, I don't have a religion. The closest thing to a religion I have are sports and movies. Henceforth, I believe I would be best served to supply an opinion of neutrality and free from bias.

Most of these short films are an utter disgrace. This dreadful event should be used to commemorated all those innocent people whom were murdered by \"some\" barbaric and uncivilized morons. Instead, most of what I saw in these short films were conceited attempts to score varied political points. Examples:

1) Ken Loach's segment. Sure, we are all sad that this dude had a hard life in his country but what has that got to do with the innocent victims of 2001? Two wrongs don't make a right?! Whatever! This film should have a subtitle for those who have trouble listening to a partially incoherent Chilean-English accent.

2) Most disturbing is Youssef Chahine's segment. It is obvious that he has trouble with logic. He justified the murders due to - America being a democracy and because some Americans voted the politicians in power, then all Americans in the end are responsible for the actions and decisions made by their leaders on the Middle-East. Helloooo! Is this guy for real?? Some Americans don't even vote! Some Americans don't even know where the Middle-East is; some don't even know what religion is practiced there; and majority don't know the real political issues that are played behind the scenes. ### Mr Chahine, the reason why we have all these problems in the world is because there are too many people with your kind of logic. The innocent victims in the Twin Towers came from around the world. The murdered firefighters, rescuers, office workers, by-standers and flight passengers have nothing to do with politics. And yet, we are not allowed to go about our lives because \"some\" people think everyone has to choose a side or a religion. We are perceived as fair game for the extreme politics.

3) The Israeli segment showed their own bombed victims. Another filmmaker using this event to push their own political agenda. Sometimes, it is not about you. Some people always think about the \"me, me, me.\" Sometimes, it is about other people.

4) Idrissa Ouedraogo's segment is a joke and another political point scorer. They obviously want money from the international community by highlighting their poverty. Blah, blah, blah.

This movie denigrates the memory of \"Sept. 11th, 2001\" victims.

The best thing for it is the TRASH CAN.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the \"Bette of Roses\" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'd read about FLAVIA THE HERETIC for many years, but I only got to see it early last year, when I went on an insane movie-buying binge, and, for whatever reason, it has been on my mind lately, though it's been some months since I watched it.

It's a striking film, set in Italy somewhere around the 15th century. Definitely Medieval-era (though I don't think any specific year is ever given). This being the time of Christian ascendancy, the age is a time of utter madness, and the movie captures this very well.

Flavia, our protagonist, is a young lady who encounters a fallen Muslim on a battlefield. He seems a warm and intriguing fellow, and she's immediately taken with him. Her father, a soldier of a a family of some standing, comes along, almost immediately, and murders the wounded man right before her eyes. But she'll continue to see him in her dreams.

Her father ships her off to a convent that seems more like an open-air insane asylum--the residents, so harshly repressed by unyielding Medieval Christianity, slowly go mad. Flavia comes under the influence of one of the nuttier nuns. But in a mad world, only the sane are truly mad, and this sociopathic sister clearly recognizes the insanity around her. Her take on the times in which they live strikes a chord with Flavia, who, being young and apparently sheltered, is beginning to question everything about this world in which she finds herself trapped.

The movie is unflinching in its portrayal of that world, showcasing a lot of unpleasantness. We see a horse gelded, a lord rape one of the women of his lands in a pig-sty, the pious torture of a young nun. Through it all, Flavia observes and questions, rejecting, eventually, the Christian dogma that creates such a parade of horrors in terms that would gain the movie some criticism over the years for seeming anachronistic. I disagree with that criticism. Flavia's views, though sometimes expressed in ways that vaguely mirror, for example, then-contemporary feminist commentary (the movie was made in 1974), revolve around what are really pretty obvious questions. It is, perhaps, difficult to believe she could be so much of a fish out of water in her own time, but that's the sort of minor point it doesn't do to belabor. Flavia is written in such a way to allow those of our era, or of any era, to empathize with her plight. Getting bogged down on such a matter would be missing the forest for the trees.

Flavia is heartened when the Muslims arrive, invading the countryside, and she finds, in their leader, a new version of the handsome Islamist who still visits her dreams. Smitten with her almost immediately, he allows her to virtually lead his army, becoming a Joan of Arc figure in full battle-gear, and directing the invaders to pull down Christian society, and wreak vengeance upon all those she's seen commit evil.

Is she the herald of a new and better world? She may think so, but Muslims of that era weren't big on feminism, either, as she soon learns the hard way. As they say, meet the new boss...

This is really just a thumbnail of some of the things that happen in FLAVIA THE HERETIC. The movie is quite grim, and with a very downbeat, rather depressing ending. Not a mass-audience movie at all, to be sure. It's quite good, though, and doesn't belong on the \"nunsploitation\" pile on which it is often carelessly thrown. I think there's much value in the final film, and I'm glad I saw it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Insignificance\" is a far from great film, from a stage play, directed by Nic Roeg. In the scheme of Roeg's films, this is above the level of most of his post-\"Don't Look Now\" work, which is characterised by judicious use of Theresa Russell as lead actress. She's actually very good here, and far from the problem in other Roeg films like \"Bad Timing\" and \"Cold Heaven\". As the \"Actress\", who is Marilyn Monroe, Russell is very effective, portraying her as a thoroughly depressive, but likeable siren. She plays well alongside Michael Emil as Einstein, who is excellent to say the least. He looks the part admirably, and while Theresa Russell doesn't look exactly like Monroe, she certainly is attractive enough to make the part ring true. Other players are adequate if not quite as arresting as Emil and Russell are. A pretty workable, intelligent script is directed well by Roeg, but certainly not brilliantly, like \"Walkabout\" or \"Performance\". As in other later Roeg films, he tends to rely too much on vague, insubstantial flashbacks, that add very little to the film. In many ways the film would have worked better as a shorter (say, 60 minutes), more modest piece. Still, a quite acceptable, passable film. At times quite excellent, but somewhat lacking overall. Rating:- *** 1/2/*****", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'll be honest with yall, I was a junior in high school when this sitcom first aired on ABC I didn't think I would like it at all. But with John Ritter in it i felt that it had a little potential in it, plus their was something else with it I liked. The acting was great, not a lot of horrible 2nd rated comedy lines, John Ritter always brings his A game when it comes to comedy . This was a great show to watch, and I'll tell you why it was a great show. My father who never watches sitcoms at all, he just watches movies, sports, and law & order, he actually sat down with my 3 brothers and 2 sisters, my mother, and myself, and watched the show I think because John Ritter was in it. I honestly think this show would still be running if John Ritter God rest his soul i wish he hadn't passed away.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "So, Prom Night was supposed to be a horror and thriller movie. I'm a big wuss and was scared to see this movie at the beginning, but upon seeing it, it is neither horror or thriller.

I was basically making fun of the movie in my seat because it was so predictable. You could predict what was going to happen next. The young actors were alright at playing their characters, but I'd have to say the killer was definitely at the top of the game - acting wise.

Yes, I'll give props for the plot because it was good, but it's not thrilling or scary. There were almost zero \"jump-in-your-seat\" scenes. So, don't waste ten dollars seeing it in theatres, wait 'til it comes to DVD.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Antonioni was aiming for another hip masterpiece, this time on the other side of the Atlantic than \"Blow up\". It wasn´t the success with critics and youth like the former though. Why? Maybe because it was a European´s view of America filled with clichés that didn´t work then and that have not aged well. (The revolutionary students at the beginning is embarrassing.)

Maybe when it was released big blockbuster movies and those aimed specifically at the youth market seemed dated. If it had been released a year before maybe hippes in deserts would have seemed fresh... It´s a very interesting film tho, very beautifully shot with some brilliant and Antonionian scenes in between, like the love-making in the desert, the stillness of the desert mansion and the explosive ending... That the leads were two amateurs didn´t help. They were beautiful but inexperienced. Mark Freshette is slightly better than Daria Halprin. It would have been so much better with proper actors! Maybe Michelle Phillips or a young Jessica Lange... The dialog is actually quite funny and poignant at times, tho you wouldn´t know the way the lines are delivered...

A very intersting document of the late sixties definitely worth a look for the photography and the soundtrack....", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Holy crap this movie was bad. I watched it just as a joke. It isn't even so bad that it's good in an unintentional way. This film seemed to be designed to personally make me angry. It worked really well at doing that. It's as if the people who made this just took all of the really annoying stuff about the movie PRIEST, added in a bunch of ugly dudes, took out anything interesting, funny, or even remotely sexy and clever out of the concoction, and then added in a bunch of old rotten cheese. That's all this is. Cheese. There isn't a single person this film could possibly connect to. There isn't any universe this film could possibly take place in. Why can't a film like this just be about enjoying life and being happy? Why did they have to make this already stupid idea for a film even more ridiculous than it already is? Why couldn't they at least even tried to make it an okay film, or even a B-movie. Now that I think of it, what they hell were they trying to do with this film? I watched it expecting a campy love story and instead I got some boring student project about some idiot who has to find the strength and courage to marry his boyfriend while his annoying Christian brother tried to destroy it all!!! No, I'm not joking. That's what it's about. Does that sound good? This film is pretty ignorant against people of the Christan religion, with it's stereotyping of all Christians being loudmouthed, rude, and hellbent on making as many people as miserable as possible. A lot of Christian people I know would never speak or act like these freaks. The film, however, is just as unfair and ignorant to the gay community as well. These have got to be the most tastelessly crafted stereotypical gay men since the guy on the radio station on that ROADKILL video game. It's so nerve wracking and simply irritating to the point that I wasn't able to fully pay attention to this film. The makers of this train-wreck had no strategy for set design, acting, camera angles, lighting, script, authenticity, or an idea to make this entertaining or interesting. There isn't even a single sex scene, or at least not a believable one. Jamie Brett Gabel was the only guy in the film that looked any good at all, but his good looks were sadly put to waste. This is trash. In a perfect world, this film would get voted a 0.0. It's worth 0 as a film alone. A mentally handicapped nun who is blind, deaf, and has tiny little bones for arms and legs and whose face is located on her armpit could write, direct, and produce a better film, and she'd probably be a better actor as well. the fact that this film exists is a crime against the word \"film\" itself. This film is so bad that other films should be ashamed of being available in the same watchable format. I could put a broom in a chair and then record it with a camera and then stop the film and then replace it with a mini x-mas tree and then record that and I've already made a film that will always be better than BEN & ARTHUR by at least half. There are only two things worse than death. Torture and watching BEN & ARTHUR. I'm a homosexual and I will probably be the gayest person you will ever meet if you ever met me, and I don't think I've ever been more offended by an entire film than I was by the first five seconds of this film alone. If this movie was a mistake, I will personally find a way to change the famous phrase \"It's okay to make mistakes\" to \"It's okay to make mistakes unless that mistake was BEN & ARTHUR.\" You know how people always say things like, \"Good things come out of everything!\"? I think that BEN & ARTHUR was primarily invented so that there could be something on this earth that nothing good would ever come out of. To call this movie the worst movie I've ever seen would be giving it WAY too much credit. It's as if this film were designed just so that it could qualify in a category of it's very own. There are good movies, there are bad movies, and then there's BEN & ARTHUR. This is BEN AND ARTHUR.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.

Episode 'Valentines Pay'

Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end

Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk.

IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.

'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Laughed a lot - because it is so incredibly bad - sorry folks, but definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen... I know it is low budget, but anyway: the actors behave like playing in a soap, the dialogues are absolutely crappy and the last time I have seen such odd pictures was at a trash nite at some youth video festival ten years ago. I really appreciate that people gather together and shoot cheap movies, but at least a certain amount of quality should be accomplished. But at least one good thing: the first three minutes of the movie were quiet interesting and looked okay - and the score was really worth listening to. The DVD cover promised a lot, but that is by far the best this film has to offer...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The world of the Dragon Hunters is a 3D gravity challenged world. Planetoids, bits of buildings and strange flat plants float around in the atmosphere while the ground towards most of the characters are falling is nowhere to be seen. It is a world reminiscent of Neverending Story, when the Nothing came to eat the world away.

Funny enough, the villain here is the World Gobbler, as well. This time it is a huge skeleton dragon with fiery eyes. The heroes are a big yet taciturn warrior, an annoying and greedy sidekick managing the entrepreneurial side of the duo and a strange useless animal. They are joined by the most talkative little girl in the world who, to my chagrin, did not die a horrible painful and hopefully early death.

The animation is great. The voices and the sounds are top notch. Too bad the story is as simple as one can possibly imagine. They go to stop the World Gobbler, they reach him almost immediately, they defeat him. The end. No real character development or story twists. Not even the ones I would expect from a movie with such a plot.

Bottom line: it's a cute thing to watch, kids would probably enjoy it, but that's about it. No depth to this world (pun intended).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Savage Island's raw savagery will scare the hell out of you! Trust me.

When the boy of the estranged Savage Family is run over by some city slicker tourists, Pa Savage wants revenge, and he'll stop at nothing until he gets it.

This is a real horror film with some truly wonderful horror moments.

Also, the negative review clearly comes from someone who lacks proper knowledge of film. The filmmakers chose the lighting and camera-work in order to reflect the dark, murky, and egdy mood of the story; in other words, to obtain a certain aesthetic.

In fact, the film has won SEVERAL horror film festival awards.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Michael Keaton has really never been a good actor; in the Tim Burton Batman movies he always falls in the shadows of his great villains. Here, he stars as a widowed husband that picks up radio frequencies that seems like is dead people that tries making contact with the living...

Well, this is supposed to be a pretty shocking thriller, but it really misses about every spot there is shocking you. Because there's way too much stuff that ends up unexplained, undiscovered and uninteresting. So where's the shocking excitement when it all gets so bad movie made in the first place that WHITE NOISE makes a fool out of itself? Truly bad acting and horrifying edited, this movie is nothing to watch. Michael Keaton tries making a thriller comeback but ends up missing the target more than ever.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "CRY FREEDOM is an excellent primer for those wanting an overview of apartheid's cruelty in just a couple of hours. Famed director Richard Attenborough (GANDHI) is certainly no stranger to the genre, and the collaboration of the real-life Mr. and Mrs. Woods, the main white characters in their book and in this film, lends further authenticity to CRY FREEDOM. The video now in release actually runs a little over 2 and a half hours since 23 minutes of extra footage was inserted to make it a two part TV miniseries after the film's initial theatrical release. While the added length serves to heighten the film's forgivable flaws: uneven character development and blanket stereotyping in particular, another possible flaw (the insistence on the white characters' fate over that of the African ones) may work out as a strength. Viewing CRYING FREEDOM as a politically and historically educational film (as I think it should, over its artistic merits), the story is one which black Africans know only too well, though the younger generation may now need to see it on film for full impact. It is the whites who have always been the film's and the book's target audience, hopefully driving them to change. Now twelve years after the movie's production, CRY FREEDOM is in many ways a more interesting film to watch. Almost ten years after black majority rule has been at least theorically in place, 1987's CRY FREEDOM's ideals remain by and large unrealized. It therefore remains as imperative as ever for white South Africans, particularly the younger ones who have only heard of these actions to see it, and absorb the film's messages. In total contrast to American slavery and the Jewish Holocaust's exposure, South Africans' struggles have been told by a mere two or three stories: CRY FREEDOM, CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY (OK, Count it twice if you include the remake), and SARAFINA (did I miss one?). All three dramas also clumsily feature American and British actors in both the white and black roles. Not one South African actor has played a major role, white, coloured, Indian or Black!). And yes I did miss another international South African drama, MANDELA and DEKLERK. Though this (also highly recommended) biopic was released after black majority rule was instituted, MANDELA was played by a Black American (Sidney Poitier, who also starred in the original S.A.-themed CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY), while the Afrikaner DeKlerk was played by a (bald) very British Michael Caine, a good performance if you can dismiss that the very essence of Afrikanerdom is vehement anti-British feelings. Until local SABC TV and African films start dealing with their own legacy, CRY FREEDOM is about as authentic as you'll get. As villified as the whites (particularly the Afrikaners) are portrayed in the film, any observant (non-casual) visitor to South Africa even now in 1999, not to mention 1977 when CRY FREEDOM takes place, will generally find white's attitudes towards blacks restrained, even understated. Looking at CRY FREEDOM in hindsight, it is amazing that reconciliation can take place at all, and it is. But CRY FREEDOM at time shows not much has really changed in many people's minds yet, and that the Black Africans' goal to FREEDOM and reconciliation is still ongoing. This is why if you're a novice to the situation, CRY FREEDOM, is your best introduction.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Journey of Hope\" tells of a poor Turkish family and their odyssey of hope which spirals downward into despair as they travel to Switzerland in search of prosperity. Although this Oscar winning film is fairly well crafted, it is lacking in substance and has many implausibilities. Much of the film's 1.7 hour run time is get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the boat, get off the boat, get in the van, get out of the van, etc.; time which could have been better spent or left out completely. The story has a predictable conclusion, especially for those who have an awareness of the common crime of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A worthwhile and reasonably entertaining watch but over-rated.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was one of the worst films I have ever seen.

I usually praise any film for some aspect of its production, but the intensely irritating behaviour of more than half the characters made it hard for me to appreciate any part of this film.

Most common was the inference that the bloke who designed the building was at fault an avalanche collapsing it. Er ok.

Also, trying to out ski an avalanche slalom style is not gonna work. Running 10 feet into some trees is not gonna work. Alas it does here. As mentioned before the innate dumbness and sheer stupidity of some characters is ridiculous. In an enclosed space, with limited oxygen a four year old could tell you starting a fire is not a good idea.

Anyway, about 5 minutes of the movie redeems itself and acquires some appreciation. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence you too will find most of this film hard to tolerate.

It pains me that so many quality stories go unproduced and yet someone will pay for things like this to be made.

Oh, did I mention the last five minutes? Well to give you a hook you have to keep watching in order to see the latest in combative avalanche techniques. Absolutely priceless.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Surviving Christmas (2004) Ben Affleck, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Catherine O' Hara, Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, Jennifer Morrison, Udo Kier, D: Mike Mitchell. Dumped by his girlfriend, a hotshot yuppie doesn't want to be left alone on Christmas so he decides to return to his boyhood home, imposing on the dysfunctional family that now lives there and bribes them to pose as his family. An obnoxious and one-dimensional performance by Affleck, who mainly acts with a flashy smile, makes his character come off as a mentally unbalanced creep, but Gandolfini and O' Hara breathe some life into this mess. Even for farce, its silliness is lumbering, not much makes sense from scene to scene, and its sentimental messages are as phony as Affleck's grin. 91 min., rated PG-13. * ½", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was attracted to this movie when I looked at cast list, but after I watched it I must admit that I felt a bit disappointed. The main problem of this movie is that actors aren't capable of holding this movie on their back. Why? Because of bad script. Although Dillon, Lane and Jones try very hard to take this movie on another level, there is no innovative storytelling and the direction is too ordinary. So for Matt Dillon fans this is watchable movie, just like for admirers of beautiful Diane Lane. Legendary Tommy Lee Jones is always great but this is not movie for him; far below his level. So if you get hooked up by this great cast watch it but don't expect anything big or extraordinary. The only thing that you'll remember about this flick is Diane Lane scenes; rest of it is very forgettable.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The movie that shoots scenes of a scenic caverns tour.

Remember no one from this movie except for Michael Pataki who dished out extreme pain as JC in \"Five the Hard Way\". He's the really annoying sheriff who I did applaud when he practices nightstick on our rabid doctor. Probably the most laughs you will have is with Dr. Beck's epileptic seizures out of nowhere. Could Mrs. Beck be anymore wooden? Seriously, if you took a 4 foot branch, stuck it in a hot tub, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference. The dread and suspense is looking over at the clock wondering when the credits will roll.

Watch it as a late night movie, MSTified, but don't go out of your way.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I would firstly say that somehow I remember seeing this movie in my early childhood, I couldn't read the subtitles and I thought Sonny Chiba was Sean Connery. But I did really like the concept. If you are not able to at least partially suspend your adult scepticism and embrace your inner seven your old you may want to avoid this movie. That said, having just watched the restored 137 minute version on DVD I have to say I enjoyed it, though not as much as when I was seven ( I remembered the ending ).

There are aspects of the movie that are worthy of criticism , the first 15 minutes and final 15 minutes both have some really comic moments, my favourite being the contrast between scenes acted out in the final 10 minutes and the curious choice of backing music ( listen to the lyrics ).

For an action film there is a great deal of focus on the personal stories of certain soldiers and the social dynamics of the squad as the strain of their time travel takes its toll. By the ending of the movie I had decided that this was a good thing, when seven I though the 'relationship' guff was a bad thing.

For an action film there is also plenty of gratifying gory action, especially a couple of epic battle scenes between the platoon and hordes of Shogun era warriors. The makers of the movie have ensured that as many deaths as possible are bloody and, lets face it, humorous. I thought this was a splendid aspect of the movie when I was a kid, and I am not ashamed to say that I still do.

I also like the fact that the modern day soldiers in general don't spend the movie walking on egg shells trying to avoid altering the space time continuum, they've got heavy calibre machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, a tank and a helicopter and they're hell bent on making feudal Japan theirs. Which is what I'd like to think any vigorous IMDb user would do in their boots.

In short the movies worth watching, it makes the viewer regret that there are not more movies made with a similar premise, and at the same time offers some hefty hints as to why a movie like G.I. Samurai is so unique.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.

As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound – for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.

There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.

Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.

The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was \"Stay inside the ring\". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.

The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "An American in Paris was, in many ways, the ultimate mixture of art and Hollywood musical. Made at the height of MGM's powers as a musical powerhouse, the film features memorable music from the Gershwins, who rightly have been called the 20th Century's equivalent of Beethoven and Mozart.

Gene Kelly was also at the height of his powers in this film, though it could be rightly argued that this movie was just the warm-up for his best work in Singin' in the Rain (1952). The two films are actually closely linked. Aside from the Arthur Freed connection, the Broadway Melody segment in \"Rain\" owes its existence to the incredible American in Paris Ballet sequence in this film. This might well have been the only time a dance number is specially mentioned in the opening credits of the film. And it deserved to be, as it showcases Gene Kelly's skills as a dancer and choreographer to their utmost degree.

The film's cast is uniformly excellent. Leslie Caron, incredibly making her film debut, shows a maturity that makes you think she'd been making films for years. Her introductory dance sequence, and later her work on the Ballet, provides some surprisingly sexy moments rivalled in MGM Musicals only by Cyd Charisse's work in Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon. Oscar Levant is hilarious as Kelly's stoic pal, who gets two of the film's best moments: during the end party sequence (which I will not give away for anyone who hasn't seen the film), and one of the film's most memorable musical numbers which couples his incredible piano skills with state-of-the-art (for the time) special effects.

Less memorable are Georges Guetary as Kelly's romantic rival, though he does get a few musical highlights, and Nina Foch as Leslie Caron's romantic rival. The May-December relationship between Kelly's character and Nina's reminded me of the same \"kept man\" relationship seen between George Peppard and Patricia Neal in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

There are a few elements of the film that made it less satisfying for me than Singin' in the Rain. The Ballet, though lavish and well-produced, doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie. Without giving away the plot, the Ballet just happens, with no real rhyme or reason. And unlike the Broadway Melody sequence, it really doesn't have anything to do with the plot -- and in the best musicals, the songs always have some sort of raison d'etre.

Making matters worse is the ending of the film which happens immediately after the Ballet. Although the ending shouldn't be a surprise (this IS an MGM musical, after all), I was hoping for a bit more ... movie after the Ballet ended. It's as if director Vincente Minnelli felt that he couldn't follow the Ballet with anything else. The film literally left me in the lurch.

That negative aside, An American in Paris rightly ranks alongside the best of Hollywood's musicals. It doesn't quite reach the heights of Singin' in the Rain, but it comes close and it remains a testament to Gene Kelly's skills as one of the greatest dancers of all time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.

He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.

The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This early Pia Zadora vehicle followed a familiar Harold Robbins formula: ambitious main character wallows in decadence while pursuing the path to the top of some randomly chosen but glamorous world, in this case the movie industry. But despite being so formulaic as to be completely predictable, this movie manages at the same time to be completely unbelievable. Zadora (to call her inexperienced as an actress is to be charitable) never convinces as a screenwriter. One would expect a movie about movie-making to have some insights into its own industry and creative process. But the script gives her none of the qualities which make writers interesting movie characters: observance, skill with words, a love-hate relationship with one's own creative abilities. Her character is as empty as a donut hole. And this is just a taste of the incompetence on display here. The cinematography is so murky that it is sometimes hard to see what is happening. And the scenes never really hang together, so everything seems like a succession of random moments at bad Hollywood parties. Avoid.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Rock solid giallo from a master filmmaker of the genre, Sergio Martino. Fashioned from a marvelous screenplay by Ernesto Gestaldi, this shocking mystery often develops fascinating twists until the terrific finale which most might not see coming throughout the film. It's when everything has fallen into place that we can go, \"Ahh..\" The film revolves around the death of a husband(..in an airplane explosion)and the million dollars the wife receives from it. There are those with great interest in that money, one in particular being the dead man's mistress. The wife is Lisa(Ida Galli)and the mistress demanding half the money is Lara(Janine Reynaud). She tells Lisa she knows that the death was arranged by her to get the insurance money. Lara says she'll use her \"lawyer\", Sharif(Luis Barboo)to get that money. So already, the film produces two possible suspects in the later murder of Lisa, who awaiting someone in Tokyo. George Hilton portrays Peter Lynch. Peter works for a company that investigates those who gain inheritance to see if the pay day was gathered under suspicious means. When, on his watch, Lisa is killed by a man dressed from head to toe in black in her hotel room, he is a possible suspect. He decides to do a little investigating himself, while also assisting Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli)and Interpol agent, Benton(Tom Felleghy)on their quest to find a killer. The killer strikes several times eliminating anyone revolving around the missing million dollars confiscated by the one responsible for the murder of Lisa. Soon, the film follows a journalist, Cléo Dupont(the delicious, luscious Anita Strindberg)as she and Peter meet for a dinner where she could try and sniff out anything that might break a story for her. Soon they fall deeply in love, but it seems like anyone who is near Peter is killed. Soon someone attacks Cléo with an intent to kill which pushes the investigation further into uncharted territory. Why would anyone wish to harm a journalist with no real facts to damage the one killing off people.

This giallo is quite clever and exciting to follow. The film never lulls which is quite remarkable since so much happens leaving open the question of the identity of the killer. This film follows the path of gialli with knife slashings because of a certain pattern the killer has taken(the throat and lower torso). The film's conclusion wraps up all the complex loose ends and is quite satisfying. The film has some unique camera angles, but delivers the goods in terms of driving the plot and the execution of the mystery.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The special effects of this movie are, especially for its time, laughable and used in such an over-emphasized way that you can't deny their terrible existance.

The acting redefines the term \"terrible overacting\" at the hands of Meg Foster and Richard Joseph Paul, where julie Newman and Andrew Divoff just redefine \"bad\".

***spoilers***

The charm in this movie can be found in two things: First is the excellent casting of Carel \"Lurch\" Struycken as the mysterious psychic Gaunt, who can sense where and when people will die and is always there.

The second are original finds, the combination SF-Western is obviously original, if terrible, but other finds are more original, like the gunman Zack Stone being able to sense the pain of the people he shoots (though his acting falls short here).

Overal...don't see this movie, except if you love that ol' hunk-o-brutal Carel Struycken, as any self-respecting Dutchman should.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "My god this movie is awfully boring. I am a big fan of Gina Gershon, when I rented this movie I expected a romantic drama, and some great performance from Gershon. Gershon is great as always, but she is not right actress for this role, she is too good for Rade Serbedzija. The romance between Gershon and Serbedzija's characters is too unconvincing. And I absolutely hated Serbedzija's character (a wonman organizer), he is not charming in anyway in the movie. How did Dr. Lauren Graham (Gershon) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro or Harrison Ford would have done a better job on this role, but they don't have the European-ish looking I guess. Any way, I was so bored druing the movie. If you are looking for a good Gina Gershon movie, check out Bound, her best film so far. If you are looking for a romantic film about a younger woman and an older man, try some Harrison Ford or Sean Connery movies. Gina Gershon is so underrated, and she deserves better chance than this, I wish her to make better choice in the future.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have seen a lot of PPV's in the past but this is the most entertaining, intense PPV and the most complete DVD i have ever seen. The DVD extras are worth it because they it gives a different view of how the wrestlers act after the show (such as the chris benoit interview/edge interview), some glimpse into the Monday Night Wars era,the first match of Hogan winning tag title gold and some promotional talk. Additionally there is a good music video.

1. Tag Team Table match: Bubby Ray and Spike Dudley vs. Eddie Guerro and Chris benoit 7/10 This was a pretty good intense match to start off the show. Not too many holds and just pure raw physicallity. Spike can hold his own in tables matches and Guerro and Benoit gave good pure wrestling skills on the mat.

2. WWE Crusierweight championship: Jamie Noble w/ Nidia v. Billy Kidman 3/10 The crowd really didn't care about either wrestler and didn't get interested until Kidman did a shooting star press. Usually people expect a lot of high flying in a cruiser weight championship, but this had very little. In fact it was so bad that when Noble hit his finisher, no one even cared or knew (you can tell by the lack of camera's flashing). The ending was quick though.

3. WWE European Championship: Jeff hardy v. William Regal 5/10 I've never really liked regal as a wrestler, he lacks intensity and style. Hardy was impressive but really didn't get a chance to show off his high flying act, although he still performed some good counters and added that needed fast pace to the match. It ended off quickly which was perfect for this match.

4. John Cena v. Chris Jericho 6/10 It's funny looking back at Cena's very first PPV, how he used to act, how he used to dress, and how he used to look (watch his interview, it's pretty funny). This was a good intense match with Cena showing a nice variety of holds, suplexes, counters and some aerial. Jericho was sub-par but definitely helped Cena launch his career. Cena Wins.

5. WWE Intercontenital championship: RVD v. Brock Lesnar 8/10 This was a very intense and good match. Both wrestlers styles really matched up well on the screen, with Brocks pure power and raw energy vs. RVDs skill full moves and quickness. RVD looked great in this match (better than his later matches with edge and cena)and the entire match was fast pace. The ending worked perfectly because it still preserved Brock's undefeated streak while giving RVD his just desserts in his home state.

6. No disqualification match: Booker T v. Big Show 7/10 Another solid match that lacked a certain intensity as the RVD match but still a good follow up. Although it started off kinda slow (which it always is with big show) Booker T was impressive and did a sick move on the announcers table. The finisher was awesome, the ending was a great upset and big move up for Booker T.

7. WWE Tag Team Championship: Hogan and Edge v. Christian and Lance storm 5/10 This was a mediocre match. Hogan comes out like usual to a huge pop but his variety of moves lacks that intensity and energy. Then again Christian doesn't exactly have the greatest athletic abilities himself. This ended up being a mediocre match at best but was still OK for PPV.

8. Triple Threat Match for the Undisputed Championship: 10/10. Rock v. Undertaker v. Kurt Angle.

Easily the match of the year. This is by far the best triple threat match i have ever seen. It had close falls, plenty of finishers, stolen finishers, raw energy, intensity and fast pace. No one could predict who would come out of this one. If your going to buy this DVD i would buy it strictly for this match. (ending? watch for yourself!)

Overall this was a solid PPV with plenty of extra goodies to keep you watching again and again. Although this is hard to find (i had to pay a little more than usual for this DVD) it is definitely worth your money.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A simple and effective film about what life is all about, responding to challenges. It took a lot of gall for Homer and his friends to be able to grow into manhood without falling in the trap of a prefabricated future that runs from father to son, to be a miner in the local mine and never get out of that fate. It took also three different challenges for Homer and his friends to conquer a personal and free future. The challenge of the first ever man-made artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, a Soviet satellite, a milestone in human history, a turning point that Homer and his friends could not miss, did not want to miss. Then the challenge of science and applied mechanics to calculate and to devise a rocket from scratch or rather from what they could gather in books and order in their minds. Finally the challenge of a world that resists and refuses and tries to force you back into the pack, even with an untimely accident that forces you to get back into the pack for plain survival necessity, and even then Homer proved he had the guts to accept the challenge that was blocking for a while his own plans and dreams. But there is another side of the story that the film does not emphasize enough. Homer is the carrier of the project but he is also the carrier of the inspiration he and his friends need. If he is the one who is going to get the university scholarship, because his friends gave him precedence, his friends will also be able to get on their own roads and tracks and step out of the mining fate, thanks to the energy his inspiring example sets in front of their eyes. It is hard at times not to follow the example of the one who is like a beacon on a difficult road. But the film is also effective to show how the father resisted this dream because for him science was not the fabric of a true man, like mining or football. The working class fate that was so present in those 1950s and 1960s and still is present in some areas is too often enforced by the traditional thinking of the father. If the mother does not have the courage to speak up one day, the working class fate I am speaking of becomes a tremendous trap. Here too the film is effective and it should make some parents think. This might have been the fourth challenge Homer had to face: the challenge of taking a road that was not the one pointed at and programmed by his own father.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something \"arty\" or \"intellectual\" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.

I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.

Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.

Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.

The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.

There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.

This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "- Contains miner spoilers -

I have seen a number of decent Indie horror films such as The Hamiltons, The Boys Love Mandy Lane and Cabin Fever; unfortunately I felt Five Across the Eyes does not fall into this category. From start to finish the film is plagued with amateurish acting resonating from a very poor script, god only knows why the writer(s) thought dialogue such as \"No don't go out there; don't go out there she'll get you: if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kills you you're dead\" is of movie quality.

This film displays very little character development and to be honest I couldn't care less about what pain and torture was inflicted upon them as they are just a group of ditsy college girls who show almost no redeeming qualities'. All they do is cry and whinge throughout the entire movie and if the girls aren't crying their arguing; when they do converse the topics are completely random: about dating boys or how one of the girls father was recently cremated (appropriate subjects when you're being chased by a psychotic killer).

The soundtrack is also abysmal exhibiting corny techno music during both the start and end credits (although hearing the credit music knowing the end was nearing seemed like heaven).

The camera-work is appalling and at times makes the film unwatchable. I'm guessing due to having little or no budget the director was limited to just one digital camera which resides in the girls' car almost the entire movie. I think this was an effort to stick the audience as close to the action as possible: to feel and experience what the girls are going through. But due to a very shaky camera, grainy picture and being too close to the action it can be hard to tell what is going on during action scenes and is simply chaotic. It's one thing to make a film subjective but it's another to have action on the screen that an audience can't decipher because of the poor cinematography.

I understand that Five Across the Eyes is a low budget indie film but that does not excuse the extremely poor quality. There are no redeeming factors to this film: bad acting, poor scripting, shoddy camera-work and no story. In light off all this I decided to give the film 1 out of 10 as it left me very disappointed; wanting a meteor to hit the earth bringing me sweet relief. Its 94 minutes off stupid college girls crying, arguing, aimlessly running and having random inappropriate conversations. However, how many times do you get to see girls defecating into their hands and throwing the crap onto the windscreen of a chasing car.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "'The Omen 4: The Awakening' is a made-for-television sequel to the original 'The Omen' film. Instead of Satan possessing the body of a little boy, he possesses the body of a little girl adopted by rich parents, who is bullied at school and who ends up getting revenge against those who do her wrong. The film seems to struggle with any horror factor, and a lot of the events that happen are simply silly rather than particularly frightening, and it is difficult to believe that this little girl is Satan, even with all of the events that surround it. I just did not find this film very suspenseful or frightening, particularly when compared to the original.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As a child I preferred the first Care Bear movie since this one seemed so dark. I always sat down and watched the first one. As I got older I learned to prefer this one. What I do think is that this film is too dark for infants, but as you get older you learn to treasure it since you understand it more, it doesn't seem as dark as it was back when you were a child.

This movie, in my opinion, is better than the first one, everything is so much deeper. It may contradict the first movie but you must ignore the first movie to watch this one. The cubs are just too adorable, I rewind that 'Flying My Colors' scene. I tend to annoy everyone by singing it.

The sound track is great! A big hand to Carol and Dean Parks. I love every song in this movie, I have downloaded them all and is all I am listening to, I'm listening to 'Our beginning' also known as 'Recalling' at the moment. I have always preferred this sound track to the first one, although I just totally love Carol Kings song in the first movie 'Care-A-Lot'.

I think the animation is great, the animation in both movies are fantastic. I was surprised when I sat down and watched it about 10 years later and saw that the animation for the time was excellent. It was really surprising.

There is not a lot of back up from other people to say that this movie is great, but it is. I do not think it is weird/strange. I think it is a wonderful movie.

Basically, this movie is about how the Care Bears came about and to defeat the Demon, Dark Heart. The end is surprising and again, beats any 'Pokemon Movie' with the Care Bears Moral issues. It leaves an effect on you. Again this movie can teach everyone at all ages about morality.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is such a great movie to watch with young children. I'm always looking for an excuse to watch it over & over. Gena was good, Cheech was fun,the Russian was good, Maria was adorable & of course Paulie was the best!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Unlike another user who said this movie sucked (and that Olivia Hussey was terrible), I disagree.

This movie was amazing!!!!!! Olivia Hussey is awesome in everything she's in! Yeah she may be older now, because many remember her from Romeo and Juliet, but she's wonderful!

This story line may be used quite often, but it's a unique movie and I'll fight back on anyone who disagrees! I enjoyed this movie just as much as I have any other Olivia Hussey movie. Olivia's \"my girl\" and I love her work.

I saw this for the first time on Saturday (4/14/07) and fell in love with it. Not only because's it's an Olivia movie, but because of it's unique story line and wonderful direction.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Now my friends, films like \"La Bête\" (aka \"The Beast\" or \"O Monstro\")only can be done in the old continent :),in this film we see all: horses dirty sex, nymphomaniac kind off gorilla, non sense dialogs, etc, etc, etc... In the serious terms now,its an allegory, that men sometimes could be bestial, visceral and brutal,Walerian Borowczyk (the director) shows us the loss of innocence, sexual violence, rape and brutality. Its a astonishing cinematic experience, bizarre and full of grotesque scenes. For all fans of European shocking exploitation, i recommend this film.If you like this one i recommend: \"Orloff Against the Invisible Man\" and \"Alterated States\".", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Jewish newspaper reporter Justin Timberlake (as Joshua \"Josh\" Pollack) is puzzled when a courtroom defendant whispers \"Thank you\" to testifying officer LL Cool J (as Rafe Deed) as he leaves the witness stand. In the opening sequences of this film, you are given the explanation. You will see Mr. Cool J's devilish detective partner Dylan McDermott (as Frances \"Laz\" Lazerov) decide NOT to murder Damien Dante Wayans (as Isaiah Charles). The cops in the city of \"Edison\" are so corrupt they shoot their suspects, steal their money, and snort their dope. Whether he's out to impress his girlfriend (herein, called \"Pussy\") or win a Pulitzer, the city's corruption does NOT sit well with the noble Mr. Timberlake.

Timberlake decides to investigate the corruption, which reaches both unexpected scope and life-threatening levels of danger. Writer/director David J. Burke keeps the film above water, but just barely. LL Cool J beats Timberlake in the \"pop star to movie star\" sweepstakes (aka the \"rapper to actor\" progression). Mr. McDermott has fun with his role. Lending gravitas to the proceedings are sagely supporting actors Morgan Freeman (as Moses Ashford) and Kevin Spacey (as Levon Wallace). F.R.A.T. means First Response Assault and Tactical, but it's more important to know that \"Edison (Force)\" stars Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J, not Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey (who seems lost).

**** Edison (9/17/05) David J. Burke ~ Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Morgan Freeman, Dylan McDermott", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Anchors Aweigh\" is the product of the classic MGM musical production unit, and on the whole the film is every enjoyable – good music by Jule Styne and others, excellent dancing by Gene Kelly (and even a passable job by Frank Sinatra), and a funny well-paced script. The only major element I would criticize would be the casting of Kathryn Grayson, whose presence in a film always means the audience will be subjected to endless pseudo-operatic warbling from the petite Miss.

Kelly plays a naval serviceman named Joseph Brady, a man with a mythic reputation around the ship as a lover but whose Valentino-charms are constantly being subdued by the presence of his less cocksure friend with the improbable middle-American name of Clarence (Sinatra). Upon receiving 3 days of shore leave for saving Clarence's life, Joe reluctantly agrees to help Clarence find a girl based on the dubious premise that he owes him something for saving his life. They are drafted by a policeman (Rags Ragland), who needs them to help coax a precocious young boy (Dean Stockwell) who wants to join the Navy into returning home to \"Aunt Susan\" (Grayson). At first it is Clarence who is interested in wooing \"Aunt Susan\" but eventually Kelly's character emerges as the more likely candidate.

There are several standout musical scenes but nothing to come close to Kelly's more famous work in films like \"Singin' in the Rain\" and \"American in Paris\". The closest we get is a gimmicky sequence with Kelly's character in a fantasy sequence dancing with Jerry, the mouse from \"Tom and Jerry\" (although he seems to be closer in size to a dog or cat here than to a mouse). It's a startling sequence for its time but doesn't have enough complexity or emotion to really stand the test of time. I actually enjoyed the parts of the sequence that took place prior to the animation, where Kelly was using semi-balletic moves to emphasize the transition into the fantasy world and where we see him dance down a tunnel that looks like something right out of \"Alice in Wonderland\".

Eventually the characters find their way to Susan's favorite bar, a somewhat sanitized Mexican restaurant/bar in Tijuana. There the patrons happily allow Ms. Grayson to chirp her arias with abandon, and the management becomes very excited at the opportunity that Clarence and Joe have extended for her to sing with their \"friend\" Jose Iturbi (playing himself with a light humorous touch). Of course they've never met their \"friend\" Iturbi and they spend much of the film's length trying to reach him (in an amusing scene Sinatra's character meets Iturbi but mistakes him for a piano tuner and urges him to abandon tuning pianos and try a professional career), sneaking into the studio and the Hollywood Bowl, where Iturbi is rehearsing a surreal symphony comprised of dozens of young piano players – you haven't seen anything like this outside of \"1000 Fingers of Dr. T\". Iturbi himself is a kind of a god-figure in the story – he represents the opportunity for salvation from the drudgery of unfulfilling work and the possibility for fame and artistic achievement for the heroine. Everyone is 100% sure that as soon as Mr. Iturbi so much as hears Ms. Grayson, her operatic career will be a reality. The 3 primary characters are desperate to reach him and they think of him as some kind of remote and distant mythological figure – a lot of the film's charm and humor comes from the contrast of this perception to the very down-to-earth \"real\" mannerisms of the maestro. And speaking of Iturbi's contributions to the film, he also provides a very stimulating musical moment with his orchestral interpretation of \"Donkey Serenade\".

When all is said and done, this is a film that nobody who enjoys musicals will want to miss. The majority of the music was written for this film, a nice contrast to recycled soundtracks for other Kelly opuses like \"Rain\" and \"American\". Kelly is still at his early peak, adventurous and boisterous in both his dances and his interpretation of the character. Sinatra's voice was never in better form and he rarely had better songs to sing. Stockwell is a charming addition to the clan, and Grayson's character is endearing when she isn't posturing on stage. Iturbi adds that well-grounded but sophisticated tone that perfectly matches the atmosphere and style of the classic-era MGM musical. This is one of the better ones.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Just picked this up on DVD and watched it again. I love the bright colors vs. dark imagery. Not a big Beatty fan, but this is an excellent popcorn movie. Pacino is astounding, as always, and well, this movie marked the period where Madonna was her absolute sexiest. I wish she had stuck with the \"Breathless\" look for a while longer. Charlie Korsmo's first really big role, other than \"What about bob?\". The makeup effects were cutting edge then and still hold up for the most part. Beautiful scenery and mood transport you directly into a comic strip environment. The cars, wardrobe, buildings, and even the streetlights et a great tone, not to mention the perfect lighting, although the scenes with a lot of red can get a tad annoying, as it tends to blur a little. Just wish Beatty had gotten the chance to make a sequel. All in all, a fun few hours.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What is the most harrowing movie ever made? The gynaecological nightmare of 'Cries and Whispers'? The acid psychodramas of Fassbinder? The discomfiting black comedy of 'Last House on the left? I'm sure for that portion of the film-loving public that tie their masts to the good ship Buster Keaton, there is only one answer - any one of his sound films.

I don't know what flayed my soul more poignantly in this movie - the grounding of Keaton's intricate and expansive physical art to humdrum slapstick; the painful hesitation of this master filmmaker with dialogue - not that he hasn't a lovely, comic voice, or that he can't make dialogue funny; it's just that the studio don't seem to have given him enough takes, and so he seems to be trying to remember his lines before he delivers, which only makes him - Keaton, not his character, look silly; or is it the humiliation of seeing Keaton caught up in a tawdry sex farce, when he has given us some of the richest accounts of romantic frustration in film?

No, I know what was most disturbing - having to watch Buster Keaton, cinema's greatest comedian, sit aside to observe Jimmy Durante doing his schtick. It is horrors such as this that get yer Dantes composing yer Infernos.

MGM seem to have got the curious idea that the best way to adapt Keaton to sound was to turn him into a Marx Brother, complete with verbal pedantry, elaborate, tedious 'clowning', shambolic slapstick, theatrical setting, triumph through chaos, and Thelma Todd. Keaton was just not that sort of comic, and where Groucho's malicious tongue and gleeful opportunism might just have made this plot work, Buster's socially inept professor can't, he is too studied and predictable.

What Buster needed was to be allowed experiment like Lang in 'M', or Rene Clair; he would never have tried to hold back the tide like Chaplin. When a film like 'The General' is alluded to - messing about with trains - the loss becomes even more apparent.

And the thing is, in patches amid the flat direction, the film isn't all that bad - there is an excellent jolt when a camera on the bus leaves Keaton alone at a railway station; and the denouement, if hardly original, is at least livelier than what went before. There is something almost endearing about the way Keaton slows down a plot that needs all the zip it can get.

There is a film in here about loneliness, emotionally paralysing order, the numbing effects of education etc., struggling to get out. The best way to appreciate this film is to watch not the narrative of Professor TZ Post, but of emasculated genius Buster Keaton, trapped in a prison of mediocrity, confounded by new technology, mocked by a malevolent fate (in this case the studio), retaining a stoical grace. Looked at like that, it becomes a kind of masterpiece.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "With this topic, it is so easy to take cheap shots. You know, the guy with hairy legs trying to look like Marilyn Monroe. Not here -- Adrian Pasdar does a superb job of making Gerald a REAL person, someone you care deeply about, and as a result you feel for his plight trying to live both as Gerald and Geraldine. Not only that, but as Geraldine, he looks HOT! And the chemistry between him and Julie Walters is electric. These are two characters who feel love for one another, and it comes through even when they simply look at each other over the breakfast table. Even the potentially cheesy sub-story line of corporate takeovers is believable, and you find yourself cheering at the end! At least I did!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Shakespeare's \"The Tempest\" is a model for this exceptional science fiction film. We look for differences. Prospero and his daughter, Miranda, are stranded on a Mediterranean island.\" Morbius and Altaira are marooned on the 4th planet circling the star Altair. Ariel is a spirit. Robby the Robot is a man-made servant. Caliban's evil hardly approaches that of Monsters of the Id. Shakespeare spares Prospero. Morbius dies when Altair 4 blows up. \"The Tempest\" is a comedy. \"Forbidden Planet\" is a tragedy. We wonder if mankind must suffer the fate of the Krell in some future time. Anne Francis is Altaira. Jack Kelly is Lieutentant Farman. Kelly starred with James Garner in the comedy/western TV series, \"Maverick.\"", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.

I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.

I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.

Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Johny To makes here one of his best style exercises, making a strong film with a good Yakuza's story. The election of the new Yakuza's boss is the beginning of a war inside the organization.

In my opinion the violence is wise used in the context, making a very strong gangs film. I specially love the way he tells the history, moving around all the roles inside the Yakuza's family, and making that we see the violence, like the only way they have to solve their problems...

Talking about, the technical aspects, the film is a good example of paused, rythmic and planified way of shooting a film. One of the Hong Kong Films of the year. Is like Infernal affairs, but without the easy action-violence scenes, and the confused storyline. Strongly recommended to all Asian films lovers.

(sorry for my English, better do in Spanish lol)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Recreation of 1950's (London) Soho and the up-and-coming people. Based on a cult novel.

Julian Temple is a video director. No more, no less. Give him 15 million dollars and he will make you a 15 million dollar pop video. Here he forgets that two minutes with people that can't really act is one thing - but two hours? What was he thinking of. Besides who are the audience? Who cares about a book that was well remembered way-back-when. The usual London story of the chancer taking his chance.

What could really drag this film even further down? Oh I know, third rate songs that sound like they were made up on the spot. David Bowie crones the film title over and over a few times and that is the highlight. The soundtrack album is clay pigeon material.

There is one good thing though. Good recreation of period Soho. Shame they couldn't think of anything to put in front of it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "ANCHORS AWEIGH is an entertaining MGM musical that fans of the genre will enjoy but I wouldn't rate it up there with classics like SINGIN IN THE RAIN or THE BAND WAGON. This was the first of three musicals that Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra appeared in together. Kelly and Sinatra play Joe Brady and Clarence Doolittle, two sailors on leave in Hollywood who befriend a young boy (Dean Stockwell)who introduces them to his attractive young aunt (Kathryn Grayson) a struggling actress who is working as an extra at MGM. Though both guys are initially attracted to Grayson, she eventually voices a preference to Joe but Clarence later hooks up with a waitress (Pamela Britton)who, he learns is from his hometown of Brooklyn. The paper-thin plot leaves room for several great musical numbers including \"We Hate to Leave\", Joe and Clarence's lament to their fellow sailors as they're leaving the ship; Grayson's torrid rendition of \"Jalousie\"; Sinatra's dreamy rendition of \"I Fall in Love Too Easily\" (a number which is sadly deleted from some prints of this film), and \"The Worry Song\", a fantasy dance that Kelly does with animated Jerry the Mouse from Tom and Jerry fame. Kelly also does a sort of Kissing Bandit fantasy ballet which rivals his Pirate's Ballet in the later THE PIRATE. Kelly is in peak form here, in a robust and energetic performance that earned him his only Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Sinatra's endearingly shy character here is undeniably sexy. An entertaining diversion for fans of the MGM musical factory.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Man, I really find it hard to believe that the wonderful Alan Ball had anything to do with this mess. Having seen the first two episodes thus far, I think I can safely say this show isn't going to be on my must see list. It's just got so many things working against it.

None of the actors cast are particularly good. Anna Paquin as the lead character Sookie, is just awful. I remember her being better in a lot of other things I've seen her in so maybe it's just the writing. She's not really much fun to look at either, there are moments where to be honest she looks downright ugly. The actor who plays Bill is marginally better, if only because his character is supposed to be sort of wooden and aloof. The other actors do their best but with the cliché characters with difficult to perform accents they are given it's a tough job. Tara is an absolute misery to watch, Rutina Wesley absolutely murders the accent. It's like nails on a chalkboard bad. Almost as awful is Nelsan Ellis, it's difficult to understand what he's even saying sometimes. Both his character as well as Tara's also seem a bit racist to me. I don't know, having a character say 'whycome' on an HBO show that isn't The Wire just seems a bit odd. Rounding out the cast so far are Sookie's doddering grandmother, her sex addict brother, and the only bit of genius casting I've seen in William Sanderson as the sheriff.

The story seems to be meandering towards it's destination at this point, with no real worry about keeping the viewer interested. The romance stuff is very Dark Shadow-sy. Although this show ups the camp factor from something like those old Dark Shadows episodes times about ten. At times it seemed so campy to me, that I just have to assume it was intended to be. But unlike a show such as Buffy, that pulled camp off masterfully, this show does not. Out of place with the campiness is the extreme gore and graphic sex of the show. I'm not averse to either of these when they are done well, as they have in many other HBO shows but here at least they prolonged rough sex scenes involving Jason Stackhouse seem a bit over the top and pointless.

About the only nice thing I can really think to say about this mess is that I liked the opening title sequence. HBO has had a string of bad luck with their shows lately, I hope they cancel this after the first season and try to get something better on the air.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Takashi Shimizu had a great opportunity with a remake of his original film Ju-On The Grudge. While I haven't seen that film, I would have to wager that there's more imagination and originality (or some rip-off originality, in other words skill with known tropes of the Japanese ghost movie) than in his own directed remake. Maybe the script was written to somehow have some kind of warped appeal, or I would guess accessibility, for an American audience. What starts off with some potential - the hint of something very screwed up going on with Bill Pullman's sudden movement - just goes into a total jumble. And as a horror movie? Gimme a break.

Tension could have been built on the situation - a nurse going to take care of a disturbed woman in a house that is haunted - but he undercuts everything he wants to get his audience to feel. Scares? How's about some music timed just so you know when exactly to expect something. A black cat? Yeah, why not just make the ghost-boy thing sound like a cat for creepiness which, in effect, is only creepy if you want cats. Plot? Why not just shuffle between past and present without any semblance of an actual flow of how a story could be told (meaning, while the flashbacks are inserted and are meant to be organic with the story overall, they aren't), or for that matter have us care about ANYONE in the cast.

By the time the characters, or those that are there for exposition, get around to telling us what is going on or whatever, there's little point to care. The film-making is shoddy (i.e. the 180 degree rule is broken many times over and not in a forgivable or intriguing way), and the performances are wooden even when looking frightened or shocked (Gellar especially is disappointing, but Pullman, who shows up later after his first scene, is sorely miscast). Even when Shimizu tries for some average old \"Boo\" scares, like when the woman is in the office building and chased by the Grudge ghost, it's still silly. Just watch when she's going on that elevator and the ghost is in the background of shots. Either you'll go with it, and if so more power to you, or you'll laugh hysterically at the results. Count me in the latter.

I'm not totally sure where this project went wrong - was it Shimizu having to retool it for the studios, or him not giving enough leeway with his revamp of his vision? Or maybe Raimi had some say in it and made things more confusing and/or dull than they would be with someone else. The Grudge gives us a lot of information that doesn't make sense or at the least give us some horror-fodder to chew on. It's cineplex trash of a sad order.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is no art-house film, it's mainstream entertainment.

Lot's of beautiful people, t&a, and action. I found it very entertaining. It's not supposed to be intellectually stimulating, it's a fun film to watch! Jesse and Chace are funny too, which is just gravy. Definitely worth a rental.

So in summary, I'd recommend checking it out for a little Friday night entertainment with the boys or even your girl (if she likes to see other girls get it on!)

The villains are good too. Vinnie, Corey Large, the hatian guy from Heroes. Very nasty villains.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "To me this was more a wake up call, and realization that most all we see, hear, read and think about most anything, is dependent on what the media feeds us. This is a classic example of high level spin doctors attempting to control the masses through controlled information. It is also an excellent example of how people that have a constitution that they freely bought in to, will not be swayed by this media control or any attempted mis-information. Once again this shows that at the end of the day the needs of the many will in fact outweigh the needs of the few. It is also enlightening to see that in in a country where there is no religious civil war going on, that democracy is not a real hard thing to implement.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.

Just terrible", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Following the brilliant \"Goyôkiba\" (aka. \"Hanzo The Razor - Sword Of Justice\", 1972) and its excellent (and even sleazier) sequel \"Goyôkiba: Kamisori Hanzô jigoku zeme\" (aka. \"Razor 2: The Snare\", 1973), this \"Goyôkiba: Oni no Hanzô yawahada koban\" aka. \"Razor 3: Who's Got The Gold\" is the third, and sadly final installment to the awesome saga about the incorruptible Samurai-constable Hanzo 'The Razor' Ittami (brilliantly played by the great Shintarô Katsu), who fights corruption with his fighting expertise as well as his enormous sexual powers. As a big fan of 70s exploitation cinema made in Nippon, \"Sword Of Justice\" became an instant favorite of mine, and I was therefore more than eager to find the sequels, and full of anticipation when I finally stumbled over them recently. While this third \"Hanzo\" film is just not quite as brilliant as its predecessors it is definitely another great piece of cult-cinema that no lover of Japanese exploitation cinema can afford to miss. \"Who's Got The Gold\" is a bit tamer than the two foregoing Hanzo films, but it is just as brilliantly comical and crudely humorous, and immediately starts out fabulously odd: The film begins, when Hanzo's two assistants see a female ghost when fishing. Having always wanted to sleep with a ghost, Hanzo insists that his assistants lead him to the site of the occurrence... If that is not a promising beginning for an awesome film experience, I don't know what is. Shintaro Katsu, one of my personal favorite actors, is once again brilliant in the role of Hanzo, a role that seems to have been written specifically for him. Katsu IS Hanzo, the obstinate and fearless constable, who hates corruption and deliberately insults his superiors, and whose unique interrogation techniques include raping female suspects. The interrogated women than immediately fall for him, due to his sexual powers and enormous penis, which he trains in a rather grotesque routine ritual. I will not give away more about the plot in \"Who's Got The Gold\", but I can assure that it is as cool as it sounds. The supporting performances are also very good, and, as in the predecessors, there are plenty of hilariously eccentric characters. This is sadly the last film in the awesomely sleazy 'Hanzo' series. If they had made 20 sequels more, I would have happily watched them all! The entire Hanzo series is brilliant, and while this third part is a bit inferior compared to its predecessors, it is definitely a must-see for all lovers of cult-cinema! Oh how I wish they had made more sequels!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I don't pretend to be an authority on actors who have played Othello, but I've never witnessed a performance of the play, on film or on stage, wherein Othello was portrayed with more humanity and authenticity.

According to the biographical notes, Fishburne never received any professional training as an actor. Perhaps this explains why his acting, in this beautifully edited film, comes over as so believable and so powerful. Instead of chewing the scenery in the approved fashion for such high-powered roles, Fishburne's portrayal is focused more on Othello's love for his wife, and on his profound sadness at her supposed betrayal, than on violence and vengeance. In a word, the performance is understated, and made far more impressive by Fishburne's extremely intelligent interpretation than it otherwise would have been.

The acting throughout is superb, and the (abridged) speeches gain grace from their light editing. (Even Shakesspeare, after all, can be improved upon, now and again -- and if that be treason, make the most of it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.

At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.

I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's been quite some time since I've watched this LOTR. I am currently hunting for a copy to purchase. Bakshi's work is quite true to the original work. The visuals are engrosing and sometimes haunting.

Drawbacks? Occasionally, the movie is confusing or muddled. There are one or two times where the storyline slows to a crawl. But, overall -- buy this movie. It's great for kids, adults and collectors.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Space Camp is a pretty decent film. The plot is predictable, but the actors do a good job, and the special effects are decent for the time.

This film was originally released about the time of the shuttle disaster, and that really put a hamper on how popular it was.

The scene where the shuttle doors open in space is simply spectacular... on the big screen, that is... on a TV... it just looks average. I remember this scene in the theater. It made you feel like you were really up there.

This would be a good film to see on IMAX, but I'm sure that will never happen.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I really thought they did an *excellent* job, there was nothing wrong with it at all, I don't know how the first commenter could have said it was terrible, it moved me to tears (I guess it moved about everyone to tears) but I try not to cry in a movie because it's embarrassing but this one got me. It was SOOO good! I hope they release it on DVD because I will definitely buy a copy! I feel like it renewed my faith and gave me a hope that I can't explain, it made me want to strive to be a better person, they went through so much and we kind of take that for granted, I guess. Compared to that, I feel like our own trials are nothing. Well, not nothing, but they hardly match what they had to go through. I loved it. Who played Emma?!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.

Disney continues to firmly hold the title of \"Greatest Animation in the World\", with \"A Bug?s Life\" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful \"out-takes\" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features \"Gerry?s Game\" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.

This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? \"Antz\", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, \"Antz\" is largely cast with big name \"movie\" stars with a few familiar \"TV\" star voices, where \"A Bug?s Life\" is just the opposite, loaded with \"TV\" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.

Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "On 24 October 1955, the hard-work geologist of the Hadley Oil Company Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) meets the executive secretary Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall) in the office of her boss Bill Ryan in New York and invites her to go to a conference with the alcoholic playboy and son of a tycoon Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). On the way of the meeting, he confesses that they had traveled from Houston to New York to satisfy the wish of the reckless Kyle, who is his best friend since their childhood, of eating a sandwich from club 21 and the meeting was just a pretext to Kyle's father Jasper Hadley (Robert Keith). Mitch and Kyle immediately fall in love for Lucy, and Kyle unsuccessfully uses his money to impress Lucy; then he opens his heart and proposes Lucy. They get married and travel to Acapulco and the insecure Kyle stops drinking. Meanwhile, Kyle's sister Marylee (Dorothy Malone) is an easy woman and has a non- corresponded crush on Mitch that sees her as a sister. One year later, Kyle discovers that he has a problem and might be sterile and starts drinking again. The jealous Marylee poisons Kyle telling that his wife and Mitch are having a love affair. When Lucy finds that she is pregnant, Kyle believes that the baby belongs to Mitch and his mistrust leads to a tragedy.

\"Written on the Wind\" is an overrated melodramatic soap opera, with artificial characters and situations. There are at least two great movies with characters with drinking problem: \"The Lost Weekend\" (1945) with stunning performance of Ray Milland and \"Days of Wine and Roses\" (1962) with awesome performance of Jack Lemmon. Robert Stack has a reasonable performance and his character's motives for drinking are shallow and clichés. In the end, the forgettable \"Written on the Wind\" is entertaining only and never a feature to be nominated to the Oscar. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Palavras ao Vento\" (\"Words in the Wind\")", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Why Panic never got a good theatrical release is easily seen: it's much too smart, and audiences would have probably had a difficult time with it, comparing it to American Beauty in its probing of a midlife crisis, and Sopranos and Analyze This in it's study of illegal goings-on amidst family life. Though Panic may seem to derive from unoriginal material, Brommel's lifelike characters coupled with deft dialogue and observant direction make the film a realistic look at the undoing of a middle aged man.

William H. Macy stars as Alex, a hitman who works for his father's (Sutherland) contract-killing business. He leads a double life, with his wife (Ullman) and son unaware of his real trade. In his middle-age, he becomes increasingly disgusted with what he has done all his life. Under his calm, collected facade stirs repressed resentment for his father's controlling grasp on his life. When he meets a young woman(Campbell) he feels invigored and decides it's time to quit the family business.

The fact that writer/director Henry Brommel decided to make the profession his main character was trying to break away from contract-killing is disposable. He could have easily substituted it with any undesirable profession; his characters are so well-developed and believable, scenes handled so smoothly and realisticly and dialogue written so insightfully and naturally that the focus falls on Macy's conflicted character rather than his job as a hitman. Brommel's script feels like a Shakespearean tragedy, with a definite theme of destiny running throughout.

In Alex, Macy creates a tragic, easily sympathetic character, and turns in yet another brooding, great performance, as can always be expected. Donald Sutherland is also effectively abrasive and abusive as his overbearing father, and Ullman's dramatic turn as Macy's wife is a welcome change for the comedian. Consider a scene in a bicycle shop, where her mood subtly darkens and peaks in an affecting scene of emotional confusion.

Henry Brommel's first feature, Panic is a film that is well-crafted in its sincerity. With a first-rate cast, a plausible script, terse dialogue, and nice direction, this character-study is hopefully just a taste of Brommel's aptness for creating characters that seem real.

8 out of 10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The only reason I watched the movie till the end was the \"hope\" to see something interesting. The movie is really bad and the performance of the girl it is really, really bad, honestly, I am not a movie critic neither an expert but you just need common sense to notice that this work it is incredibly bad.

The first thing that came to my mind as soon as she started to talk was: \"She has an affair with Willem Dafoe and he accepted to help her with the screenplay and appear in her movie since she is the brilliant director\"... surprise, surprise, next day after I watched the film I found out on internet that Giada Colagrande is his wife. Awful story and terrible performance.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.

This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book \"Electra Assassin.\" Which is much darker than anything in this movie.

Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I liked this movie because it basically did more with less. It could have been made more interesting if they had kept it confined to the studio even more (though some of the plot elements would have been harder to develop).

The guy playing the DJ did a good job of showing someone spooked out and haunted by his memories. I also found his dialog with the callers pretty funny.

While parts of the movie you can see coming a mile away, other parts you do not expect to turn out the way they did.

I thought it was a pretty minimal ghost story for the most part, concentrating more on the living side of the equation. The last 5-10 minutes were pretty well done as everything is being revealed.

While it was a shorter movie, it felt to be just about the right amount of time to tell the story. Any more and it would have started to drag.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Didn't Mystic Pizza win the Oscar for that year? This movie never had a chance, due to the casting, but perhaps by now people can see why I felt that way upon leaving the theater. Only \"Wargames\" left me feeling similarly disturbed after leaving the theater, with the feeling I was getting a glimpse of our future. History has shown that this is exactly what happened.

The casting is a pop-culture Cuisinart of the 1980s: you get Arnold as Ben Richards, the framed fugitive offered a chance to \"run\" for his freedom on the game show with the same title as the movie; Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, treating his role as if he were the host of Family Feud with the contestants using real guns; Jesse Ventura as \"Captain Freedom\" and co-wrestler Professor Tanaka as \"Subzero,\" both \"stalkers\" who kill the \"running men.\" Even Mick Fleetwood (Mic) and Dweezil Zappa (Stevie) show up, while the \"dancers of the future\" are none other than the Laker Girls. This movie SCREAMS \"80s.\" The plot is a good excuse for the action: Ben Richards is determined to prove his innocence, but agrees to be the Running Man when he is told that his buddies would be set free; instead, they join him as \"contestants.\" Maria Conchita Alonzo as Amber Mendez is the standard by which one can properly judge Salma Hayek in the 1990s.

The production value on the film was a bit poor, the lines were cheesy, and (at the time), the plot seemed a bit far-fetched. I remember thinking when I was leaving the theater that we were definitely heading in the direction of the film, but who could have seen how far we'd go there and how fast? If The Running Man were listed in TV Guide, most people would assume it were just another reality show pushing the envelope today. The government influences on the media have only gotten worse, and the dumbed-down American public of the future that surrenders all of its freedoms for \"national security\" is downright chilling. Ben Richards is played brilliantly by Arnold as one of the few remaining holdouts against a government tyranny that the rest of America is all too willing to accept in return for good television and some parting gifts for the audience.

The movie was way over the top, maybe even off the cliff for its time, but as with Back to the Future III, the \"ravine\" it appeared to be sinking itself into in 1987 was replaced by completed tracks in 2006 and beyond, and this movie will sail into the future as one of the more prophetic films of our time. It is tragic that, as with Wargames, the academy did not give this brilliant screenplay the recognition it deserved. \"Serious\" actors acting seriously while being so pretentious that you want to throw up may win more Oscars, but that doesn't make them better films than their \"common man\" counterparts, such as this one.

An absolute must-see.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this film has it all; the deft camera work, reminiscent of martin scorcese, or oliver stone, the tight acting of 'heat', the explosive action of a jerry bruckheimer movie, the witty dialogue of a tarantino script and the epic feel of say, 'the godfather'

the judge reinhold character displays a fiery temperememt, yet also shows real emotional depth and intensity. his performance reminds me of robert de niro's portrayal of jake la motta in raging bull.

the action scenes are truly breathtaking, not since bullit has a movie depicted such high octane, yet stylish car scenes. The special effects push the boundries of technology and filmmaking to their limits. Independance day set the standard that this movie clearly has matched, and greatly surpassed.

overall, great acting from its a list cast (like an oscars night party invitation list!), classy locations, gripping action, and a tight script.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "No matter how you look at this movie, it is just awful.

If you view it as a horror, then it is an unscary movie with the monsters being hand puppets.

If you look at it as a comedy, then you will notice most of the humor falls flat and is just lame.

If it is a romance you will wonder why a guy would stay with such a B**ch!

If you look at it as an action you can't really pull for the whiny hero.

As you can see this movie just fails to deliver anything remotely entertaining. As mentioned the monsters are obvious puppets and this film was another attempt at a Gremlins type movie. This however has the worst looking monsters of that genre. Critters looked pretty good, so did the Ghoulies, heck even the puppets from the Munchies looked better than these. The characters in this film are thouroughly unlikable. The hero is a whiney security guard, his girlfriend is always complaining, they have a tramp friend who has a jerk military boyfriend, and another friend who is a spaz. At one point in the movie the hero and the military guy fight with rakes...this movie is just utterly stupid. I like the scene when they are in the dreaded club scum (which is obviously not a club, but more likely a diner) and the hero tells the waitress that none of them are 21. Give me a break, I am 25 and I look younger than any of them.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "After reading the first 5 reviews on IMDb I was very enthusiastic about this movie. But it's really an awful movie, the total time you see the alien is about 5 minutes (the rest of the movie is cheap suspense), the acting is over the top en the story, oh boy, which story?

The story doesn't seem to go in a direction, first they capture the alien (after 7 years! they finally succeed), then they don't know what to do with it (after 7 years?) and even want to release it (why the hell did they capture it?). Then the girlfriend, who's acting is the most over the top, wants to walk away from this madness, then suddenly she doesn't, then again, she does and then she doesn't. Then they come to the conclusion that killing the alien will kill the whole human race (and remember, in all those years no other human have seen these permanently settled aliens) and what do they do? They torture it and blow a bunch of aliens to peaces.

This is my first review on IMDb, I'm a very lazy person who doesn't write very soon, so listen to my warning: this move is not worth your time, don't watch this movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have walked out of about 6 movies my entire life. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know how I sat through an hour of it. I must have been in a coma that night. I saw it in the theatre when it came out 8 years ago. I couldn't even remember the name, but I knew that Penelope Ann Miller starred in it. It must have really affected me to be wasting my time commenting on it today. Yech! Vomit! Barf!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt \"Bartleby, The Scrivener\" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Oh-so-familiar comedy story about low-key nice-guy Paul (Jason Lee), who after the night of his bachelor party, wakes up in bed with Becky (Julia Stiles), an attractive blonde he met just the night before. After lying about it to his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair), he's forced to tell more and more lies to cover his tracks.

I'm sure most of us have been witness to a story like this at least once before...on film or on TV. The movie is formulaic and EXTREMELY predictable, with an ending you may see coming a mile away.

At least the cast provides some interest and keeps it watchable. Lee is just right in the lead, and Stiles is a lot of fun in a light-hearted comedic role different from the very serious roles she usually plays. Becky is a free spirit who seems to change jobs as often as other people change their clothes.

But you know, this isn't exactly well-written. At least one question is left unanswered: for WHAT, exactly, is Ray (Lochlyn Munro), Becky's brutal ex-boyfriend, being investigated by the I.A.?

And I didn't like the character of Buck (David Koechner), Paul's stepfather; he's a super-obnoxious moron who got on my nerves so quickly I was begging for somebody to punch him.

Add another debit: a gratuitous, uncredited cameo by comic/actor Larry Miller, once again playing a grouch (in this case, it's a little justified - his character is an ultra-conservative minister).

Not good at all, but as usual for me, I give it a three out of ten based on the efforts of the cast alone.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to \"Billy Lo\" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, \"Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!\"

Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, \"What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film, like the first one (\"The Man From Snowy River\") has the same good and bad features, perhaps even more so than the original. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good.

The GOOD - Magnificent scenery, better than the first film. I love those high country shots in Australia. Tom Burlinson is still a likable guy, as \"Jim Craig.\" Bruce Rowland did a nice job with the music, too.

The BAD - Once again we get an extremely obnoxious feminist heroine \"Jessica\" (Sigrid Thornton) who is a world-class pouter with an extremely annoying face and manner about her. In this film, we also get a big downgrade in who pays the father. Previously it was Kirk Douglas, now replaced by the always -profane Brian Dennehy. Speaking of that, it is a disgrace that a Walt Disney film would includes usages of the Lord's name in vain. That was one reason was almost totally down the tubes in the 1980s. This film, like the first one", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Made me wish my own happy birds could talk. Tisk tisk on the reviewer who dissed the movie. A sweet story that people of all ages will enjoy. Paulie is a lovable little treasure. He has quite a few clever lines that truly made me laugh. I especially loved the dance sequences during his showbiz stint. You can forgive the obvious clichés as you cheer him on in his quest to be reunited with Marie. A charming movie featuring two strong characters who genuinely befriend the little parrot separated from his young owner. Would have liked to have seen more of the woman who becomes blind and must abandon their mutual journey. I liked her artistic and poetic inspirations, a shame she could not share Paulie's reunion. Bless Paulie in his new home, at last with Marie, perhaps joined by the nice young man who helped him defeat the antagonists to complete his journey.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.

Well, the 1973 TV version of \"Double Indemnity\" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.

Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.

However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw this film opening weekend in Australia, anticipating with an excellent cast of Ledger, Edgerton, Bloom, Watts and Rush that the definitive story of Ned Kelly would unfold before me. Unfortunately, despite an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger in the lead role, the plot was paper thin....which doesn't inspire me to read \"Our Sunshine\". There were some other plus points, the support acting from Edgerton in particular, assured direction from Jordan (confirming his talent on show in Buffalo Soldiers as well), and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the Australian bush, much as the Irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. But I can't help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an Australian folk hero (or was he?)....in what I suspect is a concession to Hollywood and selling the picture in the US. Oh well, at least Jordan and the producers didn't agree to lose the beards just to please Universal...

Guess I will just have to content myself with Peter Carey's excellent \"Secret History of the Kelly Gang\". 4/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In 1996's \"101 Dalmatians,\" Cruella De Vil was arrested by the London Metropolitain Police (God bless them) for attempting to steal and murder 101 puppies - dalmatians. All covered in mud and hay, she spent the next 4 years in the \"tin can.\" Now, 4 years later, she, unfortunately, was released from the jail. I say, that's about 28 years - in dog years!!!!!

So, in 2000, Disney decided to release a sequel to the successful live-action version of the classic film and it is hereby dubbed \"102 Dalmatians.\" In it, there is a 102nd dalmatian added to the family (Oddball is the name, I think; I should know this since this was just shown on TV recently), and the puppy had no spots!!!!! Also, while Cruella (again played by Glenn Close) has escaped again, she wanted a bigger, better coat - made once again out of the puppies!!!!!

I especially liked the theme song - I'm sure everybody loves the \"Atomic Dog\" song from the 70s or so. And now, we hear a bit of it in this movie!!!!!

\"102 Dalmatians\" is such a great film that I keep on wondering - WHEN WILL THERE BE A \"103 DALMATIANS?????\" LOL

10 stars", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from \"Down Argentine Way\", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got \"round\" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only \"villian\" in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.

The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.

This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Is there anything that happens in this movie that is NOT predictable? I think not. Basically the movie is cliché after cliché and really nothing ever comes as a surprise. It makes the movie extremely predictable and because of that the movie is also seriously lacking in tension. So for a thriller it is not tense and unpredictable enough but also as a drama it's a failure. This is because the movie its story is highly unlikely. I mean, no way this could ever happen in real life, as in the same way as the events occur in this movie. So the movie has a real suspense and credibility problem.

But it truly are the clichés that killed the movie. It was cringing stuff at times. Everything is so formulaic in this movie. The predator is portrayed as a cool heartless, almost psychopath like sexual frustrated boy and the victim as a naive young woman, who acts like she didn't see any of this coming. Everything that happened in the movie was so obvious and all seemed to happen for a reason. Such as the sequence in which the 'predator' fixes the 'victims' broken car. That has got to be one of the oldest clichés out of the book. I knew what the movie tried to achieve after that point. I tried to look as if the teacher and the student were really growing toward each other trough the eyes of the other persons around them. It was so incredibly obvious and cheap that I almost wanted to stop watching the movie after that point. The movie is filled with moments like these.

The title might suggest that this is a cheap porn movie but this in fact is a sappy made for TV movie. Which means that everything is slowly happening and the movie spends halve its time on character development and unnecessary sub-plots to make the movie even more drama like.

I'll admit that Elizabeth Berkley is pretty good acting in this movie. She makes some of the clichés and events look even almost realistic at times. Her Hollywood career is as good as over after appearing in the Paul Verhoeven movie \"Showgirls\", so unfortunately she will probably only still appear in movies- and television series like this one. It's a waste of her talent and she surely deserves better. All of the other characters are a disappointment. Corey Sevier plays the cliché pretty 'untouchable' rich boy and the way the husband of the main character is portrayed is even worse. He looks more like a sexual frustrated predator than the true predator of the movie. He basically tries to have sex with his wife in every sequence. He wakes up, he wants sex. Before he goes to sleep, he wants sex. He gets home, he wants sex. It might be a realistic thing but I don't know, it just didn't feel right for a movie like this one and the story in general.

A cliché filled movie and I can't think of any reason why anyone should ever watch this movie. It's predictable and therefor also lacks in suspense and credibility. Not an 'horrible' movie and it certainly is a watchable one at times but all the weak and cliché elements in the movie also make this far from a recommendable one.

4/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with \"I blame myself as much as you\". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is one of the shallowest episodes in that the plot really seemed like an excuse to just have fun. BUT, I appreciated this light-hearted approach and this is truly one of the best episodes to see on a purely fun level. Think about it--the crew members have encounters with the white rabbit and Alice from Wonderland, a Bengal tiger, a samurai warrior, a knight on horseback who kills McCoy, and a host of other seemingly bizarre events that just don't make any sense at all until the very end. Despite all the danger, you just can't take everything very seriously--it's just too fun and the whole episode seems very surreal. So, on a purely non-aesthetic level, it's great stuff.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The film's design seems to be the alpha and omega of some of the major issues in this country (U.S.). We see relationships all over at the university setting for the film. Befittingly, the obvious of student v.s. teacher is present. But what the film adds to its value is its other relationships: male v.s. female, white v.s. black, and the individual v.s. society. But most important of all and in direct relation to all of the other relationships is the individual v.s. himself.

I was amazed at how bilateral a point of view the director gave to showing the race relations on campus. Most films typically show the injustices of one side while showing the suffering of the other. This film showed the injustices and suffering of both sides. It did not attempt to show how either was right, although I would say the skin heads were shown a much crueler and vindictive (quite obvious towards the end). The film also discusses sex and rape. It is ironically this injustice that in some ways brings the two races together, for a time. Lawrence Fishburne does an over-the-top performance as the sagacious Profesor Phipps. He crumbles the idea of race favortism and instead shows the parallelism of the lazy and down-trodden with the industrious and positive. Other stars that make this film are Omar Epps, Ice Cube, and Jennifer Connelly. Michael Rapaport gives an excellent portrayal of a confused youth with misplaced anger who is looking for acceptance. Tyra Banks make her film debut and proves supermodels can act.

Higher Learning gets its name in showing college as more than going to class and getting a piece of paper. In fact, I would say the film is almost a satire in showing students interactions with each other, rather than some dry book, as the real education at a university. It is a life-learning process, not a textual one. I think you'll find \"Higher Learning\" is apropos to the important issues at many universities and even life in general. 8/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Madhur Bhandarkar has given it all raw. But the best part is he hasn't forgotten to give the ingredients. It has come short and crisp to the viewer and it is the audience to make the choice now. Page 3 is a revelation of the naked truth irrespective of the crudeness attached to it.

Madhavi (Konkan Sharma) is a journalist and enjoys her work. A simple and peaceful life adores her with a caring boyfriend and a nice roommate Pearl. She covers the Page 3 (Celebrity Page) of Nation Today, where she has a very supportive editor Deepak Suri (Boman Irani.) But life takes turn for her as she hits the first bump and takes herself away from Page 3 and goes into Crime bit. Omigosh! a whole new world was waiting for her there. She is shocked, excited, stunned with the revelation. Her reaction has resulted in losing the job. At the end she is back to Page 3. Now when she meets any celebrity in a party, she knows the actual looks of each, hidden under the illusive face.

The movie has a message and it is crude. The audience needs to get it in their own color. The theme and the screenplay was fantastic. There are some very good thoughts applied to prepare the audiences. Like the foreplay-club is shown before the pedophiliac exhibition, the short suspense before gay-actions in bathroom. The dialogs are strong and the actors are really good at delivering it. Charu Mohanty's 2 words speaks volumes and he is very successful in uttering those two words with such ingenuity, it leaves an impact. The set selections could have been better. The songs don't stand anywhere; but they were needed in the background. Atul Kulkarni has a small role with high-impact. There were a few flaws visible. Atul Kulkarni explaining Konkan Sharma that honesty should be tagged along with intelligence. There could have been a better dialog as this sounds like a preach. The meeting between Thapar and his daughter doesn't call for acting. That scene looks very unprofessional.

Overall it is a must-watch movie with selective options before the pedophilia incident. That may spoil your mood.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sitting down to watch the 14th season of the Bachelor (\"On the Wings of Love\"), I knew I would be in for an \"interesting\" time. I had watched some of the previous seasons of the Bachelor in passing; watching an episode or two and missing the next three or so. I find that the Bachelor is often appealing and intriguing, though its quality and morality are often lacking.

\"On the Wings of Love\" details the journey taken by Jake, a 31 year old commercial pilot from Dallas, Texas, to find true love, as true a love as one can find in a season-long reality-drama dating show. Jake meets 25 beautiful girls from all over the country. He begins to get to know them a bit, but it is mostly superficial; how well can you get to know someone in a few 5 minute conversations? Jake tries to make his true intentions known from the very beginning, at least to the audience. He noted that he doesn't just want love or a good time, but he wants a fiancé or wife. We can only assume that he has made this clear to the women in the competition as well. If that is the case, it might explain, to a degree, some of the women's actions. The women are super competitive. While they don't even know Jake at all yet, they are still in it to win it no matter what the cost.

Not only were the women competitive, but they were also confident and catty. Threats, backstabbing, and warnings of \"Watch out!\" all show that these women weren't there for a good time either. Jake noted that he was not just looking for sex appeal, but looking for \"a connection.\" However, the girls pulled out all the stops to try to impress Jake with said sex appeal. They arrived at the mansion in skimpy dresses – either low-cut or short.

While some girls seemed to maintain their sense of decorum, others missed that memo altogether. One girl, Channy, noted that Jake was a \"good guy\" to whom she could be a \"naughty girl.\" She went on to say that Jake could land on her \"runway anytime.\" She got flack from the other girls for her provocative statement which showed their take on these situations.

So, a reality dating show couldn't be that bad, could it? Besides the obvious issue of sex-driven attraction, there are other issues that mar this seemingly harmless show. Is this the right way to find a future mate; vying for someone's attention by flaunting oneself to extreme proportions? Unfortunately, however, that is what America has reduced dating to these days: pleasure and sex without commitment and a little happiness on the side.

Another problem is the premature emotional attachment by which many of the girls bound themselves to Jake. A few girls in particular seemed to be overly attached. One girl said \"If I don't get that first impression rose it will kill me!\" As mentioned before, they don't even know him yet and she was talking about a specific rose, not just one of the 15 roses to keep from being eliminated.

Michelle, in particular, seemed to have some issues with attachment to Jake. The other girls noticed it too. After one particular Michelle outburst, Vienna asserted that Michelle had a \"mental breakdown and we've only been here an hour.\" Michelle got the last rose of the evening on the first show – narrowly missing elimination – and was extremely emotional about it. The other girls thought it was simply ridiculous. Another girl also cried, but because she was eliminated.

It began with Survivor, and from there it just took off – reality TV. It shows our entertainment interests as a country; if we weren't watching the shows and giving them good ratings, the networks would not continue to run them. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that enough of America is hooked. One thing is clear: America (in general) loves reality TV and its ensuing trappings.

This begs me to question: why is it that we even like reality TV? What is it about it that draws us to it? Is it because we see the similarities to our own lives, or is it because we want to be sure that we are more stable and less pathetic than others? Whatever it is that draws us to it, we should be careful of the media and entertainment that we allow to fill our minds. I'm not saying that all reality TV shows are bad; however, I am saying that we need to evaluate each one.

Episodes used for critique: Season Premier and Episode 2.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw this movie at the theaters when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it then, and have recently come to own a VHS version.

My 4 and 6 year old children love this movie and have been asking again and again to watch it.

I have enjoyed watching it again too. Though I have to admit it is not as good on a little TV.

I do not have older children so I do not know what they would think of it.

The songs are very cute. My daughter keeps singing them over and over.

Hope this helps.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I notice from the comments that most of the people discussing this movie are basing their remarks on the MST3K airing. That's fair enough (that is, after all, how it got its widest exposure), but, having had the misfortune of seeing \"Final Justice\" in its original form, I'd just like to share a few thoughts and comments on the uncut version.

First off, it must be admitted that the original version is slightly more coherent than the MST3K broadcast, owing primarily to an expository scene between Rossano Brazzi and Venantino Venantini (I COULD use the characters' names instead of the actors', but I just love typing the words \"Venantino Venantini\"), explaining why Venantini's fugitive character can't just leave Malta right away. (It's not a very CONVINCING plot point, but at least the filmmakers tried to cover it.) Whether this scene was cut just for time or because it didn't provide much fodder for riffs, I don't know.

Another plot point missing in the original: The stripper's betrayal of Venantino Venantini to Joe Don Baker, seemingly unmotivated in the MST3K version, is explained by an earlier, extremely unpleasant scene in which Venantini rapes her in the shower. While this does give her a motive for turning against him, the whole scenario is just really...icky. (There's no other word for it.)

Some of the MST-worthy moments (the perpetual truncated shouts of \"Son of a--\" and the \"deja vu\" shooting of the sheriff) were purely the result of the edited-for-TV print they worked with, and were absent from the original movie.

One scene I wish had made it into the MST3K version: Before entering the bar to question some people, Joe Don asks the Maltese policewoman accompanying him to stay outside, because \"they see that uniform, they won't cooperate.\" However, Joe Don himself is wearing his ridiculous cowboy-slash-sheriff outfit, complete with shiny badge! I can't imagine why they passed on that great opportunity to make fun of him...

One final observation on the original, uncut version of \"Final Justice\": Why, oh why, did they feel the need to put Venantino Venantini's naked butt up on the screen?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw the latter half of this movie about a year ago and was very happy to finally find it available on DVD. Recently, I watched several of the reality series on PBS about ranching, etc. None of them came as close to telling the story as this movie does. Based on REAL reality, pulling no punches, bleak, happy, tragic and enlightening, this is a movie that should be shown to students or to anyone interested in early frontier life. Fine acting on the part of both Rip Torn and Conchata Ferrell add to an well done script. The opening credit states that it was done though funds supplied through the National Endowment for the Humanities. If this is the kind of product taxes could go to I would be happy to see more. I highly recommend it and would encourage people to tell a friend if you have seen it and enjoyed the film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Blank Check is easily one of the worst films of the nineties. The plot is completely pointless; its overtones of lonliness are pathetic. Do you really believe a twelve year old acting as a personal assistant for a millionaire could accomplish everything in this film, like buying a mansion for a mere $300 grand. The notion, let alone the bargain-basement price, will only be believed by the most gullible viewers. Please, respect your intelligence and don't watch this awful, awful film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Imagine that you are asked by your date what movie you wanted to see, and you remember seeing a rather intriguing trailer about \"The Grudge.\" So, in good faith, you recommend seeing that movie. It is the Halloween season, after all. And it did boffo box office this past weekend, so it must be pretty good...so you go.

And you're actually in a state of shock when the movie ends the way it does, and you hear yourself audibly saying, \"that can't be the end of the movie....\" But, alas, it is.

And imagine coming out of the movie theater being embarrassed and ashamed for recommending such a dog of a movie. You think that your date thinks you're a bonehead for suggesting such an atrocity, and your suggestion will certainly end a promising relationship. Actually, it was so bad that both of us cracked up laughing at how bad it was. I see no future for Miss Gellar in the movies, and suggest that she sticks to television in the future. Actually, it won't be long before she is consigned to flea-market conventions selling Buffy memorabilia, and it can't happen soon enough, if you ask me. Horrible, horrible, horrible. The plot didn't make sense; continuity was terrible. It's apparent that the whole ending was contrived to have a \"Grudge II--The Return of 'Cat-Boy'.\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as \"Bigger's\" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is a story of a Jewish dysfunctional family. The parents have divorced and mom remains back east in the house. The father, Murray Abromowitz, moves with his children to California, and moves around Beverly Hills so that his children can get the best education possible.

Things really become funny when Marisa Tomei, Murray's niece, comes to lives with the group.

The film deals with the various adventures of the family complicated by the drug scene of the affluent neighborhood.

Jessica Walter costars as a woman who wants Murray to move in with her since she wants a companion.

Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno come in towards the end. They play Murray's brother and sister-in-law respectively; they're also the parents of Tomei. In front of the children, Reiner lets loose reminding Murray that he has been paying the bills for them all along.

The film ends on a sour note as the embarrassed family moves out of their fancy digs and take to riding around Beverly Hills in their car. I guess the film is promoting independence and some good old self-esteem.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "i rate this movie with 3 skulls, only coz the girls knew how to scream, this could've been a better movie, if actors were better, the twins were OK, i believed they were evil, but the eldest and youngest brother, they sucked really bad, it seemed like they were reading the scripts instead of acting them.... spoiler: if they're vampire's why do they freeze the blood? vampires can't drink frozen blood, the sister in the movie says let's drink her while she is alive....but then when they're moving to another house, they take on a cooler they're frozen blood. end of spoiler

it was a huge waste of time, and that made me mad coz i read all the reviews of how this movie was great, how many awards this movie won, and this movie was f****ing s**t!!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Every time I watch this movie I am more impressed by the whole production. I have come to the conclusion that it is the best romantic comedy ever made. Everyone involved is perfect; script, acting, direction, sets and editing. Whilst James Stewart can always be relied upon for a good performance, and the supporting cast are magnificent, it is Margaret Sullavan who reveals what an underrated actress she was. Her tragic personal life give poignancy to her qualities as a performer where comedy acting skills are not easy to achieve. Lubitsch managed to get the best and he obviously gave his best. Watch for the number of scenes which were done on one take - breathtaking.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sandwiched in between San Francisco and Captains Courageous two of Spencer Tracy's greatest parts is this very curious film about war and the effects it has on some people. They Gave Him A Gun stars Spencer Tracy and Franchot Tone in the only film they ever made together and Gladys George as the woman who loves them both.

Tracy and Tone are a couple of World War I draftees, Tone is a weak character who almost goes over the hill in boot camp, but Tracy stops him. Tracy is still playing the lovable blowhard, younger Wallace Beery type that MGM envisioned for him when they signed him away from Fox.

Over at the front Tone gets an opportunity and takes it when during a fight he manages to get to a church tower that peers down on a German machine gun nest. He's learned to shoot by now and he does a Sergeant York. But Alvin C. York was never changed by the war the way Tone has.

Wounded in the fight Tone convalesces at a hospital with Gladys George looking out for him. Tracy goes AWOL himself to visit his pal and he and George get something going. Later on when Tracy is reported missing in action, Tone and George marry. Tracy's brokenhearted when he comes back and learns of the marriage, but takes sit in stride.

The rest of the film is dealing with Tone applying the the wartime skills he's learned to the gangster trade. He's a hit-man now and George doesn't really know what he does for a living. I think you can figure the rest out.

The part of the film that gave me some trouble is that I can't believe Gladys George couldn't figure it out. She's a street smart girl, her part is very much like the one she played in The Roaring Twenties opposite James Cagney.

Speaking of The Roaring Twenties, Humphrey Bogart's character development there is similar to Tone's although he was not the central character of the movie. In fact there are elements of They Gave Him A Gun that are to be found in Taxi Driver and in Clint Eastwood's classic, The Unforgiven.

The World War I battle sequences are very well staged by director Woody Van Dyke. For some reason Leonard Maltin panned this film, I think it's a lot better than he gave it credit.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a typical low budget 1970's mess. It's supposed to be a docudrama about a crew hunting Bigfoot through the Pacific Northwest. Every character is a stereotype, from the Native American to the cynical cowboy. The acting and narration are a complete joke. If you're hoping to see a lot of bigfoot footage - keep hoping. There won't be much, and what there is you could do in your backyard with a cheap costume and a camcorder; it would look better than this movie.

It's not that I don't like 1970's low budge fare; I do. It's that this is such a mess of bad acting, bad characters, lousy story and no thrills that you just can't enjoy it. It does not fit into the \"so bad it's good\" category, nor can you get a laugh out of how bad it is without the help of illicit substances. It's mostly a lot of boring footage of the people camping, hiking, riding horses, and watching wild life. There is a bigfoot attack which is completely stupid; supposedly our friend Sasquatch is throwing rocks down on the campers from above while they fire their rifles back at him. By that point you are rooting heavily for bigfoot to drops some rocks on the filmmaker's heads and stop the whole thing.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's \"late show\". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a \"bootlegged\" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George \"Superman\") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am so upset that ABC is giving up on yet another show that has the chance to be a real winner. This show is so good, the writing and storyline were great, an actual original idea for a show instead of another boring reality show. The casting was spectacular! Not only were the characters and actors right on, but these are a very talented set of actors. The concept and idea is really a new and cool idea for a TV show, many of us share this whole idea of \"connections\". I really love the characters of Steven, Laura, Whitney and Damien. But to be honest there is not one person connected to this show that I did not like, even those that only were in for a few episodes (Sheri Appleby for example). The acting and characters are so easy to like and so talented!!. I wish ABC had given this show more of a chance, and not interrupted the show midway, Also it was not advertised enough. Truly unfair!! to everyone!!. This show showed great promise. I for one will let ABC know how I feel and will keep sending emails to keep this show alive. Please join me, I know we can do it. It worked for Jerico. (By the way where is episode 13? I want that last show!). Please support this show and send emails to ABC,we can do it!!! This show is well worth it!!! PETITION ONLINE TO SAVE SIX DEGREES: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gh1215/petition.html WE CAN DO IT!! SIGN THIS PETITION ASAP!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Toi le Venin\" is Robert Hossein's masterpiece,and one of the great thrillers of the fifties.Based on a Frederic Dard novel,a writer the director often worked with (see also \"le Monte-Charge\" which Hossein did not direct but in which he was the lead too),the screenplay grabs you from the first pictures on a desert road by night where a beautiful blonde might be the fieriest of the criminals to the mysterious house where he finds his femme fatale ..and her sister.Then begins a cat and mouse play .One of the sisters is in a wheelchair .But is she really disabled?Which one is the criminal who tried to kill the hero on that night?

The two actresses,Marina Vlady and the late Odile Versois were sisters.

Turn off all the lights before watching.Highly suspenseful.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sandra Bernhard is quite a character, and certainly one of the funniest women on earth. She began as a stand-up comedienne in the 1970s, but her big break came in 1983 when she starred opposite Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro in Scorsese's underrated masterpiece, \"The King of Comedy\". Her film career never quite took off, though. She did make a couple of odd but entertaining pictures, such as \"Dallas Doll\" (1994) or \"Dinner Rush\" (2000), but the most amazing parts were those she created for herself.

\"Without You I'm Nothing\" is undoubtedly her best effort. It's an adaptation of her smash-hit off-Broadway show which made her a superstar – and Madonna's best friend for about four years. In ten perfectly choreographed and staged scenes, Sandra turns from Nina Simone to Diana Ross, talks about her childhood, Andy Warhol and San Francisco and performs songs made famous by Burt Bacharach, Prince, or Sylvester. Director John Boskovich got Sandra to do a 90-minute tour-de-force performance that's both sexy and uniquely funny. If you are a Bernhard fan, you can't miss out this film; it's a tribute as well to her (weird) beauty as to her extremely unconventional talent as a comedienne. And it has influenced filmmakers in their work – \"Hedwig and the Angry Inch\", for instance, would look a lot different if \"Without You I'm Nothing\" didn't exist.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This Was One Scary Movie.

Brad Pitt Deserved an Oscar for this.

A traveling novelist (played by David Duchovny of the X-Files fame) and his girlfriend pick up two hitch-hikers(Juliette Lewis and Brad Pitt) on their way to California.

On their way they stop at infamous serial killer murder scenes to photography the scenes for an upcoming book Duchovny's character is working on, little do they know that the most disturbed serial killer in the history of the country is sitting right next to them in the same car.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Why every horror director wants to imitate \"The Exorcist\" is a complete riddle to me, as William Friedkin's \"classic\" is a very overrated film and, in my opinion, not all that tense or shocking. And yet here's another clean rip-off, a Spanish one this time, that shamelessly repeats the story of a young girl that gets possessed by pure evil and turns against her own family. Paul Naschy (who I must admit looks quite hot here) plays the honorable priest who gets approached by John Gibson because his sister Leila's behavior changed drastically since she met her new boyfriend. At first the priest doesn't believe it but when John's body is discovered with its neck twisted, Leila's demonic behavior becomes more noticeable... \"Exorcism\" is not only very unoriginal, it's also an insufferably boring film! Here Naschy and director Juan Bosch had an open opportunity to make a religiously themed exploitation flick full of shocks and gore, and yet the result is a tame and overall bloodless drama that'll nearly put you to sleep! The last twenty minutes contain some atmospheric moments, albeit very stupid, and there's quite a lot of stylishly filmed female nudity and sleaze. The absolute lack of budget is no real excuse since Paul Naschy already proved before that he has enough imagination to make up for a shortage in money. This is just an awful film, end of story. Other European \"The Excorcist\" rip-offs are \"The Antichrist\" and \"Beyond the Door\" and they suck as well!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This should be my kind of movie. Even if it sucked, it still should have been right up my alley; hell, I like \"Congo,\" and \"Allan Quatermaine\" movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for silly alien/demon/adventure movies. Let's go over why I decided to watch this in the first place.

1. Horror/Sci-fi almost always intrigues me 2. I'm a big fan of archaeology, and this movie does involve a rare treasure. 3. Super-natural enemies with quality FX. 4. Christian Slater and Dorf I generally enjoy. 5. Tara Reid is hot.

So this movie had potential, at least in the cheese-horror section of the video store, but boy did it suck ass. The only redeeming aspects are Slater and Dorf, and not everyone finds them as entertaining as I do...I mean, let's face it, both are melodramatic. But now on to some of the many faults.

Tara Reid. Even though the movie as a whole is worse, Reid's performance is truly awful. We're not just talking bad, I'm talking about nominating Tara Reid for worst performance of the year. I don't know if she is capable of acting, but playing the museum curator is simply out of her league...completely. Watching her try to carry the roll of educated scientist wasn't much different than what you get watching the setup in bad porn. I mean this isn't just bad, it is laughably bad. Oh, and for those of you curious, she doesn't get naked, only down to a bra in a silly, totally unnecessary love scene.

Even with Reid's performance, perhaps the movie could have worked, but the plot is what dominates, and the plot seems written by a 10 year old. I hadn't realized this was a video game adaptation until AFTER watching the DVD, otherwise I would have appreciated the stupidity in real-time.

The storyline jumps back and forth from Slater's childhood at an orphanage where he gets flashbacks of something terrible that happened, he has amnesia, of course. In his adult life Slater was recruited by some Unit 713, a paranormal military force that apparently hunts evil or something. Slater had to leave because he was too rebellious, I guess, you never really know unless it was in one of those voice-overs I zoned out during. The movie starts with Slater hunting artifacts, obtaining his latest piece after some dealings with a \"Chilean mercenary force specializing in selling rare antiquities.\" I may have the exact quote wrong, but you get the idea.

There is an evil doctor that wants to unleash some hellions on earth (no reason given), experiments on children, super demon/alien-human hybrids, \"photonic\" bullets (the demon things can't stand sunlight) and, of course, Slater and Dorf to try to save everyone.

Jesus, I can't even being to wade through the clichéd elements. The script badly needed reworking to narrow the focus and provide SOME depth. I mean, why is this evil scientist so damn evil? Oh right, humans are doomed and he is just trying to save the human race. I guess he's infected? How did that happen? Oh right he has one of the evil demon things in a cage and draws its blood to shoot into himself. How the hell did that happen? Why and where did he get the super slugs (oh yes, they use the old sci-fi stand by of parasitic aliens/demons which \"fuse\" with the spine of their host)Of course, Slater is, like Blade, half super-slug powered, but his slug \"didn't fully fuse due to an electrical shock,\" thank god. Oh, and the people with these \"fused\" spines, have no idea they're half-alien/demon and act as good members of the community until some secret signal is given whence they turn killer zombies. Yeah we get zombies.

So lots of crap that could be entertaining, but none of it is.

Also, the ending is completely stupid as everything turns out to be not that big of a deal to fix in the first place...at least nothing a little dynamite can't handle.

Not the very worst thing you'll see, but a truly bad movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This series premiered on the cable TV station \"Comedy Central\" in the United States. It was chopped to death, and shown out of sequence. This was sad for the audience it should have attracted, it didn't and fell by the wayside. Luckily, at the same time my cable company went digital and I got the BBC. Thank goodness because I got to see \"The League of Gentlemen\" in order, complete and uncut.

\"The League of Gentlemen\" troupe is right up there with England's \"Monty Python's Flying Circus\" and Canada's \"The Kids in the Hall\". But..a warning.

\"The League of Gentlemen\" though are one step beyond. It's not only about dressing in drag and lampooning the cultural ills, it goes deeper and much, much, darker. I can tell many of you now -- it will offend certain groups of people, it will enrage others. But remember, its only comedy..dark, dark comedy. If that is not your thing, don't watch. If you think you KNOW dark comedy, watch this -- if you get angry and upset, then you don't quite know DARK COMEDY.

These guys got it right, and right on the button. They are brilliant, they are excellent and I enjoyed each and every character creation. There's a COMPLETE story that is told here from episode one to the end. You cannot watch this one episode at a time, willy nilly, that is one of the charms of this series. Watch it in order. See how creative and stylish and deeply disturbed these guys are. No one and nothing is out of bounds. That, my dears, is \"dark humor\". Bravo!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The problem with \"The Killer Elite\" is that just by seeking this film out, and investing time to watch it, you are putting more effort into the experience than many of its principals did, particularly director Sam Peckinpah.

The already volatile Peckinpah was heading into rough weather with this film. According to at least one biographer, this was where he became acquainted with cocaine. Add to that his binge drinking, and it's no wonder things fell apart.

It's a shame, because the concept behind the film is a good one, and the first ten minutes promise much. Mike Locken (James Caan) and George Hansen (Robert Duvall) are private contractors who do a lot of dirty work for the CIA. They move quick, live well, and seem like the best of friends - then something happens to shatter their brotherhood.

An opening scene shows them blowing up a building - why exactly we aren't told, par for the course in terms of this film's murky motivation. But the implication is these guys hurt people and don't really care - antiheroes much like the Wild Bunch of Peckinpah's not-so-long-ago. An opening title tells us they work for ComTeg, then adds with obvious tongue in cheek \"...the thought the CIA might employ such an organization for any purpose is, of course, preposterous.\" That's a pretty clever way of letting the audience know all bets are off.

Add to that a traditionally strong Peckinpah backup cast, including Burt Young, Gig Young, and Peckinpah regular Bo Hopkins in the plum role of a madman who can't pass up an opportunity to be shot at for $500 a day, and you only wish that the scriptwriters, including the celebrated Sterling Silliphant, tried to do something more with the story than turn it into a platform for lazy one-liners and bad chop-socky knockoffs. An attempt at injecting a dose of liberal social commentary is awkwardly shoehorned in. \"You're so busy doing their dirty work, you can't tell who the bad guys are,\" someone tells Locken, as if either he or we need it pointed out.

Worse still are Peckinpah's clumsy direction and sluggish pacing. We're 40 minutes into the film before we get our first battle scene, a completely chaotic collection of random shots where a bunch of people we haven't even met before are seen fighting at San Francisco Airport, their battle intercut with a conversation in an office suite.

By the end of the film, what's left of the cast is having a battle inside a fleet of mothballed Victory Ships, ninjas running out in the open to be gunned down while Caan tosses off one liners that undercut any hint of real suspense. \"Lay me seven-to-five, I'll take the little guy,\" he wisecracks just before a climatic samurai duel between two ninja warriors - from China, which we all know is the land of the Ninja. (The battle takes place in San Francisco, but surprisingly no Mounties arrive to break things up.)

Caan is much better in smaller scenes, like when Locken, recovering from some nasty injuries, is told by one of his bosses, played by a smooth Arthur Hill, that he's been \"Humpty-dumped\" by the organization. Caan refuses to stay down, and his recovery scenes, though momentum-killing for the movie, feature fine acting from him and Amy Heflin, Van's daughter, as a supportive nurse. Caan was one of the 1970s' best actors, and his laconic byplay with Heflin, Duvall, Hopkins, and both Youngs give \"Killer Elite\" real watchability.

But you don't watch \"Killer Elite\" thinking about that. You watch it thinking of the film that got away.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am very surprised to see such a high rating for this film, and of the few reviews that there are to be positive. I saw the movie and was pretty dissapointed. I didn't find it very enjoyable at all. It was slow, and lacks the entertainment value. Even the murder scenes are lackluster, with real close-up shots of generic stabbings that don't look good at all. And the supposed great twist ending is really not much, I did see it coming, and then the ending just seemed cliche. This movie may not get much mention, but by the little that it does get, it is overrated. I would not recommend this movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I absolutely loved this movie. I bought it as soon as I could find a copy of it. This movie had so much emotion, and felt so real, I could really sympathize with the characters. Every time I watch it, the ending makes me cry. I can really identify with Busy Phillip's character, and how I would feel if the same thing had happened to me.

I think that all high schools should show this movie, maybe it will keep people from wanting to do the same thing. I recommend this movie to everybody and anybody. Especially those who have been affected by any school shooting.

It truly is one of the greatest movies of all time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Let me give a quick summery of the film: A rotten, rude kid named Max stumbles upon a radio that contains Kazaam: a rapping genie. Like all genies, he grants 3 wishes but, being good natured, also helps Max with his personal life, as he has to deal with bullies and a father mixed up in organized crime. During all this, Kazaam raps from time to time, (also showcasing Shaq's dismal rap skills).

This movie proves what we all know: Athletes need to stick to sports. I admit that it never looked like an Oscar-worthy movie, but EVERYTHING about this waste of film is horrible. The characters are either unlikable or stupid, the plot is not even worth mentioning, the dialog is a joke, and Shaq is only a quarter of the problem. Hell, even if Denzel Washington played Kazaam this movie would still be a joke. I know that the movie only drew ANYBODY was because Shaq was so big (no pun intended) at the time. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing to say about this waste of time. Shaq should have put the time had used to make this movie toward practicing free throws.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "After the SuperFriends and Scooby Doo left the Saturday morning airwaves in the fall of 1986, I pretty much stopped watching Saturday morning cartoons at that point since those were the only two that kept me tuning in. And since neither the Real Ghostbusters nor the Flintstone Kids seemed very promising to me, I \"retired\" and started sleeping in on Saturday mornings. I only returned to Saturday morning TV in 1988 for that one year only for one and only one animated show.

A new animated show of Superman was something I was not going to pass up. I was 17 and in high school at the time, but so what! I loved this show. From what I can recall, this series was a gift to fans I suppose in celebration of Superman's 50th birthday that particular year. It had the theme music and the music style reminiscent of John Williams movie score from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve Superman movies. I honestly felt that the animation style Ruby Spears did was reminiscent of the Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians series by Hanna Barbera a few years before. Sadly, Danny Dark was not back as Superman, but I felt Beau Weaver did a very impressive job as the voice of Superman and his Clark Kent was nerdy like the Chris Reeve version. After hearing him as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic on the 90's Fantastic Four, I could still see this version of Superman in my mind. Ginny McSwain as Lois Lane. LOL! What a rhyme. She was a voice director for Hanna Barbera and Ruby Spears and I guess she took it upon herself to do Lois. Memories of the SuperFriends lingered in this series when it came to the voice over cast. Jimmy Olsen is Mark Taylor, who on the SuperFriends was formerly Firestorm. Perry White is none other than former Batman TV writer Stanley Ralph Ross, who on SuperFriends was Gorilla Grodd and Brainiac in the Super Powers shows. And Lex Luthor, now a wise cracking billionaire tycoon is none other than SuperFriends voice alum, Michael Bell, whom I know best as Zan and the Riddler as well as many other characters on many other series.

I felt this series was a combination of the movie Superman along with the post crisis John Byrne re envision of Superman, with Lex Luthor as a billionaire tycoon, Jonathan and Martha Kent being alive to see Clark as Superman. The Bruce Timm series and Lois and Clark would also do this. Unfortunately, we never saw Brainiac, Bizarro, Toyman, Metallo, or Darkseid. Other than Luthor, we saw only the Prankster and we did see General Zod. I especially enjoyed that one episode with Wonder Woman, who was voiced over by BJ Ward who played her on the Super Powers Team as well.

The episodes were smashing and I also enjoyed Clark's growing and development stories from infancy to childhood to adolescence to an adult moving to Metropolis in the short little segment, Superman's Family Album.

The only two things I didn't like. It only lasted one season. And after Wonder Woman's guest spot, I was hoping Batman would turn up voiced over by Adam West (Still thinking about the Super Powers Team episodes I guess). I also hoped for it because on the Prankster episode, the Metropolis baseball team was pitted against the Gotham Goliaths.

Every popular Super Hero has one cartoon series that is ultra rare. For SpiderMan, I feel it's the 1981 solo series that aired the same time as Amazing Friends. For the Incredible Hulk, it's the 1982 cartoon. For the Fantastic Four, it's the 1978 series with HERBIE the Robot. For Batman, it's the New Adventures of Batman 1977 by Filmation featuring BatMite. But for Superman, the rarest series is this one.

Superman books and documentaries never cover or mention it. This is another series that WB should consider for DVD release. All in all, this 1988 version of Superman is well....Super!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Bo Derek might have had a career had she not let her late husband, John, take over as her director. It's a real shame, no really, with the right direction and the right part (see \"10\"), Bo was okay. She wouldn't win any awards even at her best, but she is no worse than many an actress who has made it big in the past 15 years or so based on looks alone. But therein lay the problem, John was determined to ride the wave that Bo created with her appearance in 10, that of Bo being the \"perfect 10,\" \"the hottest woman in America,\" \"the sex symbol of the 1980s.\" Problem is, in John's hands, this wave crashed with a resounding thud in only a few year's time. Maybe he knew her limitations as an actress, perhaps that is why he fashioned movies for her that concentrated on her body, not her acting skills. But it got old real quick. It didn't help matters any that the films of John and Bo Derek are (let's be honest) really, really bad. And bad sums up their take on Edgar Rice Burrough's literary icon, the Lord of the Jungle, Tarzan of the Apes.

You know what's worst? This film is boring! Make me laugh, make me cry, just don't bore me. Not even Bo's stunning looks and figure can rouse any interest, and that is what the film is of course built around. Richard Harris (God bless his soul, he and Bo were previously in Orca btw) hams it up and makes his scenes at least a little interesting and Miles O'Keefe makes a physically impressive Tarzan. Maybe he got the last laugh, after being hit with a ton of venom from the critics over this film, Miles went on to a solid career as a B movie icon, in films that were not great art, but a million times more fun than this one. But other than that, it's Bo's body,and you can only see it so many times before you long for something else to go with it. Tarzan the Ape Man has nothing else. John Derek was a truly dynamic actor, he was not a director. He should have stayed with his strength. This film unfolds at a mind numbingly slow pace and nothing really happens in the action scenes. Burrough's Tarzan was all about excitement and wish fulfillment (who wouldn't want to be as agile, strong and good looking as Lord Greystoke?) and fun! You get none of that here. Watch it, and you will have wasted 107 minutes of your life. On second thought, you may come away with a valuable lesson, how not to handle someone's movie career.

Bo Derek is all right in my book though. She stood by John until his dying day, has a true love of animals and nature and even looks back with a giggle at her time in the spotlight. She has also proven that she is not the dumb blonde many want her to make her out to be. If she could survive Tarzan and Bolero, she can survive anything. So come back Bo, all is forgiven.

And as an aside, is the Steve Strong who plays the bad guy the same Steve Strong who a brief pro wrestling career?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's this sort of movie that you try and imitate. By attempting to realise something... then flying through the air almost immediately. I'd like to do that and I know you would too!

Great stuff!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Der Todesking\" is not exactly the type of film that makes you merry… Jörg Buttgereit's second cult monument in a row, which is actually a lot better than the infamous \"Nekromantik\", exists of seven short episodes – one for each day of the week – revolving on unrelated people's suicides. In between these already very disturbing episodes, Buttgereit inserts truly horrifying images of a severely decomposing male corpse. The episodes aren't all equally powerful but, as a wholesome, \"Der Todesking\" is ranked quite high on the list of all-time most depressing art-house films. Particularly the episodes on Wednesday, involving a man explaining his sexual frustrations to a total stranger in the park, and the one of Sunday, focusing on a younger man molesting himself to dead, are extremely intense and devastating to observe. The added value of this film, or any other shockumenary like it, is debatable and I'm not even sure whether or not Buttgereit had any type of message to communicate here. There's the vague mentioning of an eerie chain letter that encourages its readers to commit suicide but mostly we remain uninformed about these people's motivations to end their lives so dramatically. Entirely unlike I expected, \"Der Todesking\" isn't exploitative or repulsively graphic! On the contrary actually, I never could have hoped Buttgereit would be so subtle and thoughtful regarding the portrayal of pure human misery. The Thursday episode is a perfect example of this, as it stylishly shows different viewpoints of a famous German bridge while the names, ages and occupations of persons who jumped off appear on the screen. The production values are inescapably poor and the editing often lacks professionalism, but this isn't what really counts in this type of cinema. The subject matter is strong and forcing us to contemplate about the less cheerful – but also indispensable – aspects of life. GREAT use of tragic music, too!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words \"Clueless and appalling nonsense.\" I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie wasn't awful but it wasn't very good. I am a big fan Toni Collette I think she is a very beautiful and talented actress. The movie starts off about Robin Williams who is a writer and gets a book from a 14 year old kid. The book is great and he cant't believe a kid wrote it. Toni Collette plays the kids guardian who you don't know if this kid really exists or if she's making it all up. I am not gonna ruin the movie but I will say this the movie is not scary.

The acting is pretty good and Toni Collette's performance was awesome as well as Robin Williams.

The movie was a huge disappointment in my opinion I would wait for it to come to DVD.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Wow this movie sucked big time. I heard this movie expresses the meaning of friendship very well. And with all the internet hype on this movie I figured what could go wrong? However the movie was just plain bad. It was boring and the character development was never there. Space Travelers was also a horrible movie, if you didn't like that movie there is no way you will like this.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.

Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that \"all great artists were men\" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.

The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any \"spicing up\" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's \"hotter\" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's \"sexy\" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.

It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't \"hot\" like teenagers.

I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!

If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like \"Dangerous Beauty\" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the \"Golden Age.\" Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.

Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how \"corrupt\" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.

However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I stopped short of giving \"Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House\" 10/10 due to an aspect that makes us in the 21st century cringe a little bit: the fact that a black person is the faithful servant (somewhat reminiscent of Stepin Fetchit). But other than that, the movie's a hoot. Portraying middle class New York couple Jim (Cary Grant) and Muriel Blandings (Myrna Loy) trying to build a house in Connecticut, this flick has something for everyone.

Grant is his usual flippant self, while Loy does quite well as merely a wife. But Melvyn Douglas adds some real laughs as Jim's and Muriel's lawyer Bill Cole, who seems to have more plans than he's making clear. As for the house itself...throughout most of the movie, you'll probably feel ambiguous as to whether or not you want to live there. The builders, contractors, and others also provide their fair share of laughs.

All in all, a comedy classic. Also starring Louise Beavers, Reginald Denny, Sharyn Moffett, Connie Marshall and Jason Robards Sr.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Well that's 90 minutes of my life I won't get back. This movie makes teen tv show \"California Dreams\" look like \"Almost Famous\". The acting was horrid and storyline unrealistic. Don't even get me started on the actual band at the forefront of this story, lame songs, look etc.. You had to believe that they were one of the hottest bands in the country, and there isn't enough irony in the world to accept that one. The guitarist is seen to be a heroin user, not that I blame him, if I was around such a putrid band with stale songs and wooden acting I'd be injecting the horse too.

If you take music remotely seriously, avoid this at all costs.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Red Eye starts in Texas where hotel receptionist Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is about to catch the last 'red eye' flight back to Miami where she lives & works. While waiting for her plane Lisa meets the handsome & charming Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy) & they both seem to hit it off, then when they board the plane they discover that by a coincidence they are seated next to each other. Once the plane takes off & they are in the air Jackson reveals who he really is & that their seemingly chance meeting was not a coincidence, Jackson says that he is working for someone who wants to assassinate the homeland security secretary Charles Keefe (Jack Scalia) & they need her to change his rooms at the hotel where she works in Miami. Jackson tells Lisa to phone the hotel & make it happen or her father will be killed...

Directed by Wes Craven who is perhaps better known for his horror films such as The Last House on the Left (1972), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991) & the Scream trilogy of teen slashers a short, punchy, fast paced little thriller like Red Eye seems like a big departure from the sort of film Craven usually makes. The script by Carl Ellsworth makes for a surprisingly gripping thriller that I must admit I really enjoyed, at only 85 odd minutes in length it's a very quick moving, economical & straight to the point sort of film that focuses almost entirely on one tight, taught plot rather than go off in various directions with lots of subplots. Some may like this approach like I did while other's may not but I think it draws you into the action a lot more as it comes thick & fast without the film slowing down any & giving you a chance to relax. I really liked the plot for Red Eye, sure a film like this is always going to have one or two questionable moments in terms of plotting but what the hell, it's a film made to entertain & for me that's what it did. I really liked the two central character's, Lisa comes across as very likable while Jackson Rippner (an obvious play on the name of the notorious Victorian serial killer Jack the Ripper) is a suitably slimy villain with a cold 'I'm only doing my job' type mentality. Another plus point is that I didn't think anyone behaved overly stupid here, everyone actually seemed like human beings & the films plays out in a relatively plausible fashion. I really liked this & it's one of Craven's better more recent films.

Craven turns in a good solid tense, tight, taught & fast paced thriller with an attractive cast, some good action & a gripping plot. He certainly doesn't hang about & once he starts the action & tension he never lets up, far & away the most effective part of the film is when Rippner is holding Lisa hostage on the plane & once the film switches to Miami & Lisa's fathers house it does become a little bit more routine but it's still good. A special mention goes to Rachel McAdams who is absolutely gorgeous in this, I could probably watch Red Eye again just because she is in it & looks drop dead stunning. Those who see Wes Craven's name attached to Red Eye expecting a horror film should think again since there's no horror in it at all (despite the IMDb listing 'Horror' as Red Eye's genre). I am not sure about the ending, on the one hand it was nice to see the villain live for a change which goes against traditional expectation but it might have been more satisfying to see Lisa kill him in some way.

DreamWorks apparently gave Red Eye an initial budget of $44,000,000 but reduced it to $25,000,000 although it's still a very well made film with glossy production values. Actually shot in Los Angeles & Florida in California. The film was supposedly written with husband & wife Sean Penn & Robin Wright Penn intended for the leads but eventually the makers opted for younger leads. As I have already said Rachel McAdams is pure eye candy & is a total babe in this & worth watching the film for on her own. Oh, & she puts in a decent performance too.

Red Eye is a really fast paced taught tension filled little thriller that I enjoyed immensely, I didn't think I would enjoy it as much as I did & I am glad I decided to watch it. This definitely gets a recommendation from me & Rachel McAdams really is hot stuff in this...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I watched the Malayalam movie \"Boeing Boeing\" made in 1985 (which in turn is probably inspired by an English movie of same name) long back. The basic story of garam masala is the same - but it is told in a pathetic way, the classy jokes replaced by routine ones which are found in normal Hindi movies (probably the director did this to suit the taste of Hindi audience)...

I haven't seen the English original. But had really enjoyed the Malayalam film (made by Priyadarshan himself)which was a side splitting comedy, back then. Of course the acting by Mohanlal,Mukesh and Sukumari (who did the cook's role) was so natural and spontaneous.

Probably, I am too smitten by the Malayalam film that I cannot tolerate even the smaller flaws in its Hindi remake. But I still feel that Akshay Kumar and John Abraham have overacted. Paresh Rawal has done a decent job - but doesn't reach anywhere near Sukumari.

But all in all its OK, if one compares it to other recent Hindi comedy movies.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "One of Scorsese's worst. An average thriller; the only thing to recommend it is De Niro playing the psycho. The finale is typically of this genre i.e. over-the-top, with yet another almost invincible, immune-to-pain villain. I didn't like the 60s original, and this version wasn't much of an improvement on it. I have no idea why Scorsese wasted his time on a remake. Then again, considering how bad his recent movies have been (I'm referring to his dull Buddhist movie and all the ones with his new favourite actress, the blond girl Di Caprio) this isn't even that bad by comparison. And considering Spielberg wanted to do the remake... could have been far worse.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "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.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.

If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the \"gigolo\" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom \"scientist\" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! \"OW\" indeed!

Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times.

Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Jörg Buttgereit goes a bit too far with his movies and themes at times, even for my taste but his movies are always something special and hard to classify. They are artistically made, with also often deeper meaning to its themes. This movie is a perfect example of his work.

It's also really hard to label this movie. It's not really a movie with a story to it, in a sense of having a beginning, middle and end in it. It also doesn't have a main character but instead focuses on 7 different suicides and killings, on 7 different days.

All different stories are being told with lots of class, though some of them are of course more 'interesting' and realistic than the others. They are not necessarily connected but yet together they still tell a story. The movie doesn't feel disjointed at all. All different stories have a different feel to it and Buttgereit tells the story without hardly using any words (also typical for his style) but instead lets the images and obvious sensible emotions of the characters tell the entire story. It helps to make this movie an effective one to watch.

Again, the production values all aren't too high and this might be something that might scare off some people. It however helps for this particular movie to set the right tone and atmosphere for the entire movie and its dark, disturbing and depressing themes.

A Buttgereit movie that I 'enjoyed' watching.

7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Father of the Pride was the best new show to hit television since Family Guy. It was yet another masterpiece from the talented people at Dreamworks Animation. Like The Simpsons, the show centers around a nuclear family (of white lions, in this case). It also contains many memorable supporting characters including Roger the surly orangutan, Vincent the Italian-American flamingo, the eccentric white tigers Blake and Victoria, the faux patriotic Snout Brothers and Chutney the elephant. The other stars of the show are the Sigfreid and Roy. They are incredibly eccentric and do everything in a grandiose manner, making the most mundane activities entertaining. The combination of cute animal characters with very adult dialog and controversial issues (drugs, prejudice, etc) is the source of the program's brilliance.

The blame for this show's failure lies with NBC. They opted to broadcast the episodes in no particular order (perhaps being influenced by which guest stars they could promote) rather than the more logical production order. Several times, the show was preempted for an extra half-hour of such dreck as The Biggest Loser (as if 60 minutes of that was not enough)! It is indeed an ill omen for the future of television as art if an original and daring show like this fails while Fear Factor and American Idol dominate.

Luckily, the complete series was released on DVD and the show now has an opportunity to gain a larger following. 10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Noni Hazlehurst, Colin Friels, Alice Garner, Chrissie Amphlett and Michael Caton- what more could you ask for? Monkey Grip based on the prize winning novel of the same name explores Nora (Hazlehurst, a single mother falling for a heroin addict Jobe (Friels). A simple story is made truly extraordinary through the all round magnificent acting (in particular Noni Hazlehurst) and nice use of the small budget. The only flaw is (if you can pick it up) is that the story is set in Melbourne, although for budget reasons, the film was mainly shot in Sydney, so as a result, in a few scenes you see trams (Melbourne scenes) and then a Carlton post office (Sydney scenes). Other than that, \"Monkey Grip\" is a must see (excuse the clique, but it is) at least for an award winning performance from former \"Play School\" and \"Better Homes & Gardens\" presenter Noni Hazlehurst.

10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Jim Carrey is good as usual, and even though there are quite a few \"Jim Carrey moments\", it's definitely not a \"Jim Carrey movie\".

It's targeted mostly at children, and I managed to enjoy it as such movie. It was promoted in Israel as another Jim Carrey movie, so those who expected a weird over the top comedy were disappointed.

The movie has nice moments and works well as a movie for kids. I can't say I LOVED this movie, but then again I'm not its target audience!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It must be assumed that those who praised this film (\"the greatest filmed opera ever,\" didn't I read somewhere?) either don't care for opera, don't care for Wagner, or don't care about anything except their desire to appear Cultured. Either as a representation of Wagner's swan-song, or as a movie, this strikes me as an unmitigated disaster, with a leaden reading of the score matched to a tricksy, lugubrious realisation of the text.

It's questionable that people with ideas as to what an opera (or, for that matter, a play, especially one by Shakespeare) is \"about\" should be allowed anywhere near a theatre or film studio; Syberberg, very fashionably, but without the smallest justification from Wagner's text, decided that Parsifal is \"about\" bisexual integration, so that the title character, in the latter stages, transmutes into a kind of beatnik babe, though one who continues to sing high tenor -- few if any of the actors in the film are the singers, and we get a double dose of Armin Jordan, the conductor, who is seen as the face (but not heard as the voice) of Amfortas, and also appears monstrously in double exposure as a kind of Batonzilla or Conductor Who Ate Monsalvat during the playing of the Good Friday music -- in which, by the way, the transcendant loveliness of nature is represented by a scattering of shopworn and flaccid crocuses stuck in ill-laid turf, an expedient which baffles me. In the theatre we sometimes have to piece out such imperfections with our thoughts, but I can't think why Syberberg couldn't splice in, for Parsifal and Gurnemanz, mountain pasture as lush as was provided for Julie Andrews in Sound of Music...

The sound is hard to endure, the high voices and the trumpets in particular possessing an aural glare that adds another sort of fatigue to our impatience with the uninspired conducting and paralytic unfolding of the ritual. Someone in another review mentioned the 1951 Bayreuth recording, and Knappertsbusch, though his tempi are often very slow, had what Jordan altogether lacks, a sense of pulse, a feeling for the ebb and flow of the music -- and, after half a century, the orchestral sound in that set, in modern pressings, is still superior to this film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Two movies back to back which dealt with Indian POWs; Veer Zaara and Deewaar. Although Veer Zara was a love story of a guy who gives everything up for someone, Deewaar focuses on the main subject itself. It is not hidden that many Indian POWs are rotting in Pakistani Jails for years - for whom neither Indian Govt. has time or sympathy nor the other side. I'm sure some of Pakistani POWs are in India as well, but let's focus on the movie. Full of actors. Some were stage actors like Raghubir Yadav, Rajendra Gupta, etc. Amitabh Bachchan who plays the role of a Major, acted well. Akshaye Khanna did his part well. There was nothing for Amrita Rao to do than a few giggles and couple songs. I think Sanjay Dutt's role was most solid even though it wasn't too long. He acted really well here and his dialog delivery was also impressive. If you compare it to LOC, which was nothing but a day long movie with story going in all directions (if it HAD a story) - Deewaar is a well directed movie that keeps a good pace and does justice to all actors. 7.5/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Yes, I did, as I sit here red-faced, remembering having felt almost guilty as I watched it a couple of weeks back while my wife chose to watch something as inconsequential (in comparison) as \"Mommie Dearest.\"

How does one explain the appeal of \"Batman and Robin\" - I mean the only ones who ever really counted, Adam West and Burt Ward. It was a terrible show, with terrible plots and terrible acting - and, oh yes, it was terribly funny! And the same applies to this \"reunion\" and \"flashback\" movie. Adam and Burt are invited to an auction where the old Batmobile is going to be sold off for charity. But it gets stolen, and our pals (as themselves) jump into their old characters' personas (if not their costumes) and head off to find out what's happened. Along the way they reminisce about the series, and we see how it all came together in flashbacks, with Jack Brewer and Jason Marsden playing the young Adam and Burt of the TV series. It really was quite interesting to get some behind the scenes looks at the old series, and Adam and Burt just stepped perfectly back into character (even though they weren't really in character - well, you'd have to watch it to see what I mean.) It was also great to see Julie Newmar and Frank Gorshin.

If you're not a fan of the old series, you'll hate this. If - heaven forbid - you actually thought Michael Keaton and George Clooney made acceptable \"Batmans\" then you'll hate this even more. But if you grew up with Adam and Burt and are still willing to admit that you never missed an episode - well, this one's for you.

Yes, it's true - 9/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).

He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.

Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.

Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.

About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.

I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The world is facing imminent destruction and a suicide mission is sent to the Sun to avert catastrophe by firing a bomb into its fiery heart: yes, it's Solar Crisis, aka Crisis 2050, which burned up a huge chunk of change that's never apparent on screen back in 1990 and returned barely enough to buy a Happy Meal for each of the cast in Japan before going straight to video (remember them?) in a re-edited version credited to one Alan Smithee. The plot hook's pretty much the same as Sunshine - suicide mission to the Sun, saboteur on board, logic cast adrift - except that this time they're not trying to reignite the sun but to prematurely detonate a solar flare before it can reach Earth. With a talking bomb. Voiced by Paul Williams. Who wants to be promoted so the crew will take him more seriously… Given that the cast also includes Jack Palance at his most dementedly OTT, Charlton Heston at his most rigid, top-liner Tim Matheson at his most anonymous, the original Hills Have Eyes' unforgettable Michael Berryman (you may not remember the name, but you DO remember that face) and Peter Boyle as the industrialist out to sabotage the mission because, er, if it succeeds the world will be saved but his share price will go down, you'd expect if not a laugh-a-minute at least a laugh every reel. No joy. This is the worst kind of bad movie: a boring one. The fate of the world may be hanging in the balance but the whole film is shot with a complete lack of urgency or momentum at the same unvarying deadly slow pace. There's low-key and there's walking through it, but here the cast don't even do that. Instead, they just stand still looking at screens in near darkness for most of the time. You keep on hoping for Paul Williams' talking bomb to suffer an existential crisis, but instead the film just... stands there, doing next to nothing. Literally. This is one of the most inert movies ever made – so inert that if Clive Owen had been cast, he'd almost have looked lively by comparison. Even a poorly explained suicidal repair attempt fails to raise a fritter of interest since it mostly involves, yep, the cast just standing still looking at screens in near darkness. Even when the bomb prematurely goes into countdown before being launched they deal with the new crisis by… standing still looking at screens in near darkness as if they had all the time in the world. Merchant-Ivory films have better action scenes.

Things aren't much livelier down on Earth where the movie spends most of it's running time with Matheson's son/Chuck's grandson Corin Nemec trying to hitch a ride to the spaceport across an arid landscape with Palance's insane desert artist \"looking for that note out there while the chicks still dig me\" while waylaid by rejects from a Mad Max ripoff and evil corporate suits who track him down so they can… release him on a nice beach. Just don't expect logic, if you haven't already guessed that much. Best moment? A ditzy girl in a bar describing Jack Palance as \"An old guy with white hair and a face like rotting leather,\" though Chucky Baby taking out the villain's aircraft with a bazooka fired from the hip from an office window or beating up a barfly who likes his beret are welcome morsels of camp in a film that for 99% of it's running time offers a whole lot of nuttin'. Richard C. Sarafian's slightly longer original cut that played in Japan offers an additional six minutes but cries out to be cut down to a more manageable 17 minutes: the director of Vanishing Point must have thanked his lucky stars when the re-edit gave him an excuse to take his name off the film. A film so bad it's not good, and painfully unfunny with it", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "One could wish that an idea as good as the \"invisible man\" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.

There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, \"Hollow Man\" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.

However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go \"Oh darn!\" and \"Oh my God\". \"Hollow Man\" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "One of those, \"Why was this made?\" movies. The romance is very hard to swallow. It is one of those romances, that, suddenly, \"click\" - they are in love. The movie is filled with long pauses and uncomfortable moments - the drive-in restaurant being the most notable. Charles Grodin does a credible job but for most of the movie it's just him and Louise Lasser. Ask yourself, do you want to watch Grodin with his neurosis and Lasser with her neurosis together for a hour and half?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Looking through the other comments, I'm amazed that there aren't any warnings to potential viewers of what they have to look forward to when renting this garbage. First off, I rented this thing with the understanding that it was a competently rendered Indiana Jones knock-off. What I got was one of the most offensive movies I can remember trying to sit through, made all the more shocking by the movie's comparatively high production values.

I don't think this is a spoiler, but if it is, be warned...

If your idea of entertainment is watching Bimbo getting raped from behind by Fearsome Tribal Chief, while she is staring into the dead eyes of her significant other's severed head, by all means, rent this flick. If not, I'd advise you to look elsewhere for entertainment.

Come to think of it, that scene so succinctly sums up the movie that there's nothing else I really need to say about it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at \"The Wedding\".

This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.

I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the \"American Pie Presents\" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.

2/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "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?)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Tis is a farly typical Tom and Jerry short-a situation is designed, conflict arises and mayhem ensues. The characters behave in appropriate ways, the natural tensions between various characters leads to general chaos. The best (and funniest) part is when the peace treaty is in force and respected-all sorts of strange wonders appear before your eyes. A word of warning-it is most unwise to allow Tom to help you perform your morning cleansing routine! Highly recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It does come out of left field, and REALLY isn't what you're expecting. But I love that. The most memorable movie experiences come from being surprised, if you ask me. If you haven't been tipped off about the mysterious \"thing\" that makes these brothers so odd...you're in for a treat.

The cast is fantastic, but not stretching so much that it's palpable. The special effects come out of nowhere (seriously, it's like an oddly dark romantic comedy until they do -- then WOW) and they're great. The overall cinematography is easy on the eyes, the editing and sound are very good quality, and the twisted story unfolds without clichés. While none of these aspects individually make it a blockbuster, the \"what the hell?\" factor ALONE makes it a film treasure.

The people who bash this movie make no sense. It's one of those often-overlooked flicks of the 90's that you've either never heard of, or love so much you jump at the mention of its title.

I'm in the latter group.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Yes, I'm sentimental & schmaltzy!! But this movie (and it's theme song) remain one of my all time greats!! Robert Downey Jr. does such justice to the role of \"Louis Jeffries\" reincarnated and the storyline (although far-fetched) is romantic & makes one believe in happy endings!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "One of my favourite films first saw it when I was about 10, which probably tells you a lot about the type of humour. Although dated the humour definitely has a charm about it. Expect to see the usual Askey & Murdoch banter so popular in its day, with lots of interesting, quirky co-characters. The lady with the parrot, the couple due to get married and are in trouble from 'her', and my favourite, the stationmaster, \"Nobody knows where it comes from ... nobody knows where it goes..\" Interestingly the ghost train was written by Arnold Ridley of Dads Army fame (Private Godfrey the medic) Watch it on a rainy Sunday afternoon after your lunch and smile.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.

I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).

I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is a perfect example of an excellent book getting ruined by a movie. Jacob Have I Loved is quite possibly the worst film that I have ever seen. There is no storyline, plots disappear, and the editing is awful. To top it all off, the music is straight from a synthesizer and sounds unbelievably terrible. Bridget Fonda's acting is decent, but everyone else's acting is totally amateur. I would suggest this movie to someone who is studying to be a producer as a study on how not to produce a movie as it is chock full of bad cut-scenes, bad transitions and acting that should have been re-shot! Read the book and don't waste your time with this film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "(Spoilers)

I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.

The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.

First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.

Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.

Too bad.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is probably the best horror film made since Ed Wood died.

I can't spoil the ending, because I have absolutely no idea what happened. I'll try my best, though. There are some kind of lesbian vampires, but they keep swapping bodies, so any character might or might not be the character you're supposed to think it is, or it might be a lesbian vampire.

Sound confusing? It's not as confusing as you might think, since none of the characters make any sense to begin with. There's no plot, no character development, and random people show up, speak a few lines, and then disappear, never to be heard from again. There are also zombies, who are *possibly* the enemies of the vampires, but there's also a dream-within-a-dream kind of sequence in a mental hospital, so maybe none of this actually happened, and it's all the main character's hallucination.

The upside? Both of the lead girls take their shirts off briefly. The special effects are simply mind-boggling (I particularly liked the incredibly slow, awkward fight sequences). Everyone has a really silly Canadian accent, which adds to the general level of hilarity.

Well worth the price of rental. We laughed until we cried.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.

This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.

Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.

But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.

I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic \"I Spit on Your Grave\". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.

My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).

Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This series got me into Deighton's writing and the genre when I was younger and I love this presentation of the story. I would however disagree with the above comment. From what I have read in the past, it is not Holm's performance that lead Deighton to refuse to have the series released but the butchering that all three books received in the translation to the screen. A great example of this is the rewrite of the boarder crossing that ended Samson's field career. The scene is not in the book, the character who dies in the minefield was never in any of the books and the crossing in Sinker was from East Germany to West Germany, not the Polish frontier. This whole storyline is cloth. The changes in Set similarly damage the integrity of the story. My perspective on Holm's performance was that he portrayed the disorientation of Samson during his wife's defection excellently and I believe comported himself well in portraying the aging field agent desperately trying to bridge the class divide. Samson both pays for his father's idealism and suffers due to its influence on his life. As Clevemore comments, had he gotten himself an education he would have probably been running the department. I think the true loss of performance is due to physical appearance more than anything. Holm is diminutive when compared to the Samson of the book - a physically impressive man capable of using his size to impose a presence.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As a young teenager at the time, Airwolf was compulsory viewing for a generation who wanted their \"Cowboys and Indians\" to have amazing gadgets and whizz-bang explosions.

In many ways, the show was essentially Knight Rider in the skies: similar comic-book technology, a central character who was essentially a loner, and echoing the concept of one man making a difference.

But in other, important ways, it was thematically very different from Knight Rider, Street Hawk, The A-Team and other action shows of the time. For one thing, the premise of the series is built not on a desire to help those in need, but by Stringfellow Hawke's possession of Airwolf for essentially selfish reasons (as leverage to try to find his MIA brother, St John). And then there is the dark edge provided by basing the series firmly in an 80s Cold War context, complete with Soviet espionage and Central American dictators, not to mention the enemy within. Sure, The A-Team constantly referred back to Vietnam and the team's status as fugitives, but it was generally done with a light touch and was rarely central to the plot itself. With Airwolf, the intrigue was key to the tone and direction of the show - although this was (ill-advisedly) diluted as the series went on.

With hindsight, the Cold War setting clearly dates the series, many of the stories are creaky and contrived, and much of what Airwolf does is clearly implausible even with today's technology. But that's really not the point. Airwolf was rip-roaring fun, it tried to tell interesting stories without relying solely on the big action sequences, and it didn't sugar-coat everything by miraculously ensuring nobody died. Sometimes it failed, but often it succeeded admirably - and on a TV budget to boot.

For UK readers, DMAX (Sky channel 155) have just started (Jan 2008) daily re-runs of Airwolf. Set your Sky+ box for this blast from the past - we may even get the re-tooled, re-cast (and sadly vastly inferior) fourth season, which to my knowledge has never previously been shown in the UK.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I can only assume that the other reviewers of this \"film\" are stockholders in the production company, as this was quite possibly the worst movie I've seen in the last five years. From the opening shot of a Rabbi laughing uncontrollably for no apparent reason, it was clear that the actors in this film would kill to be considered \"B-Level.\" Both my wife and I were in a great mood before starting this film, and we were genuinely looking forward to a funny popcorn movie. We knew we hadn't rented Citizen Kane, and we weren't expecting to see the most amazing movie ever. However, after 40 minutes of enduring the most painfully unfunny bit of garbage I've ever seen, we shut it off instead of wasting another minutes of our lives.

If a \"comedy\" with no laughs, terrible acting, thin plot and annoying characters are your thing, then this film is for you. Honestly, Troll 2 is better--at least I laughed at the popcorn sex scene.

I cannot justify writing a longer review of this picture because I've already wasted almost an hour trying to find one joke.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The surprise nominee of this year's Best Animated Feature race at the Oscars. It's an Irish film by heart, but it was co-produced by Belgium and Brazil, with, I'm guessing, animators working in all three countries. The product is one of the most beautiful and unique films in recent memory. The character design is a little reminiscent of the French animated film Persepolis from a couple of years back, with very simple characters with thick, black outlines. This film is not in black and white. Oh no. What makes this film great is its use of color, simply some of the most outrageous and startling use of colors I've ever seen. The general design of the pictures is also a lot more geometrical, with characters who are basically rectangles or ovals. Much of the film can be spent playing find the circle - a major aspect of the visual design is a circle in the center of the image. All of these geometrical designs have a purpose - the story is about a young boy who is learning to be an artist working on illuminated manuscripts (the Book of Kells is a real illuminated Bible; the art of the film is based on the drawings in it). The story of the film isn't especially deep, but it's a pretty good fantasy tale. Brendan is a young boy in Kells, a city surrounded by enormous walls, built by his uncle to keep out Vikings. A newcomer to Kells, Brother Aiden, inspires Brendan to take up illustrating. He also inspires him to do things like leave Kells and explore the nearby forest, within which lives a nymph. Bruno Coulais provides a fantastic score, almost as good as the one he did for Coraline, which I consider the very best of the year.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Heartland was in production about the same time as Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate - Heartland cost a fraction to make but is 10 times the piece of film.

Heaven's Gate was \"the biggest and most expensive ($40 mil in 1980!) Hollywood flops of all time, its failure resulted in the sale of the United Artists studio to MGM\" -imdb entry

Heartland cost a few hundred thousand dollars and benefits from great writing, direction, photography and acting. It easily draws you into the beauty, joys, hardships and sorrow of pioneer life.

It's sad that Hollywood sometimes would pour millions into turkeys (based on a director's single big hit) and neglect such a wonderful story.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.

Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.

As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "this movie is a masterpiece a story of a young woman during the war , and it really happen , not exactly as the movie , but it is a great story , i was impress by this film ,the acting and the story where great i like this film because it is a true story it's Giff me a feeling that i was there and i feel sorry for the ca-rector that Maruschka Detmers is playing because who wants to end here life that way. i recommend that everybody have to see this film , special the young ones and ma by the learn something from this film. This film you can compare whit the movie soldier from orange or any real story that happened in the WW2.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a very intriguing short movie by David Lynch, and saying the name David Lynch is probably enough for a lot of people. This is your typical Lynch short. A blonde and a brunette are in a dark room. The blonde has been crying, the brunette is talking in a threatening way to the blonde, and that's about it.

With a lot of silent moments, but with the haunting music from Angelo Badalamenti, there is a strange form of suspense. This short feels a little like 'Mulholland Dr.', a movie I loved, and therefore I liked this one as well. It is probably especially for Lynch fans but there is a chance you like this.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.

Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.

Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.

Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.

Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, \"You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective.\" Can anyone miss THAT clue?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As it was already put, the best version ever of Homer's epic. Entirely shot in natural locations in the Mediterranean. The sea and the sky are strikingly blue, the islands green and untouched. The clothing is linen, wool and fur, the settings stony and bare, everything is somewhat rugged and primitive, a bit what you would find in Cacoyannis or Pasolini movies, and it makes it all the more authentic. Although the story is based on myths and widely goes into supernatural, it gives us a good idea of what life in the 10th century BC might have been like.

The rhythm is somewhat slow and austere, but the whole is so beautiful that you quickly get into it. Actually, it is amazingly close to the original plot by Homer, if not to the text itself. Ulysses doesn't appear until the first hour, the start being centered on his son looking after him. Then he suddenly appears lost in a storm, lands on the island of the Pheacians where the royal family takes good care of him. His adventures are told in flashback as a narration to his hosts : the terrifying Cyclop, the magic world of Circe, the Underworld, the Sirens etc. He finally comes back to his homeland Ithaca after 20 years, and it all ends dramatically with the killing of the pretenders of his faithful spouse Penelope.

As a story, the Odyssey is an unparalleled metaphor of the struggles of a man's life. The cast is brilliant and international here. Irene Papas gives us a typical Greek tragedy style performance as Penelope, but most amazing is the Albanian actor Bekim Fehmiu as Ulysses. Really good looking and totally convincing, it seems the role was really made for him. Strange that he was never offered roles of this dimension afterwards. Also playing Nausicaa is Barbara Bach (as Barbara Gregorini) later famous as the James Bond girl in \"The Spy Who Loved Me\", and playing Athena is Michele Breton, who was otherwise noted in the strange movie called \"Performance\" with Mick Jagger.

As it was done 35 years ago, the series was actually quite an innovation for its time, as the first big European co-production for TV (Italy, France, Germany and Yugoslavia). I have seen this mini-series in 8 parts on French television as far back as 1974. I was a kid back then, and although it was all in black and white, it left a very vivid impression. All my life long I wondered if I would ever get a chance to see it again, as it was never shown on French TV later on.

I recently found a copy on DVD (all in wonderful color) through Internet. It is unfortunately only in Italian with no subtitles, although French and German versions existed back then. I never heard there was any English version of this film as it is widely unknown in the Anglo Saxon world, and it's quite a shame. If you ever get a chance to watch this, you are not going to forget it ever.

There were not many versions of the Odyssey before or after that. The one by Camerini in 1955 starring Kirk Douglas is a classic sword-and-sandal like \"the 10 Commandments\", but not as impressive and very short for such a complex story. The one in 1997 by Konchalovsky is a meretricious Hollywood movie, based on special effects, sometimes quite gory, very poorly acted and grossly afar from Homer's story and atmosphere.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Anne Brontes epic novel THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL should be studied and read throughout schools and libraries and peoples living rooms. Its a fantastic story and tells the \"real\" truth on alcoholism and ruined marriages and a mothers fight to keep her son away from her brutal husband. Its so alike todays stories that we see and hear and I believe people can learn a lot from reading this book. Based on possible true experiences that the author had back in the 1840s.

Do watch this film, its a great version of the book and very moving indeed. I'm sure Anne herself would have been happy with the way it was produced.

Excellent acting and great locations.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm a fan of both Shakespeare and MST3K, so I waited anxiously to see this episode. I'll comment on the movie first, then the MST3K episode. The recipe for this movie: take talented actors, rich and beautiful Shakespeare material, and a $1.25 budget. Mix well, then drain of all life and movement, until dull and lifeless. Serve cold in a big, plain stone cauldron. Movie, I give 3 out of 10, because the actors at least deserve a little bit of credit. Okay, now the MST3K episode. I'll admit it, the first time I saw it, I fell asleep halfway through. I understand that was the reaction of several other veiwers as well. However, when I watched it a second time, I realized that there was a whole host of intelligent references and good lines I missed the first time around. The trick with this episode is: listen carefully! It takes a couple of viewings to catch each line. Give it a second chance, and You'll see what I mean. MST3K Episode: 7 1/2 out of 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There's more to offer in the opening of The Odd Couple than in the entirety of most films. Felix Unger (the poor guy's monogram even curses him) checks into a New York hotel. A cleaning lady says \"Good night.\" \"Goodbye,\" he answers back. In his room he empties his pockets, then struggles to take off his wedding ring only to put the objects neatly into an envelope, addressed to his wife and beloved children. When the viewer finally puts it together — aha, he's going to off himself — we watch him struggle to open the window — oh no, he's going to jump — The poor guy injures his lower back. This is all you need to know about Felix Unger — his wife has left him, he's a compulsive cleaner and he's a hypochondriac. And all in one scene. This is the particular genius of Neil Simon's comedy — it's about situation and character. There are few obvious physical jokes — no kicks to the groin, no cheap gags — just funny characters in uncomfortable situations. And, of course, he is a master of manipulating the audience's expectations. Coming from the Swingers era, imagine what I thought in the date scene when Felix starts lamenting about the breakup of his marriage to the girls his roommate Oscar has worked so hard to get into his apartment. He's blowing it, right? Think again. The girls love his sensitivity, his ability to cry in front of them. They invite him back to their place since his meatloaf has burned because Oscar wasn't paying enough attention to it. He's in like Flynn, right? Uh, yes, but he doesn't want to go with the girls because he's feeling vulnerable. Great stuff. And it's made even greater with a style that minimizes editing and maximizes the wonderful eight-room apartment set. You've got Jack Lemmon and the slouchy, pouchy Walter Matthau for Chrissakes, why mess it up? The visual style reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany's, in that great effect is made from a large depth of field and the interplay between the various planes of action. Particularly memorable is the scene in which Felix, fleeing from Oscar, closes a partition only to realize the partition doesn't cover the side where Oscar is coming from. You get a real sense of the layout of the apartment, and thus the proximity in which the two divorcées live. The twist here is that these two are really married — to each other. So the observations about married life that might be ignored in an ordinary romantic comedy are made all the more poignant since they are two guys.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of \"At The Movies\" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.

It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside \"edgy\" projects.

None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, \"two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole\".

Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.

Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): \"you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...\". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's \"revolutionary\" life!

For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by

1. never providing most of Che's story;

2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition;

3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events;

4. barely developing an idea, or a character;

5. remaining claustrophobically episodic;

6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts;

7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and

8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success!

Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.

The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the \"revolutionaries\", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that \"Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time\". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.

Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant \"revolutionaries\", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.

Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).

The rest of Part2's \"woods\" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.

Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read (\"I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!\"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.

Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.

David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was \"uneven\", Part2 actually \"goes rapidly downhill\" from there, \"charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail\", which \"...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid\".

Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.

The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Once a year \"comes\" a movie like that and makes things easy for you. You don't have make an effort to think it is good, it's just is. You enjoy it while you watch it, and you take it home with you. I can't say it is totally flawless, but it's near. Acting - great, story -interesting and with elements of suspense. It's a small family story, pretty much predictable, but it's not the secret itself that matters. it is the way the it takes the blind girl to reach it. I was impressed by the way the director portrayed their deep relationship (the blind girl and her cousin). The only thing I didn't like that much is the actress that played the mother, she was too tough and without necessity. Keren", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, \"so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again.\" No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: \"WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!\" There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars \"Is this more to your liking!?\" There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at \"The Awards\" exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, \"I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top.\" I see I have already spent more time commenting on \"The Lonely Lady\" than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you like a syfi soap opera this show is for you, as fare as I am concerned it does not work for me and after watching 3 episodes I just can't watch it anymore. It is boring and slow and for a show that the timeline is based around 100.000+ years ago if you base it on battlestar galactica's timeline for arriving on earth they sure seem to have all the same stuff around like the 100.000 year old Chevy vans driving down the streets and people watching the 100.000 year old popular name brand LCD T.V. sets. It also goes the same with the rest of the sets as well on the show, there is just to much of today's stuff involved in it to not overlook, I think they could have done a lot better of a job to get around these issues and yes battlestar galactica had some of the same issues but not nearly as bad. As fare as the rest of the show it is not nearly as good as BSG was and it is a poor pre sequel to it….", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "An interesting idea (four African American women crushed under society's boot heel take their revenge by robbing banks) is ruined by F. Gary Gray's horribly slow direction and an excruciating script (by Takashi Bufford and Kate Lanier) full of unintentionally funny moments. Instead of delivering a pointed commentary about the role of urban women struggling to stay afloat in a world where men cruelly abuse and humiliate them, Gray, Bufford and Lanier prefers to pummel their unsuspecting audience with highbrow notions of operatic tragedy. It's melodrama at its worst. Gray has his actors linger over every tired line and John Carter's lazy editing refuses to pick up the slack, choosing instead to keep his camera trained on the performers' bemused faces. And bemused they are: although actors such as Jada Pinkett, Kimberly Elise and Vivica A. Fox have some raw talent (Queen Latifah is the fourth and as an actress she's an excellent rapper), they need a surer hand than Gray's to guide them and as a result they come off as shrill and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Steer clear.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "William H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's \"The Sopranos\" in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since \"Fargo.\" Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I loved this movie! Chris Showerman did an amazing job! Not only is he an incredible actor, but he is gorgeous with an awesome physique! He did a great job on the delivery of his lines, plus transformed into George better than Fraser did. A great performance for his first major roll! This movie is full of hilarious scenes that every child will love. My kids have watched this movie numerous times since we purchased the DVD the day it came out. In addition to the movie, the extras on the DVD are just as hilarious. Two thumbs up on this one! I highly recommend it to everyone!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the \"Jeep\" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the \"Jeep\"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am glad to read so many negative comments about the Tritter plot. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. They like House's gruff nature and his intelligence, but really dislike the vindictiveness of this continuing plot. It cuts into the real nature of the hospital story and makes everyone angry at police authority. It needs to have a more caring nature instead of the vindictiveness to everyone at the hospital. Also, there seems to be many questionable legal aspects to what Tritter is actually doing. He alone cannot freeze accounts and have the authority to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for patients. A lot of the vindictiveness he is showing also is hurting the very sick patients at the hospital and the is not a good storyline to portray. I voted the episode awful not because of the story itself, but when you insert the Trittor piece it turns me off and the rest of the plot gets hurt by it, People say they hate to watch the story lines anymore. Please change it. Get Tritter out.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This documentary explores a story covered in Pilger's latest book \"Freedom Next Time\", which was published in 2006. It reveals the shocking expulsion of the natives of Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean.

The islanders are technically British citizens, as Diego Garcia is a British colony, much like Mauritius, the nearby island to where the natives were exiled, used to be. But the British government has ignored their pleas to return to their homeland, as the island is now a military base for the United States army, who have used it as a basis for the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As usual, Pilger's coverage is shocking, especially as he documents the treatment and the current impoverished living conditions of the surviving islanders. His interviews all round are excellent, and his cornering of a Parliament representative where he uses the Government's own information to pin him down, ranks as one of his best.

Pilger also uses dramatic reconstruction to dissect a series of recently released documents that fully illuminate the British conspiracy to evict the natives. The weaving of this footage with the interviews, and the islanders music, really heightens the film's impact.

It is not easy viewing, but \"Stealing a Nation\" is John Pilger at his best. Recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.

Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.

Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Paul Verhoeven's De Vierde Man (The Fourth Man) is one of the most compelling thrillers I have ever seen. It really was a pleasant surprise. The story concerns bi-sexual writer Gerard (Jeroen Krabbe), as he is lured into a relationship with beautiful hairdresser Christine (Renée Soutendijk), but in the twisted mind of Gerard there could be more to the story. Verhoeven and cinematographer Jan De Bont create a beautiful and thick atmosphere full of surreal and sickening sexual imagery, this really pulls you into the story, you don't want to watch, but you can't turn yourself away. This is by far Verhoeven's best film (maybe second only to Robocop). True The Fourth Man isn't for everyone, some of the sex scenes are quite gratuitous (just ignore them, but trust me, if you watch for at least ten minutes you'll be hooked. This is one of those films that you need to know how it ends, a true whodunit it in the Hitchcock tradition, compelling, controversial and thrilling. I even like the spider metaphor.

8/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "So I don't ruin it for you, I'll be very brief. There's some great acting and funny lines from the attractive cast. A young graduate of Harvard Med School (Brian White) finds out he doesn't know as much as he thinks about people. He goes to a small hospital in Florida for his internship because a girlfriend (Mya) left him for a job as a TV Producer. His Senior Resident (Wood Harris), helped marvelously by his 'creative collaborator'(Zoe Saldana) bring him up to speed. They help protect his career and show him the wider possibilities that come from being a compassionate doctor instead of a player who just wants to make money (as seems to be true for many of my pre-med friends).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The person's comment that said that Pat Robertson is evil and his program is evil has nothing to compare what evil and righteous is. His definition of evil is the opposite of evil. The Bible itself says that in the last days people will call good evil and evil good! He doesn't even know that he fulfilled Bible prophecy! If you don't know God and refuse to know him now, that's okay. He still loves you but when you do finally bow your knee to Him, and you will, it will be too late for you. God sends no one to hell, not even you! You will go there of your own decision and your spewing defines it! May God have mercy on you and give you a Damascus Road experience. The 700 Club and Pat Robertson's ministry is one of the reasons I'm still here. On the edge of alcoholism, adultery, and probably death, God reached through the TV screen and used Pat Robertson to do it, and thank God He did! You have a right to say what you said but you don't have a right to curse with your words. God have mercy on you.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I know this sounds odd coming from someone born almost 15 years after the show stopped airing, but I love this show. I don't know why, but I enjoy watching it. I love Adam the best. The only disappointing thing is that the only place I found to buy the seasons on DVD was in Germany, and that was only the first two seasons. That is disappointing, but that's OK. I'll keep looking online. If anyone has any tips on where to buy the second through 14th seasons, please email me at darkangel_1627@yahoo.com. I already own the first one. The only down side is that the DVDs being from Germany, they only play on my portable DVD player and my computer. Oh well. I still own it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film is an interesting take on the killer scarecrow genre - amazingly it manages to rise to become greater than the sum of its parts. Average montage scenes, 30-somethings playing teenagers, and some excellent facial expressions combine to become one of the \"new-wave\" of modern classics. As a viewer, I came away from the film with the same sense of \"shock and awe\" as when I first saw The Godfather in 1969. Tiffany Gardner's startling portrayal of the morally bankrupt Judy was deserving of her Grammy nomination, which was well documentedly stolen by Ricky Martin and restless hips. Unfortunately, the none of the sequels could live up to the expectation of the original (unlike the Godfather series which got better with each installment, and should culminate in 2012 with Godfather 4: Eat My Rage.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"House Of Evil\" aka \"Dance Of Death\" of 1968 is the first of four infamous and odd last movies starring the great Boris Karloff and directed by Jack Hill and Juan Ibánez. Unlike \"Snake People\" (1971), \"The Incredible Invasion\" (also 1971) and \"The Fear Chamber\" (1972) which were all released after Karloff's death in 1969, \"House Of Evil\" was released in 1968, when Karloff was still alive. \"House Of Evil\" is regarded by many as the worst of these four movies, which are without doubt all rather crappy, but definitely have their entertainment value as the unintentional comedies they are. I personally prefer \"The Fear Chamber\" and \"House Of Evil\" over the other two, simply for the reason that the lack of the slightest logic is even more extreme, and since there is no suspense whatsoever in any of the movies, the lack of logic increases the unintentional fun factor.

The odd story (I don't know if I can really call it a 'plot') is set somewhere in Europe in the 19th century. After some girls are murdered and found with their eyes ripped out, Mathias Morteval (Karloff), an enthusiastic organ player, invites his few remaining relatives to his bizarre mansion, which is full of eerie toys. His kinfolk includes Lucy Durant (Julissa), who is engaged to one of the police inspectors investigating the murders.

I won't give away more of the story, but I can assure you that it is quite bizarre throughout the movie. There are some very funny moments, especially some things Karloff's character says. Boris Karloff was without any doubt one of the most brilliant and important icons of the Horror genre who ever lived, and he manages to award this odd movie with a tiny bit of his greatness, and although (or because) his role is (due to a poor script and and directing) in no way scary, it looks like he deliberately plays it with a sense of humor. Just like in the movie's successors \"Snake People\" and \"The Fear Chamber\", the female lead is once again played by Julissa.

Most of he supporting performances are hilariously amateurish, the cinematography is terrible and the locations and sceneries are beneath contempt. The storyline lacks the least bit of logic and the dialogue often does not make the slightest sense. It is the poor story and dialogue, however, that makes this movie so entertaining to watch. \"House Of Evil\" may be an extremely crappy attempt of a movie, but it is certainly as (unintentionally) funny as it is bad. Fans of Ed Wood's movies should be very amused, I personally found it hilarious. Crappy but entertaining nevertheless, and definitely worth watching since there's Boris Karloff in it and due to the fun factor. 3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Fantastic Mr. Fox is a comedy based on the classic Roald Dahl book. Wes Anderson directs, and respectably takes the short book of the same name to the big screen in a full length film. While I respect what Anderson, an incredibly talented man did, the film seemed to have gotten lost in its own clever spirit. Anderson seems to have left the story behind knowing that he is a talented man, and if this happened to be a bad film, it would be his first bad film. Just like when you go to school and have your first bad day, this is Anderson's first bad day in film making, so I am going to let him off easy. I will admit it did have a cleverness and nice spirit to it, and the animation is nice, but the film gets progressively harder to get into, leaving the story behind and having random shots of random things happening. The characters are good, also. Jason Schwartzman voices Mr. Fox (George Clooney)'s smart ass son, Ash, and especially engaging. The film does not quite make it up to a level of terribleness, but it certainly gets closer and closer as it goes along. I'm sure Wes Anderson will get back on track with another amazing film when and where he decides to make another film, but for now, I'm sorry, Wes Anderson, this film of yours was a big disappointment.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Firstly, I would like to point out that people who have criticised this film have made some glaring errors. Anything that has a rating below 6/10 is clearly utter nonsense.

Creep is an absolutely fantastic film with amazing film effects. The actors are highly believable, the narrative thought provoking and the horror and graphical content extremely disturbing.

There is much mystique in this film. Many questions arise as the audience are revealed to the strange and freakish creature that makes habitat in the dark rat ridden tunnels. How was 'Craig' created and what happened to him?

A fantastic film with a large chill factor. A film with so many unanswered questions and a film that needs to be appreciated along with others like 28 Days Later, The Bunker, Dog Soldiers and Deathwatch.

Look forward to more of these fantastic films!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The first step to getting off of that road that leads to nowhere is recognizing that you're on it in the first place; then it becomes a matter of being assertive and taking positive steps to overcome the negative influences in your life that may have put you on that road to begin with. Which is exactly what a young Latino girl does in `Girlfight,' written and directed by Karyn Kusama. Diana (Michelle Rodriguez) is an eighteen-year-old High School senior from the projects in Brooklyn, facing expulsion after her fourth fight in the halls since the beginning of the semester. She affects a `whatever' attitude which masks a deep-seated anger that threatens to take her into places she'd rather not go. She lives with her father, Sandro (Paul Calderon), with whom she has a very tentative relationship, and her younger brother, Tiny (Ray Santiago). With her life teetering on the brink of dissolution, she desperately needs an outlet through which to channel the demons that plague her. And one day she finds it, without even looking for it, when she stops by the gym where Tiny trains. Ironically, Tiny wants nothing to do with boxing; he wants to go to art school, but Sandro is determined that his son should be able to take care of himself on the streets, and pays the ten dollars a week it costs for his lessons. When Diana convinces Tiny's trainer, Hector (Jaime Tirelli), to take her on, and approaches her father for the money, under the guise of calling it a weekly allowance (she doesn't want him to know what she wants the money for), Sandro turns her down and tells her to go out and earn her own money. Ultimately, with Tiny's help she finds a way, and the ring soon becomes her second home. It's an environment to which she readily adapts, and it appears that her life is about to take a turn for the better. And the fact that she will have to fight men, not women, in `gender blind' competitions, does not faze her in the least. Diana has found her element.

\tFirst time writer/director Karyn Kusama has done a terrific job of creating a realistic setting for her story, presenting an honest portrait of life in the projects and conveying that desperation so familiar to so many young people who find themselves in dead-end situations and on that road that leads to nowhere. And there's no candy coating on it, either; as Hector tells Diana when she asks him how he came to be where he is, `I was a fighter once. I lost.' Then, looking around the busy gym, `Like most of these guys, they're going to lose, too. But it's all they know--' And it's that honesty of attitude, as well as the way in which the characters are portrayed, that makes this movie as good as it is. It's a bleak world, underscored by the dimly lit, run-down gym-- you can fairly smell the sweat of the boxers-- and that sense of desolation that hangs over it all like a pall, blanketing these people who are grasping and hanging on to the one and only thing they have, all that they know.

\tMaking her screen debut, Michelle Rodriguez is perfectly cast as Diana, infusing her with a depth and brooding intensity that fairly radiates off of her in waves. She is so real that it makes you wonder how much of it is really Rodriguez; exactly where does the actor leave off and the character begin? Whatever it is, it works. It's a powerful, memorable performance, by an actor from whom we will await another endeavor with great anticipation. She certainly makes Diana a positive role model, one in whom many hopefully will find inspiration and the realization that there are alternative paths available in life, at least to those who would seek them out.

\tAs positive as this film is, however, it ends on something of an ambiguous note; though Diana obviously has her feet on the ground, there's no indication of where she's headed. Is this a short term fix for her, or is she destined to become the female counterpart of Hector? After all, realistically (and in light of the fact that the realism is one of the strengths of this film), professional boxing isn't exactly a profession that lends itself to, nor opens it's arms to women. And in keeping with the subject matter of the film, and the approach of the filmmaker, an affirmation of the results of Diana's assertiveness would have been appropriate.

\tThe supporting cast includes Santiago Douglas (Adrian), Elisa Bocanegra (Marisol), Alicia Ashley (Ricki) and Thomas Barbour (Ira). Though it delivers a very real picture of life to which many will be able to identify, there are certain aspects of `Girlfight,' that stretch credibility a bit, regarding some of what happens in the ring. That aside, it's a positive film that for the most part is a satisfying experience. I rate this one 7/10.



", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Note to all mad scientists everywhere: if you're going to turn your son into a genetically mutated monster, you need to give him a scarier name than \"Paul.\" I don't care if he's a frightening hammerhead shark with a mouthful of dagger-sharp teeth and the ability to ambush people in the water as well as on dry land. Give the kid a more worthy name like, \"Thor,\" \"Rock,\" or \"Tiburon.\" Because even if he eats me up I will probably just sit there laughing, \"Ha! Get a load of this!!! Paul the Monster is ripping me to shreds!!!!!\" That's the worst part about this movie is, this shark-thing is referred to as \"Paul\" throughout the entire flick. It makes what could have been a decent, scary horror movie just seem silly. Not that there aren't other campy and contrived parts of \"Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy.\" The scientists spend the entire movie wandering along this island, and all of a sudden one of the girls starts itching madly from walking in the lush forest, and just HAS to pour water on her feet to relive the itching, which of course allows \"Paul\" to come out of the water and kill her. The one thing SciFI Channel did right in this movie was let the hottie live. But that's a small silver lining in an otherwise disappointing movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I managed to tape this off my satellite, but I would love to get an original release in a format we can use here in the States. Eddie truly is Glorious in this performance from San Francisco. I don't remember laughing so hard at a stand up routine. My wife and I both enjoyed this tape and his work on Glorious I just wish I could buy a copy and help support Eddie financially through my purchase. We need more of his shows available.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted \"proof\" about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA \"deserved\" the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:

\"In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.\"

WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean \"we\", paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount.

But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we \"deserved\" 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out \"fact\" A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's \"Facts\" added up to guacamole.

But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver \"Captain Conspiracy\" Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to \"Release the Hounds.\" Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.

Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled \"Huggies\" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This romantic comedy isn't too bad. There are some funny things happening here and there, and there are some rather memorable characters in it.

The acting, however, is amateurish (with the exception of the banker). While some scenes are great fun, others are simply embarrassing. In particular, I found the \"romantic\" part of the story poor.

All in all, I guess it's worth seeing if you like football and romantic comedies. It's not really a bad movie, and the ending did feel quite good. Just don't expect anything out of the ordinary. Fair enough if you have an hour and a quarter to kill.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Being the prototype of the classical Errol Flynn adventure movie and having a good story as well as two more brilliant co-stars in Maureen O'Hara (what an exquisite beauty!) and Anthony Quinn, I can only recommend this movie to all those having even the slightest liking for romance and adventure.

Hollywood at its best!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Gung Ho was a good idea, however it is to much to ask Americans viewers to understand the dynamics of American jobs and foreign competition.In this movie the main character Hunt Stevenson(Michael Keaton) goes to Japan and convinces a Japanese auto company to come to America and help his dying Pennslyvania town. Two things come at you.First why would a Japanese company come to America to make cars when they do so ,and so well at that? Secondly can anyone understand that American companies of all types go to third world nations to have their products made to escape American labor costs? It makes the film's premise then that the Number one maker of cars in the world would go to one of its' top competitors(aside from Germany)and put a plant there as unrealistic. Keaton was still in his comedy mode by this time. But he gives a credible performance all the same as he could prove that he could go from comedy to drama in a matter of seconds and still not embarrass himself but Director Ron Howard can't keep this from becoming a TV movie which it ends up being anyway because they have to give the unlikely story a happy ending the politics and problems of Japanese and American relations not withstanding. Gung Ho has a Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley feel to it as the producers of both TV shows made the film and then made the TV version of this movie as well which gives the film its' lightweight feel.The Japanese manager gets to love his American workers and feels he and other Japanese people can learnfrom Americans.His No.2 man Saito who supposedly doesn't like Americans all that much doesn't think so.I would have prefered all the Japanese characters been like Saito than the soft goofball characters they made the Japanese out to be.It would have made the film more interesting.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I grew up during the time that the music in this movie was popular. What a wonderful time for music and dancing! My only complaint was that I was a little too young to go to the USO and nightclubs. Guess it sounds like I'm living in the past, (I do have wonderful memories)so what's wrong with that?!!? World War 2 was a terrible time, except where music was concerned. Glenn Miller's death was a terrible sadness to us. This movie will be a favorite of mine. Clio Laine was excellent; what a voice! I don't know how I ever missed this movie. My main reason for this commentary is to alert the modern generation to an alternative to Rap and New Age music, which is offensive to me. Please watch this movie and give it a chance!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "After reading some very good reviews about this film I thought I would give it a watch and after being very disappointed with the film I thought I would give it my own review. This is my first ever so bare with me.

First of all I would scratch horror from the genre as in no way is it horrific or scary in the slightest (with the exception of a few feeble attempts to make you jump unfortunately one of which worked on me.) I would say that calling this film a thriller is pushing it as I wasn't particularly thrilled either! The film is about a spoiled mischievous girl who faints a few times. During these times she visits a house which she has been drawing, after each visit she decides to add something else to the house to make it a bit more lively one of the features being a sad little boy who is also ill in reality. As she befriends the boy she realises that her imaginary world that she created is actually better than the real world that she is in. Until she adds her constantly away father to the house, due to a misdrawing her dad turns out to be evil and her and the boy must escape from his clutches.

Think its an attempt to be a slightly more mellow version of A Nightmare On Elm Street but is more like a trip to the beach.

In conclusion my generous 3/10 will hopefully stop at least one of you from watching this drab!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on .", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The plot of \" Astronuat returns to Earth as a mutating monster \" died out in the 1950s mainly down to the scientific fact that travelling outside the Earth's orbit doesn't humans cause to turn in to mutated monsters , and that the first film to use this plot THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT was the only decent sci-fi movie to use the idea . So the idea of having the redundant plot return seems doomed from the start . Alas watching THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN it seems the plot is the least of its problems

First of all this is an incredibly badly made movie . The budget is in single figures and I'm talking about lira not dollars . There is no cinematography to speak of and there's countless editing blunders . For example a photographer takes his ( Barely legal ) model for a photo shoot . Cut to a shot where the sun is directly behind model , then cut to shot of photographer where the sun is directly behind him, then cut back to the model where the sun is ...

The lack of budget drags the film down in other aspects too . According to the trivia page the budget was so low the producers couldn't get any stock footage of Saturn so when astronaut Steve West mentions how beautiful Saturn looks we get footage of the sun . Actually the sun gives the most impressive performance in the film since the human actors wouldn't be employed by a porn studio . If I was appearing in this I wouldn't be scared by the eponymous monster - I'd be terrified of splinters from the rest of the cast . Perhaps we should be slightly forgiving though since the obvious lack of budget manifests itself in things like the actors having to wear their own clothes . A general for instance doesn't wear his nice fancy dress uniform complete with medals - he wears a denim jacket and baseball cap

There has to be suspension of disbelief for a film like this to work but it fails on every level . The tone is set early on in the film where Mr Melty murders a nurse and escapes from the hospital . Instead of the police getting a call saying there's been a murder Dr Nelson just decides to track down his patient on his own own same as he'd look for a missing cat . It's also strange a thoroughly decomposing homicidal monster can walk down the road without anyone noticing , but this is typical of a film where horny 70 year olds stop their car down dark roads for a quickie and people nonchalantly mention their wife is pregnant whilst forgetting to tell the police that there's a monster on the loose .

THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN is Z grade rubbish . I can certainly understand why people enjoy this movie because it does reach the heights of \" It's so bad it's good \" but apart from Rick Baker's sometimes impressive make up effects it's nothing more than a very guilty pleasure", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film was released the year I was born and will be, like me, 70 in 2007. I watched it again last night having not seen it since high school. While it was full of 30's sentiment and the acting was a bit stereotyped, nevertheless, it was superb. Pearl S. Buck's story did come alive through the magic of the chemistry of Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. The novel which earned Ms. Buck the Nobel Prize for literature comes alive under the baton of Sydney Franklin which along with an excellent script recounts the story of peasant farmer, Wang Lung, whose father obtains a bride for him, a slave girl from the kitchen of a local landlord. In Buck's story, Wang's success is underwritten by his willingness to listen to his wife, most of the time, and the love of the land. In the end he comes to realize that his wife, like the land, is the source of his wealth, happiness and immortality. Buck's stories always had strong women cast in a critical spot to influence the outcome of events in the pre-feminist world. The German-born Luise Rainer brings a tentative but determined Peasant Chinese woman to life in her portrayal of Olan. Muni likewise captures the naive but honorable Wang, eventually caught between the two worlds of the wealthy and the peasant. Other classic characters include Charlie Grapewin, Dorothy Gale's Kansan Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz, Walter Connelly as the mewing, conniving uncle and Keye Luke as Number One Son-- but this time, not Charlie Chan's.

A classic might be defined as a movie you can watch time and again and never tire of. If that's indeed the case, this film is a classic, no doubt whatsoever.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This may be the only film that actually comes close to capturing on film the essentially uncapturable world of the American college experience of the late 60s-early 70s. Go ahead, name another movie that even approaches this one: \"Getting Straight\"? \"RPM\"? These are caricatures. \"Return of the Secaucus Seven\" has its moments, but that's a retrospective film about (self-obsessed) individuals more than a film about a time and a place depicted *in* that time and place. \"Drive, He Said\" portrays-- with subtlety and nuance where it should, and a swift kick in the shorts where that's the only appropriate way-- the anti-draft movement, the ambiguity of big-time college sports (especially when there's a war on), the sexual revolution of the period, and the general unreality of the day. Believe me, it was like that.

The whole cast deserves commendation (as does the director, of course) but particular praise should be reserved for Bruce Dern, as the basketball coach, and Karen Black, the hero's very unusual-- except for that time-- love interest. William Tepper, as the lead, also rates a real round of applause both for his perfect capturing of the student-athlete of the period and for actually playing real college basketball in the film (remember Anthony Perkins in \"Tall Story\"? Yikes!).

All in all, a classic of a kind-- and the last film someone currently in 6th grade should be writing comments on (\"boring\", \"repellent\"-- um, right, sonny, please go back to your Arnold movies). Why isn't this film available from imdb?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Jack London's life was certainly colorful enough for a dozen films about different aspects of him. Sad to say though that what his life was used for in film was some wartime propaganda that put the best face on some of the least attractive parts of his character.

Jack London who barely saw the age of 40 when he died wrote some of the best stories around. He wrote on what he knew, but he also wrote as does everyone else bringing the baggage of his own life experience with him. Some of that experience in another day and time would have been condemned as racism. But this was World War II and London was a big believer in the 'yellow peril' as it was called back in the day.

Two thirds of the film covers his life as author, we see his years as a seaman from where he got the inspiration for The Sea Wolf. We see him up in the Yukon in a miner's cabin with a dog that was no doubt his inspiration for The Call of the Wild. London was able to capture the spirit of adventure that his own life was all about right on paper for the world to enjoy ever since.

The final third dealt with his time as a war correspondent covering the Russo-Japanese War. London was a socialist, but his socialism did not encompass folks who were Oriental. Like a few million others he saw the rising immigration of the Chinese and Japanese to our Pacific coast as a threat to jobs for the white people. He advocated strict immigration policies for Orientals.

The film puts the cart before the horse. London is presented as a man who saw because he was on hand at the Russo-Japanese War what Japan's ambitions were and for that reason was as xenophobic as he was. Actually the kind of atrocities present in World War II were not existent during the Russo-Japanese conflict. Japan had her imperial ambitions, but so did everyone else including the USA at that time. But our immigration policies caused by pressure from our West Coast politicians was a big contributing factor to the deterioration of relations with Japan over a couple of generations. London was part of the cause not a prophet crying in the wilderness.

This film was the first independent production of Samuel Bronston who later did some films with a bit more budget than Jack London. Had he a bit more money Bronston might have gotten James Cagney or Spencer Tracy, both who would have been right for the role. Instead they got Michael O'Shea who was making his second film after Lady of Burlesque. O'Shea is fine in the part, but certainly was no box office.

As London is covering the war, he meets up with a Captain Tanaka who is played by Leonard Strong, an actor who specialized in Orientals and played a ton of them in World War II. From the vantage point in 1905 Strong outlines in the best Fu Manchu tradition Japan's imperial aims right up to taking on the USA eventually. Must have gone over great with the swing shift crowd.

A lot of course is left out of London's life including a first wife. Playing the second and only wife in this film is Susan Hayward who only comes into the movie when it's half over. I wish we'd have seen more of her. Charmian Kittredge London survived her husband by almost 40 years dying in 1955.

O'Shea in fact met and married the leading lady of his life in Jack London. Virginia Mayo has a small role in Jack London and they married for 30 years until O'Shea died in 1973.

Maybe one day we'll get a view of Jack London that will be a lot better than this one.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a \"direct to video\" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was blown away by the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, a show that always kept me guessing and brought me to tears on more than one occasion. A hardened sci-fi fan, I like to think I can pick out the good stuff from the BS, and this was good stuff.

As such, when I first heard about the prospect of a prequel series some months ago I got a sick feeling in my gut. I was afraid that the formula that made Battlestar so successful would be reused in Caprica, which wouldn't work at all. BSG's story, of a mournful ragged band of survivors, trapped aboard decaying star ships and guided by prophetic vision and a sequence of pseudo-miracles, was perfectly complimented by extraordinary music and a better cast of actors.

Caprica feels different. Where BSG takes place after the fall of a great civilization, Caprica portrays that civilization in it's cold and decadent heyday. The overall vibe I got from Caprica was similar to that of Minority Report, minus excessive and counterproductive theatricality. In true BSG form, Caprica has in it's first few hours of programming already tackled the issues of religious freedom, racism, the morality of playing God and the nature of the human soul.

The casting for Caprica is also excellent. Each character is unique and deep, from the obsessive and distant scientist-turned-entrepreneur, to his troubled and willful daughter, each actor and actress throws themselves into their respective roles.

Music, which was used so powerfully in BSG, also plays a significant role in Caprica. Battlestar's powerful rolling drums and mournful duduks served it's themes very well. Caprica uses a more orchestral sound, which gives the show it's own feeling quite distinct from either of it's predecessors.

The new Caprica is definitely it's own show, pulling from the Battlestar franchise only as much as it needs. I look forward to the full series.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "SPLIT SECOND might have been a good movie. A story about a \"road rage\" homicide, has a very young Clive Owen giving a pretty good performance; BUT...but....

Unfortunately, the filmmakers undercut their own movie with idiotic camera-work and truly awful editing. The camera jumps all over creation in an unsuccessful attempt (I suppose) to reflect Owen's stress from business, family, and traffic. What this actually does is to give the viewer a headache.

Since the filmmakers cared nothing about making a good movie, but only to impress each other with their idiotic photography, one ought not waste time on this travesty.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is a very strange HK film in many ways. First, many of the action sequences really aren't that much fun. The very first gun battle the occurs in the film was just silly. Not cool silly, or even funny silly, but just silly. That's not to say there aren't some great action scenes, but most simply don't come up to the level of some of the other films I have seen. The opposite side is that this film actually has CHARACTERS, not just people. All of the main characters are interesting (except for the head bad guy, who is flat as a billiard table) and most are fairly well acted. All the protagonists in this film are just fun to watch. The dialogue is quite witty, and doesn't seem to lose much in translation. This film is worth seeing, but I hope that uninitiated American audiences don't think this is the best HK has to offer.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Thief of Baghdad is one of my ten all-time favorite movies. It is exciting without gore, it is beautifully filmed and the art direction is flawless. The casting couldn't have been better. Rex Ingram made me believe in genies. And the epitome of evil is certainly captured by Conrad Veight as Jafar. He set the bar very high.

..I watch this movie at least twice a year...and never tire of it. This film is an adventure for all ages..no-one too old to enjoy it. The Thief of Bahgdad jogs my memories to a more innocent time...I was ten years old the first time I saw it and the U.S. was just about to enter WWII. Conrad Vieght was such a great actor that he was able to continue this underlying \"evilness\" a few years later in \"Casablanca.\" And Korda teamed up,I believe, with Justin and Dupree again in \"The Four Feathers\"....great film-making!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "An interesting look at Japan prior to opening to the West. John Wayne as America's first consul to Japan arrives in accordance with agreements resulting from Perry's gunboat diplomacy. He is not welcome. Wayne eventually wins his meeting with the Shogun after bring a cholera epidemic, introduced by an American ship, under control. There follows a colorful procession to the capital bearing gifts for the Shogun, including a bottle of Old Tanglefoot. The meeting with the Shogun, the debates among the Japanese nobles and an assassination during an archery exhibit present an interesting look at the politics of the period. Altogether a rather enjoyable movie and besides how often do you get to see the Duke lose a fight to a guy half his size.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Compelling and Innovative! At the beginning of this criminally underrated Whoopi Goldberg flick the writers draw a parallel between Theodore Rex and the 1941 Orson Welles classic \"Citizen Kane\". The writers are justified in drawing such a seemingly disparate parallel, but the viewing public is too often hoodwinked into seeing overly hyped Hollywood schlock to appreciate the subtle similarities between these two movies. In \"Citizen Kane\" Charles Foster Kane is feared and admired by his colleagues and his underlings, much like Whoopi Goldberg in this movie. This movie is about finding love in everybody's differences. It is an epic examination of the fear of abandonment and the need for love and acceptance in a society that is dominated by greed and self-absorption. Whoever paired Whoopi Goldberg and Theodore Rex formulated a dyad for the ages, with the only justifiable comparisons being Bogey and Bacall, Hepburn and Tracy and Hall and Oates. If you would love to watch an uplifting, celluloid philosophical examination of some of humanity's deepest drives; Bergman-esqe but not as depressing, Theodore Rex should be viewed immediately!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is the worst brain damaged, ultra cheap, super stupid, silly, pointless piece of trash I've ever seen, an unbelievable garbage of instant cult status among fans of the bizarre. If you think that Ed Wood's \"Plan 9\" is bad, well... let me tell you, looks like \"Citizen Kane\" compared to that one. ¿Special effects?...again, \"Plan 9\" is \"Star Wars\". ¿Acting?...Thor Johnson is Al Pacino... so it's beyond bad, really. But if you are looking for that kind of incredible movies, it's for you! I'm a fan of American International for so many glorious horror movies, the Price-Corman-Poe saga and some great blaxploitation stuff, but with \"Star Creatures\" they descend right down to the Z level. Of course, my 1 out of 10 works in reverse if you like to watch bad movies for fun (the guy playing an Indian chief is great) so have fun and enjoy... if you can.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "New York playwright Michael Caine (as Sidney Bruhl) is 46-years-old and fading fast; as the film opens, Mr. Caine's latest play flops on Broadway. TV reviewers poke fun at Caine, and he gets drunk. Passing out on the Long Island Railroad lands Caine in Montauk, instead of his residence in East Hampton. Finally arriving home, Caine is comforted by tightly-attired wife Dyan Cannon (as Myra), an unfortunately high-strung heart patient. There, Caine and Ms. Cannon discuss a new play called \"Deathtrap\", written by hunky young Christopher Reeve (as Clifford \"Cliff\" Anderson), one of Caine's former students. The couple believe Mr. Reeve's \"Deathtrap\" is the hit needed to revive Caine's career.

\"The Trap Is Set… For A Wickedly Funny Who'll-Do-It.\"

Directed by Sidney Lumet, Ira Levin's long-running Broadway hit doesn't stray too far from its stage origin. The cast is enjoyable and the story's twists are still engrossing. One thing that did not work (for me) was the curtain call ending; surely, it played better on stage. \"Deathtrap\" is a fun film to watch again; the performances are dead on - but, in hindsight, the greeting Reeve gives Caine at the East Hampton train station should have been simplified to a smiling \"Hello.\" The location isn't really East Hampton, but the windmill and pond look similar. And, the much ballyhooed love scene is shockingly tepid. But, the play was so good, \"even a gifted director couldn't ruin it.\" And, Mr. Lumet doesn't disappoint.

******** Deathtrap (3/19/82) Sidney Lumet ~ Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Irene Worth", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I love this show as it action packed with adventure, love and intrigue. Well some times love! It's so good see a show where all the characters work well together and they treat each other with respect. It's also very good to se Dick Van Dyke in a television role as I have only seen him in Mary Poppins. the mixture of the main characters, Mark, Amanda, Jesse and Steve is very capturing to the audience. This is a show you have to watch!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Fact: Stargate SG-1 is a cheesy sci-fi TV series.

There's no escaping facts. How much you try to excuse yourself or explain it Stargate SG-1 remains a cheesy sci-fi TV series.

Stargate SG-1 does borrow and steal ideas briskly. Special FX aren't nearly as impressive as they could have been and the action isn't going to blow you out of the chair. Or couch for that matter either.

But, and this is where I really think Stargate SG-1 deserves all the credit it can get, for each and every episode or stolen idea I think you can count at least one cheesy sci-fi movie that's actually worse than a one hour TV episode.

In fact some episodes actually could probably have been 90 minutes long and still have been better than most movies.

And being able to keep that quality throughout the show and keep delivering and pushing the storyline further is what makes Stargate SG-1 special.

I am very picky with my selections. I follow perhaps one or two TV series at most and I hold pretty high standards which made me even more surprised when I found myself caught.

So for those who decide to brush of Stargate SG-1 as yet another tacky sci-fi show, don't. Stick with it and you'll see what I'm talking about.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw this movie on mystery science theater when it was called \"It lives by night\". That title is much less misleading than \"Batpeople\". In fact it would more accurately be called Batperson. This movie is about a doctor who studies bats I am thinking because he wants to make a better cure for rabies. This is not really clear. What is clear is that he and his wife take a tour of a cave and he gets bitten by a bat. Why a scientist needs to take a tour to study bats is beyond me. Shouldn't he be able to go in by himself. Well after being bitten he and his wife go on their honeymoon where he starts having fits. They go to the worst doctor ever. The guy stays in the hospital and kills a nurse. In the end the guy kills 3-4 people and his wife stands by him and you are supposed to be rooting for him instead of the sheriff investigating the murders.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is possibly one of the worst giant killer animal movies I have ever seen. It follows the typical premise of a laboratory experiment gone wrong and a giant crocodile with a rapid growth chemical in it escapes. The monster looks way to much like a dinosaur, having big Tyranosaurous-like hind legs, when it should just look like an over-sized crocodile. Everything about this movie is unoriginal and it constantly oozes \"cliche\", minute after minute. Why are there always two drunken redneck hunters out after dark who separate? Plus, there's always a guy and girl who share a lame, obvious love interest while they are in life threatening situations. To much has already been said by me and I feel as if I'm wasting my time writing this...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I don't know what you guys are inhaling, but please stop. This movie was complete trash.

Macaulay Culkin as Kevin McCallister was lovable, cute, sweet, loving, and extremely fun to watch. He had that innocence but at the same time, he was strong as well.

This new kid, Alex? Annoying as all hell! Just a blatant ripoff at trying to match Culkin's charm and grace, failing miserably at that.

The villains, complete crap. Harry and Marv, they were such an entertaining on screen team. They were comedic, they were humorous, and just made you really want to root for Culkin even more, which is what a good villain is suppose to do. These guys Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, absolutely PERFECT for those roles. On the other hand, in 3, we have 4 new idiots that just bicker and again, try to capitalize on the charisma and duo charm of the first villains. Not saying they were horrible, but they were not memorable or even really that entertaining. More on the corny side actually.

Then we got the actual movies. Part 1 and 2, classics. Memorable. Perfect to watch around Christmas and brings a wonderful Christmas feeling and brings out so many emotions. It makes you fall in love with the story, and care about the characters. Simply, memorable and close to being masterpieces. Part 3? Masterpiece of crap. Enough said.

All and all, I don't know why people like this. I think people really don't know what a good movie is anymore. Its a crappy sequel rip-off with more unrealistic traps and a stupid new main character kid that I wish the robbers would of at least beat the crap out of.

Run, run away from this garbage. And lets not even start with Part 4!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This whimsical film had the misfortune of being released at the same time of the highly popular \"Amelie\", both having the wonderful Audrey Tautou playing the central role. Laurent Firode, the talented director made one of the most enjoyable films that have come out of France in recent memory.

The film deals with chance, as its English title indicates. The French title makes reference at how butterflies wings can create chaos over the Atlantic as they fly, as well as hurricanes in the Pacific, something not to be believed just by looking at these colorful insects. From the start, the director interlaces all the characters one sees in the film and how each has a connection to the other, something that is hard to imagine, but in the film's context seems to work well.

A chance meeting at the metro sets the tone for the film. Irene, who is going to work, is asked by the woman sitting opposite her to tell her what her Zodiac sign is and proceeds to read from her paper. Irene, it seems will cross paths and will find her soul mate that same day. After Irene leaves the train, the quiet young man seated next to the woman tells her he has the same birth date as Irene. It seems they are destined to one another from the start, but alas, they will not reconnect until the last frame of the film.

Audrey Tautou is wonderful as Irene. Faudel, who plays Younes, doesn't have a lot to do until the end, but he shows he has a presence and plays well his part. The talented young cast makes a valuable contribution to the success of the film, which is as light as butterfly wings.

We look forward to future films by Laurent Firode because he appears to be a director with the heart in the right place and an ear to the way humans are connected.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Whoever gave this movie rave reviews needs to see more movies.

A loser takes his camera and photographs his mental family. The movie is filled with idiots and includes live \"teabagging\". That should sum it all up for you.

Do not waste your time. You may want to watch the entire movie in the hopes that it gets better as it goes on - it doesn't!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Remarkable, disturbing film about the true-life, senseless, brutal murder of a small-town family, along with the aftermath, and examination of the lives of the killers, Dick Hickok and Perry Smith.

No matter how much time goes by, or how dated this film may look, it still resonates the utter incomprehensibility of criminal acts such as this.

This really traces multiple tragedies: The tragedy, brutality and senselessness of the murder of the Clutter family, a decent farm family in small-town Holcomb, Kansas; and the wasted, brutal and sad lives of Hickok and Smith.

An interesting point is made in the film: that neither of these two immature, scared, petty criminals would have ever contemplated going through with something like this alone. But, together, they created a dangerous, murderous collective personality; one that fed the needs and pathology of each of them. They push each other along a road of \"proving\" something to each other. That they were man enough to do it, to carry it out; neither wants to be seen as too cowardly to complete their big \"score\"; an unfortunate and dangerous residue of the desolate lives they led. These were two grown-up children, who live in a criminal's world of not backing down from dares; who constantly need to prove manhood and toughness. in this instance, these needs carried right through to the murder of the Clutters.

The film contains a somewhat sentimentalized look at the Clutter family, but the point is made. These were respected, law-abiding, small-town people, who didn't deserve this terrifying fate. The movie also gives us a sense of the young lives of Hickok and Smith. Perry Smith, whose early life was filled with security and love, but watched in horror as alcohol took his family down a tragic path. Hickok, poor and left pretty much to his own devices, not able to see how he fit in, using his intelligence and charm to con everyone he came into contact with.

An interesting, and maybe the first, look at capital punishment, and what ends we hope to achieve. Is this nothing more than revenge killing for a murder that rocked a nation at a time when we had not yet had to fully face that there might be such predators among us, or does putting these guys at the end of a rope truly provide a deterent to the childish and brutal posturing of men like these? Is it possible to deter men who live lives of deceit, operating under the radar, believing they fool everyone they come into contact with? To be deterred, you must believe it's possible you will be caught. Is it possible to deter these men who believe they are too clever to be caught?; who have committed hundreds of petty crimes, and got away with them? This was supposed to be a \"cinch\", \"no witnesses\".

When caught, Hickok finds he can't charm and con the agents the way he had department store clerks. Smith, who believes he deserves such a fate anyway, who seemed to be the only one who truly grasped the gravity of what they had done, willingly tells the story when he learns that Hickok has cowardly caved in. Hickok blinked first. A silly game of chicken between two immature, emotionally damaged, dangerous men.

Fascinating psychological thriller, telling a story of a horrendous crime in this nation's history. Stunning portrayals by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson. These roles made their careers.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This video was my first exposure to Eddie Izzard. We had several friends over one night and for some reason or another had channel-surfed to HBO during the course of the evening. Someone by the name of \"Eddie Izzard\" was on.I tried not to laugh too loudly at the first few jokes. I didn't want to be held \"responsible\" for the rest of the group's enjoyment of something that was obviously killing me. After holding in my laughs for more than was healthful, I let go--as did the others of us(we were not stoned, by the way, nor talking of insurance and pensions...). We were asphyxiated after that. The story lines, the plot, the bizarre yet ingenious connections throughout the sketches are nothing short of brilliance. I have since been addicted to every Eddie-Izzard-piece-of-comedy I can get my hands on. His work is sheer genius. His comedy appears effortless. He seems more like that hysterically funny friend hanging out at your house and rambling on about this or that...It's convulsively funny. He gives you the impression that the joke is between you .. and himself, the only true aficionados of humor, after all. If you are disappointed in this video, you have no sense of the penultimate in humor--or humour, as they say in the UK.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you need cheering up on a cold weekday evening, this is the film for you! Excellent script and perfectly cast actors. I especially loved Ray psyching himself up in front of the mirror before gigs - inspired!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There's a good reason that Walter Pidgeon is warning off Leslie Nielson and his crew from the relief ship, stuff he dare not dream about.

As Doctor Edward Morbius, Pidgeon is the last survivor of an expedition that came to this planet 20 years earlier. Since that time he married another member of the expedition and had a daughter, Anne Francis. They are the only humans left on this planet which was once the home world of an ancient civilization known as the Krell.

The records as deciphered by Pidgeon indicate the Krell came to a cataclysmic ending of unknown origin. The machinery they left behind is still functioning.

Maybe functioning too well as members of the relief party start dying and in a particular gruesome fashion.

I see all kinds of speculation about a remake and this is one film not to remake because it's as fresh as it was in 1956. The terms would change, we would now say warp speed instead of hyper drive, courtesy of the enduring popularity of Star Trek.

We might not see the men in the relief expedition in a flying saucer like space ship. It might look a lot more like the Starship Enterprise or the Ship from 2001 A Space Odyssey. It's interesting to look at science fiction films from different generations and see how are conceptions of the future do change.

The story behind Forbidden Planet is a timeless one, about mortal beings trying to play God.

You can't write about Forbidden Planet without commenting on Robby the Robot. This mechanical marvel, put together by Pidgeon with the knowledge he gained from studying the Krell was quite the hit back in the day. He got a new lease on life in the sixties with the character of the Robot from Lost In Space. His scenes with Earl Holliman who plays the cook on the space ship and his complying with Earl's request for some home spirits are very funny.

Robby and the other special effects were nominated for an Oscar, but lost to The Ten Commandments and the parting of the Red Sea. Forbidden Planet's bad luck to run up against a Hollywood founder like Cecil B. DeMille.

Classicists among you will recognize Forbidden Planet as a futuristic reworking of The Tempest which when you think about it could have been Shakespeare's one venture into science fiction.

My favorite among the cast is Warren Stevens who's sacrifice enables Leslie Nielsen to learn exactly what he's dealing with.

Never miss this one whenever it's broadcast.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Having Just \"Welcomed Home\" my 23 YR old daughter from a year in Iraq, Camp Anaconda medical support unit, I felt compelled to get this DVD. I wanted to hear other returning vets feelings in order to attempt to better understand her mentality on arrival and not waiting until after something bad happened. Regardless on your take on the war and peace this movie serves as a great start for all Americans to begin the healing of our returning vets emotional void. The paramount statement of the entire movie is \"Take Action\" on the problem . Incredibly emotional movie. I would highly recommend this movie to the vet the vets entire mature family and ask that they follow through with a plan to listen comfort help the returning Gulf War Enduring Freedom vets.

Fast forward nearly one year later & My daughter has seen this DVD. Took account of her emotions and actually has made a commitment to re-up for another 6 years. Her take on her time spent in the sand is that she did some good. Local Balad children got first rate medical treatment for various common ailments not ordinarily able to afford free with an escort and translator. Her look over her shoulder at her Iraq tour was . \"We changed some hearts and minds back there\" Great DVD you have to keep an open mind and see all sides", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I found this film to be an utter dissapointment. The talent available to the director- notably Stanley Tucci, Chris Walken, Hank Azaria and Alan Arkin (without even mentioning the four main leads)- have been completely wasted on an unfunny, mediocre story, whose conclusion one couldn't really care about once introduced to the dire, stereo-typed characters. Julia Roberts is feeble, Zeta-Jones is just plain annoying (appearing to reprise her role from high fidelity, minus the humour), Crystal just plays his same old hyper-active, neurotic, annoying alter-ego and Cusack simply walks through his part, apparently bored with the whole project.

For what is supposed to be a 'Romantic comedy', there is absolutely no romance between the central characters, let alone chemistry, and as for the comedy- (possible SPOILERS)well, the only moments of mild humour came off the back of Cusack's role in Grosse Pointe and his relationship with Alan Arkin- the scriptwriter obviously unable to show any originality whatsoever. (Spoilers) Azaria was reasonably amusing as the Mexican lover and Walken did quite an amusing turn as a parody of an arthouse-maverick-Dogme type director- but these parts constituted very little screen time and instead (Spoilers) we were treated to Billy Crystal having his groin sniffed by a dog. Pure genius.

For a huge fan of the majority of John Cusack's work, not to mention the rest of the fantastic cast, I was completely let down by a film with plenty of good ideas, and at the same time completely unwilling to explore or elaborate on any of them, instead resorting to the same old genre cliches and even lowering itself to the depths of almost 'gross-out, teen-movie' humour at times.

A very poor 4/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Not sure one can call this an anti-war film, it shows war at an elite level. These are elite troops that know what they are doing and take great pride in it. Even when they are pacifist, they still enjoy the skill level and defeating their foes, even if it does go against being a pacifist. The movies is slow and rather uneventful and in many ways is rather tame as war movies go-more so by todays standards, no body parts flying off as in modern movies. It is brutal in other ways though as you see killing at a personal level. This is more of a thinking man's movie. Once you start to watch you don't want to miss anything. The thoughts of the men in the movie and their interactions, is what the movie is about- not the combat itself or a big exciting storyline. This maybe called a war triller.

If you are into the skill of war, if you are into reading or seeing programs about the SAS and so on, YOU WANT TO WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!

Comparable movies are The Hill (1965) with Sean Connery, 49th Parallel (1941) with an all star cast, The Naked and the Dead (1958) with Cliff Robertson. All are unusual in their way and show war at a personal level. Enjoy!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Worst DCOM I have seen. Ever. Well, maybe not as bad as Smart House. This was just bad. The acting and story was fine, but the effects SUCKED!

They were so fake! The only good fight scene was between the brother and Shen. That was probably the only scene in which I was excited.

Overall, I found this movie very boring and the film kind of ended suddenly.

I will give it a four for Brenda Song who is a very funny actress and that one fight scene.

4/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is the one in which the diminutive Ruth Gordon plays an Agatha-Christie type of murder mystery author who locks her nephew by marriage into a safe. Gordon believes that he murdered her niece and the young fellow dies of suffocation, while Gordon is traveling back and forth to New York. He manages, however, to leave behind some clues, scratches on a couple of black safe deposit boxes and an improvised and well-hidden note. Columbo enters the case, suspects her at once, and solves the mystery by simply using his supernatural mystical intuitive powers. Oh, and Mariette Hartley is on hand as Gordon's secretary and would-be blackmailer. Hartley is, I believe, the grand daughter of the psychologist B. F. Skinner. I'm not sure her ancestry had anything to do with her attractive belly button, which is on display during a belly dance sequence, but I've always admired Skinner anyway.

The murder is well handled. It's a good plot, and none of the performers or crew fluff anything. But the outstanding figure here is Ruth Gordon, only a skosh over five feet tall. She was over 80 years old and looked it. There are moments when she almost teeters, but she consistently exudes charm. Her acting is idiosyncratic. You can never be sure when she's being serious or when she's putting Columbo and the audience on. She's given some good lines too. What humor there is comes from Gordon. Columbo doesn't have any of his frequent comic moments.

All in all, a nice job by everyone concerned.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I think the reason for all the opinionated diarrhea on this movie is that most people have it out for Sharon Stone being around 50 and getting naked while playing sexy. No one cared when the Golden Girls sat around eating cheesecake and discussing their first orgasm, but to see someone post menopausal getting digitally pleased while driving I guess is just too much for some to handle. Let's face it, she looks good, she's light years hotter than my mother who's the same age! It's not an Oscar or a cult classic like the first, but ever since the turn of the century that's all movie goers seem to expect: a cinematic experience that will touch your soul. As such, it never claims to be either. It's an erotic thriller that is both erotic and thrilling, and is a continuation of a brilliant character that we all love to hate. It's the character of Catherine Trammell that helped give way for this sequel. Fans of the first movie want to see more of that frosty ice queen.

The cinematography and art direction were lush and extravagant and made me want to move to Britian for sure. The score is amazing as well.

Sure there's some overacting from some characters but there's some brilliant work from David Morrissey who's virtually unknown.

There's a setback in that the script is virtually the same as the first movie only plugging in a psychiatrist in place of the cop. As well as the criminal decision of the MPAA to force the movie to be cut down even more which takes away from the guilty-pleasure raunchiness that the story is known for.

At the very least it's entertaining and fun to look at it, and that's the movie's only intentions. So if you've got beef with Mizz Stone, maybe you should actually SEE the movie and draw your own conclusions before you spew forth your projectile vomit?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Man would expect that a movie shot with an approx. budget of 300,000,000 U$D should at least entertain you for the time you are spending in the cinema actally watching it. \"Matrix Reloaded\" proves this assumption wrong.

\"The Matrix\" worked out better, despite having apparent holes concerning logic of the story. At least nobody could explain to me why beating up a bot (aka agent) inside a simulation (aka martix) would harm the responsible computer program in any way...

Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers made excactly this \"agent-bashing\" the main thing in \"Matrix Reloaded\": it's a beat 'em up o-rama. This fighting scenes may be work out sufficient (or even cool) in a 5 sec. trailer, but prolonged for several minutes, apparently being faked, choreographed poorly and repeated over and over again it is nothing more than boring. Despite seeing the promised spectecular stunts there is nothing more than simple low-quality, unimaginative bashing already seen (or better not) in eg. Van Damme 'movies'. The difference of post-production (etherything is 5 times faster, the camera floats around a lot and freezes on certain scenes, and this is repeated for at least 5min) doesn't help here, all this has nothing to do with the very meaning of \"martial arts\". Beside these 'fights', all actors do refuse to do what they are payed for: acting.

What's up besides the fighting scenes? Few except Hollywood routine. This oh-so-multicultural bunch of hippies which sucked in \"Waterworld\" are recycled as citizen of \"Zion\" (mans last city on earth), and on the order of Morpheus they start dancing, 'cause this is a good opportunity to show a lot of barely covered tits and butts. The oh-so-popular clichée of the frog aka frenchmen talking with this \"je ne sais quoi\" dumb accent, who wastes his fortune because of a \"liason d'amour\" is bravely served. Following this (and unwanted funny) is the fight between Neo and the sinister followers of 'the frog', since it takes place in an Erroy Flynn like enterieur, luckily featuring a lot of mideaval weapons for decoration. For Neo posing with the hellebarde, just add 2 stairs and a lot of statues (for being destructed, thrown over evil guys and the like) and you get 5 more senseless, boring min. of this junk.

Whats left to expect? The usual merchandising hell. And \"revolutions\" which will happen or not - certainly without me.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Like most of the festivals entries Hamiltons makes for an interesting watch a film thats all ideas and little execution. Although impressive for it's obvious low budget the film falters in it's final twist and becomes dreadfully long during it's drawn out and obvious conclusion. The film is about a family of murderous outcasts trying to survive after there parents have died. They kidnap people , drain the blood from them and feed something locked away in their basement. There's some nice darkly humorous performances from Mckellhar and Firgens and the rest are just so-so. The film never feels realistic or very disturbing for that matter. But for the first half taps into an oddly humorous and dark mixture which is a surprising accomplishment. The next half isn't so successful as it receeds into film oblivion with unrealistic twists into a ridiculously cocky finale that turns the entire film into utter crap. It's a shame though there is no doubt that some talent was involved with this production and although deeply flawed it remains original and creative. too bad that when it comes to the delivery it completely fails on every level.

**/5", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Whoa boy.

Ever wanted to watch a documentary about a megalomaniacal jerk ruining his own life and alienating everyone around him? Well they exist, in many forms. But have you ever wanted to watch said documentary about one who didn't ultimately succeed in doing anything despite everyone's praises about how much of an artistic \"genius\" he is? Well you could probably just grab a camera and find someone like that in any local scene (I know they're everywhere and I don't even follow the local scene), or you could save yourself the trouble by spending money watching this tripe.

The premise is good and, honestly, it's not as if the filmmakers knew precisely where it was going considering that's one of the difficulties of doing a documentary. We are made to follow two bands, The Brian Jamestown Massacre, lead by Anton, and The Dandy Warhols, lead by Courtney. I've heard of The Dandy Warhols before watching this movie... not so the Brian Jamestown Massacre. Why? Well from this documentary's perspective, because The Brian Jamestown Massacre's intergroup dysfunction refused them the ability to really make it in the music industry. However, instead of this becoming an analysis of the two separate bands and how one was able to succeed, the focus becomes much more on Anton and his insanity.

Because, see, Anton is a \"genius.\" Because he plays rock music. He really \"understands the evolution of music\"... because he plays rock music with a lot of different instruments. His music is considered \"post-modern retro but the future\"... because it's rock music. He wants to bring out a \"revolution\"... through rock music. Okay so let's face it... twenty minutes in and this is one of the stupidest kids I'd care to watch a documentary about.

The documentary itself doesn't really lend itself to showcasing any of Anton's talent, because in the nature of editing down 2000 hours of material into a quarter short of two hours we don't really have the time to focus on that. So instead we watch Anton, \"the genius\", the socio-maniacal loser, be a jerk for the two hours and are just told to understand that he made really great music. Whether he did or not I won't know, because its not like the documentary had enough time to prove it. What I do know is that then we're left with a story about some self-centered obnoxious twerp running around the country calling himself a God of music and doing nothing to back it up. Why even bother watching that? People like Anton don't deserve the attention they seek, the hope and admiration of all those different people, and especially a post-failure paean to lost potential. This movie plays like a two-hour rough-cut VH1 special for a reason: he goes on and on about the music, but it's all about the image and the attention. Look at the guy, look at how he dresses, look at how he acts, look at how he tries to create controversy because he can't afford marketing.

Honestly the only interesting character in this film is Joel, and that's because of anyone in this documentary, Joel is the only person who seems to have any fun. Maybe it's because he's the tambourine man. The rest of them are all \"rock stars\"! They deserve our attention, and admiration, and interest, and engagements! They are out there to \"save rock and roll.\" Do you remember when The White Stripes were supposed to \"save rock and roll\"? Yeah, that was because of Anton, and it's \"selfish of them not to mention me (Anton) as an inspiration.\" What a load. People like Anton are best left forgotten. This documentary explains why mainstream music is so dull--because music execs have to deal with people like Anton for a living and ultimately can only really throw their support behind someone safe and passionless. Thanks a lot, Anton. Your antics ruined music for EVERYONE you touched, whatever the opinion to the contrary is. And if people \"in the know\" about Anton disagree and he really was a genius, it still shows how bad this documentary is that it cuts it down that way.

--PolarisDiB", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Such a Long Journey\" is a well crafted film, a good shoot, and a showcase for some good performances. However, the story is such a jumble of subplots and peculiar characters that it becomes a sort of Jack of all plots and master of none. Also, Western audiences will likely find the esoterics of the rather obscure Parsee culture a little much to get their arms around in 1.7 hours. Recommended for those with an interest in India.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There is indeed much to complain about this movie version of Molnar's mystical play --Farrell looks good in his title role, but his line readings, frankly, stink. This also suffers, in large part, from this being credited as the first movie that makes use of rear projection. The sets look phony.

There are two great strengths in this show, however: although the dialogue readings limp, the visual performances are perfect. Rose Hobart, as Julie, is little remembered today: mostly for ROSE HOBART, in which Joseph Cornell cut down the programmer EAST OF BORNEO to simply shots of her: credit Melford's stylish visual direction of the original. Her great beauty and simple (although stagy) performance help repair some of the damage to the earth-bound sections of this movie.

However, one of Borzage's themes is the mystical power of love, and it is the handling of the celestial sections that make this great, from the arrival of the celestial train to the journey to 'the Hot Place'. H.B. Warner's performance here is, as always, perfect.

So we have here a flawed but very interesting version. I think that Lang's 1934 version is better, as well as the celestial scenes in the Henry King version of CAROUSEL, the watered-down musical remake. But I still greatly enjoyed this version and think you should give it a chance.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A pretty memorable movie of the animals-killing-people variety, specifically similar to \"Willard\" in that it stars an aging character actor (in this case, a step down a bit to the level of Les Tremayne, who puts in the only distinguished performance I've seen him give) in a role as a man whose life is unbalanced and who subsequently decides to use his animal friends to exact revenge on those who have wronged him. Yes, this is one of those movies where pretty much everybody is despicable, so that you will cheer when they die, and really the selection of actors, locations, etc. couldn't be better at giving the film an atmosphere of shabby decadence.

Tremayne's character is \"Snakey Bender\", and he is certainly the most interesting thing about the movie: an aged snake collector who is obsessed with John Philip Souza's music. When the local preacher clamps down on his practice of collecting small animals from the local schoolchildren as bait for his snakes, and his friend gets married to a stripper (thus upsetting his ritual Wednesday night band concert) he goes on the rampage, in the process creating a memorable pile-up of clunkers beneath the cliff where he dumps the wrecks after disposing of their unfortunate owners. One amusing game you can play while watching \"Snakes\" is to place bets on which cars will land the farthest down the cliff.

All in all, very cheap and exploitative, but will really be a lot of fun for fans of these kinds of movies.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Memoirs of a Geisha is a beautifully filmed movie, there is no doubt about that. And the acting is generally excellent, at least in terms of how it portrays the characters as they are scripted.

However, so many details small and large are just _wrong_ that it just bothers me too much to be able to enjoy it fully. A small detail that typifies the kind of lack of sensitivity of sorts is one scene (no this does not spoil anything) where Mameha rings a bell that hangs at the door of the house where Sayuri lives, on a snowy winter day. The bell she's ringing is a fuurin, or wind chime - that is only left hanging outside of houses in Japan in the summer! People in traditional Japanese homes didn't have doorbells - they just opened the door and announced themselves. (You may think this is such a trivial detail, but I would equate this to a movie made about America where a Christmas wreath is hanging on the door in July and no one thinks anything of it.) And don't even get me started on the totally wrong hairstyles given to the maiko and geisha, which is vaguely pan-Asian/Chinese/kung-fu-ish, and nothing like real thing. I think this rather cavalier attitude towards the culture they are trying to portray really comes out in the attitudes and the portrayals of people and situations too.

So, I suppose that the less you know about Japanese culture and the world of the geisha and maiko in Kyoto (which is what \"Miyako\" is), then I suppose the more you will enjoy this. I honestly think this movie could have been so much better...as it is, it's just another Hollywood version of \"exotic Japan\".", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Glacier Fox is one of the most heartrending and wonderfully photographed wildlife films ever made.

The film makes you care about each member of this fox family, from the blind cub to the strongest - their adventures are at times hilarious and also tragic. Set against an inhospitable countryside, the audience's hearts warm to the family members.

The music score and lyrics tell the story intercut with narration about what is happening in general terms.

Man remains one of the biggest predators, but we are left in no doubt that the foxes are capable of living, not just surviving beyond human endeavours.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I found myself very caught up in this movie, at least at the beginning, and any credit I give to this movie, is Lacey Chabert, she was fantastic!! But thats where it ends. I seem to be very good at figuring out who the killer is, and I like it when a movie is able to completely baffel me, but I felt out and out lied to, they whole time they lead you in one direction and then suddenly they decided to go in a completely different direction at the end, they gave no hit to it at all, thats not misleading that very bad writing and planning, someone did not think at all!

I felt the movie would have been much better if they had stuck to the plot that the lead you on, they also seemed to not answer anything, why did Jane(maria) burn down the professor's house.

Its a great pity as I felt it started out as a relatively good movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.

Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Forget the jaded comments that come before these. This is an action packed but sensitive movie about people who overcome real problems in a beautiful setting. Well-acted, even by Elizabeth Berkley. Recommended for anyone who wants to feel something and experience change.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie starts something like a less hyper-kinetic, more pastiche Dead or Alive: strange underground activities are done while bodies are discovered by police officers. But when a police officer is killed, one Tatsuhito gets involved... and when he discovers that his brother Shihito is also involved, things get bloody quite fast.

An earlier work of Miike's, Shinjuku Triad Society is still filled with his usual in the ol' ultraviolence and sadistic sex acts, though it's not one of his more eclectic or flamboyant pieces. Rather, it's a pretty well crafted bit of pulp fiction, as Tatsuhito digs his way through the underground, a maze that leads him to a gay Triad leader who sells illegally gained body organs from Taiwan and keeps an almost-brothel of young boys (one in particular the character who kills the cop at the beginning). Tatsuhito's brother is getting involved with said society, so Tatsuhito himself is forced to become a dirty cop and use similarly violent and sadistic tactics to penetrate into this sordid realm.

What's mainly interesting about this little bit of work is the relationship Tatsuhito has with his nemesis, Wang. Tatsuhito is a Japanese born in China, later moved back into Japan, and alienated for it. Wang is a Chinese who felt alienated in China, so killed his father and developed a crime wing in Japan. Wang also is a surprisingly Shakespearian character, which is weird enough as it is, much less that you actually begin to feel sorry for him by the time his ultimate showdown with Tatsuhito comes to be. And Tatsuhito himself is a similarly tragic figure when he's forced to contend with his lack of ability to control his brother. While it would be rude to state that Miike's movies are successful mostly on their shock value, it is true that sometimes it's easy to lose track of how well Miike can create bitter, dis-impassioned characters.

--PolarisDiB", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "While returning from a Christmas Eve shopping trip, an abused suburban housewife (Basinger) finds herself in a fight for survival after a disagreement with a group of delinquent youths takes a violent turn.

Suffering the indignity of a straight to DVD release here in the U.K., Susan Montford's directorial debut will perhaps not be given the recognition it deserves. This is a shame, as the standard of the writing, directing and acting is very good indeed, and certainly surpasses the quality of your average straight to DVD flick.

Kim Basinger gives her best performance in some time as the downtrodden wife of an abusive husband (Craig Sheffer). While Sheffer is not really given anything more to do than be a threatening presence, it is in their brief scenes together that Basinger connects - showing painful vulnerability yet hinting at the rage that will eventually boil over in her confrontations with the youths. It's a truly great, understated performance, her transformation from victim to aggressor is seamlessly played.

Lukas Haas I initially thought was miscast, as he (along with the other three youths) just did not seem much of a threat. However, had all four youths been more physically imposing, the later scenes in which Basinger turns the tables against them would not have worked at all. The fact that these are four average men, albeit slightly unhinged, is the key to why the film works as well as it does.

Apart from a few pacing issues during the latter half of the movie and a couple of cheesy lines here and there, what we have here is a great thriller that actually leaves the viewer with something to think about when the film is over. Some may be put off by the slow - burn nature of the opening scenes, or the abrupt ending. Others by the at times brutal violence. I say give it a chance, it's certainly more deserving of your time than Saw V.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie shocked me. Personally i had herd mostly bad buzz. Well finally after owning the DVD for months now i pooped it in on a sleepless night. though the movie did drag the extra footage was used with purpose the seriousness of his passion and his recovery from addition to the game would have been less realistic if they had left out any scenes. The best thing about the movie is it's consistency with the relationship. There were no ex's popping up or characters threatening the relationship. I mean typically we see the girl meets boy by some amazing twist of fate,they date,something we saw coming breaks them up up and then they get back together in the last five minutes of the movie. but this movie did not follow that mold. We actually experienced the relationship and it's flaws and though the characters did have there moments of anti-love they did not have dramatic pauses were they went off and did a montage every 15 and then reunite in love again. i did not feel the movie was as predictable as the rest of the romance movies. The story was unique and truthful to reality in the way that i felt these people in the film were the most believable that i have seen in a romance film from modern times.And it did not hurt that all the baseball games were real and they were at the actual world series so fate kicked in a little there also. It's no \"My fair lady\" but it is a spirited and honest film. I'll simply say i like it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Writing something genuine and true is challenging. Knowing how to shoot it and putting it together without making it trivial is even better. Ishai Setton's movie is one of those where you can recognize Life in all its simplicity and beauty. I have been touched by \"The big bad Swim\" and from now on, I will promote it as far as I can. It is just a shame that I can't have something to show to my friends (you know, such as a DVD???), because talking is good...but giving something to see is better. Everyone can't go to festivals to discover pearls like that and this movie's really worth to be put out there! A big THANK YOU to the staff of this master piece, and I am waiting for it to be distributed.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "OK, here it is: \"Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama.\" What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a \"political\" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I need to be honest. I watched and enjoy this show because it was gross, offensive, hilarious, and raunchy. Yeah, there is a lot of humor for all tastes. If you are into the kind of humor that deals with making fun of people falling from skateboards, for example then you will have a great time for it.

Or, if you enjoy people on extreme stunt actions going bad, you will also have a great time. And if you enjoy scatological humor and extreme situations oh , you will enjoy the show.

I enjoy all three kinds of humor that \"Dirty Sànchez\" offers. I like to have a hard laugh with the situations of the show. \"Jackass\" is like a walk in the park compared to this one. So if you are tired of the typical American stupidity of Jackass, give it a try to English extreme stupidity on this show. With all due respect.

This is a show that has little taste or class. It's not recommended for those who are easily offended or grossed out.

Now, these guys need to see a psychologist. Specially the Paco character.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Just a warning... This is the worst movie I have seen in years... I couldn't watch it to the end... It is a pure waste of time... I really feel sorry for Snipes that he ended up in such a movie. There really is not much to say about it. Horrible acting, incredibly bad lines, story, everything. The only reason I would advise you to watch this movie is if you really want to see how a movie shouldn't be. Just to tell you one scene: the police are searching for Snipes, and they are surrounding the building with helicopters and cars, they are shooting around inside the building, but still they are whispering so that Snipes doesn't suspect a thing.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "An old family story told to two young girls by their grandfather is brought to life 16 years later as he foretold.

People are getting murdered and blood is being spilled and rats are scampering all over and naked bodies are being enjoyed.

Kitty (Barbara Bouchet) is the suspect, but we know she is not the killer. Is it Franziska (Marina Malfatti)? Is it Evelyn back from death for revenge? Is it a plot to steal an inheritance? The color is superb in this thriller from Emilio Miraglia, who only did one other Giallo, as far as I know.

The only thing that spoiled the film was the appearance that several frames were cut out. Someone calls the police, and suddenly they are there trying to save Kitty.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm amazed we see even one nay-sayer criticizing this old film. We don't ordinarily get good opera films, and here is a true grand opera rendition. Understandably, the visuals are not great. It's dated. But as opera it can't be faulted; and I'm an opera buff. I can't even detect one lip-sync; if we didn't know that was Tebaldi in the audio nothing would convince me it isn't Sophia Loren. She does EVERYTHING with flair! Her dark makeup is fine; and she brought the role to gorgeous life! The rest of the cast is wonderful, as is that stunning ballet troupe. Most of the actors are excellent; Loren truly marvelous. Her rival Amneris is also terrific. Whoever didn't care for this 1953 job is shamefully remiss. Verdi would have enjoyed it! Naturally, Renata Tebaldi as Aida is the engine behind the scenes. I love this old movie!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Having never seen the original Dirty Harry, I judged this movie on a clean slate. And I must say, I quite enjoyed it. Sure, some of the acting by Sondre Locke made me a little squeemish - but hey, it was the 80's. But even if you can't get past her (and I almost couldn't) or her revenge killings (which seemed a little.. overdone ;P), it's worth it just for Dirty Harry. Or at the very least, the bull dog he affectionately names 'MeatHead' :P

7/10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.

Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.

The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.

The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.

The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint \"Precinct 707\" on a cardboard wall.

Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.

More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.

After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.

At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.

Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.

I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Think \"stage play\". This is worth seeing once for the performances of Lionel Atwill and Dwight Frye. COmpare the Melvyn DOuglas in \"Ghost Story\" with the Melvyn DOuglas of this film. Are there vampires at loose in this 'Bavarian' village, or is there a more natural, albeit equally sinister, explanation? Dwight Frye is Herman, a red herring, who is cast as an especially moronic character. It's fun to look at his different facial expressions in what is really a stock character. NOt much happens for a long time, but then we discover that Atwill's pipe smoking doctor is the real murderer. There is too much 'comic relief' but that is par for the course for this era. Fay Wray looks really good.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I've been watching a lot of cartoon or animated movies because I have a baby girl who likes to watch TV. I began to watch this movie to see if I would like my little one to watch it... and no. At the beginning I thought it was such a cute movie like the Bambi movie, but all the way it was like insinuating the ducky was a homosexual. The info said that they were making fun of him because he wasn't good at sports, but that was not the case. It just seems like a movie made for kids to learn to be okay being gay. It was also very sad, as far as the ducky's dad and all. I don't know, I guess if you're gay you'd like it, but I don't think I'm going to watch it again with my little one.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Seldom do I give up on a movie without seeing the entire show. This is particularly true when I have rented it on DVD. Syriana was one in which I did give up. Half way through I turned it off in bored disgust.

This movie is disjointed, boring, confusing and lackluster. The acting was dry and without credible portrayals. The general plot was good but developed in such an insipid and boring fashion that it failed to grasp my attention or interest. The multiple sub plots often failed to connect to each other and seemed more like random stories than an actual connected plot. Too bad such a serious subject and such great actors could create such a flop. I cannot imagine this movie receiving any nominations much less an award.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I just saw this film on Turner Classic Movies last night and was blown away by Victor McLaglen's performance:In every sense of the word a \"tour de force\". The atmosphere of 1922 Dublin evoked through the cinematography and production design really foreshadowed techniques used in the best film noirs of the 40's and early 50's.Very nice attention to detail also;during Frankie McPhillip's (Wallace Ford's) wake, the mourners are all praying in Gaelic. Max Steiner's score is unforgettable. As in later films such as 1939's GWTW, he appropriated folk ballads to lend local color and a sense of place and time. John Ford: already a film giant in 1935!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"And the time came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom\" - Anais Nin Marcel Proust says, \"The real voyage of discovery lies in not seeing new landscapes but in having new eyes.\" Author and screenwriter Antwone Fisher joined the U.S. Navy to see new landscapes but the demons of his past prevented him from seeing the world through new eyes. Based on his autobiography \"Finding Fish\" written many years after the events, his story is dramatized in the film Antwone Fisher, Denzel Washington's first directorial effort. It is a heartfelt if somewhat formulaic look at the painful process of moving from being consumed by one's past to being able to live life in present time.

Required to attend therapy sessions after several outbursts of anger at the base, the painful aspects of his childhood are shown in flashback as the grown up Antwone (Derek Luke) recounts his life in sessions with Navy Psychiatrist Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington). He is at first unwilling to talk, but when he begins, the floodgates are opened. After his father was shot to death by a girlfriend and Antwone was abandoned by his mother after being released from prison, he was placed in a foster home where he lived for fourteen years, suffering humiliation and sexual abuse. According to Antwone, the treatment by his foster mother Mrs. Tate (Novella Nelson) who referred to him only as \"nigga\" and by his cousin Nadine (Yolonda Ross) was in fact much worse than shown on the screen.

The only friend he has is a local by named Jesse (Jascha Washington) who, later in the film, only adds to his feelings of abandonment. It is difficult to build a film around psychiatric sessions but it was done successfully in Ordinary People and Good Will Hunting with a great deal more dramatic interest but it succeeds here because of the dominant performances of Washington and Luke, though the film's attempt to compress eleven years into a few months seems a bit too facile. Davenport's humanity and warmth, however, allows Fisher to feel safe enough to discuss his difficult past and Cheryl (Joy Bryant), his new girlfriend who is also in the Navy, supports him in his struggle to achieve a breakthrough.

With Cheryl's help and Dr. Davenport's counseling, Antwone develops enough self-esteem to return to Cleveland and begin the journey to try and find his mother in order to complete the past. What comes through in Derek Luke's incredible performance is Antwone's longing for acceptance, dramatized in a heartbreaking dream shown at the beginning of the film in which he is the guest of honor at a banquet filled with people who love him. Comedian Mort Sahl once said that \"people just have to remember what we're all here for: to find our way home...\" Antwone Fisher touches not only on the longing of one young person to find his way home but reaches all those who have cried themselves to sleep, not knowing the joy of being loved.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There should be a rule that states quite clearly that movies like Resident Evil are supposed to be made in the spirit of the game, not in the spirit of blowing up everything possible. RE was a survival horror game, and a damn effective one at that, yet Paul WS Anderson managed to make it like any other video game movie to come along. Alone in the Dark is essentially the same kind of a spirit as Resident Evil, so of course, there is the slight hope the director will manage to have some piece of a brain enough to make a horror movie and not an action movie. Instead, Alone in the Dark just proves that there is no longer hope for video games becoming movies.

The plot, despite the fact that it obviously isn't supposed to matter, is the largest of many problems with the movie. The movie starts with what can only be described as five minutes of scrolling text that may or may not be important, as after a minute passes, the audience stops caring and just sits through the rest hitting the object closest to them. Then there's something about an orphanage, some artefacts, an ancient tribe, some bureaucracy and some demons, all of which get so jumbled together that the viewers really can't follow with what is going on. Characters move in and out of the plot like candy, some having huge build-ups for meaningless deaths. Basically, what I can understand is that some demons got released, and Edward Carnby (Slater) has some link to them thanks to some operation given to children in his orphanage which has failed on him. He finds an artefact involving the demons and brings it to an ex-girlfriend anthropologist (Reid), who of course he manages to have sex with right away for no good reason. Then, out of nowhere, all hell breaks loose, and the pair end up with a military team led by some asshole commander (Dorff), who apparently has a mutual hatred for Carnby.

It's all ridiculous, and the reason I don't really understand it isn't just because it's complicated and jumbled, but it leaves no room for anyone to really care. Instead, I highly recommend that, if you must see this film, bring a tennis ball or something to occupy yourself when the plot manages to bore you into confusion.

The action scenes in a movie with a plot as terrible as this should at least bring it up a little, right? Too bad, this movie is like any other ruined crap ever made, with enough quick cuts to behead a coop of chickens. Considering that this is based on a horror game, not an action game, it is especially annoying.

The first action scene involving a man chasing Cranby from a taxi is among the worst I have ever had to witness, and the rest isn't all that great either. The demons look somewhat cool, though the fact that they turn into powder when killed takes away all that effect. Scenes involving lots of guns which should be cool to watch instead involve the muzzle fire as the only source of light and the camera zooming and panning faster than the head of a crack addict. It's all the kind of seizure inducing crap that keeps children in bed at night.

The acting is what I like to call taking actors and making them do nothing. Slater does nothing but sound important for the whole movie, though he does seem to have more talent than he is letting on. The same is true of Dorff, who gets a thankless role despite actually having some talent (something that has happened to him a lot). Reid is pretty much exactly what she should be, background sex appeal, as whenever she tries to act it is a disaster (as is the incredibly bad scientist look she has in the beginning).

In all, this is the type of movie that worries me about future video game movies. If they keep ruining the spirit like this, it's only a matter of time before Samus Aran is killing Middle-Easterns with an AK-47 and Tommy Vercetti is fighting a squadron of aliens. Unlike Resident Evil, however, this one doesn't deserve a second chance, as I don't think anything could possibly help me forget just how terrible this movie is. It's bland, uninteresting and unexciting. This is the movie equivalent of diarrhea; it's all thrown together, nothing really fits and, in the end, you're just glad it's over.

TOTAL: 4%", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was thought to be the flagship work of the open source community, something that would stand up and scream at the worlds media to take notice as we're not stuck in the marketing trap with our options in producing fine work with open source tools. After the basic version download ( die hard fan here on a dial-up modem ) eventually got here I hit my first snag. Media Player, Mplayer Classic & winamp failed to open it on my xp box, and then Totem, xine & kaffeine failed to open it on my suse server. Mplayer managed to run it flawlessly. Going to be hard to spread the word about it if normal users cant even open it...

The Film. Beautiful soundtrack, superb lighting, masterful camera work and flawless texturing. Everything looked real. And then the two main characters moved.... and spoke... And the movie died for me. Everything apart from the lip syncing and the actual animation of the two main characters ( except for Proog in the dancing scene ) looked fluid and totally alive. The two main characters were animated so poorly that at times i was wondering if there are any games on the market at the moment with cut-scenes that entail less realism than this.

Any frame in the movie is fantastic.. as a frame, and the thing is great if neither actors are moving. I'm so glad i haven't actually recommended this to anyone. I'd ruin my reputation.

Oh, and final fantasy had a more followable and cunningly devised plot.

this movie would get 10 stars if it wasn't for the tragedy that sits right there on the screen.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, \"wow, finally, some entertainment.\" It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH \"playing around\" time.

At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.

Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.

Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...

I believe \"Good Day LA\" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.

SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's \"Today.\" ABC's \"Good Morning America\" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was my second time watching the film (via the French-language version as opposed to the first, which was dubbed in Italian) and I feel that it improves on subsequent viewings.

A compelling if slowly built-up character study that's beautifully shot and with the Parisian settings being equally impressive. In the long run, it's not top-grade Polanski and I would rank it at number 9 in his filmography but it's still a confident mix of subtle chills and, surprisingly, often broad comedy. It also features a fine cast, all of whom are in good form, but especially Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas and Jo Van Fleet.

Even so, I'm a bit baffled by the sudden compulsion for Trelkovsky to 'change' into the previous tenant; apart from the owner of the café opposite the apartment building, where he is given whatever Simone used to have without asking him if he wished any different, there is little to indicate (as far as I could discern, anyway) that this is what everybody wanted of him! Okay, so he found Simone's belongings still lying in the apartment but what exactly drove him to wear her dresses and make himself up as her (even if he apparently started doing this unconsciously)? Following his nightmarish visions in the bathroom, the last section of the film (where Adjani all but disappears) is almost anti-climactic - especially the scene where the landlord and the other tenants witness his attempted suicide as if it were a night at the Opera, a concept which had already been used 46 years earlier by Jean Cocteau in THE BLOOD OF A POET (1930)!

The ending, then, is at once predictable and unresolved: just what made the two occupants of this particular apartment jump out of the window?!; I remember this factor bugging me on first viewing as well, and I'm sorry to say it's no clearer now! Mind you, the film's first two-thirds are pretty solid but I wish that Polanski had been less reliant on obscure plot points throughout.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Unlike some comments, mine is positive. This movie wraps around the dinner table with a group of friends, some you like, some you don't. A few are related--mother, daughter, son. Their stories are not one smooth, happy with everyone and everything, type of life--much like real life. Some story lines do not evolve, they just happen. But like true families and good friends, they stick together. The wanna-be parents who are buying a baby are such a--holes! You are happy for the ending. Poor Delmar is stuck between a rock and a boulder taking care of herself, her mom, her son, and trying to keep all their lives together. This does not end with a sunset walk or house in the 'burbs and all are living in a dream world, but is a very real life portrayal of people living day to day, month to month. Overall, this is a good story and a great movie!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Which do you think the average person would know more/less about: Iranian cinema or Iranian football? Interestingly, the two come to the forefront of controversial Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi's latest film entitled 'Offside', a tale that uses football or access to football as a backdrop for a series of scenes revolving around one's right to do something or go somewhere and an individual's right to extend that courtesy if and when they'd like to. The odd thing is, you don't come away from Offside having learnt about Iranian football or too much about Iranian cinema (unless it's an education in Panahi's controversial style), but you do come away feeling enlightened, that at least someone from Iran has taken a controversial issue that is clearly still very much in force in a nation like Iran, and is willing to present it to an international audience rather than exploit it.

I can remember the 2006 World Cup, I'm sure many people can. It was the summer after my initial year out at university and after the slog that was my first year, a summer of World Cup football acted as a nicely timed tonic. Needless to say, I saw practically every game bar the ones they show simultaneously with the other ones at the very end of the group stages so that to avoid incidences as seen in Spain '82 when it was thought West Germany and Austria transpired to get a result between them that would see them both through at the expense of Algeria.

Anyone in Britain that was watching the BBC's broadcast of the Iran – Mexico game, both nations' first of the tournament, may remember that at the top of the show, the BBC's football anchorman Gary Lineker let off a snide comment to introduce the match. It went something like: 'We've seen giants Germany, England, Argentina and Holland play but now we get to see.........Mexico and Iran battle it out'. The emphasis on the latter two being inferior was clear and that maybe watching them was a chore. It's a shame because there are people, and films like Offside present them, who are really willing to see Iran play to the point where they risk their well-being to achieve it and it's sad when people in a position of power dismiss what they deem 'inferior' when there are others who'd do anything to have the chance to otherwise engage.

When immediately thinking of the words 'Iran', 'football' and 'World Cup', my mind flies back to the France '98 game between said nation and America. Here is a film about a World Cup game of sorts involving Iran but where some or indeed most Iranian filmmakers may well have opted to present a tale revolving around Iran's famous victory over The United States and what that meant to them, director Panahi chooses to look at what goes on behind the scenes and presents a story from the stands as women are barred from football matches and are not allowed to live the ecstasy of winning a game of immense magnitude. You can imagine a heavy handed film detailing Iran's 'victory' as a lumbering propaganda film designed to exploit as they 'defeat' a Western power or 'enemy' at a sport they perhaps were not expected to do so in.

A couple of films that spring to mind when it comes to beating the unbeatable at their own game are 2001 Indian film 'Lagaan', in which the Indian peasants defeat the ruling British at cricket. Similalry, 2005's 'The Game of Their Lives' sees the Americans defeat the English at a football match only this time in the 1950 World Cup. The differences between these films and Offside are immense; Offside is looking at a situation behind a state's mentality and dares to explore an essence of Feminism as the girls, trying to see their beloved Iran defeat Bahrain and qualify for the World Cup, are rounded up like animals and kept in a crude purgatory mere feet from a barred window that would allow them to see the game. The reasoning is to do with the foul language the men 'may', not will, but 'may' use during the game. The film presents Iran as so incompetent that they cannot take away a man's right to swear and ban the bad language but must ban a woman's right to see the game all together – it is no wonder Panahi's film was itself banned in Iran.

But Panahi remembers to include what makes the rule so crazy in the first place by frequently allowing his female characters to both smoke cigarettes and use mobile phones, two things the doctors and scientists will have you think are far more dangerous to the human body/mind than hearing a little bit of foul language at a football match. Panahi pays special attention to the title of his film 'Offside' which itself is a ruling within football detailing when an 'attacker' is 'caught' trying to gain an advantage in the field of play. The parallels run with the womens' position in the film as these advancing (supposedly without right) individuals are caught trying to put one over the opposition team; that being the state itself.

I think Offside is one of the better films to come out of the Middle East and surrounding Gulf area that I've seen. It's a tense but humbling film about people who do not carry any acting history according to the IMDb and thus, the acting is raw and real adding that quaint neo-realist aura to it all. The immediate ending is haunting and the constant verbal battle between the male soldiers and female wrong-doers who dared to defy the state is wonderful. I also think for anyone to actually dislike the film for the reasons I've mentioned shows a distinct level of callous, either that or you work in the Iranian government.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Making the film as dark and visually fuzzy as possible in order to cover up the budget deficiencies is an often-used strategy in low-budget horror films, but this one takes it too far. It is SO poorly lit and murky (and it takes place almost entirely at night, to boot) that you often end up virtually looking at a black screen (although perhaps the bad video transfer may also have had something to do with that). Alas, \"murky\" is also the best word to describe the movie's plot. The filmmakers throw in diverse (and unoriginal) horror ideas without any semblance of logic, and halfway through you get the feeling that they just about abandoned the effort to make a good horror film; you know it when you see characters who are supposed to be in mortal danger (or, in some occasions, even dead) making small talk....(*1/2)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you love The Thin Man series, you will love this movie. Powell's character of Vance is very similar to his character of Nick Charles. There are even dogs. . .

The chemistry between Powell and Astor may not be as fabulous as Powell and Loy, but it isn't half bad.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In Iran, women are officially banned from men's sporting events. In June 2005, the Iran's national soccer team has an important game against Bahrain in the Azadi Stadium for the qualification of the World Cup. A group of Iranian girls and lovers of soccer dresses like boys and unsuccessfully attempts to enter in the stadium being arrested.

Soccer (and Flamengo's team), beach and movies are my greatest passions; therefore I loved this little gem about a group of girls and their passion for soccer. The director Jafar Panahi, from \"The White Balloon\", \"The Mirror\" and \"The Circle\", shot this movie on the day that Iran defeated Bahrain and qualified to the World Cup in Germany. The dramatic and funny adventure of these Iranian girls is one of the most delightful movies I have ever seen. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): Not Available", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Having seen most of Ringo Lam's films, I can say that this is his best film to date, and the most unusual. It's a ancient china period piece cranked full of kick-ass martial arts, where the location of an underground lair full of traps and dungeons plays as big a part as any of the characters. The action is fantastic, the story is tense and entertaining, and the set design is truely memorable. Sadly, Burning Paradise has not been made available on DVD and vhs is next-to-impossible to get your mitts on, even if you near the second biggest china-town in North America (like I do). If you can find it, don't pass it up.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This absolute trash is based so closely on the Friday the 13th series that is practically a carbon copy, accept for it being an Australian film with people who can't act.

Once upon a time a young boy got burnt up accidentally during the filming of a music video at Lake Eildon. Now, a number of years later, the boy is all grown up and taking revenge on anybody who comes to the lake to film a music video. It is cliche-ridden and a waste of time and money, see it only out of curiosity, or if you're an aspiring actor trying to learn how NOT to (not be able to) act. Lead role Alan Dale used to star in the television soap opera Neighbours, but ended up in The X Files - how did THAT happen?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Although this movie has some weaknesses, it is worth seeing. I chose it because of the cast, and applaud Bonham Carter and Branagh for choosing roles different from those they have taken in the past. Both portray very troubled people, complete with warts, but make them likeable because of their humanity. The story is touching, but it is the performances that soar. Bonham Carter's \"Jane\" is a remarkable achievement, whose quest for romance opened my eyes to aspects of being disabled that I had not thought of before, but was interesting as well for other reasons. I felt the movie ended too abruptly, but better that than a drawn out emotionally manipulative ending (see \"Stepmom.\") The very real English setting added to my enjoyment - it was England in the 90's, both urban and rural, without being depressing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This a fascinatingly awful movie. It make so little sense that it starts to make a kind of weird internal logic of its own. Well, it would if it didn't keep darting off up side-alleys until eventually floundering under the weight of its own indecisiveness. The movie can't make up its mind whether it is a straight forward 'Man Turns Into Monster' flick (like all those 1950s 'THE INCREDIBLE insert verb ING MAN' movies), or a ghastly big business conspiracy theory movie, or a mystical afterlife contact story, or... or what? Take your pick. It's just a mess. Grotesquely over the top and firing off in all directions, leaving loose ends flapping all over the place. It was as if Tobe Hooper had been taking David Lynch pills. Unfortunately he didn't take enough.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"COSBY,\" in my opinion, is a must-see CBS hit! I'm not sure if I've never seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which one is my favorite. Also, I really loved the theme song. If you ask me, even though I liked everyone, it would have been nice if Madeline Kahn hadn't passed away during the show's run. Since that happened, I've always wondered what the show would have been like. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen on TBS now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this is just usual Indian garbage that gets turned out as cinema, as Indians we can proudly boast that we have the biggest cinema industry, however it also the worst.

how can other poor countries have films with real characters that challenge the views of their respective societies and we just keep on pumping out garbage. take a look at Russia, Iran, china and Latin America, look at the brilliant films they have and we get crap like Kisna!!

get real people, no wonder the international community in general laughs at Indian cinema.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Somebody mastered the difficult task of merging sports with romance. In reality, sports and romance go together like oil and water. So, to successfully put the two together on screen... well, that is about the equivalent of splitting the atom. I never thought it could be done. I will be the first to say that in general I don't like romantic comedies... but I do like sports and most movies about sports. This movie was a pretty good mix of the two. Being a baseball fan, I could really appreciate the comedic ordeal with Ben Wrightman (Jimmy Falon) being a rabid Boston Redsox fan. Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows the curse of the Babe that plagued the Redsox for 86 years, and they know just how nuts about baseball a lot of Redsox fans are. The Farrely brothers did a great job capturing that and it made for good comedy. This was a very good movie that could appeal to many.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you have beloved actors, Peter Falk, Rip Torn, George Segal, and Bill Cobbs, you don't need Billy Burke, Coolio, or any other distractions. Massive talent is totally wasted in \"Three Days to Vegas\", with the blame falling squarely on the script. My neighbor's vacation films are about as interesting as this misguided road movie. If you want to see how to utilize a veteran cast with a good script, check out \"The Crew\". There really are no redeeming factors here, and watching these wonderful actors struggling with such weak material is a crime. I wanted to like it, but the shallow script cheats the audience, by essentially giving the actors nothing to work with. - MERK", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.

It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used \"eyewitness sightings\" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the \"creature\" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.

I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This one's a romp; many Trek fans don't rate this as high as the well-known all-time classic episodes because it lacks the deep meaning or undertone of those really great ones, but this one is so well executed for what it is, so successful as pure entertainment, it always makes my personal list of the top half dozen episodes, no matter what mood I'm in. Several well known future movies (\"Westworld\") and TV shows (the more bland \"Fantasy Island\") took their cue from the premise of this episode (then, of course, the TNG show revamped the concept with the holodeck technology). Beautifully filmed (especially evident in the restored version and on DVD) and directed, it takes place in the nice park-like setting of a planet which the Enterprise has just arrived to. It's odd that no animal life, even insects, seems to exist here (how are flowers pollinated, for example), but things turn really odd when members of the landing party start seeing people from their past (Kirk has a people-heavy past, it turns out), as well as figures from other well-known fantasy stories. Sulu even finds an old-style police revolver (adding to his collection of swords, no doubt).

By this point in the Trek series (halfway thru the first season), the main characters had pretty much solidified into the old friends we'd come to know over the many proceeding years. Here, we get to really see them relax, converse and work together to figure out this episode's puzzle: the strong narrative is a mystery again, of sorts, and the audience is along for the ride as Kirk & friends seek to unravel a very bizarre series of events which have a decidedly amusing flavor to them. It's almost whimsical, following up on the carefree style established up on the starship as Kirk was finally maneuvered into beaming down after showing definite signs of stress and fatigue (the Enterprise had, it's suggested, just completed a harrowing mission). Then Dr. McCoy is killed by a knight on horseback; yes, this is Dr. McCoy's final episode...just kidding. But, it's no joke to the rest of the landing party at this point in the story. McCoy really is dead for all intents and purposes and, like the best Trek episodes, the 2nd half of this adventure escalates to a more frantic, more desperate tempo of action and suspense. This is all signaled by Kirk's resolute response to Sulu, who voices his lack of understanding about any of these events just after McCoy's death - Kirk will get to the bottom of all this, come what may.

But, it doesn't get much easier for Kirk: what follows is probably the longest staged mano-a-mano fight for the series as Kirk tussles with his nemesis from his academy days, a struggle that seems to take place over half the planet. Yet, this is counterbalanced by scenes of extraordinary tenderness, with another of Kirk's past acquaintances. This episode runs the gamut of all human experience, rather fitting in light of what we learn about the actual purpose of this weird planet. It's gratifying that the script really does explain all of what's happened, as opposed to some nonsensical approach which permeates many other fantasy & sci-fi series with similar plot lines (unexplained appearances by persons who could not possibly be there). And there actually is a subtext to the story - that we humans need to 'work' off our tensions and fatigue in a particular fashion, or we just don't function in a 'normal' natural way. Also, note the appearance of the very cute Yeoman Barrows and the sudden absence of Yeoman Rand, who did not return until the first Trek movie in '79. I believe that after this episode, even more Trek fans couldn't wait for the next appearance of all their favorite characters. But I leave this episode with a final, perhaps tantalizing thought: if McCoy was killed (verified by Spock), how do we know it was our real McCoy who beamed back up to the ship? Perhaps this explains why this McCoy was still inspecting starships about a century later and getting along very well with Data.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Domino is a great movie. It's about a young woman names Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) who becomes a bounty-hunter because of her boredom with her lifestyle. She joins with two fellow hunters (Mickey Rourke & Edgar Ramirez) and the adventures begin. The script is good. Very down-to-earth and realistic with the tone of the film. The only problem I had with this movie is that it concentrates on the different things that they do, instead of the character of Domino.

Even with that, Kiera Knightley gives a fierce performance. She shows the right amount of anger and dedication in this performance. Mickey Rourke follows up his Oscar-Worthy performance in 'Sin City' with another tough-guy performance. Edgar Ramirez really doesn't do anything except speak Spanish every once in a while and stare at Kiera. Delroy Lindoi gives a good supporting performance. Mo'Nique was herself, although she did surprise me on one particular scene. Lucy Liu has great chemistry with Kiera Knightley in her scenes with her.

The best thing about the movie though, is the direction. Tony Scott's fast-paced style really brings the movie to life. The cinematography is some of the best, I've ever seen. It takes a regular movie and puts on acid. All the blacks are blacker, the whites are brighter, and it has a sort of green glow to it. The action scenes are exhilarating.

OVERALL: If you liked Sin City & Man on Fire, you'll like Domino.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

This movie sucks. Ridiculous \"school\" athmosphere, unbelievable students that are very bad and behave like criminals but then later after the \"good teacher\" Nick Nolte taught them they became as good and as quiet as kittens.

If this works for you, it doesn't for me. 0 out of 10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "For anyone with a moderate sensibility, a moderate feeling of the human and humane condition, for anyone capable of getting above the Hollywood ilk, for anyone who is satisfied seeing cinema which does not have a series of Seagals/Willis/Van Dammes blasting the brains out of anybody or seeing who gets into bed with whom, for anyone whose intellectual level reaches a capacity to grasp, sympathise with, comprehend, laugh WITH, cry WITH natural tender heart-warming hilarious compassionate HUMAN BEINGS, `Le Huitième Jour' is waiting for you. Jaco van Dormael has not achieved simply a masterpiece, that would have been too simplistic; he has achieved one of those rare monumental works of art in the cinematographic world which defies any kind of encapsuling. Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? No: it is the story of Georges, a wonderful funny pitiful laughable loving frightened beautiful personality, a sufferer of the Downes Syndrome. It is a story which has you laughing through your tears, but this is not one of those classic tear-jerkers; this film moves through a world that has you at once mixing your feelings of compassion or pity or even shame with those of admiration, warmth and even love. A successful banking salesman, Harry, bumps into Georges: they were both going in opposite directions with absolutely opposing ideas, problems and priorities; skillfully van Dormael melts these two unlikely men into a warm friendship, but which is so much more than the good buddy friendship of those having a beer down the road. This is a relationship which develops into a profound needing by both for the other. The cuasi-surrealist scenes fit in perfectly: Georges recalls (or invents) past scenes of his life while either day-dreaming or sleeping; even the almost phantasmagorical final scene is totally correct. The only scene which might be considered a little out of place is when they steal a bus and drive it out of the show-rooms. However, this does not detract from the whole. This film is a monument. Even if your French is not up to much, please bear seeing it with sub-titles. `Le Huitième Jour' is worth the trouble. As for anything else, well, just read the following commentaries – I go along with all of them. This film is a joy, it is majestic, it is unique. If you have seen `Rain Man' which I consider an excellent film, you must see this one: it is far superior because it has not the superficial veneer of famous Hollywood-produced world-renowned actors; it has Pascal Duquenne and Daniel Auteuil – TEN oscars for these two, and three more for Jaco van Dormael. Who cares…………? Yes: 11 out of 10 if the IMDb rating doesn't break down under the strain.

Magnifique! Chapeau!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.

Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having \"fun\" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.

With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.

Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.

Rated R for Graphic Violence and some Profanity.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "My 10/10 rating is merely for the fun factor and assumes that you decided that you liked \"Slaughter High\" even before watching it. Yes, it's the typical revenge-several-years-after-a-dirty-prank story, but how can you not like some of the stuff that they pull here?! I couldn't have predicted that bathtub scene in a million years.

OK, so maybe we could be cynical and say that this movie offers nothing new. Well, it doesn't pretend to. It's the sort of flick that the characters in \"Scream\" probably watched, and it contributed to their rules about how to survive a horror movie. After all, who doesn't like to watch people suffer for doing these things? Obviously, it's got sort of a reactionary undertone, as people get punished for doing what the '60s championed. But still, you gotta love this stuff! So, with apologies to Don McLean, this jester didn't sing for the king and queen!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sorry, but I will spoil both the plot line and the ending for you in hopes of avoiding a holiday fiasco like the one that I now face. The father dies and the mother asks Santa in a letter to bring him back to the family for Christmas,...and Santa does. Dad is peachy, happy healthy and totally unaware of the fact that he had died. All ends syrupy sweet.

But as a parent who recently watched my five year-old lose his best canine friend, it was a horror flick. Now my son is convinced that all he has to do to bring his buddy back is to ask Santa! Do not underestimate the willpower of a young heart- no amount of persuasion will convince him that it was only a movie and that his dog is NOT coming back for Christmas. It has been heart breaking to watch his joy only to know that Christmas Eve he will have to face his loss afresh.

Shame on you on behalf of all the believers that have lost a loved one recently. It is hard enough to deal with the loss one time for a child, but there are some wishes that we shouldn't even portray as a possibility.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Having seen Versus previously I had high hopes for Alive. The description of the movie on the back of the DVD jacket sounded promising. Alive did not deliver. VERY slow development. Loads of potential with the cast and the cool visuals. The premise was intriguing but the payoff did not offset the build up. Could have done so much more at the end. Most of the movie is just \" sitting around \". To put it plainly, three of us were amped to sit down and watch this movie and by the 50 minute mark we were struggling to make it thru to the end. It really needed more shock elements. If you are looking for Ichi the Killer or Versus type fights then save yourself some $ and loads of disappointment.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Twelve Monkeys is an insane time-travelling, action packed movie that stars Bruce Willis who plays James Cole, a man who is sent back in time to collect information about the devastating plague that ensues in November of 1996. Unfortunately, he is sent back too far to the year 1990 where everyone believes that he is insane.

This movie is thrilling and has great acting performances from Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. Twelve monkeys is one of the greatest time travelling movies that I believe anybody can enjoy. Terry Gilliam has created a true masterpiece

10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Spoiler!! I love Branagh, love Helena Bonham-Carter, loved them together in \"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein\" - but THIS -

I can understand an actor's desire to stretch, to avoid the romantic stereotype. Well, they did, but really - the script droned on, Bonham-Carter's clothes were tres chic, and the occasional speeded-up \"madcap\" sequence could have been an outtake from a Beatles' movie, or the old Rowan and Martin Laugh-In.

I never got the point - other commenters say the Branagh character was a dreamer. I never felt that. He was a loser, and not very bright, and certainly not endearing. The business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. Certainly not amusing.

Bonham-Carter's realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of Lancashire accent in \"Full Monty.\"

The poetic ending, with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. Was there a choir of angels, or merely a soundtrack?

Go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. Donate this to PBS.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Okay, if you've seen The Ring, you've basically seen The Grudge. It's trying to be scary by just having freaky camera work and loud sounds, but it fails miserably. The plot, if you can call it that, is weak and rather full of holes, for instance, how would the care center have known that Yoko didn't show up for work when the people who lived in the house were not there? And it's not really clear what Bill Pullman's character had to do with anything. He just kind of came out of nowhere to advance the plot. It didn't make a lot of sense what happened to the original family. Who was hanging in the room, the little boy or the dad? And was Yoko alive or dead when the care center guy found her? There were too many unanswered questions and I was too bored to think about it more.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.

(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have seen many a horror flick in my time, all of them absurdly bad, but none reach the depths that this piece of trash lowers itself to. This movie made me angrier and angrier as I watched it as I tried to wrap my head around exactly what this movie was about. Now, after I've seen it, I understand - sort of - what was going on and why, but the movie itself is just too confusing to be enjoyable when you're watching it. Yes, there are the customary scenes of gratuitious violence, one-liners that show the mind-blowing insightfulness of its characters (\"The highway belongs to me...ME!\"), and enough nudity to sufficiently distract us from the \"plot\", but still you'll leave this movie feeling alone and taken advantage of, like a puppy who isn't wanted anymore and is left in a box by the side of the road. Blech.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. \"Groundbreaking\" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Soulless milking of cash cow franchise. Generic superhero flick. CGI showcase. Gavin Hood's \"A Series of Improbable Events.\" Combinatoric iteration of mutant fight scenes strung together by inane exposition justifying formation/dissolution of arbitrary alliances. I'm not expecting Shakespeare here but the cliché per minute meter was off the charts: Primal scream while looking skyward and kneeling over murdered girlfriend. Renegade military commander. Predictable double crosses. Revenge sought for slain lover. Erased memories. Evil character discovering morality at last minute. Misguided failures to execute nemeses after defeating them in melee. Lover not really dead. Lover actually acting as spy for hero's arch-nemesis. Girlfriend/spy actually falls for protagonist. Good people work for antagonist in order to save kidnapped family members. Evil mastermind fails to honor promises to reluctant employees. Kindly old couple care for weary hero and get murdered for their troubles. Certain deaths averted as third parties arrive on scene before coup de grace. Hero reluctantly joining secret government agency. Abandonment of elite squad in protest over slaughter of innocents. Scientists unable to control indestructible killing machine of their own creation. Outdated but lovable government 'secret weapon' kills off better designed but heartless successor. Hero strolls away from wreck and casually lights a trail of gasoline behind him. After everyone has given up, flatlined heart monitor picks up a pulse. Evil mastermind explains plans to hero he no longer sees as a threat. Hero refuses to kill defeated foe because he's \"better than that\". Transparent comic relief character makes hilarious understatements and offbeat comments. Cheerful psychopath revels in random murderous rampages. Nigh indestructible Goliaths hurl one another through a series of walls and other physical traumas that would kill a mere mortal. Man dispatches dozens of gun wielding enemies with nothing but skillful swordplay. Common sense and the laws of physics, biology and chemistry temporarily abandoned. Antagonist using loved one's murder as justification for misguided crusade.

I could go on but this is just exhausting. If you're over the age of twelve and not living in mom's basement, there's probably nothing here for you. Depressingly enough, it's not too far off of par for superhero movies so discount all I've written if you can't get enough of the genre.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Extremely disappointing film based on the James Michener novel.

What was even worse was Marlon Brando's performance. His southern drawl was ridiculous. I found myself laughing when he spoke as he sounded like an elderly southern lady coming home to roost. Brando, so great in previous films, was reduced here to a laughing stock. Tyrone Power, in \"Witness for the Prosecution,\" should have been nominated for best actor instead of Brando here.

The film, dealing with racism, dealt with the U.S. government's attempt to avoid marriages between U.S. soldiers and Japanese women.

Brando was stone-faced throughout the movie. His moving from anti-these relationships to a pro one occurs when he finds love with an Asian woman. His emotions and talk made it difficult to see how he could espouse such new views.

Only the lord knows why Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki received supporting Oscars for their performances. Nothing about either performance was equally impressive. Umeki's appearance on the screen was short and without much of anything being depicted on her part. A better performance in this film was done by Miiko Taka, who did nicely as Brando's love interest. She showed great emotion as the anti-American who found love with the Brando character. Her face was etched with the unhappiness she had for losing her father and brother in World War 11. She realized that her dancing was not her way out of this existence that she was living.

Martha Scott went from the Hebrew mother Yochobel in \"The Ten Commandments\" to the bigoted mother of Brando's love interest at first. Her performance together with the one of Ricardo Montalban was wasted. Patricia Owens, as Brando's first love, showed depth and conviction in her performance.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "How is it possible that a movie this bad can be made. Bad acting. Bad script. Just an embarrassment all around. This is just one bad cliché after another.

This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.

This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.

This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.

This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have to say despite it's reviews Angels in the Outfield was a pretty good movie. I like the fact how it teaches kids to always have faith and never give up because yes miracles can happen. Unlike the other baseball movies this one particular movie stood out because of hits amazing special effects and well orchestrated soundtrack which was very interesting. Though I liked this movie it did have some flaws such as some irrelevancy (i.e. Towards the end when Ray Mitchell hits a homer he doesn't step on the plate and therefore that wouldn't be a score. But that's just nitpicking.) I have to say i was really impressed with this movie's presence and moral: Just have faith, Don't give up.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I grew up with this as my all-time favorite film. The special effects are incredible for the era, and won awards. I can remember the dialogue as if I'd heard it yesterday. It is simply a great, timeless adventure. The music is by Miklos Rosza, who is cinema history's best. Sabu is the Thief. Conrad Veidt is the grand villain. I have a copy within reach, for the next trip down memory lane. Whoa there! Rex Ingram wants out of his genii bottle!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way.

Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing.

Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.

Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.

I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The funky, yet strictly second-tier British glam-rock band Strange Fruit breaks up at the end of the wild'n'wacky excess-ridden 70's. The individual band members go their separate ways and uncomfortably settle into lackluster middle age in the dull and uneventful 90's: morose keyboardist Stephen Rea winds up penniless and down on his luck, vain, neurotic, pretentious lead singer Bill Nighy tries (and fails) to pursue a floundering solo career, paranoid drummer Timothy Spall resides in obscurity on a remote farm so he can avoid paying a hefty back taxes debt, and surly bass player Jimmy Nail installs roofs for a living. Former loving groupie turned patient, understanding, long-suffering manager Juliet Aubrey gets the group back together for an ill-advised, largely ineffectual and hilariously disastrous twenty years later nostalgic reunion tour of Europe. Our lovably ragged bunch try gamely, but fumblingly to reignite a flame that once burned quite brightly back in the day. Scraggly zonked-out roadie Billy Connelly and cocky eager beaver young guitarist Hans Matheson tag along for the delightfully bumpy, trouble-plagued, but still ultimately rewarding and enjoyable ride.

Director Brian Gibson shows tremendously infectious respect and adoration for both his amiably screwy characters in particular and loud, ringing, flamboyantly overblown preening 70's rock in general, this imbuing this affectionate little pip with an utterly engaging sense of big-hearted charm and tireless verve. The astute, sharply written script by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais likewise bristles with spot-on dry wit and finely observed moments of joyous on the road inanity, capturing a certain bittersweetly affecting and frequently uproarious vibe that gives the picture itself an irresistibly luminescent glow. Ashley Rowe's lovely, elegant cinematography ensures that the movie always looks quite visually sumptuous while the perfectly catchy and groovy music does the trick with right-on rockin' flair and aplomb. Kudos also to the across-the-board terrific performances that vividly nail the burnt-out soul and tattered, but still fiercely beating heart of a past its prime has-been ragtag rock outfit desperate to regain its erstwhile evanescent glory in one final bid for big time success. All in all, this radiant and touching gem rates highly as one of the true seriocomic sleeper treats from the 90's.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Cliché-ridden story of an impending divorce - or is it? - through the eyes of a 6 year-old child. Corny dialogue, cardboard characters, stock situations, a red herring zombie sub-plot and, worst of all, absolutely no payoff, either emotionally or dramatically.

Does no-one teach creative writing any more? The true sign of a weak storyteller - when you cannot create any kind of satisfying denouement - just end the story. I'm compelled to ask, \"what made you think this was a story worth telling in the first place!?\"

Good, but wasted, debut by child actor Anthony De Marco - the rest of the cast was, at best, forgettable. And they wonder why no-one watches indie films! This is ninety minutes of my life I will never get back.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. Is it the lawyer played by Kenneth Branagh that we're supposed to be pulling for? Well, let's see -- we learn he's a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. He treats his coworkers like cattle, gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process, getting one of them killed), jeopardizes the safety of his kids, threatens his ex-wife's new boyfriend, tries to strong-arm the police and school administrators -- and all this for what? Because he was THINKING WITH HIS LITTLE HEAD! I was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp...it would have made for a far more satisfying ending.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie has great style, fantastic visuals and hot sex scenes with a beautiful woman. It falters at the end as the story twists get a little bit extreme.. but all in all, I would recommend this movie just because it has that good old Russian feel to it.. big, impressive, powerful, bleak and brutal and at the same time beautiful in the old tradition of tragic beauty.

PLOT: A guy who can make a blade shoot out of his hand at will (not a spoiler since they show it in the trailer) when he is REALLY mad at you tries to have a girlfriend.. he discovers that after you kill one person with your sword hand, it's kind of hard to keep a stable relationship....

Sword boy is on the planet for a reason.. he just doesn't know what it is.. YET.

Lots of dark street fights with guys unexpectedly getting filleted creatively.

RUSSAIN w ENG subtitles.. slick worth a watch..", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In New York, the family man dentist Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets his former roommate and friend Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) by chance on the street. Charlie became a lonely and deranged man after the loss of his wife and three daughters in the tragic September 11th while Alan has problems to discuss his innermost feelings with his wife. Alan reties his friendship with Charlie and they become close to each other. Alan tries to fix Charlie's life, sending him to the psychologist Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), but Charlie has an aggressive reaction to the treatment and is send to court.

\"Reign Over Me\" is a good drama about loss, friendship, family and loneliness. The September 11th is irrelevant to the plot; it could be a car accident, a fire or any other tragedy, as well as the sexual harassment of Donna Remar, played by the gorgeous Saffron Burrows, to Alan. But the family drama works, supported by the great performances of Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. Liv Tyler is quite impossible to be recognized, I do not know whether she is using excessive make-up to look older, but her face is weird. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"Reine Sobre Mim\" (\"Reign Over Me\")", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Here's what I knew about \"Atlantis\" before watching it:

* - It's officially Disney's first animated sci-fi adventure. I'm not sure how accurate that is (I like to nitpick) but it made me curious first time I heard it described.

* - The preview looked, for the most part, damn cool. Evidently, it was also \"too cryptic\" according to some critics after the fact.

* - It apparently did SO badly that Disney said, \"Screw it, let's re-release 'Spy Kids'\".

So, with all that said, how is the movie?

Hella-cool.

I'm a sucker for animated fantasy that involves stirring music and rampant special effects anyway, but \"Atlantis\" goes all out. It's a throwback to all the CGI eye-candy shots in \"Beauty and the Beast\" and \"Aladdin\", so much so that it's almost an effects animator's Best-Of Show. The characters maybe aren't that memorable (except, perhaps, for the ship's medical officer), and the plot's a little dull, but this isn't a movie you watch for the plot.

Here's a controversy that bothers me. The \"failure\" (as in, it \"only\" took in, like, five-hundred-million or something; I know animators who'd kill to see fifteen bucks of that) of this movie compared to the popularity of \"Shrek\" and \"Monsters Inc.\" has been seen as evidence of the death of traditional animation. I don't think that's true. How do you account for the \"South Park\" movie? What about \"Final Fantasy\"? Really, the story and the artistry is everything, not the method. I don't know what Disney's comeback movie will be like, but I don't think they're out of the picture yet.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was a silly movie with a predictable storyline and dreadful acting!! Willy Nelson was as stiff as his braids. The movie just seemed like a very long advert for the bright red lipstick that Jessica Simpson wore - especially as there were so many close-ups on her face. The premise was not amusing and as I said - soooooooo predictable. Whatever money was spent on making this movie was a shameful waste. Any allusions to other old Marilyn Monroe movies did not enhance the viewing of Blonde Ambition at all. It was also so unbelievable - Jessica Simpson being able to step into an executive secretary position at the drop of a hat - that was laughable!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Oh the hilarity! Oh the joy! Another film that is so bad it's good! Or, so I thought. In actual fact, this one misses the \"so bad its good\" phase and goes, sadly, straight to the \"could have been so bad its good, but they screwed it up and made it plain bad\".

For a start its way too long. Cut half an hour and it might have been more endurable. Then put in such ludicrous plots as \"the man who is sabotaging the mission to save the Earth, because he has all the food stockpiled and he'll be rich if the mission fails!\". Duh!. Or the \"talking bomb\" plot device last seen in Dark Star. Guess what....just like in Dark Star, the bomb has a malfunction.....hmmmm. Add in a dash of \"we can't act our way out of a kindergarten play\" and you have Solar Crisis in a nutshell.

Light relief is to be had in the form of Jack Palance (or Jack Pants, as we called him in this flick), whose sole purpose in the film is to drive a kid around the desert and telephone the kid's dad to come pick him up....eventually. Between driving and phoning, Jack dispenses pointless drivel and leers and cackles a lot, but contributes little to the story, such as it is. In short, he's the best bit of the movie.

My award for \"The Most Ironic Line Delivered Straight-Faced\" goes to Charlton Heston, who, when meeting his eldest son for the first time in ages, comments that his son looks a little \"out of shape\" whilst he himself is standing there with his gut bulging over his waistband and in dire need of a Captain Kirk Corset.

Also amusing is the bad guy's top henchman, who has a bright white hairstyle that kept making me think of Andy Warhol, for some reason.

Apart from these hilarities, there's little to recommend this movie. The ending is a sequence copied from (but mercifully shorter than) the end sequence from 2001.

Tips for enjoying this movie more, if you are foolish enough to watch it, like I did:

1. Any time the bomb speaks, imagine it's called Tarquin (Trust me, it works!)

2. Whenever Chuck Heston is on screen and about to speak, pre-empt him by reciting a line from Planet of the Apes such as \"Get your filthy paws off me!\" or similar.

3. Whenever the female lead is looking stressed (this is most of the time) keep hoping against hope that she's having an aneurism and will die soon.

4. During the interminable \"the ship's broke again\" scenes, keep hoping the tech/engineer guys will spout a Scotty-ism like \"You cannae change the laws of physics!\" or some such crap.

Other than that, do what it takes to get you through this one. I dozed off half way through and woke to realise I hadn't missed anything, nor had the plot (laughable though it is) advanced any. So don't worry about tuning out for a few, you won't miss anything.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Paul Reiser is one of my favorite people in show business. I have read both of his books and think that he is great. Peter Faulk can deliver a punch line with the best of them. The combination of the two is magic.

This is a story about a family really getting to know each other. Through a road trip a father and son connect for the first time in their lives in the midts of a family crisis. They do all the things that fathers and sons are suppose to do in life...they are just doing them much later in life. The situations are very funny, but have the feeling that they could actually happen to people in real life (not obsurdly over the top or cartoonish). This is the first time that I watch Paul Reiser and fully believed every emotion that was portrayed. At times, his eyes look so sad.

Gret movie and great story and plot. It has comedy and emotion but an uplifting message...Olympia Dukakas does a great job also :)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I loved this movie. I knew it would be chocked full of camp and silliness like the original series. I found it very heart warming to see Adam West, Burt Ward, Frank Gorshin, and Julie Newmar all back together once again. Anyone who loved the Batman series from the 60's should have enjoyed Return to the Batcave. You could tell the actors had a lot of fun making this film, especially Adam West. And I'll bet he would have gladly jumped back into his Batman costume had the script required him to do so. I told a number of friends about this movie who chose not to view it... now they wished they had. I have all of the original 120 episodes on VHS. Now this movie will join my collection. Thank You for the reunion Adam and Burt.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This thing is horrible. The Ben Affleck character is self-centered and gleefully sadistic--punch-you-in-the-nose fratboy sadistic. And he's the romantic HERO! His cartoonish character does not change from beginning to end, but his money ultimately allows him to buy happiness.

If I were a Socialist, I would screed beyond belief, but I'm not a Socialist.

We capitalists like a little Christmas magic from time to time. This ain't magic. I don't know what it is. It's just awful. And it's a horrible waste of talent. O'Hara has been making me laugh hysterically since the late '70s. Gandolfini. Applegate. These people were all underused. If Ben was out of the equation, these folks might have dreamed up something excellent.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Can such an ambient production have failed its primary goal, which was to correctly adapt Allende's novel? Obviously yes. Bille August managed to make a superficial, shallow film where basic elements of South American mentality are presented simply as side events, resulting in total incoherency. I can't believe there was a whole production team that could not understand the book! There is of course technical quality in this film and I think the actors did their best with what they had in their hands, but something is missing. And this something was the most important part.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.

Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There is nothing not to like about Moonstruck. I'm from a New York Italian family and I actually get a little homesick when I watch it. The actors & actresses, the plot, the subplots, the humor.. they were all fantastic. It starts a little slow, but a lot happens in that two days! I fell in love with LaBoheme because of this movie. On my list of favorite movies, Moonstruck is number 3. It's a \"feel good\" movie where you leave the theatre humming \"that's amore\" or repeating some of your favorite lines: \"old man, if you give those dogs another piece of my food, I'll kick you till you're dead\"; \"Chrissy, bring me the big knife\", \"who's dead\", \"do you love him Loretta....., good because when you do, they drive you crazy because they know they can\". I always put Moonstruck on when there's nothing good to watch because it makes me happy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Watching this movie again really brought back some great childhood memories . I'm 34 now, have not seen it since I was 12-14. I had almost forgotten about this movie, but when I watched it again recently, some scenes literally brought a tear to my eye! That little robot \"Jinx\"(friends for ever!). It was just like revisiting my childhood. It was an absolutely amazing experience for me. I will always cherish this movie for that reason. I hope some of you readers can relate to my experience, not for this particular movie, but any movie you have not seen in a long while. Very nostalgic...

-Thanks for reading", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Noting the cast, I recently watched this movie on TCM, hoping for an under-appreciated gem, as I regard many films from the 30's. This is no gem - not even semi-precious. The anachronistic clothing and 1930's Rolls Royce limo hit you immediately. The casting is strange, also. But mostly, there are too many dumb and unnecessary plot devices. This film has lots of good ingredients and a basic plot that holds promise, but the components aren't mixed according to the right recipe. It simply doesn't come together like it should. And that's a shame. WIth a few rather obvious, but minor alterations, this might have been a very good movie.

The film is about an American showgirl (Jean Harlow) seeking a rich British husband - preferably from the nobility. She meets Franchot Tone and his buddy, who are on a lark in a Rolls Royce owned by his buddy's employer. Harlow mistakenly assumes Tone is the Lord who owns the Rolls, and she sets her sights on him. This early part of the film is a light comedy of no real distinction.

However, Tone unwittingly uncovers the fact that his employer is actually a German 5th columnist on the eve of WWI, and that is when the movie changes tone altogether and begins to fall apart. Tone and Harlow are married, but just as the honeymoon begins, he is gunned down by a Mata Hari-type (Benita Hume), and Harlow flees the scene, with a bystander accusing her of Tone's murder. (In fact, Tone recovers from the wounds.)

Harlow flees to France, where she falls in love again - this time with a wealthy French cad (Cary Grant). Tone, now in the army, and Harlow are unexpectedly brought back together in Grant's hospital room where he is in rehab from a plane crash. In the following scene, Tone accuses Harlow of abandoning him because she is essentially a gold-digger. Harlow never explains about the witness' accusing her of murder and her panic! That is one of those unreal, movie-plot-device break-downs in the story.

Then Tone is also brought back into contact with the woman (Hume) who shot him. She is on hand to watch her paramour, Grant, test the new plane that Tone has delivered to him from England. Incredibly, both Hume and Tone dimly recognize each other, but simply can't place where from! Okay, so Tone was shot and almost died; perhaps his memory is a little out of whack. But how many men did Hume shoot that she would forget one of her marks? (She does not seem to be faking the memory lapse.)

This is inexplicable and unnecessary. Hume should have absolutely recognized him, but played it coy when she realized that Tone wasn't able to place her. That would have been a much better treatment of that issue.

The finale also is very unsatisfying. The movie, as made, has Tone and Harlow conspiring to preserve the good reputation of the cad, Grant, leading to his fraudulent burial as a hero. Then Harlow and Tone just walk away. It is noble to preserve the French public's perception of their national war hero, but very unsatisfying as a love story!

What the film begs for is this: Harlow explains that she fled in a panic in the face of accusations of murder; Tone forgives her and quietly rekindles his love for her; he then carries a torch for her, even while helping her to rig the crash site to preserve Grant's reputation. Meanwhile, Harlow finally recognizes Grant for the cad he is. Then having seen Tone for the brave and noble man he is, Harlow rekindles feelings for him, too. At film's end, the two of them become reconciled even as they work together to rig the appearance of Grant's death. After Grant's hero's burial, we see them embrace and kiss at the fade-out. That would have made a nice little movie. For Cary Grant fans, it would have been even better had Tone played the French cad who is killed and Grant the long-suffering first husband, reunited with Harlow.

It is incomprehensible that Franchot Tone is cast as the Irishman living in England, while Cary Grant is cast as the Frenchman. This movie would have been much better had they reversed roles. That also would have been more conducive to the film that should have been...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In all my years of film-going, only once have I walked out on a film, and that was the dreadful \"Stay Tuned.\" Fortunately, the cinema refunded the ticket and I went to see \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" instead (a minor improvement). That film is \"Gone With the Wind\" compared to \"Dick,\" a comedy so unfunny that it nearly became the second film I ever walked out of. \"Dick\" was so unfunny it was even impossible to laugh AT it, let alone laugh with it.

Granted, paying to see a movie with a title like \"Dick\" suggests that it will be filled with inane \"dick\" jokes and wind up a huge letdown, and yet I had high hopes because of the notable cast (Daniel Hedaya, Bruce McCullough, Dave Foley, Kristen Dunst, etc., etc.) and a premise that at least promised something fresh. What the film delivered was, as portended, four woefully predictable \"dick\" jokes, comic timing suffering from jetlag, and a premise that wore thin after the first five minutes. In short, it was the Watergate scene from \"Forrest Gump\" stretched--nay, laid on a rack and mangled--over 90+ excruciating minutes.

As soon as you understand that the two main characters--airless, insipid squealers who gasp and roll eyeballs incessantly--will participate in every major Watergate event, you begin to mentally check off the plot as it progresses: 18 and a half minutes erased from the Nixon tapes, CHECK; the Deep Throat meetings with Woodward and Bernstein, CHECK; John Dean getting a change of heart and testifying, CHECK. The process drags out more languidly and about as engaging as the real Watergate affair with about as much laugh-getting to boot. And though it posits to be an amusing re-deconstruction of the events leading to President Nixon's resignation, it turns into a paint-by-the-numbers, choose-your-own-adventure, fill-in-the-blanks comedy that says very little and entertains even less.

Even the film's strong point--the aforementioned cast--is bewilderingly unproductive here. The most disappointing of all is Harry Shearer as G. Gordon Liddy. Trapped as he is behind the thick Liddy moustache and strait-jacketed in this numbingly morose screenplay, Shearer mumbles a few lines, tries desperately to leer from behind the prosthetic nose and eyebrows, then disappears. Dave Foley, one of the comic masterminds from Kids in the Hall (two others, Bruce McCullough and Mark McKinney also appear in this film--ah, the blessings of nepotism) fares badly as well. His H.R. Haldeman occasionally lends a much-need lightening of the funeral plot, but the funniest thing about him is the buzz-cut he sports--perhaps the films funniest bit of all. And then there's Daniel Hedaya as Richard Nixon--oops, I mean \"Dick.\" (Ha ha how amusingly funny.) He manages to play a solid Nixon, avoiding the pitfalls (such as overdone make up, rubbery nose and false teeth a la Anthony Hopkins) while preserving the essence (the vacillations between human tenderness and coarseness). I seem to be forgetting someone . . . oh yes, the two stars of the film, those over-bubbly teenagers. Can't remember their names, perhaps because I have repressed their performances. Nothing could be farther from funny; nothing could be more painful than having to endure their deliverly that ran the gamut of \"hyperactive\" and \"super-hyperactive\" with an occasional \"pouty\" tossed in.

This film seemed to be a bad excuse to string together a 70s soundtrack and parade outrageous period clothing, both of which seem to be the norm these days for films and TV shows set in the \"Me Decade.\" But the clothes and the music wind up being an ersatz substitute for true characterization and plot, a kind of extra-plot shorthand that the producers hope will compensate for anemic writing.

The only possible use for this film is years down the road when any one of its talented cast appears on David Letterman or Conan O'Brien. This dreadful cinematic excretion will be dragged out to embarrass and hopefully humble the stunned guest star. The sad thing is that the real bad guys in all this--the writers and producers--will be far from the cameras gaze, possibly cooking up another disaster such as this.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Sixth escapade for Freddy Krueger in which he has finally managed to kill off virtually every youth in Springwood; now he wants to broaden his horizons and (**SPOILER**) needs a family member in order to do it.

A failure as a horror movie because it simply ain't scary at all. Works better as a dark, macabre black comedy, to tell you the truth. Freddy Krueger has now been stripped of all of his ability to chill this viewer. (Too many wisecracks, that's for sure.) The actors aren't interesting (save Robert Englund, as always, and an obviously slumming Yaphet Kotto) and there are simply far too many visual effects. The finale is OK but doesn't provide as many sparks as I think one might hope.

In adding a new twist to the familiar dream killer's story, it provides Englund the opportunity to do more non-makeup scenes than ever before.

There are cameos worth noting: a joint cameo by then-couple Roseanne and Tom Arnold that is devoid of entertainment value, an appropriate appearance by veteran shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and a funny cameo by Johnny Depp that also sort of acknowledges the pop icon that he had become.

Film debut of Breckin Meyer, who plays Spencer.

One of the best things about it is the replaying of key scenes from earlier entries during the closing credits.

4/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?\" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of \"Reversal of Fortune\" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.

They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.

What are they trying to say? \"Money can't buy you happiness?\" \"The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?\" Or how about, \"Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude.\" They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, \"What happens when you take down a stop sign?\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There is a reason why Jay Leno himself will not acknowledge this film. It consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. The acting is horrible, the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn't seem sure on which way to take this film. \"A buddy film,\" \"an action/comedy,\" \"mystery.\" Seems half way through, he gives up, and is just along for the ride. Jay Leno and Pat Morita are talented and dedicated performers. It is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. Jay Leno and Pat Morita prior to involving themselves with this, had spent years pounding out their crafts on the Hollywood circuit. Mr. Morita had already been a star in his own right, acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult TV and movie classics as \"Happy Days,\" and the dismal but affable \"Mr. T and Tina.\" And won the hearts of America with his roles in the powerful film, \"Midway,\" \"The Karate Kid,\" and a host of others. Mr. Leno can been seen on TV shows dating back to the mid 70s. And was a top performer in the comedy clubs of America. He can be seen in countless TV spots and in major films. It is a shame, that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.

Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.

Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie deserves 2/10. 1.5 stars for the girl, (I'm sorry I'm biased, i think pretty girl is the only highlight of the movies), and 0.5 for the fact that it is shorter than Azumi 1. I watched Azumi 1 and 2 in 1 seating. I amazed myself being able to sit through it.

Lets talk about the plus points of the movie. The girl. Ueto Aya is cute. Thats all there is to salvage the whole movie. The fact is, if the main character was male, i am sure that most people (including me) would not have touched the movie at all.

Now lets talk about the minus points. Firstly, it is real draggy, with lots and lots of repeated scenes. Scenes of Nachi and Azumi keeps coming back. It seems more like a drama way of shooting. Typical Japanese dramas love flashbacks, and this movie too. Secondly, the movie is too unrealistic in a historical setting. I do not mind unrealistic movies. But this movie is like a poor way of showing creativeness, by throwing in ninjas that act like bears and spider webs, etc... it reminds me of Shinobi, though Shinobi is a movie with a fantasy setting. Moreover, to portray \"i-don't-know\" what effect, the director films people dying with blood spraying (literally) all around... people not realizing their head was cut off... etc.. etc... etc... Too many of these spoils the show. It seems like the anime influence is strong in this movie. It degrades the show greatly. Thirdly, Isn't Azumi supposed to be an assassin. She seems more like an one-man-army to me, just that she is a female. I don't think you see assassins charging into army camps. The only time i felt she acted \"assassin-liked\" was when she killed the Kiyomasa Kato at the end of Azumi 1. Lastly, the plot was thin in both movies. Its a linear plot with no development and surprises in any way.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A boy and a girl is chased by a local warrior because the boy killed (by accident) the warriors father (or whoever he was). And they travel through the nature of Africa's most ruff areas.

The acting in this movie isn't that good (except for that elephant kid). But it's a very good adventure and it's not very censored, there is some blood, flesh and nudity (which lighten up the movie a bit).

I give this movie a 7 because of it's picture of the African nature and it's action.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Cynthia Rothrock,(China O'Brien),\"Manhattan Chase\",2000, made this film enjoyable to watch and of course,e this cute petite gal burned up the screen with her artistic abilities and hot sexy body. China O'Brien gets upset as a police officer and decides to call it quits and go back home to her hometown and get back to her roots and her dad, who is the local sheriff. Her dad is getting older and the town has changed, gangsters have taken over the town and started to get the local women to start turning tricks and the city people were getting sick and tired of their town going to Hell. Well, you almost can guess what happens, and you are right, China O'Brien fights back after great tragedy strikes her life. Bad acting through out the picture, but Cynthia Rothrock brings this film to a wonderful conclusion.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider \"Cannibal Holocaust\" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like \"Day Of The Woman\" or \"Last House on the Left\" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious \"Guinea Pig\" series, \"The Devil's Experiment\" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.

This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.

I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100% fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it IS legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel \"Flowers of Flesh and Blood\" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, \"The Devil's Experiment\" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible.

\"The Devil's Experiment\" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it. Zero stars out of 10, I wish there was a negative scale in order to appropriately rate this pile of crap.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "No matter how well meaning his \"message\" is - this film is a terribly made trainwreck - awful acting, lame camera work - I do not know why Carr agreed to try and pull off a stutter - he is lousy at it. You watch the extras on the DVD and the way he has a camera follow him around - he just soaks it up - he loves being the center of attention. He is a bad actor - he reminds me of another arrogant filmmaker - Eric Schaffer. Some how Carr has had this film shown at city Youth Centers and New Age churches - where damaged people looking for reinforcement and attention themselves babble on about how the film touched them and maybe it did - but as a film itself it is choppy, predictable and sappy.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "You might be tempted to rent this film because Peter Sellers appears in it. That would be a mistake. This is one of the most pointless films ever made. I kept waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny appears in this movie. Even the film industry recognized this was a very weak film and didn't even try to promote it. Its a wonder that it was ever put on video.

I wonder what sort of contract caused Sellers to be in this film. I also wonder why the people responsible for this film were allowed to go on to make other bad films. Surely this film is a waste of the money used to create it, and a waste of anyone's time watching it. Surely there are high school students who would be able to write/produce a film which as a plot.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Although Kurt Russell was and is probably the closest person to look like Elvis in show-business, so many things were false in this film. First of all, the makers claimed Elvis opened his famous live shows in '69 after a 9 year hault for films by wearing a white jump-suit made in 1972. Also they claimed he sang 'burning love' which he first sung in 1972 and 'the wonder of you' which he first recorded in 1970. They also claim that he got his first guitar for christmas when all Elvis fans know he got it for his birthday. I know all movies based on past have something false but these things are so obvious to people who like Elvis.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "You know you're in trouble when the film your watching has numerous alternate titles. Generally it means that they tried and retried to hide the turkey in various markets. Such a turkey is The Brain Machine which has seven different titles.

Its about some super secret government project that is suppose to be able to use a computer to read people but instead it drives people to kill each other or themselves, or something like that. Its filled with B level TV actors sitting in paneled room with lawn chairs trying to act a script that makes almost no sense.

Its a turkey of the untastey kind. Avoid it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Gender Bender the Limerick:

A man or a woman? Who knows?

It turns out that 'it' is both.

Sleeping in clay

Then they all went away

In one of their UFOs.

Gender Bender is another great Season 1 episode. I enjoy this one because the story is the kind where you are never really sure what's gonna happen next. It is entirely original. The teaser is very fun with the close up of the eye and the reflection of the disco lights. I really need to learn my that thumb trick the genderbender heshe does. I really like the atmosphere at the Kindred's little village and Mulder and Scully sneaking around in the middle of the night. Its very exciting. This is one of my favorite Season 1 episodes in fact. I think the thing I like about it so much is how they turn out to be aliens in the end and left crop circles. Many people see this as a non-mythology related alien episode kind of like \"The Unnatural\" or \"Space\" but I think this could easily be seen as mythology related. Maybe the genderbender was just like the alien bounty hunter and could appear to look like anyone. Huh? Anyway I give the episode a 9 out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.

There are three potential draws to this film: • The comedy of the situation; • The horror; and • The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane.

Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.

Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.

Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking \"what was all the fuss about\".

I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Best of Times is one of the great sleepers of all time. The setup does not tax your patience, the development is steady, the many intertwined relationships are lovingly established, the gags and bits all work and all are funny. There is lots of sentimentality. Kurt Russell playing Reno Hightower puts in one of his best performances, and Robin Williams playing Jack Dundee is sure-footed as ever. The cast also includes many great supporters. Jack's wife is played by Jack Palance's daughter, who is lovely, as is Reno's wife, who is a great comedian. I can't tell you how many times I've watched this movie, how many times I have enjoyed it and how often I wish that more people could see it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What great locations. A visual challenge to all those who put their eye behind the lens.This little jewel is an amazing account of what you can shoot in just 16 days. Good going folks!. I can not wait to see what your next feature will be. I'll be with you all the way.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Very good drama about a young girl who attempts to unravel a series of horrible crimes. She enlists the aid of a police cadet, and they begin running down a series of clues which lead to a traveling carny worker with a long police record. An ending which is guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This \"film\" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.

Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.

Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as \"direction\", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary \"style\" prized by those who don't know how to direct).

This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).

Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm from Belgium and therefore my English writing is rather poor, sorry for that...

This is one of those little known movies that plays only once on TV and than seems to vanishes into thin air. I was browsing through my old VHS Video collection and came across this title, I looked it up and it had an IMDb score of more than 7/10, that's pretty decent.

I must admit that it's a very well put together movie and that's why I'm puzzled. This is the only film made by this director...? How come he didn't make lots of films after this rather good one...? Someone with so much potential should be forced to make another movie, ha ha ;-)

Anyway, I really would like to see that he pulls his act together and makes another good movie like this one, please.....?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I really like this movie. I can watch it on a regular basis and not tire of it. I suppose that is one of my criteria for a great movie.

The story is very interesting. It introduces us to 6 characters; each has a unique kung fu style that is very secret and very deadly. Each of these characters are trained by the same master but their identities are kept secret from each other. The dying master sends the 6th venom, his last student, to attempt to make right the wrongs that he suspects some of his students have committed.

How will the last pupil find the other venoms? How will he know which of them is bad? The way these questions are answered is part of what makes this movie great.

We also get to see the venoms fight each other in every combination. It is fun to see how their styles match up against each other.

If you want to see if you like kung fu movies, this is a good movie to start with. It doesn't get any better than this.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The feel of this movie was amazing. Adam Sandler's performance was very inspiring. As he played a very rattled and fragile character, he took his ability to the very edge and really worked the role. His character was really interesting. I can see myself reading the script for this movie and not being half as interested in the part as Sandler made me. For someone who plays primarily comedy roles, he pulled off a serious role with what seemed to be his own quirks and input. I especially loved the scene in which Adam and Don's characters rode the motorized scooter around the city. I familiarized with the moment, because it seemed like Don was witnessing one thing Adam does to get away from it all. With his video games, music, and many other things he does to keep him from thinking about the past, riding his scooter with his headphones on seemed like an escape from his thoughts. This movie is definitely worth the watch.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The concept was ok but hardly original. The acting was plastic. But the real spoiler was that there was only one joke and a grubby one at that. This is a film for fourteen year olds who have been let out on their own for the first time. Don't dare to watch it with your kids.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The title of this film is taken from a party game called \"Seven Minutes in Heaven.\" The game was popular among my husband's friends when he was in junior high school in Brooklyn, NY, and he describes it as something like \"Spin-the-Bottle,\" \"Lifesaver Relay,\" and other preteen kissing games. According to the rules, a boy's name and a girl's would be drawn, and the chosen ones ordered to get into a dark closet together and to stay there for seven minutes. In the meantime, there would be speculation among party guests as to whether or not the two had the nerve to hold hands, embrace, and/or kiss each other in the privacy of the closet. At the end of seven minutes, the game leader would say, \"Time's up\" or knock on the closet door, and the couple would emerge from the closet. After being quizzed by the other guests, the couple would have to admit what they had done during their \"Seven Minutes in Heaven.\" Then other couples would be chosen to enter the closet until all the guests had participated. The couple who admitted to doing the most would be the winners of the game.

Such games have served as social \"ice-breakers\" for children and teens, but they can be embarrassing and intimidating to shy individuals. The film has been given this title because it deals with the teens' first experiences with crushes and romantic love.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Exceptionally horrible tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight coma during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the good stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll need it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I don't usually comment, but there are things that need to be said. Where to start...

The acting, on Jeremy London's part was horrible! I didn't think he could be so bad. The plot could have been good, had it been well directed, along with a good solid performance from the lead actor. Unfortunately, this is one of those movies you read about and think it has great potential to be entertaining, but get disappointed from the start.

Well, at least I got good laughs. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges....

Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out.

The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......

But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!

I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.

Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.

Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The \"actors\" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.

Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.

My rating: 1/5", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's difficult to not have a liking for Israeli director Eytan Fox and for his movies, which describe the life in the middle east and the inherent problems gay people can have in these regions. Besides he also gave voice to the young generations, and to the remarkable part of them, who really need PEACE and who want to take no further notice of a war that for too much time marked the existences of people, both in Israel both in Palestine. These reasons, in my opinion, are sufficient to consider Fox a noteworthy director, even when his feeling for the melodrama is a tad out of control. However the fans of his movies (that he realized on team with Gal Uchovsky, his producer, co-screenwriter and also life companion) seem to not being vexed by this, since his new feature, THE BUBBLE (HA-BUAH), is having the same success of the previous YOSSI & JAGGER and WALK ON THE WATER. Announced as a contemporary gay version of \"Romeo & Juliet\", set in the present day Tel Aviv instead of Verona and with two men (one Israeli and the other Palestinian) at the place of the two Shakespearean young lovers, the film actually is quite different from that or, better, it's also something else. In fact the bubble of the title is the world apart in which the leading man, Noam, played by the Fox regular Ohad Knoller (Yossi in YOSSI & JAGGER, but I must confess I miss Jagger, the astonishing Yehuda Levi!) and his two co-tenants, a guy and a girl, chose to live. Around thirty-years-old, restless, witty and firm (despite the protagonist just spent a period as national service in a checkpoint on the frontier with the Palestine) to live a life that won't be only made of war. The two guys are gay and along with the girl they have established a trio in which they brotherly love and support each other. Their lives are destined to change when Noam falls in love with Ashraf (the TV star Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) a young Palestinian who came to live in Tel Aviv. The laws so far in force among the group are neglected, but not the will to aid one friend. Still it won't be easy for Noam and his friends, 'cause Ashraf is clandestine in Israel and in the meantime his family, who lives in Palestine and doesn't know he's gay, is looking forward to settle his wedding with a very beautiful girl, who is a relative of Ashraf's beloved sister bridegroom-to-be, who he is also a terrorist and he will have a strong liability in the development of the plot, with consequences not just for the two men. Because the prejudices against the homosexuality and the peace (interesting dualism, if not automatic) are stubborn and so the tragedy is unavoidable. Even if the film focus on the obstacles the relationship between Noam and Ashraf meets with, it doesn't the overlook the other characters, which turn out well written (for example Golan, the boyfriend of Yelli, Noam's fellow tenant, introduced as a lively boor, and then disclosed as a sweeter and more open minded person) and aptly performed (besides the two leads, we mustn't disregard the funny Zohar Liba and the lovely Daniela Virtzer, the girl of the gang; moreover LATE MARRIAGE's star Lior Ashkenazi appears as himself in a cameo). It also melds the gloomy tones with the more brilliant ones, even if the director can't do without a melodramatic conclusion. I watched this movie more than a month ago and in the meantime I often thought about it, proof that Fox and his pal have a knack to strike home.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I remember reading all the horrible, horrible reviews for this film when it came out. I meant to go see how horrible it was but it was out of theaters in three weeks. The only other movie to manage that is Gigli.

When the movie came out on DVD, I bought it to see how awful it was. I couldn't think of the sheer horrible attention that this film was getting was possible. After seeing it, I can understand.

First off, let me say that this film is not without some cool shots. There's a nice shot at the beginning that shows a bullet being fired from inside the gun, which I thought was neat. And the way the monsters in this movie die is sort of cool to look at; but it gets old after the first time you see it.

Let me start with the worst thing in this movie: Tara Reid. If bad acting was a sin, then Hell would've chucked Tara Reid right out since she's so unbelievably awful in this movie it's unthinkable. And of all the roles, she plays a curator. Now if she played a dumb, empty- headed sex toy then maybe I might be able to forgive her for how she treats her character. Apparently, Uwe Boll didn't realize that, although he did seem to think that if she took off her shirt in the movie, people would see it. He just didn't realize that making her do that in the middle of the film at the absolute wrong moment just made the movie even more hilariously bad. And is that a Mexican song or something during the scene of dry humping? I couldn't tell.

Which brings me to my next complaint: Uwe Boll shows off some of the worst directing skills you'll ever see in a movie. I mean, I'd give House of the Dead an F (and I only do that for very few movies) but HotD would score at least a B compared to this screwed up piece of junk. The movie starts off with a very, very long narration that causes immediate confusion (and read by a horrible narrator) and from there, the cuts are really, really dumb. There's this one point where Slater and Reid are looking around a building that's been destroyed and the screen blackens out. When it comes back, Slater and Reid are shooting everywhere and suddenly, an entire army has joined them. Huh?

And someone did NOT bother checking the mistakes in this movie. At one point, a team breaks through glass, but the glass breaks before they touch it. Tara Reid's earrings switch colors in the middle of one scene and after Slater walks away from a dead comrade, you can see her begin to get up.

As for the story... I was really lost. Something about an old tribe releasing darkness and someone \"opens the path\" or something and all the evil monsters pop out. It's just an excuse to have a lot of gun scenes (the technology is so advanced here that no character ever needs to reload in this film) that get, quite simply, BORING.

I bought this movie hoping to laugh at how incredibly stupid it was. I didn't laugh, but I still think it's stupid. Very, very, very stupid.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Anyone not aware of the 1973 original British Lion movie ' The Wicker Man' would,no doubt, have left the cinema with the impression 'Poor' and 'Peurile'.

As a devotee of the original I left with the impression Purely Poor.

From the grim reality of haggle toothed inbreds drawing the force of law and order into a web of paganistic barbaric ritual on a remote Scottish island, named Summerisle(the original) to a near Amazon-ic colony off the Maine coast of the US, named Summersisle, the remake hardly hits the spot.

This is, quite sadly, a case of what 'could' have been a classic remake of a classic being tampered with to cater for a simple minded public. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.

Gentlemen (or given the reworked context of the film) Ladies involved ... hang your heads in shame.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.

There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.

The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.

I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.

Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Brutal, emotionless Michael Myers stabs his sister to death at age six on Halloween night in 1963; on October 30, 1978, he escapes from a mental institution and institutes a new reign of terror in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. He is pursued the whole time by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) who knows just how evil this young man is.

It opens with a bang, and sets up a genuinely suspenseful and atmospheric chiller that is actually superior to the many slasher pictures it helped to inspire. It's subtle compared to the nasty bloodbaths many of those subsequent movies were; subtle, and scary. It retains the ability to make me jump even after repeated viewings. How many movies are there, really, that can continue to be frightening even after one has seen them before? Not very many.

Pleasence is great in what was probably the definitive role of his career; Jamie Lee Curtis, in her motion picture debut, became a bona fide scream queen after acting in \"Halloween\" as well as a few subsequent slasher pictures, and she is an intended victim worth rooting for.

Co-writer / director John Carpenter knows what works in this movie, making excellent use of shadows and dark skies; notice how most of the movie is set after nightfall. With this picture, he and his former collaborator Debra Hill created a franchise that has spawned seven sequels, many imitators, and an upcoming \"re-imagining\".

It's very quotable - who could ever forget Dr. Loomis' (Pleasence) speech in which he describes Michael Myers to the sheriff (Charles Cyphers, a reliable repertory player in several of Carpenter's earlier works)?

It's fantastic, and worth seeking out. This is my favorite John Carpenter movie of all time.

It's not totally infallible - there are script holes, after all - but overall it makes a solid impact.

9/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "While traveling by train through Europe, the American Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and the French Celine (Julie Delpy) meet each other and decide to spend the night together in Austria. On the next morning, Jesse returns to United States of America, and Celine to Paris.

\"Before Sunrise\" is one of my favorite romances, indeed one of the most beautiful love stories I have ever seen. It is a low budget movie with a very simple and real storyline, but the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy is perfect, and the dialogs are stunning. The direction is amazing, transmitting the feelings of Celine and Jesse to the viewer. I have just completed my review number 1,000 in IMDb, and I choose \"Before Sunrise\" for this significant number because it is a very special film for me. I cannot understand why this movie was not nominated to the Oscar, with such a magnificent screenplay, direction and performances. Yesterday I have probably watched this movie for the third or fourth time, and I still love it. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): \"Antes do Amanhecer\" (\"Before Sunrise\")", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Saw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes\" consists mostly of rambling, poorly assembled footage in search of a movie. The plot makes no sense, and the various characters drop in and out of the picture with no explanation at all. Watching this silly spoof, you get the feeling than so many other comments have captured so accurately: that it's easy to make a cheap, low-quality film and then use the \"parody\" angle as an excuse for its cheapness and low quality (in one scene, female swimmers are terrified of tomatoes that are floating near them; how far can \"suspension of disbelief\" go - even in a parody?). The title song is great, though. (*1/2)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Everyone we meet influences our thinking, modifies our ways, a little bit of that person rubs off onto us. \"The Eighth Day\" takes up this theme (Compare \"Rainmaker\"). In this film Harry (Daniel Auteuil) a businessman expert in sales psychology meets up with Georges (Pascal Duquenne), a Down's Syndrome child on the run. Winning performances from both these actors give this film its main strength. The opening sequence is excellent where Georges relates his theory on the creation of the world and in the closing scene we discover what God created on the eighth day. There are some moments in the story that are very frustrating for Harry. For example, Georges who is completely uninhibited demands a pair of expensive shoes and hasn't enough money. It's the kind of scene where you laugh through your tears. I liked the scene where the Down's Syndrome group on a trip to the Art Gallery escape on a bus and gate-crash the Paradis fun park. The most humorous of all the embarrassments is the scene where Harry and Georges pass a horse-float on the highway and, looking back, Georges gives the driver a rude salute. But there are some gentle scenes as well, especially the impressive use of close-ups of hands - hands feeling the sun,wind and rain, hands reaching up, hands reaching out and clasping in love and friendship. This is true cinema which touches the heart. There are very moving scenes where Georges proposes to Nathalie, where Georges cradles Harry's head in his arms, where Georges keeps calling for his dear Mom, where Georges teaches Harry to laugh..I felt there was a profound message in the film that life is beautiful- the very presence of grass (Did you know it cries when you cut it?), the trees overhead, the song of birds, the little insects - all nature's miraculous creatures. They are all there to be enjoyed if we but lie back (like Harry and Georges) look around us and listen......A beautiful film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sure it may not be a classic but it's one full of classic lines. One of the few movies my friends and I quote from all the time and this is fifteen years later (Maybe it was on Cinemax one too many times!) Michael Keaton is actually the worst actor in this movie--he can't seem to figure out how to play it-- but he's surrounded by a fantastic cast who know exactly how to play this spoof. Looking for a movie to cheer you up? This is it but rent it with friends--it'll make it even better.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down). The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson. Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her. She is illegitimate, but they won't tell her anything about her parentage. Later we get involved with the gentry, Sir Leicester Dedlock, and his wife. Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn). We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.

Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction. Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law. Mr. Bumble said it was \"a ass\" in OLIVER TWIST and Dickens would consistently support that view. He looks at the slums as breeding grounds for crime in TWIST, that the law barely tries to cure. He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE. In LITTLE DORRIT he attacks the debtors' prisons (he had hit it also in David COPPERFIELD). In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND he looks at testators and wills. In THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD he apparently was going to go to a murder trial. Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.

But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution). He also uses the novel to satirize various people: Leigh Hunt the writer, Inspector Fields of Scotland Yard, and even the notorious Maria Manning. Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version. If it is shown again on a cable station, catch it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Dolph Lundgren is back! Detention marks Dolphs first film in nearly 2 years, and that is following the delayed Hidden Agenda. This film still marks an improvement for Dolph over his cheapie trilogy of Jill Rips, Agent Red and Stormcatcher. However this film is well below the standard of Hidden Agenda, which was better in almost every respect. What this film does have in it's favour from Dolph's previous outing, is a sense of cheesy fun. The film also has a rejuvenated Dolph back in a high action role, and it's good to see Dolph doing his own stunts again.

The films story is ludicrous and prime B-movie material. An ex-military man is now a teacher and on his last day of teaching, whilst taking a Detention class, he runs into some Slovakian bad guys who have taken over the school to use as cover for a big drug deal. The film has no originality but in a movie of this type you need to have a sense of fun with all the cliches. If you take it too seriously the audience will find little to enjoy. Thankfully the filmmakers don't take matters too seriously and along with all the action cliches you can think of and the predictability, this film has a so bad it's enjoyable kind of vibe.

Where the film is let down is miss-using a fairly decent budget. The budget of around 10 million has not been well spent. It's all up on screen with plenty of carnage and big explosions but a lot of the shootouts lack imagination. The opening action is okay but after that the good moments become more sparse. There are some good moments. You have a car careering through school hallways for example and a decent shootout at the beginning, with plenty of destruction. The rest of the shootouts are fairly mechanical but there is plenty going on onscreen.

As for the cast. Hidden Agenda boasted the best cast Dolph has worked with in ages. There was a good standard of actors for a DTV film. This however has problems. The actors are on the most part bad. The bad guys are terrible, but the lead bad guy has a kind of enjoyable cheesiness because Alex Karsis plays it so over the top and without the hint of any menace that you can laugh at the pure badness. The teenagers of the piece are actually good but they are playing such cliched characters. They all hate authority, each other and all have bad attitudes and of course by the end they learn important life lessons, but generally they are decent and Chris Collins in particular has a likeability. This movie is all about Dolph though. While this film is nowhere near his best, it is nowhere near his worst. It also marks a turning point in his career. He is now back in good shape, and will be in even better shape in his next film Direct Action. Dolph looks enthusiastic here, he does all his own stunts and it is good to see him play the typical action man (running from explosions in slow-mo, one liners, and handling large weapons) again in a movie like his older ones, albeit with less flair and imagination than cliched films like Army Of One. It is good to see Dolph looking energised. His films of the last 8 or so years have seen Dolph looking a little more weary, and using doubles a lot (he still does all the fights himself though) but the new streamlined Dolph seems up for it.

Overall this is watchable if only for the cheese value and Dolph in prime action man mode. There's not a single surprise but it has a laughably inept kind of charm. **", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I love bad movies. Not only, because they often are as entertaining as 'really' 'good' films (like Pirates of the Caribbean series and other Hollywood pathos), but they often are far better than those films. And that's the reason why I love Italian rip off cinema of 1970s and 1980s. And that's the reason why I especially love this movie, The Barbarians & the Company.

Director Ruggero Deodato has made some actually very good movies, like House on the Edge of the Park, and also his Atlantis Interceptors and Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man are enjoyable action movies. But this is really bad. The Barbarians is so idiotic movie. Peter and David Paul as the Barbarian Brothers Kutchek and Gore are very funny, because of their lack of charisma and acting skills. But if they can't act, they yell and scream every time they do something important. In one scene people try to hang the Barbarian Brothers, and they escape very extraordinary way.

Bad acting, bad special effects, very stupid story, bad direction, actually everything is bad in this movie. I can't describe how much I laughed when I watched this first time. The Barbarians & the Company is camp classic everybody should see once. If you thought Plan 9 From Outer Space is fun camp, this will be a real killer.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and besides being a feature-length film (a true fan wants to see as little left out as possible and that can only be achieved in a mini-series) it was really great. Gwyneth Paltrow really captures the slightly clueless but well-intentioned rich girl and Jeremy Northam IS Mr. Knightly with his poise and nobility. I wasn't thrilled with Ewan McGregor even though I like him very much as an actor but didn't feel it spoiled the movie at all. Like I said, as a Jane Austen fan there were things I would have liked to have seen included that weren't but that would have made it much longer than permissible for a feature length film and as it was I felt they really encapsulated the story well. I've seen every adaptation of this book and felt this was the best one!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.

The headliner who plays \"Kathy\" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called \"cliche'\" - but it's almost completely inane.)

All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was excellent. Touching, action-packed, and perfect for Kurt Russel. I loved this movie, it deserves more than 5.3 or so stars. This movie is the story of an obsolete soldier who learns there is more to life than soldiering, and people who learn that there is a time for fighting, a need to defend. I cried, laughed and mostly sat in awe of this story. Good writing job for an action flick, and the plot was appropriate and fairly solid. The ending wasn't twisty, but it was still excellent. If you like escape from New York, or rooting for the underdog, this movie is for you. Not an undue amount of gore or violence, it was not difficult to watch in that respect. Something for everyone.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch-out. This directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high-class prostitute (Nancy Allen, clearly I am in the wrong business if SHE can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (Michael Caine). If you are going to watch De Palma rip off (excuse me, \"pay homage to\") Hitchcock, watch \"Sisters\" instead of this. \"Dressed to Kill,\" while loaded with style and technical skill, is one of the tackiest thrillers I have had the displeasure of sitting through. The plot is absurd and tired. It does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "... This isn't the first time Stanley blurred the distinction between genres to such great effect, either. In Dr. Strangelove you had a comedy about a horrific situation, and here the basis is a terrifying scenario which actually yields some very funny moments. Slow-burning madness and attempting to kill one's family isn't hilarious of course, but the dialogue is very knowing (\"five months of peace is just what I want... \") and there is a terrific drinking scene which would be riotous if you included just one type of spirit, but is spine-chilling when you factor in the other.

I disagree with those who say that the hotel has a negligible effect on Jack Torrance in the filmed version. The cues Nicholson provides the audience as an actor merely hint at the potential for madness, which is only reinforced when we learn that the head of the family has struggled with alcoholism and is emotionally distant from his wife and son. The environment that he is in, however, then absorbs those personality defects and unleashes them upon his consciousness. In much the same way as buildings are sometimes thought to soak up events that happen there, the hotel feeds on the frailties of a troubled but sane man, and uses his weaknesses against him to eventually take him beyond the point of no return. He may have dormant flaws in his personality before he arrives, but to me the Overlook itself is the trigger that sets them off.

Kubrick's cold and detached approach to directing works splendidly for a chilly horror film, and the unpredictable force of nature that is Jack Nicholson teeters all the time between making you giggle and scaring the wits out of you. When he explodes, you won't be sure how far he can go. Together they made a great team and with a blend of their talents gave us a classic. If you want a great viewing experience, then this is an example that well and truly shines...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "You probably heard this phrase when it come to this movie – \"Herbie: Fully Loaded with crap\" and yes it is true. This movie is really dreadful and totally lame.

This got to be the second worst movie Lindsey is ever in since Confession of the Teenage Drama Queen. The only good thing about this movie seem to be the over talent cast which by far is better than the movie million times and is the only selling point of the movie. I don't see how such a respected actor like Matt Dillon could be a part of this movie, isn't he read that horrible screenplay before he sign on to be in it?

What I didn't like about this movie is also base on how Herbie is surreal and fantasy like extraordinary ability and climb on wall and go faster than a racer car after all it just a Beatle. I know it is a kids movie but they have gone overboard with it and it just turn out more silly than entertaining. Little realism is needed plus the story is way too predictable.

Final Words: Unless the kids are actually 5 -12 years I highly doubt that any one could enjoy this senseless movie. What wastage of my money. I feel like cheated.

Rating: 3/10 (Grade: F)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Unfortunately, this film has long been unavailable (as other posters have noted), but this is one of the essential dramas of the Great Depression, a lyrical and touching drama of love set in a shanty-town. It features performances by Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young that are just about the finest of their careers, and it's a surpassing example of how the director, Frank Borzage, was able to create an almost fairy-tale aura around elements of poverty, crime, and horrendous social inequity, which just proves that how truly romantic and spiritual his talents were. This film shows how love survives amidst squalor and desperate need, and it is totally life-affirming. This is a real masterpiece of the period, and is a movie that deserves to be more widely known.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.

With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.

The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the \"original\", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilises the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.

As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.

Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "By reading the box at the video store this movie looks rather amusingly disturbing. You know the type....funny but supposed to frighten you.... this was not funny or horrific. the writing was lame...the jokes failed to make me laugh even at their extreme mundaneness....they were so expected. the actors didn't even do much with such a not so good script...at least I hope that wasn't their best..watch this movie at your own risk......I give it negative 3 stars outta 10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I really have problems rating this movie. It is directed brilliantly, there is obviously a lot of money in it. Gere and Danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up), editing and cinematography are excellent. On the other hand, it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes, and, yes, one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire.

In purely artistic terms, it is a 9, but I really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie ....", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Trot out every stereotype and misrepresentation you've heard about semi-devout Mormons, and you'll see they've all starred in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Finally Kurt Hale's fortunes have changed (thank goodness) and hopefully it will be a long while before we see any of his features in theaters.

The cinematography was amateurish (I think they used a camcorder for some of the basketball scenes). The plot was limp and very unfunny. You really didn't understand why anyone did anything. It was like I had sand in my eyes, and a 300-pound lady was sitting on my face, it was that painful.

The only reason I didn't give this movie a negative rating was because the scale won't let me.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's only 2 episodes into a 5 part drama, but I can already state that this is one of the best things I've ever seen. That's on TV, silver screen or even in real life.

As a writer, it's so good it's almost demoralising! As a viewer it's so entertaining that I'm annoyed the episodes are over a fortnight instead of Monday to Friday. It's clear that all these negatives are actually positives.

I'm a modern guy who previously turned over from TV dramas. In comparison to movies, TV dramas always seemed to be dated, quite tame, and well, generally boring! \"Five Days\" has really brought TV drama into the 21st Century, so for me at least, it's mind changing. Go watch it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is one of the best movie I have ever seen. My parents comes from rural India and to some extend I have seen the life of the villagers. Peoples are really poor and have financial and social problems.

The movie just reflects exactly the same. Full credit to the director and the actor. They have done an excellent job. I just wonder how can movies like Lagaan and Paheli can go for Oscar and not Doghi. I don't understand the criteria on which the movies are selected. Is the money that makes the difference or having some big names in the movie makes the difference.

Hope to see more movies like this in the future.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is Paul F. Ryan's first and only full-length feature. He hasn't done anything since. However, he managed to get an amazing ensemble cast to portray the characters of his story. I don't know when or why the idea emerged in his head, but Ryan wrote a screenplay which later became his own directed movie, \"Home room\".

Busy Philipps carries the movie on her shoulders as Alicia, a troubled girl; the ones we always see in television series. With dark hair and black clothes; a package of cigarettes in the pocket, weird look and disturbing eyes (with makeup, of course). An event has occurred at her school; a shooting. Some students have died, and she saw everything. Now Detective Martin Van Zandt (Victor Garber) is investigating the case, and, as expected, Alicia is a suspect. But the shooting is just the genesis; the movie is not about the shooting.

Lying in bed in a hospital room is Deanna Cartwright (Erika Christensen). She is one of the survivors of the hospital. The script establishes a bond between them, by the school Principal (James Pickens Jr). He is helping all the students to recover from the event, but Alicia doesn't seem to care. She's isolated. So the Principal punishes her; she needs to visit Deanna every day until five o' clock. Then the movie starts.

I can't even describe how wonderfully written I think the movie is. I can identify with the characters and the situations they live; I like reality. These things could happen to anyone. And the things they say are totally understandable. They're growing up and trying to deal with things they haven't experienced; they're doing their best. Without knowing it, Alicia (when she visits Deanna for the first time) and Deanna (when she sees Alicia standing in front of her) are commencing a journey of that will define their personalities and ideas for the next step in life; after high school.

The director leads Christensen and Philipps through their roles very well. Look the contrast between them. Deanna seems naive and with plain thoughts; no complexity inside of her mind. When Alicia enters her room and sees tons of flowers she asks: \"Who has brought them?\". \"Many people\", Deanna answers; although some days later we learn they're from her parents, who come every week. The parental figures are all well represented, but are not as important as their sons' characters. Deanna is lonely. Alicia seems mature and violent; smoking cigarettes and talking roughly. But after two days of visiting, she finds herself coming back to the hospital every day; even sleeping in Deanna's room all night. When they both have a fight afterwards, I believe Deanna says: \"Why do you keep coming back?\". Alicia is lonely too.

The ending of the movie, without ruining it, comes a bit disappointing; it's something I wasn't waiting for. It eliminates some of the strength the movie has. The revelation comes totally unnecessary; ruining the logical climax the movie could have had. It was an excellent script anyway; and an excellent direction. A damn fine movie.

When it comes to Erika Christensen, this was the role she needed to fly higher. Her role in \"Traffic\" was impressing, but this was the big step; the main role. Maybe not many had the chance to see her in this film, and that's a pity. She hasn't made one false move since then. She has even come out with good performances in awful movies. On the other hand, Busy Philipps, who proved to be very promising in this movie (what a transformation), hasn't got many opportunities for other roles.

The same I say about Paul F. Ryan (in directing, of curse), and I expect he is sitting now in his computer finishing his new script; I'm waiting for his next movie. I'm hoping the best for all of them.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Cypher\" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.

The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his \"business trips\" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.

((SPOILERS END HERE))

What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second \"wife.\" Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this \"hidden gem\" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I bellied up to the bar expecting this to be a hot beer on a sweltering Texas day but was pleasantly surprised. After suffering through \"Saturday Night Foolishness\" I had no desire to see a re-make in some south Texas barnyard....and I didn't. John Revolta was good as the jealous redneck, Scott Glenn was well cast as a thuggie ex-con, and Debra Winger was, as always, a delight. *Love that woman* Plus, the soundtrack was dynamite [and this comes from a guy that can't stand the sound of country music]. A fun film all the way.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? \"I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!\" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "WWE has produced some of the worst pay-per-views in its history over the past few months. Cyber Sunday, Survivor Series and December to Dismember were appalling to say the least and so it was relying on its B brand show, Smackdown! to attempt to end the year on a high note. Armageddon had two major gimmick matches in the Last Ride and Inferno matches, three Championships were on the line and an interesting main event in the shape of a tag team war featuring Batista and John Cena against King Booker and Finlay. However, it was an amendment to one of those Championship matches that brought us not only the match of the night but also now a match of the year candidate when Teddy Long gave us fans an early Christmas present. T-Lo changed the WWE Tag Team Championship match from Champions, London and Kendrick against to Regal and Taylor to a four team Ladder match including MNM and The Hardy Boyz.

I am not going to dwell on this match too much as nothing I can say would be able to do it justice. This has to be seen to be believed. There were many high spots and many more brutal bumps and awkward landings. The one move I have to talk about however was the one that took Joey Mercury straight to the emergency room midway through the contest. Jeff Hardy jumped onto a ladder that was set up in the see saw position with Matt Hardy holding both members of MNM over the opposite end of it to take the full force. Unfortunately for Mercury he didn't get his hands up to protect his face and took the ladder full force in the nose and left eye. This was vicious. His face was instantly a mess for all to see and not surprisingly this ended Mercury's night early. We found out later he suffered a broken nose and cuts under his left eye. Be warned. This is not for the faint of heart. The ending to this roller-coaster of a match came after Paul London managed to grab both Championship belts for the victory. I have been watching wrestling for almost 15 years and it doesn't get any better than this match. Unbelievable.

The night opened with only the 4th ever Inferno match. Kane took on MVP in a good match but it was all about the visual and not really about the action. There were a few close calls with the flames for both competitors but in the end it was Kane who forced MVP onto the flames after they both ended up outside the ring. MVP ran around the ring whilst his butt was on fire and there was a sick part of me that laughed watching this. May I suggest to Michael Hayes that MVP comes out next week on Smackdown! to Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire.

The other gimmick match of the night, and the second match of a triple main event was an all out war Last Ride match between Mr Kennedy and The Undertaker. This was a stiff match from start to finish and was the best of the series Undertaker and Kennedy have had yet. The used poles, chairs and one scene had The Undertaker thrown 15 feet from the Armageddon set onto what was suppose to be the concrete floor. Unfortunately it was plain to see that this was nothing but a crash mat and crowd didn't pop for this. The ending came after a chokeslam by The Dead Man to Kennedy on top of the hearse followed quickly by a match-winning tombstone.

In other notable happening from the card. Chris Benoit defeated Chavo Guerrero by submission in another stiff match. This was a very good bout with Benoit hitting 8 German suplexes on Chavo at one time. Benoit was also considering whether to put Vikki Guerrero in the sharpshooter or not. Luckily he came to his senses and let her go. This led to Chavo attempting the roll up only for it to be countered into the sharpshooter for the submission.

Another cracking match on the card was the Cruiserweight Championship contest between the longest reigning Champion in WWE, Gregory Helms and Jimmy Wang Yang. Featuring a lot of high flying and dangerous spots, some of which took place outside the ring, this was a match much more deserving of the crowd response than what it got. JBL put it best when he berated the fans in Richmond, Virginia for sitting on their hands during this one and at one point even started a boring chant. Helms picked up the duke after a jawbreaker type manoeuvre with his knees to Smackdowns! resident redneck.

The Boogeyman pinned The Miz in a worthless match. I hate The Boogeyman with a passion. Only worth listening too for JBL's ranting about Miz. JBL is comedy gold.

The last match of the night was main event number 3. World Heavyweight Champion, Batista and WWE Champion, John Cena teamed up to take on Finlay and the Champion of Champions, King Booker. There was no way the match could top the Tag Team Championship match from earlier on but it entertained none the less. The match would have been more memorable had it been given an extra five to ten minutes but how many times have I said that about WWE matches this year already. It was King Booker who was pinned at the end of the match after a big Batistabomb.

So 2006 is over for the WWE in regards to it's pay-per-view schedule. It started the year on a terrible note with New Year's Revolution but ended on a high one with Armageddon. This Ladder match will long be remembered as one of the greatest ladder matches of all time. My hat is off to all eight competitors who but their bodies on the line to give the fans one hell of a match.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw this film without to know what about were... I'm a fan of Branagh, even more his Shakespeare' films, and, in the beginning, I saw it only for this... and I finished with tears in my eyes, because the great, great serenity, values, affect and brave philosophy about Life of Helena's girl. Recommended to people who are bored with TV programming (in Spain, at least).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.

but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer.

stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Now, I haven't read the original short story to know all the literary points that went wrong here, so I'm not going to go down that path here.

But I have some time ago learnt that Stephen King movies simply -are not- horror films, with perhaps a couple of exceptions. This was not one of them. It started well enough, and for once I'm not going to complain about the acting, although Fred Gwynne was as usual wonderful.. Also I will forgive the total lack of parenting skills, as they were necessary to make the story here move forward...

But there was one consistent point that I couldn't help but get annoyed with. And that came pretty close to the end of the movie, and at least 2 characters partook in the activity of dumb stupidity. The moments I refer to are thus: There is a tiny zombie running around the house. You suspect it is under the bed. Do you

(a) get as close to the bed as you can before blindly raising the duvet cover up, exposing pretty much your whole body to whatever damage such a teeny undead cannibal might inflict on you, or

(b) move a little away from the bed so you can peer under the completely open end from a position of slightly increased safety, or at least see the mini terror coming at you, giving you a little reaction time.

I know, let's go with (a). I feel like offering myself up for the slaughter today. Bleh

Fun enough film though... Just not very scary.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I first saw this at a foreign film festival. It's a beautifully paced nail-biter about a plot to relieve the Estonian treasury of a billion or so in gold. It's all shot in a gritty, grainy style that Hollywood rarely uses --- but it captures the atmosphere of the newly emancipated Baltic states beautifully (note: Tallin was actually looking a lot less grim in 2003 when I was there).

There's a lot of humor and some romance, too. I don't want to spoil a number of startling yet logical surprises, so I'll just say this heist film starts from a great script, and the directing and performances are top notch. DARKNESS IN TALLIN is simply the fastest and most nerve-racking example of its genre --- I'd put it up against RAFIFI, TOPKAPI, and it's miles ahead of the new OCEAN'S 11, though (deliberately) not as glossy. RENT OR BUY IT NOW.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Hi everyone my names Larissa I'm 13 years old when i was about 4 years old i watch curly sue and it knocked my socks of i have been watching that movie for a long time in fact about 30 minutes ago i just got done watching it. Alisan porter is a really good actor and i Love that movie Its so funny when she is dealing the cards. Every time i watch that movie at the end of it i cry its so said i know I'm only 13 years old but its such a touching story its really weird thats Alisan is 25 years old now. Every time i watch a movie someone is always young and the movie comes out like a year after they make it and when u watch it and find out how old the person in the movie really is u wounder how they can go from one age to the next. Like Harry Potter. That movie was also great but still Daniel was about 12 years old in the first movie and i was about 11. SO how could he go from 12 to 16 in about 4 years and I'm only 13. I'm not sure if he is 16 right now i think he is almost 18 but thats kind of weird when u look at one movie and on the next there about 4 years old then u when they were only 1 in the last.I'm not sure i have a big imagination and i like to revile it.I am kind of a computer person but i like to do a lot of kids things also. I am very smart like curly sue in the movie but one thing i don't like in the movie is when that guy calls the foster home and makes curly sue get taken away i would kill that guy if he really had done it in real life. Well I'm going to stop writing i know a write a lot sometimes but kids do have a lot in there head that need to get out and if they don't kids will never get to learn.

Larissa", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.

It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality.

This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.

It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you want to see a movie that terribly mixes up one Latin country with any other Latin country, \"The Celestine Prophecy\" is a good example: 1. Perú, not even in its most violent times, has not shown polices or soldiers as much as in this film. This showed a country like El Salvador when Civil War. Since I'm a Peruvian who lives in Lima (the capital of Perú), it was too funny to me seeing the police guards here, there and everywhere. 2. If you have a car in Perú, and you want (or need) to be a taxi driver, just post a sticker with the word \"Taxi\" on the front glass of your car and you can drive freely in Peruvian streets (there are taxi companies, but their rates are quite expensive). No need of yellow or a black/white squared band on the doors of your car. Well, taxis in this film have that band, somethin that you will never see in Perú. 3. Peruvian people are not Caribbean styled clothing. For example, when a taxi driver comes out, he was wearing a \"Guayabera\" (Cuban shirt), a white hat, and 40's mustaches, like Clark Gable. Not one Peruvian man looks like that, please! Perú is not the Caribbeans! 4. A scene shows a woman on a street with a quite long skirt, like the typical folklore dresses in Latin America. Take a walk anywhere in Perú, and you'll never find a woman wearing like that, unless you are watching a typical dance. 5. Cast could've been better: I can not deny Héctor Elizondo is a great actor, but he's not a Latin actor (his father was Basque and his mother from Puerto Rico, but he was born in New York) and his Spanish is not fluent. It's notorious Spanish is not his first language. There are dozens of very good Latin actors who could've performed as Cardinal Sebastián. Petrus Antonius (General Rodríguez) was also a bad choice for a \"Latin Police officer\". It was so funny seeing Elizondo and Petronius in General Rodríguez's office. They looked like two English or American students in a Spanish class, making their best effort in order to pronounce Spanish. Unsuccessfully, of course. Castulo Guerra was better in his Spanish. A \"Peruvian\" officer, who announced Cardinal Sebastián, spoke a quite funny Spanish too. There are very good Peruvian actors, like Augusto Alvarez-Calderón and Christian Meier (just to mention two out of many Peruvian actors), who could've performed with excellence. 6. I admit that a fictional movie can let itself a license inventing cities or, even, countries. But, please, when creating a name, be careful when using a foreign language: The town portrayed in this movie should've been called \"Vicente\" and not \"Viciente\". Vicente is a male name, and Viciente has never been used. 7. I disagree one user, who says that this movie was filmed on locations in Perú. Not one location is Peruvian, although the production has used in excess posters showing \"Inca Kola\", the Peruvian soda. As not few American films, this one must have used any Latin country. After all, for American producers or directors, a Latin place is identical to any other Latin place. 8. In the first scenes, when John (Matthew Settle) flies to Perú, he's supposed to arrive to the only one international airport in Perú: Jorge Chávez Airport (in Lima, the capital). Actually, believe me, it must be any airport in the world, but Peruvian airport. And, of course, in Peruvian airports there are no military or police guards. 9. When this John takes a room in a Peruvian hotel, this one has a fan and, obviously has no air conditioner. Please, this doesn't happen in no hotel in Perú(and other Latin countries), unless you get a 1 star hotel! 10. The rebels who fight against the government are... ¡Colombians! Their accent was, with no doubt, from Colombia. For casting them, the producers should've hired Peruvian actors. In few words, it would've been cheaper filming in Perú.

I could go on with more examples out of this film, that led me to give it a \"1\" (awful) vote, but I fell asleep after about 20 minutes from its beginning. But dear producers: It's not a tragedy: There are many worse movies with not few mistakes. Just let's remember \"Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal skull\" and indescribable Disney's \"The Emperor's new groove\". The list of bad films could be endless...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Omen IV (1991) was a bad made-for-T.V. movie. Since the 80's were over, I guess the executives were experimenting in meth (the drug of choice during the 90's) because there is no other reason to explain this travesty. Why did they even bother making this? A t.v. movie? What were they mulling over when this one came up on the idea board? Did they even think for a second that this movie would catch on as. Perhaps they thought it could make it as a series? We'll never know. But I know one thing. This movie was the major reason why I never bought the Omen trilogy. They should have knocked off a couple of bucks instead of putting out this \"extra\" disc.

Omen IV is basically a average American family remake of the first film. Instead of a snot nosed punk kid, we get the spooky girl who's a total brat to everyone around her. If the family had stronger parenting skills, then none of the demonic events that have transpired in the past films would have never occurred. These parents need to put their foot down and do some real discipline!

Not recommended, best to avoid at all cost!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "No awards show can please all the people. Clearly if your favorite movies didn't win, you will say the show wasn't very good. That's understandable.

However, the 74th Annual Academy Awards will be remembered for one magical moment of Hollywood history:

Woody Allen's first appearance ever at the Academy Awards.

Allen has often shunned the awards as being self-aggrandizing and pointless, and has never attended -- even though he has won several of the coveted awards.

When the 74th Academy Awards were held, the nation was still mourning the loss of life in the collapse of the World Trade Centers in New York. When it came time to pay tribute to the city of New York, they decided to show a video of the great movie moments form the city of cities. Then the announcer simply said:

\"Ladies and gentleman, Oscar Award winning Director Woody Allen.\"

The place erupted in an extremely long standing ovation. The entertainment industry finally got to give their applause to the Man from New York who usually avoids the Hollywood scene. As the applause died down, Woody applied some of his legendary wit to the situation.

SOME HIGHLIGHTS:

\"Thank you very much - that makes up for the strip search.\"

\"I thought they wanted their Oscars back,\" he joked. \"I panicked because the pawn shop has been out of business for ages and I had no way of retrieving anything. \"

\"But that wasn't it. I couldn't work it out because my movie wasn't nominated for anything this year. Then it hit me - maybe they were calling to apologise.\"

Allen also disclosed why he had overlooked his lifelong Oscar-aversion for this one special night.

\"For New York City, I'd do anything. So I got my tux on and came down here,\" said Allen.

\"It's a great, great movie town. It's been a great, moving and exciting backdrop for movies and it remains a great, great city.\"

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A young woman (Jean Simmons) is convinced by her scheming and dangerous aunt (Sonia Dresdel) and uncle (Barry Jones) that she's losing her mind and in very delicate condition that requires their supervision which turns out to be more like manipulation, as they try to keep her as far away from outside human contact as possible. The only other person she sees is the estate caretaker, a lascivious character played by Maxwell Reed, whose caught the wayward eye of the middle-aged aunt. All of this, the aunt and the caretaker, the butterfly expert uncle who has a serious underside to him, and the susceptible niece in the middle, would have made for a darker and more sinister film. As it is, a frame-up for a murder sends Trevor Howard (a fired government secret service agent who took a job at the estate cataloging butterflies) and Simmons across the countryside escaping police, catching headlines of \"Police Net Closing In\" over her front page photo, hopping on buses, and winding up in Liverpool, where they meet some wonderfully cast characters, and finally face down the greedy and murderous aunt and uncle.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie is more about Pony than Grey Owl. It's also about aboriginals, Canada, the English, Grey Owl's aunts and the North Bay Nugget. Excellent story.

This is an excellent movie, more like a book, that raises interesting questions about cultural identity and values. The key scene is Grey Owl admitting his imposture to Pony and her reaction.

A few observations on the user ratings. Note that the user ratings are bi-polar clustering at 5 and 7; it's not for everyone, but has a strong following. This movie is underrated and overlooked but will be noticed for years to come. Also, few women have watched the movie but they rate it more highly than men. Has it been marketed properly?

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When our local TV station first launched, it filled a lot of its schedule with old British programming. \"Lock Up Your Daughters!\" was duly aired, and I -- swayed by the opening few seconds of the film -- popped in a blank tape. Best thing I ever did.

The actors are beautifully suited to their characters and bring them to delightful life, complete with appropriate accents (Christopher Plummer's Foppington will leave you in stitches, as will Hoyden and her family). Double entendres abound, plot-line wheels within wheels mix and match the characters, hilarious sight gags lurk in every scene, and risqué comments are made on a regular basis.

I showed the film to friends a few years ago and they called the piece \"a lost treasure,\" as much for the cast as for the story. To this day I can crack up just thinking about the dialog. Should this gem ever find its way to a DVD release, I'll be at the front of the line.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The acting is pretty cheesy, but for the people in this area up in the 80s and are now Detroit area automotive engineers, this is a great movie. I even work with a Japanese supplier so that makes this movie even more funny.

Jay Leno was showing his age last night on The Tonight Show! He looks pretty young here...17 years ago. The opening scene, with the drag race on what appears to be Woodward Ave was great.

Leno also owns some bad a** cars now, it would e great to see a remake of this with his modern collection. I'm sure the blown Vette in the opening scene was his own car.

Typical 80s movie. Watch it and enjoy. No computer generated crap!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. \"A Walk on the Moon\" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.

The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.

The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the \"blouse salesman\" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.

That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.

Poor Diane Lane, she went to make \"Unfaithful\" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!

Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called \" Chandler \", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The French Naudet brothers did something nobody else did, they had a video camera the day that this tragedy happened. They were in Building #2, when you could see papers drifting down, people hitting the ground from jumping from such a height.

I mean it goes as far as when both buildings collapsed they went running, their camera was still running, when the white dust covered them, they found a shop doorway and got inside, but all this footage is real and I think they did a fantastic job of capturing it for us.

Ten stars goes to the Naudet brothers that filmed this extraordinary film that I watch every 9/11 so I'll never forget what this country went through. I believe if I remember right, it shows the first death of the priest of the firefighters, while he was being carried to the church and his honorable funeral.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is the first of Miikes triad society trilogy, and the trilogy kicks of to a great start. The movies in the trilogy are only connected thematically, and these themes are actually apparent in all his films, if you look close enough. Shinjuku Triad Society is about a cop trying to prevent his kid brother from getting too involved with a rather extreme gang of outsiders, struggling their way to the top of Tokyos yakuza. The kid brother is a lawyer, and the triad gang is becoming increasingly in need of one, as the movie progresses. The movie takes place in a very harsh environment, and is therefore pretty violent and tough. Miike has done worse, but since this is a serious movie it hits you very hard. As usual there is also a lot of perverted sex, mostly homosexual in this one. The movie is in many ways a typical gangster movie, but with a great drive and true grittiness. If you've only seen Miikes far-out movies (Ichi the killer, Fudoh etc.) this is worth checking out since it is sort of a compromise between his aggressive over-the-top style displayed in those movies and his more serious side, as seen in the other films of the trilogy. And as always with Miike, there are at least two scenes in this that you'll NEVER forget (see it and figure out which ones for yourself).

8/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Previous comment made me write this. It says that Muslims are blonde and Serbs are dark (because our blood is mixed). This comment just says that this opinion can be made by racist.Look,race is nothing.I'm color blind.I look like Pierce Brosnan but I'm no Irish. So what?I might add that I am not 100% Serb,that I have some Austrian and Croat blood within me but whats the point.I'm dark, half-breed?Is that so? Anyone using racial prejudices with such bad intent like Lantos(producer9and director is racist for me.Karadzhic, Izetbegovich, Milosevic, Tudjman they are all monsters and I blame them for destroying my life, my family, my country, Yuggoslavia. Hope they will be all in hell but that wont return our dead relatives back. I am proud of being Serb and I am proud of my cousins, Austrians,Croats,Muslims, Hungarians, Arabs (yes I am from Serbia and I have multiethnical family).This movie doesn't show sufferings of Serbs or Croats within Sarayevo,terrible terrorism of street gangs,Muslim extremism.I add: I kneel and pray for all innocent sisters and brothers Muslim,catholic or orthodox, killed in this war.This film is manipulation with our misery,false humanitarianism's which doesn't help at all.It helps Lantos to fill his pockets with more doe,alright!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was the second of the series of 6 \"classic Tarzan\" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.

As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an \"in between\" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.

Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss – and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction – foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane \"returning\" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.

There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.

For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.

I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.

There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.

The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.

All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In Rosenstrasse, Margarethe von Trotta blends two stories to create a vibrant tapestry of love and courage. The film depicts a family drama of estrangement between a mother and her daughter, and the story of German women who staged a protest on Rosenstrasse to free their Jewish husbands from certain extermination. In addition to the dramatization of historical events, the focus of the film is on the saving of a child from the Holocaust by a German and the result of the child's experience of losing her mother. While Ms. von Trotta shows that the courage of a small number of Germans made a difference, she does not use it to excuse German society. Indeed, she shows how in the midst of torture and extermination, the wealthy artists and intellectuals of German high society went on about their lives and parties, oblivious to the suffering.

Rosenstrasse opens in New York as a Jewish widow Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) decides to sit Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning that takes place following a funeral in which Jewish family members devote full attention to remembering and mourning the deceased. When her daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader), is forbidden to receive phone calls from her fiancé Luis (Fedja van Huet), a non-Jew, Hannah questions why her mother has suddenly decided to follow an Orthodox tradition that she previously rejected. When Ruth coldly rejects her cousin, Hannah questions her and learns about a woman named Lena who took Ruth in as a child when the latter's mother was deported and murdered by the Nazis, and she vows to find Lena and discover the secret of her mother's past.

Her quest takes her to Berlin where she finds Lena (Doris Schade), now ninety years old, and interviews her on the pretext that she is a journalist researching certain aspects of the Holocaust. With unfailing memory, Lena tells her story of how, as a young 33-year old woman (Katja Reimann), she searched for her husband, Jewish pianist Fabian Israel Fischer (Martin Feifel), who disappeared and was presumed to have been imprisoned despite the protection normally given Jews in mixed marriages. Lena, in a radiant performance by Reimann, discovers that her husband and other Jews are being held prisoner in a former factory on the Rosenstrasse.

Standing together in the freezing night, German women whose husband are missing congregate outside the building, their numbers growing daily until they reach one thousand shouting \"Give us back our husbands\". Lena finds Ruth (Svea Lohde), a young girl whose mother is in the building. She takes care of her, protecting her from the Gestapo and raising her after her mother is killed. Lena comes from an aristocratic German family and her brother, recently returned from Stalingrad, is a Wehrmacht officer. After being refused help from her father to free Fabian she enlists the aid of her brother who tells a fellow Officer, \"I know what they do to the Jews. I saw it\". Given his support, she is bold enough to bypass channels and go to the top where her beauty and charm prove irresistible for the Minister of Culture, Joseph Goebbels, a known womanizer. While this fictional part of the film has been criticized as degrading to the women protesters, it is a historical fact that Goebbels was very active in making the decisions affecting Rosenstrasse.

The director Margarethe von Trotta, an activist, feminist, and intellectual, is no stranger to political drama. She directed a film about Socialist Rosa Luxembourg and Marianne and Julianne, a story of the relationship between two sisters, one of whom resorts to political violence to accomplish her liberal objectives. In Rosenstrasse, a film she worked on for eight years, she had to make compromises, adding the present day fictional element in order to have her film produced. That it works so well is a tribute to Ms. von Trotta's artistry and the beautiful screenplay by Pamela Katz whose father was a refugee from Leipzig. The events at Rosenstrasse give the lie to Germans, who say, \"there was nothing we could do\". Now von Trotta has shown the opposite to be true, that something could be done to resist the Nazis. It is tragic that the example did not catch on.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like \"Switch\". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): \"Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto\" (\"Man & Woman Up to a Point\")", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Anyone who knows me even remotely can tell you that I love bad movies almost as much as I love great ones, and I can honestly say that I have finally seen one of the all-time legendary bad movies: the almost indescribable mess that is MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. An adaptation of Gore Vidal's best-selling book (he later disowned this film version), the star-studded MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is truly a movie so bad that it remains bizarrely entertaining from beginning to end. The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both critics and audiences at the time of it's release. Not surprisingly, the film went on to gain a near-legendary cult status among lovers of bad cinema, and I was actually quite excited to finally see for the first time.

Director Michael Sarne (who only had two other previous directing credits to his name at the time), took a lot of flack for the finished film, and, in honesty, it really does not look like he had a clue about what he was trying to achieve. The film is often incoherent, with entire sequences edited together in such a half-hazzard manner that many scenes become nearly incomprehensible. Also irritating is the gimmick of using archival footage from the Fox film vaults and splicing it into the picture at regular intervals. This means that there is archival footage of past film stars such as Judy Garland and Shirley Temple laced into newly-film scenes of often lewd sexual acts, and the process just doesn't work as intended (this also caused a minor uproar, as actors such as Temple and Loretta Young sued the studio for using their image without permission).

Perhaps Sarne is not the only one to blame, however, as the film's screenplay and casting will also make many viewers shake their heads in disbelief. For instance, this film will ask you to believe that the scrawny film critic Rex Reed (in his first and last major film role) could have a sex change operation and emerge as the gorgeous sex goddess Raquel Welch?! The film becomes further hard to follow when Welch as Myra attempts to take over a film school from her sleazy uncle (played by legendary film director John Huston), seduce a nubile female film student (Farrah Fawcett), and teach the school's resident bad boy (Roger Herren) a lesson by raping him with a strap-on dildo. Did everyone follow that?

And it gets even better (or worse, depending upon your perspective)! I have yet to mention the film's top-billed star: the legendary screen sex symbol of the nineteen-thirties, Mae West! Ms. West was 77 year old when she appeared in this film (she had been retired for 26 years), and apparently she still considered herself to be a formidable sex symbol as she plays an upscale talent agent who has hunky men (including a young Tom Selleck) throwing themselves at her. As if this weren't bad enough, the tone-deaf West actually performs two newly-written songs about halfway through the film, and I think that I might have endured permanent brain damage from listening to them!

Naturally, none of this even closely resembles anything that any person of reasonable taste would describe as \"good,\" but I would give MYRA BRECKINRIDGE a 4 out of 10 because it was always morbidly entertaining even when I had no idea what in the hell was supposed to be going on. Also, most of the cast tries really hard. Raquel, in particular, appears so hell-bent in turning her poorly-written part into something meaningful that she single-handedly succeeds in making the movie worth watching. If she had only been working with a decent screenplay and capable director then she might have finally received some respect form critics.

The rest of the cast is also fine. The endearingly over-the-top John Huston (who really should have been directing the picture) has some funny moments, Rex Reed isn't bad for a non-actor, and Farrah Fawcett is pleasantly fresh-faced and likable. Roger Herren is also fine, but he never appeared in another movie again after this (I guess he just couldn't live down being the guy who was rapped by Raquel Welch). And as anyone could guess from the description above, Mae West was totally out of her mind when she agreed to do this movie - but that's part of what makes it fun for those of us who love bad cinema.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "How did I ever appreciate this dud of a sequel? All it does is throw balls! Worst of all, it doesn't compare to even the first installment of the series! The comedy suffers from not being funny. Where did all the unintentional laughter go? Enough slapstick on-the-field action goes on too long. Bob Uecker literally saved this one from a complete nine-inning shutout. What's next, MAJOR LEAGUE 4: RETURN TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE? Ehh, could be! Leave this one on the shelf and plan a trip to the All-Star Game. This one's had three strikes too many.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A meteorite falls in the country of a small town, bringing a jelly creature. An old farmer is attacked by the alien in his hand, and the youths Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) and his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) take him to Dr. T. Hallen (Steven Chase). The local doctor treats carefully the blister, and asks Steve to investigate the location where they found the old man. When Steve returns, he sees the blob killing the doctor. Steve and Jane try to warn the police and the dwellers, but nobody believe on them, while the blob engulfs many people, getting bigger and bigger.

\"The Blob\" is a cult and classic sci-fi. It is a low budget movie, with many ham actors and actresses (with the exception of Steve McQueen), awful effects, but also delightful and very, but very funny. This is the first time that I see this classic (I had seen the 1988 remake with Kevin Dillon), and I really recommend it to fans of Steve McQueen and sci-fi B-movies from the 50s. The film subject of my review number 1,400 could not be better. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): \"A Bolha\" (\"The Blob\")", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then…. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.

Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.

The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.

This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Princess Tam Tam is without the trappings of racism, in the way we think of racism in the United States, but there are more subtle (to the American viewer) assertions about ethnic identity during the time. Pay attention to Alwina's (Baker) placement within shots, how she is addressed by the other characters, the settings around her that all depict her as a \"savage\" African, and ask yourself if Alwina has any shred of agency throughout the film. I don't want to ruin anything but at the end pay very careful attention, the dichotomy between \"Eastern\" and \"Western\" culture is to say the least offensive, such diction is thankfully disavowed these days. The French have a checkered past as an imperial force throughout the areas depicted (see Chris Marker's Les Statues Meurent Aussi- 1953), and pay attention to the places the European travelers visit while they are in Africa, and what does that reflect about their attitudes towards the \"other\". I give this film a 7 because I am a sucker for Baker, much of what she did in her professional career, like Princes Tam Tam, that is regressive is certainly overshadowed by her efforts towards integration, her work as a freaking spy (I am gushing, sorry.) However the film for me is captivating because of her performance, besides that it is a telling relic of bygone mentalities.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I just watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story.

Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie!

Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it?

Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!

Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It takes guts to make a movie on Gandhi in India ,in which he is not shown as a man who could do no wrong.This movie shows how a Mahatma failed to be a decent father(at least in the eyes of his son).

The performances are terrific ,the cinematography fantastic, the direction fabulous,but the film drags.If the intention was to make this movie without any box-office expectations,which i assume is the case here,then its a brilliant attempt,but if the makers were expecting this to be a commercial success,then the film's fate was doomed the day they chose this subject..

20 yrs from now,this movie will be remembered for the brilliant portrayal of Harilal by Akshaye Khanna.He deserves an Oscar nomination for this one..And honestly,his is not the only performance worth applauding, Shefali Chhaya is terrific too..

Watch the scene where Harilal hears about his father's death.No dialogues,No screaming,but a speechless shot by Khanna.Its one of the finest scenes ever shot in the history of Cinema

Gandhi,My Father is not at all exciting cinema but yes,its excellent cinema and a must watch.Brilliant Attempt..", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "How low can someone sink while trying to recapture an old glory? ST:HF will be glad to show you.

If you are used to seeing what made for a good Star Trek show, do NOT watch this.

The writing is hodge-podge, the actors' portrayals of their characters weak, and most of all, the design work is downright doggy.

Like watching strong captains, don't look here! Like the strong Federation attitude? Forget about it here! Starfleet is mocked by ensigns wearing SPIKES in their hair.

While a seemingly mentally feeble captain shuffles about and within two minutes of the opening show's credits, Ensign Spikey is attempting to arrange a tryst with an engineer. It just degrades from there. No, not even uniforms match, for goodness sake. They are too small or too big, collars down to their chests, and TNG Seasons One and Two Uniforms mixed in with Season Three and DS9 uniforms. The strict discipline and tradition of any of the originals in lacking in this production down to the treads! The only good thing about this show is its graphics, which seem to improve a bit with each season. OK, I take that back. Who uses CG that inexpertly? The designers of this show.

Don't bother with it, it will offend your Star Trek sense, as it did mine. Not even the throw backs to previous shows can save this catastrophe.

I wept openly when i watched this, probably because my eyes were bleeding and my head almost ruptured. That bad.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his \"Little Man\" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a \"little man\" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you've seen this movie, you've been to Puerto Rico. I've lived in Puerto Rico all my life, and have to shamefully admit that we (PR) are living a real chaos right now, drugs being the main reason for the shootings and killings we have almost every day. These people will shoot anyone, anytime and anywhere, and many innocent lives have been lost because of this. We don't feel safe anymore, and in addition to this, our so-called \"justice\" is no longer moved by truth and rightness, but by money, influence and power. \"Ladrones y Mentirosos\" is based on real, deplorable facts, and truly portrays Puerto Rico's three main problems: the drug-related killings, money and power manipulating our courtrooms, and innocent people and children being corrupted and even dying because of this. Ricardo and his wife Poli, with their true-to-life plot and their award winning direction(**), were brave enough to present all this as bad as it is: Puerto Rico is a beautiful and friendly country, living a nightmare that doesn't seem to end !!! ** They recently won the \"Copper Wing Award\" for Best Director in the World Cinema Competition at the 2006 Phoenix Film Festival.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Before watching this film, I could already tell it was a complete copy of Saw (complete with the shack-like place they were in and the black guy wanting someone to break his hand to get out of the cuffs). MJH's name on a movie would typically turn me away (ugh, can we say GROSS?!), but I still wanted to give it a try.

Starting out, I was a bit interested. The acting is absolutely horrible and I found myself laughing at almost each reaction from the characters (especially the man that played \"Sulley\"). MJH was even worst, but I continued to watch.

However, the ending was the biggest joke of them all! I seriously sat in shock thinking \"THAT was the ending?! Is this a comedy?!\".

I thought this pile of crap was funnier than the \"Scary Movie\" spoofs and that is REALLY saying something!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, \"Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick.\" Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, \"Ah, nobody'll ever notice.\"

As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is \"Citizen Kane\" compared to his brain-numbing \"Adrenaline: Feel the Rush\", for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, \"Alright already, go to something else\"), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derrière). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. \"Don't give up your day job\" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.

Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. (\"You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...\")

This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. (\"All I can think about is food,\" he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...

(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...

In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By \"evil\" perhaps I mean \"inexplicable\" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.

By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: \"I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT...\" [big dramatic pause] \"...I don't think you'd like it at all.\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I had seen this movie when it got released, and when I was 12 years old :) And I still vividly recollect the wonderful scenes of how the hero/heroine escape every time when faced with danger :) And the best feature of the movie was the portrayal of the villain! I think many so-called action movies copied a lot many \"escape scenes\" from this movie!! And not only does it never impress me when I see such copying, it always increases my appreciation for this masterpiece! :) The lead actors have acted wonderfully. The slow and realistic development of the chemistry b/w the hero and heroine was extremely natural and wonderfully portrayed. As children, we felt that the love that developed b/w them was very natural :) The way they face and overcome all their trials and tribulations together was something that can make even kids realize the value of true love, sacrifice and caring. I recommend that every person see this movie when given a chance!! --Vijay.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When Stanwyck's husband-to-be is murdered on the eve of their wedding, she retreats to a mountain lodge, where she slips (sort of) off a cliff and is rescued by wealthy attorney Morgan. Morgan falls in love with her, leading to a definitely one-sided marriage, spent on a huge estate in Chicago (which appears to be surrounded by mountains!). Stanwyck is tempted by dashing Cortez, but eventually returns to Morgan, in a very subdued and unconvincing story resolution.

This film has a great cast (Morgan in particular is one of my favorites) and a great director, but the script is meandering and seems pointless at times. I was so ready to enjoy this movie but I was ultimately disappointed. Still worth watching for the cast, and it's good for anyone who likes 1930s films.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "On paper, this movie would sound incredibly boring. The idea of a 75-year-old man traveling the country-side on a riding mower certainly doesn't have much appeal to it, but the real power behind the film is its charm and its intelligence. Writers will not find a better study of what makes a movie work than \"The Straight Story.\"

The perfect example of this is a scene in which Alvin meets a runaway teenage girl. She's pregnant and afraid of what her parents would do if they found out. Alvin tells her a story about his own kids, long ago. He had them each take a stick and break it, which they could easily do. Then he had them bundle the sticks and try to break them. \"That bundle,\" he said, \"is family.\" So many other movies would feel compelled to continue and make sure we knew that an individual could be broken but together the members were stronger. \"The Straight Story\" realizes that we're smart enough to understand this and simply leaves us to contemplate the thought and draw our own conclusions.

Alvin's journey across Iowa is full of such refreshingly un-Hollywood character interactions. Each interaction is full of warmth and humor, and Alvin is so cute riding his mower that we can't help but smile as he makes his way to Wisconsin to make peace with his brother, Lyle, who has suffered a stroke. And the simplicity of the final scene emphasizes that the real story here is not the destination but the journey. It's a journey in which Alvin shares his life with everyone he meets--to their benefit and ours. It's a slow, simple, relaxing ride meant to remind us of all that we've lost with the urbanization of America.

\"The Straight Story\" is the rare live-action \"G\"-rated movie that truly should not be missed. Grade: A", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The idea is to have something interesting happening in the first ten minutes to keep the audience hooked. Late Night Shopping manages to avoid interest for much longer than that. When we do get to a point, it is so monumentally moronic that I kept thinking I must have misunderstood it. But I didn't.

Sean tells the story of an Osaka landlord who rented the same apartment to two people at the same time who worked different shifts and so didn't realise they were sharing. His friend asks \"But what about the weekends?\" Sean doesn't have an adequate explanation. Sean then tells the story of his own similar problem, which is that he isn't sure his girlfriend is still living at home as he works during the night and she works during the day so they never see each other. This has been going on for three weeks. But his friend doesn't ask: \"Yes, but as I said before, what about the weekends? You must see her then. It doesn't make sense. What are you going on about, Sean? Are you on medication or something?\" But let's be generous and assume that they both work seven days a week.

We see Sean checking to see if the soap and towels have been used. (In fact, bizarrely, he starts to carry the soap around with him.) But what about his girlfriend's conditioner and shampoo, sanpro and moisturiser, toothpaste and toothbrush. Let's go to the kitchen. What about food and drink? Is any missing? Has any been bought? In the bedroom, has the shared bed been made or not? Are her clothes being used and exchanged for clean ones? Is the laundry basket fuller? In the toilet, is the seat up or down? I mean, good grief!

And to cap it all Paul arranges to leave work early to see if his girlfriend is still living at home. Why doesn't he just phone her?

But it gets worse. In the last act although no-one told Vincent where the rest of the group are going he manages to find them. Lenny's love interest and Sean's girlfriend conveniently appear to be best friends and also manage to find the group. There isn't even the slightest attempt to explain any of these extraordinarily unlikely coincidences.

To be fair the dialogue is OK but not nearly good enough to make up for the weak characters or annoyingly lame story.

I heard one of actors interviewed and he promised \"no guns, no drugs, no corsets.\" I thought, \"great\". But after half-an-hour of tedium I was yelling at the screen: \"I want guns! I want drugs! I want corsets!\"

It wouldn't have taken much to sort these problems out but on the official website the director boasts that the film wasn't script-edited. That's all you need to know.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie could have been so much better, especially considering the talent. Larenz Tate's portrayal of Frankie Lymon was not good, especially in musical performances. He doesn't lip sync well and his stage mannerisms are Larenz Tate, when he should have been Frankie Lymon. The portrayal of the women as a bunch of gold diggers has Hollywood written all over it. The powers that be obviously pushed it, but it only made the characters more unrealistic. The positives of the movie were Miguel Nunez's portrayal of Little Richard, and the cameo of Little Richard himself. Lela Rochon is eye candy, as usual, even in a conservative role. It's too bad that the talents of Halle Berry and Vivica A. Fox were wasted. The whole Frankie Lymon saga was fascinating in real life. Too bad this film was a wasted opportunity.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film is just a kids against evil genre. Thunderbirds is just the hook to get people to see it, but are almost incidental in use. The fact that the action takes place on Tracy Island is just a ploy to pull in the public. It was interesting to note what the film makers view of future London will be and how the World all fits together.

The best part of this film are some of the lines delivered by Lady Penelope which are highly comical. These provided some light relief for those expecting a rerun of the TV series.

Having said that it passes 90 or so minutes in a 'fun' way and so may just be worth watching.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Just Cause takes some of the best parts of three films, Cape Fear, A Touch of Evil and Silence of the Lambs and mixes it together to come up with a good thriller of a film.

Sean Connery is a liberal law professor, married to a former Assistant District Attorney, Kate Capshaw and he's a crusader against capital punishment. Blair Underwood's grandmother Ruby Dee buttonholes Connery at a conference and persuades him to handle her grandson's appeal. He's sitting on death row for the murder of a young girl.

When Connery arrives in this rural Florida county he's up against a tough sheriff played by Laurence Fishburne who's about as ruthless in his crime solving as Orson Welles was in Touch of Evil.

Later on after Connery gets the verdict set aside with evidence he's uncovered, he's feeling pretty good about himself. At that point the film takes a decided turn from Touch of Evil to Cape Fear.

To say that all is not what it seems is to put it mildly. The cast uniformly turns in some good performances. Special mention must be made of Ed Harris who plays a Hannibal Lecter like serial killer on death row with Underwood. He will make your skin crawl and he starts making Connery rethink some of those comfortable liberal premises he's been basing his convictions on. Many a confirmed liberal I've known has come out thinking quite differently once they've become a crime victim.

Of course the reverse is equally true. Many a law and order conservative if they ever get involved on the wrong end of the criminal justice system wants to make real sure all his rights are indeed guaranteed.

Criminal justice is not an end, but a process and a never ending one at that for all society. I guess if Just Cause has a moral that would probably be it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "they have sex with melons in Asia.

okay. first, i doubted that, but after seeing the wayward cloud, i changed my mind and was finally convinced that they have sex with watermelons, with people dead or alive. no safe sex of course. the (terrifyingly ugly) leading man shoots it all into the lady's mouth after he did the dead lady. never heard of HIV? guess not.

the rest of this movie is mainly boring, but also incredibly revolting. as a matter of fact, in parts it got so disgusting i couldn't take my virgin eyes off. sex with dead people! how gross is that? and what's the message behind it all? we need water, we need melons, we need to be dead to have sex? sorry, but this stinks!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw this movie with some Indian friends on Christmas Day. The quick summary of this movie is MUST AVOID. JP Dutta wrote, directed, produced and edited this movie and did none of these jobs well.

The movie tells the story of the attempt by Pakistan in 1999 to capture part of the disputed region of Kashmir from India. Supposedly based on fact, you get a hint from this movie of the difficulty the Indian army had in recapturing the area from the Pakistani troops - who occupied the high ground. But instead of telling what must have been a compelling and heroic story, all this movie does is make the Indian military look laughable and stupid, which I know is not true.

I watched this movie with an almost completely Indian audience, who were very patriotic and clearly wanted to like this movie, but also found themselves laughing at scenes that weren't meant to be funny.

The script was absolutely abysmal. It gave the impression that Mr Dutta knows nothing about how an army operates and was using bad war movies for reference. The result is a script that is brainless and repetitive.

The acting from most of the principals was not stellar, but considering the script they were given, I find it hard to criticise them too much. As for the supporting cast, all I can say is that I hope they were amateurs.

The editing was also pretty bad. It was pretty hard to follow what was going on for a lot of the time, and music would abruptly end at scene changes.

Good things: The cinematography was pretty good, although it was hurt a little by the fact that the movie didn't appear to be colour corrected (the colour balance often varied significantly within scenes). Also, the few songs that were in the movie were quite enjoyable - for the first half a dozen or so verses at least. Unfortunately they went on a LOT longer than they should have.

And the worst crime of all? This mess is FOUR HOURS LONG. There is enough here that a good editor could almost squeeze a good 1.5 - 2 hour movie out of what was shot. Sadly, a good editor was not working on this movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It has very bad acting. Bad story lines. Bad characters. You should never see this show If you see it on. TURN IT OFF. Or you be cringing for the next 30 minutes. It should have never been aired. It's not great. You should never see it. NEVER EVER EVER. So now, if you ever wanna watch this show, please don't. Turn to the THE CW for Smallville. Or Disney Channel for Hannah Montana, Wizards Of Waverly Place, or Nick for Drake & Josh, Those are much better family shows. So believe me on this, I've watched it before. and It is honestly, and I say Honestly, the worst show I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of TV. So do me a favor, and never watch this show.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Very good dramatic comedy about a playwright trying to figure out how to keep his head above water after running out of ideas. Can't say much about this film without giving away the story. I can say that little was as it seems as you are watching the picture. Everybody has his or her own agenda. Nice little surprise at the end - after all the other surprises. Well written with good performances by all.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A famous orchestra conductor, Daniel Dareus, suffers what appears a heart attack as he finished conducting a concert. Suddenly, we watch him as he arrives in the small town that he has left years before. Since he left so young, and having his name changed contributes to give him a new persona. He has bought the old school building where he plans to stay. The building needs a lot of work. One would expect a man in his position to have all the comforts of the world he left behind to be installed in his new abode, but no, Daniel puts up with the harsh winter in his own way.

The local pastor, Stig, whose church has a small choir, comes calling to see if he can interest Daniel in helping, but the conductor has no desire to go back to music. Daniel begins to explore his new universe. The town's people leave him alone. He makes an impression on Lena, who works in the local store where he goes to get his food supplies. Little by little, he comes around and decides to involve himself with the choir. Lena will ultimately fall in love with Daniel.

At first, the relationship between Daniel and the choir members is not exactly what he expected. As they get to know him better, they come around to accept him and make him one of them. His new position doesn't endear him to the woman who used to be in charge. The members of the choir are a motley crew, but they realize the change Daniel has made in the way they interpret different songs. The new piece composed for Gabriella, a battered wife, makes a great impact in her life and that of her fellow singers.

Daniel's ideas for the repertoire clash with Stig's own. The vicar suddenly begins seeing Daniel in a new light; he is a tormented man who likes to read pornographic magazines before making love to his wife, Siv. His ideas clash with the dogma, as Siv points to him. Stig decides to try to put a stop to what he considers an unhealthy influence of Daniel by firing him as the head of the choir.

The choir, which has been invited to participate in a competition travels to Austria. Daniel, who by now has fallen totally for Lena, has a chance to show for the first time in his life his feelings for her when she starts to gets doubts about their relationship. Daniel who is late for his own concert, gets to hear them making extraordinary music even though he is not in among them.

Kay Pollak, the director of this enormously appealing film, shows he was the man to direct it. The story involves the viewer from the start. Great part of the success of the movie goes to the ensemble cast that was put together. William Nykvist, who plays the leading role is the best excuse for watching the film. Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, Ylva Loof, do excellent work for Mr. Pollak.

Stefan Nilsson is the composer for most of the beautiful music one hears. Harald Gunnar Paalgard's cinematography makes the film look better capturing different seasons for the viewer in their beauty.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I just didn't get this movie...Was it a musical? no..but there were choreographed songs and dancing in it...

Was it a serious drama....no the acting was not good enough for that.

Is Whoopi Goldberg a quality serious Actor..Definently not.

I had difficulty staying awake through this disjointed movie. The message on apartheid and the \"tribute\" to the students who died during a student uprosing is noted. But as entertainment this was very poor and as a documentary style movie it was worse.

See for yourself, but in fairness I hated it", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In this film, made JUST as the production code was being enforced, Jean Harlow is Eadie, and Patsy Kelly is the wisecracking, man-chasing sidekick \"Kitty\". Girl from Missouri starts out with the girls getting on a train, with Eadie making a promise to herself to earn money while looking for a millionaire husband, staying whole-some in the process. It doesn't take her long to meet up with Frank Cousins, (Lewis Stone, was the kindly Doctor in Grand Hotel, as well as Judge Hardy in the \"Andy Hardy\" films.), but all is not as it seems...The censors must have LOVED Harlow's line \"A girl couldn't accept an expensive gift like that from a gentleman unless she was engaged.\" Later, someone says \"You know we've never been alone together\" and Eadie replies \"Yeah, and we're not going to be!\" Lionel Barrymore is T.R. Paige, another rich, uppercrust who comes to her rescue when trouble comes looking for Eadie. At one point, Paige declares \"You oughta scratch me off your list - I'm not a ladies man\".... I wonder what that line would have been just a couple years earlier before the Hayes code came rolling into town. What was he really saying? Carol Tevis seems to be the high-pitched \"Baby Talker\" as listed in the credits on IMDb. Looks like she was only in showbiz from 1931 - 1939, with \"Munchkin\" in Wizard of Oz being the last part she played. Fun, cleancut romp as the girls chase men around the country. Look for Nat Pendleton as the lifeguard, who was an Olympic Wrestler 1920 (silver medal winner) turned film star (he was in many of the Dr. Kildares, and would appear in four of Harlow's films.) Mistaken identity, plot twists, a young Franchot Tone, love stories, even Jean Harlow in a bathing suit in \"Palm Beach\", although the outdoor scenes of downtown appear to be a backdrop.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Who in the world told Harrison Ford that this was a good role for him???

And Josh Hartnett...how does a 19 year old who can't fire a gun become a cop? Over used cliches plus zero character development and about 15 pointless music industry cameos equal a surprisingly bad film!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I attended Camp Chesapeake. It was located at the head of the Chesapeake bay on the North East River in MD. It was a similar type summer camp with cabins. It was established by the Coatesville, PA YMCA. I started out as a young camper and later became a Junior, Senior counselor and later, the Waterfront director. If the camp had continued, I would have done anything within my power to become the camp director. Alas the powers of the YMCA decided to close down the camp and sell it to the state of MD. I visited the former camp some years later by boat and was dismayed by the neglect of the state of MD and natural destruction by mother nature. The 350 acre site served so many with all the benefits of contact with natures offerings. A black man by the name of Curtis Ford, and his family were residents and caretakers of the property. Mr Curtis was my friend and mentor. I idolized his every being. Even as he could not swim he was a waterman. If I asked him where the fish were biting, he would designate the spot, and I would have a ball. Ther was also a Family camp at the end of the summer. These memories will be with me for eternity.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It is important not to be insulted by lack of logic or common sense and those who have any \"gray matters\" will agree that this movie just doesn't work.

The problems lay in the direction, cast selections and lack of depth in the character building. The word comedy was very hard thing to say when i expect to laugh when these words are used. Let's look at the problems in direction/script.

Brother and sister both in their mid 30's seem to be well adjusted. They meet a complete stranger at a park and Heather Graham character walks up to her and asks the most intimate questions that even half sane person would be running the other way or at least scream for a police officer. He then awkwardly walks over and makes some stupid statements and she falls for him. Then after ONE date were they all go out together he falls in love with her and decides to get married in Vegas in a week's time???? Hello does anyone feel stupid yet? He goes out with thousands of women and he meets this one person who says about 10 words that WE see on the screen and he wants to marry her. Not only was there no chemistry it just doesn't make sense. Sure it's a romantic comedy and I want to believe it could, but the direction made it completely flat.

Now Heather falls head over heels with her too and when Heather Graham and Bridget Moynahan (very shallow character) kiss or more to the point it was sloppiest kiss ever that chemistry MIGHT be there. I found it unromantic and unfunny and while many say Heather cannot act i think the reality is Heather was clearly the wrong person for this role.

This was Sue Kramer debut as a director and to me it was just too much for her to chew. It would take a lot of craft to make this movie work and IMHO it could be done with better writers and casting and direction.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Have you ever in your life, gone out for a sport's activity, tried your best, and then found yourself in an important segment of it, where for a brief moment, you were given a chance to be a hero and a champion and . . . failed? I believe many of us have had that moment in our lives. This is the premise of the movie, \"The Best of Times.\" In this story a middle age banker, named Jack Dundee (Robin Williams) suffers from the deep melancholy of a football mistake, which happened years ago, is inspired to re-play the game . . again. In order to accomplish this he must convince the once great football quarterback, Reno Hightower (Kurt Russell) to make a comeback. For Reno, who is satisfied with his present lot in life, see's no need to change the past record, which get's better as he ages. Added to both their problem is the fact years have passed and in addition, both their marriages are floundering and in need of re-vamping. Not easy when his Father-in-law (Donald Moffat) habitually reminds him of the biggest drop. Nevertheless, Dundee is persistent and will do anything to try and correct the greatest blunder of his life. Great fun for anyone wishing to enjoy their youth again. ***", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

A friend of mine enjoys watching the worst films he can possibly find, and I have a good laugh watching them with him.

I have told him if he puts this one on again I will be forced to give him a good kicking.

He knows I am serious!

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A cannibalistic backwoods killer is on the prowl and two bickering couples might be his next source of protein in this bargain basement Friday the 13th-clone cheapie. There s literally nothing of interest to see in this one, the killings are surprisingly sparse and when they do happen, completely amateurish. It also adds ghosts into the mix for no reason what so ever. I felt drained after watching it as if my brain was liquefying and draining out my nose. And it remains without a doubt Donald Jones' worst movie. If you're thinking of renting it because of Code Red's snazzy new DVD re-release Don't bother

My Grade: F", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Stories of the Century\" was a half hour series and appeared in first run syndication during the '54-'55 television season. It was also the first western TV series to win an Emmy award. Starring veteran western actor Jim Davis as railroad detective Matt Clark, the series set Clark and his fellow railroad detective partners (Mary Castle as Frankie Adams for the first half of the season and Kristine Miller as \"Jonesy\" during the second half)against historic western outlaws of various periods ranging from the mid-1860's to the early 1900's. The series was very satisfying, easy to watch, and fairly realistic due mainly to the easygoing charm of Jim Davis in the lead role. He seemed like an actual western character. One other note. When Matt Clark would arrive in town after a long ride he actually looked like he had been on a long horse ride as he would be covered in dust.

A very good early adult western.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am not a very good writer, so I'll keep this short. World at War is the best WWII documentary that I've seen. I've seen different WWII documentaries (not only English/North American) and this documentary seems to be the most complete WWII documentary that I've seen. I think it could talk a bit more about the Great Depression and why/how Hitler got to power, but it does a very good job at covering the war. It seems to be complete and objective/fair to everyone. It does not exaggerate or diminish roles of different nations. It has a lot of original footage, including color footage and many eye witnesses (it was made in 70's when a lot more were alive). It has great music and narrator. All-in-All I gave this one 10/10, because it's that good. (I haven't seen specials in DVD version so I cannot comment on those)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Batman and Superman. Iconic. The better part of a century old. Who doesn't know of these two? There must be countless of fans who would die to make a film about them. Sandy Collora went ahead and put together a trailer for such a film(which does not exist, and is not being created, much less by this team). Perhaps what this has most going for it is how polished it is. Throughout, the cinematography is solid. The editing is spot-on. The production values, even with the costumes looking more like their comic counterparts than the ones of the feature films featuring these character, are quite high. It looks quite \"Hollywood\", this trailer. The physical types fit for, as far as I can tell, every single character. The lines are reasonably written. The shots are well-thought up, nicely achieved and fairly effective. However, this does have problems, and in spite of looking good, it doesn't quite match the energy and skill of Grayson(which only had the problem of teeter-tottering too much back and forth between a short and a trailer, as well as unbridled passion leading to the inclusion of too many characters and ideas). The acting is perhaps the most evident. It's... not good. Even some of those who only have one line and/or hardly appear on-screen at all manage to fail at delivering a good performance. The actors cast in the parts seem to have been chosen more for how much they look like the characters they're playing than their talent. Then there is the writing. Really, the plot, well, what minuscule amount there is(this and this character team up, something about some evil plot...) is fine. There is a problem in the characterization. While most characters seem to fit, Two-Face is, well, about as much as a cackling lunatic(which is quite simply, as far as I've understood, not what the character is) as he was in Batman Forever(and having your work on portraying any element of the Batman universe compared to Joel Schumacher's efforts can be considered the greatest insult to a fan). Also, putting that character in this is going to cause comparisons between this trailer and that film(honestly, Collora is practically *begging* for it with such a similar initial reveal) to be made, and, let's face it, this loses in every respect. Michael Antonik most definitely does not possess the screen presence that Tommy Lee Jones does, and the make-up(which, in aforementioned reveal, is essential) isn't as strong as that of the film(whether or not it was good in the film is another matter). The sad thing is that while Fiorella(John, who created Grayson) seems to be far more into the comics, and get them, the depth of them, better(not to mention possessing more of an ability to come up with compelling plot... Grayson had enough material for half a dozen feature films, or more), Collora seems to be the one with access to funds and the one who's more likely to have contacts(on account of having non-indie credits on his filmography) to actually have a shot at making an actual feature out of his trailer. I intend to watch other of Collora's work. But Fiorella is the one of the two whose work I will most definitely be most interested in. I recommend this to fans of the characters. 7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Finally a thriller which omits the car chases, explosions and other eye catching effects. The movie combines a simple plot (assasination of a french president) with an excellent background. It takes a look behind mans behavior with authorities, and explains why we would obey almost every order (even murder) which would be given to us.

Furthermore it shows us how secret services can manipulate the run of history and how hardly they can be controlled. The best thing on this movie is, that there is no classic \"Hollywood end\" which can easily be predicted.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.

Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.

It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.

Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Nick Millard aka Nick Phillips should have left well-enough alone when he made \"Criminally Insane\" 10 years before the release of this god-awful waste of time and effort. The fact that the original \"Criminally Insane\" was less than an hour in length should have clued him into the fact that he had probably milked this storyline for all he was going to get out of it...but instead he opts to use TONS of footage from the original in this one as well, even to the point of recycling the original opening credit sequence! Unfortunately, bringing back the rapidly aging Priscilla Alden did not save this one. What little bit of original footage there was in this flick looks as if it were filmed with a rented hand-held camcorder! If this film cost more than $100 to make I would be very surprised and I would be equally surprised if it made anything close to that amount! Avoid this one and watch the original instead!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "God I love this movie. If you grew up in the 80's and love Heavy Metal, this is the Movie for you. They really don't get much better than this. The Fastway soundtrack is one of the best soundtracks ever. I put on the record when it first came out and spent the next month learning every song on guitar note for note. The plot outline is your standard Heavy Metal horror movie. Kid's favorite singer dies. Kid plays record backwards. Hero comes back in demonic form and rocks the town. What more could you ask for?

If you haven't seen it yet, rush out and buy it. You will not be disappointed. Metal Rules...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film is to my mind the weakest film in the original Star Wars trilogy, for a variety of reasons. However it emerges at the end of the day a winner, despite all its flaws. It's still a very good film, even if a lot of its quality depends on the characters that have been built up in the superior 2 installments.

One problem here is the look of the film, which isn't very consistent with the other 2 films. I put a lot of that down to the departure of producer Gary Kurtz. The first 2 films have that dirty, lived-in look with all the technology and so forth. In \"Jedi\" on the other hand even the rebels look like they just stepped out of a shower and had their uniforms dry cleaned. This makes for a much less textured film. Also the creatures were excessively muppet-like and cutesy. At this point it seems like the film-makers were more concerned with creating the templates for future action figures than with the quality of the film itself.

Another aspect is its lack of originality. Where \"Star Wars\" created a whole new experience in cinema and \"Empire\" brought us to alien worlds of swamps, ice, and clouds, \"Jedi\" lamely re-cycled the locations of the first film. First we are back on the desert planet Tatooine, and then we are watching them face ANOTHER death star (maybe the emperor couldn't think of anything new... but you'd think Lucas or Kasdan could). Also we have these ewoks, who really are just detestable made-for-mattel teddy bears, in a recycled version of what was supposed to be the big wookie-fight at the end of \"Star Wars\" if they hadn't run out of cash. It just feels like lazy construction.

The most unfortunate aspect of \"Jedi\" for me is the weak handling of the Han Solo character. Whereas he is central to the plot of the first 2 films here he is struggling for screen time, trading one liners with the droids. Instead of a real drama we're stuck with the lame pretense that Han is still convinced Leia loves Luke -- as if the conclusion of \"Empire\" where she confessed her love of him had never happened. The whole thing is very contrived and barely conceals the fact that the Solo character was not part of this film's central story after his rescue. Ford, for his part, looks bored and lacks the style that distinguished his earlier performances. This is more like a 1990s Ford performance, bored and looking \"above\" the film itself. Fisher for her part is visibly high in some scenes. Lando, an interesting character introduced in \"Empire\", here is stuck as the ostensible person we care about in the giant space battle. Only Hamill, given an interesting development in the Luke character, is really able to do anything new or interesting with his character. Probably he was the only major actor in the film who still cared about his work. And to be fair the script gives him a lot more to do than the other characters. Really it is his story and the other characters are only there as part of the package. Ian McDiarmid does excellent work as well as the Emperor. The film would sink if he had been too far over the top (as he was at times in the new films).

Visually and in terms of effects work, other than the \"clean\" look of everything it's hard to find fault. Jabba is a very effective animatronic character, one of the most elaborate ever constructed. The space battles towards the end are very impressive.

Ultimately this film coasts to success based on the accomplishments of its forebears. But on its own, it is a satisfying piece of entertainment and IMHO far superior to any of Lucas' later productions.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit \"Love, American Style,\" decked out with flashes of nudity, \"Superchick\" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the \"lay\" in \"layover.\" What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Why did I waste my time with this movie? There was not a single funny joke or line throughout. The slapstick wasn't even mildly funny. I mean really, an out of control vacuum sucking pipe? Why has the National Lampoon's name been attached to this movie? Even Christmas Vacation was better than this (I actually thought that film was very funny).

AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Twist endings can be really cool in a movie. It's especially interesting when the twist is right in front of our eyes, but we just don't pay attention. Those type of twist endings are the one's that make people think. Then we've got twists like this film has. Twists that, whether or not you pay attention, you have no clue what's going to happen. When they reveal this kind of random twist, instead of shock, it's somewhat a dumbfounded reaction. This film starts off like it's going to be an interesting take on horror, but after about 20 minutes, it's nothing but boring dialogue and a stupid twist.

Three young women are going to a concert, so they get lost traveling through the woods, and hit a tree trunk. They end up at some old creepy lady's house, who hates men, and they are greeted by her homely daughter Marion (Laurel Munson). Strange goings on happen as these girls stay at this house for several days instead of trying to leave or get home, and the suspense progresses into a dumb slasher.

This film is too caught up in it's dialogue, and it's always between only a few characters. We have the main three girls, the creepy spinster and the old lady, and conversation of any importance does not go beyond these five. To make matters worse, they never have anything interesting to say. It's actually quite maddening sitting through their conversations. We want to know what's going on, and instead they just talk and talk and talk (about nothing).

Plot holes are abundant here. The house these girls stay at when they get in their car accident is apparently three miles from anywhere...wow, three miles! A two hour or less walk will kill them. Why didn't they get a ride with the worker for this household who was driving into town? Did he have a one seater? How come these girls never question leaving and just willingly stay, rarely even checking up on each other? Why did this have to have so many dumb twists? Maybe the answers are in the boring script.

Having a slasher film with five characters is really a bad idea. It's not thrilling, it's not scary, and the ending is definitely out there, but undoubtedly dumb.

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 79 mins. R for nudity and violence.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "John Garfield plays a Marine who is blinded by a grenade while fighting on Guadalcanal and who has to learn to live with his disability. He has all the stereotypical notions about blindness, and is sure he'll be a burden to everyone. The hospital staff and his fellow wounded Marines can't get through to him. Neither can his girl back home played by Eleanor Parker. He's stubborn and blinded by his own fears, self pity, and prejudices. It's a complex role that Garfield carries off memorably in a great performance that keeps one watching in spite of the ever present syrupy melodrama. The best scenes are on Guadalcanal, where he's in a machine gun nest trying to fend off the advancing Japanese soldiers in a hellish looking night time battle, and later a dream sequence in the hospital where he sees himself walking down a train platform with a white cane, dark glasses, and holding out a tin cup, all the while his girlfriend walks backward away from the camera.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by \"the Pulse,\" it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Predictable parody, just about failed to impress throughout it's looooooong eight minutes. The only thing that made it worthwhile was the DO NOT COLORIZE line at the end credits. Shame something more entertaining wasn't put on the DVD, like Jonathan Ross' enjoyable profile of Romero on 'The Incredible Strange Film Show.'", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "for my opinion, the middle of the film, specially the love scene is a bit too long, but the whole time you can imagine this desert feeling. but the best, what made this film unforgettable are the great explosion pictures, their color, slowmotion and the pink floyd music are unique in filmhistory!

destruction in its propper and popular form.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a way cool fantasy movie. One of my faves, it really is so cool. The director is Bernard Rose who went on to direct Candyman, he made a great start with this film.

The film about a girl called Anna who falls ill with glandular fever on her 11th birthday. She draws a house on a shred of paper from her exercise book and falls into a dream in which the house is real. Each subsequent dream that she has is altered by the presence of whatever she adds to the picture. In her third dream she meets a boy she thinks she has created called Mark. She befriends him and their relationship becomes stronger as the dreams become darker and scarier.

Charlotte Burke who plays Anna is a terrific actress and it is very strange that, after just one film, she should disappear and never be in anything ever again. She really does give a great performance in this film.

Hans Zimmer's score is also ace. Much like Broken Arrow, the music is ghostly and mysterious. It's a real shame that the soundtrack is not available on CD anymore. The DVD is available in R2 only.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.

For some, it seems, this \"modernization\" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.

Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.

There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed \"significance.\" The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. \"It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain.\" Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.

Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Yeah, right.

I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. \"NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining.\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Every now and then a movie advertises itself as scary or frightening, though they usually aren't. Most modern horror movies fit into this category.

Then there are those movies that don't simply cause the tension and adrenaline to pump through your veins harder than usual. They actually frighten you to a level that you've never experienced.

\"Halloween\" is such a film. It takes so many risks that would make most movie producers cringe. But nearly all of them work. \"Halloween\" is awe-inspiring in its simplicity, and terrifying as a whole.

The story is simple. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is babysitting some kids on Halloween night, while a madman is on the loose after escaping from a mental institution after brutally murdering his older sister 15 years ago. Of course, the madman, later known as Michael Myers, begins killing the local teenage population, and eventually he comes after Laurie.

Sounds familiar, right? Just another brainless slasher filled with dumb teenagers and gobs of gore. Not a chance.

I think James Berardinelli puts it perfectly in his review of \"Halloween:\" \"Because of its title, Halloween has frequently been grouped together with all the other splatter films that populated theaters throughout the late-1970s and early-1980s. However, while Halloween is rightfully considered the father of the modern slasher genre, it is not a member...\"

He has a point, and for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it's downright terrifying, whereas most entries into the teen slasher genre are dumb gore-fests (one could argue that many recent ones are tongue-in-cheek, but most of those fail as well). Second, there is almost no violence (very little of which is bloody). John Carpenter knows that violence does not equal scary, and he relies very little on it (actually, the body count is pretty low). In fact, one can argue that this isn't really a horror movie, at least not by todays standards of having the most deaths that can be crammed into a single movie, each gorier and more sadistic than the last. He relies on ideas for scares, and also skill. Third, while some of the characters may do stupid things (that sometimes seal their fate), they don't do them because they're dumb. The characters are real people, so instead of thinking that the characters die because they're idiots, we're frightened because they're making a mistake.

One of the main reasons why \"Halloween\" is so scary is because it is so easy to believe that it's real. Nothing is hard to swallow in this film. There's no supernatural, there's no ridiculously creative plot elements, or \"inventive\" murders, or whatnot. Instead, all the set pieces and camera work (save the opening sequence) are simple. Carpenter just sets the camera in place and says action. What we get is the feeling that we're actually seeing a murder take place right in front of us.

Horror movies are probably the most difficult films to make because in order for something to be scary, everything has to be perfect, and ideas never work twice. It's a hit or miss game, which is why if I were to tell you all the good ideas that Carpenter has (which I'm not), they'd seem primitive (particularly since they have been repeated with lesser effect over and over again through the years).

Acting here is not a plus point because it doesn't need to be. This is a movie about scary ideas, not a movie about dramatic, conflicted characters. The actors act like real people, not characters from a story. Nothing more. The exception to this is whoever plays The Shape, or later known as Michael Myers. It can be scary to have a person say nothing and simply kill, but it's hard to pull off (and even harder to keep people from asking why). But the guy pulls it off, and the result is terrifying.

This is Carpenter's movie through and through. He directed it, co-wrote it, co-produced it, and wrote the chilling score of it. This is a man of brilliance, and his later movie \"The Thing\" supports this statement, though The Thing is not as scary as \"Halloween.\" Unfortunately his success has dramatically diminished, as it happens when the lure of big money for less freedom is taken advantage of once big time producers \"recognize your potential.\" As good as this film is, it's not without flaws. The famous opening scene is disturbing, but not very scary. And not many of the scares work for the first part of the movie. It's not that it's bad, it's just that there's no good reason to fear \"The Shape.\" Luckily, Carpenter mostly uses this time to set up a relationship between the characters and the audience. While there's no intimacy in this relationship, it fits the purpose. We grow to know the characters, but not so much that it's disheartening when they die. But once the film gets to Halloween night, that's when Carpenter kicks things into high gear and it NEVER stops until you get to the end.

While \"Halloween\" may be flawed, it is only slightly so. It is an immensely terrifying film, and a must see for anyone who loves scary movies. Be warned though, this movie will scare the living hell out of you!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Meet Peter Houseman, rock star genetic professor at Virgina University. When he's not ballin' on the court he's blowing minds and dropping panties in his classroom lectures. Dr. Houseman is working on a serum that would allow the body to constantly regenerate cells allowing humans to become immortal. I'd want to be immortal too if I looked like Christian Bale and got the sweet female lovin that only VU can offer. An assortment of old and ugly university professors don't care for the popular Houseman and cut off funding for his project due to lack of results. This causes Peter to use himself as the guinea pig for his serum. Much to my amazement there are side effects and he, get this, metamorphoses! into something that is embedded into our genetic DNA that has been repressed for \"millions of years\". He also beds Dr. Mike's crush Sally after a whole day of knowing her. She has a son. His name is Tommy. He is an angry little boy.

Metamorphosis isn't a terrible movie, just not a well produced one. The whole time I watched this I couldn't get past the fact that this was filmed in 1989. The look and feel of the movie is late seventies quality at the latest. It does not help that it's packaged along with 1970's movies as Metamorphosis is part of mill creek entertainment's 50 chilling classics. There is basically no film quality difference whatsoever. The final five minutes are pure bad movie cheese that actually, for me at least, save the movie from a lower rating. Pay attention to the computer terminology such as \"cromosonic anomaly\". No wonder Peter's experiment failed. Your computer can't spell! This is worthy of a view followed by a trip to your local tavern.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Go, Igor, go, you are the proof that Slovenian films may, should and must be different. There's soul in it, and this is rare. Don't let anybody put you down!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.

This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.

There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.

Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.

It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's \"Darkman III: Die Darkman Die\", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, \"Darkman III: Die Darkman Die\" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.

This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, \"Darkman\"; portrayed by \"Mummy\" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.

Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.

There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.

But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.

In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.

Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.

That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.

But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.

Like \"Darkman II\", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Sweet romantic drama/comedy about Stewart and Sullavan writing love letters to each other without either one knowing who the other is. Naturally, they work together and can't stand each other. You can guess the rest. It's beautifully acted by the entire cast (especially Sullavan, Stewart and Frank Morgan), has a witty, intelligent script and looks absolutely stunning. It takes place in Budapest and was shot in Hollywood, but I found myself believing I was seeing Budapest! Everything looks so perfect and dream-like. A one of a kind film. Don't miss it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed \"military genius\" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.

The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film is horribly acted, written, directed and produced. But it's so campy it's actually semi-watchable. That's SEMI watchable.

The storyline (what little there is) makes virtually no sense whatsoever. The Barney Drum character is the only real comic relief in the movie and that gets tired after about 30 seconds.

Many of the Canadian supporting cast can be found in TV commercials.. None of them went on to anything else that I'm aware of. And of course Sly Stallone's even less talented brother well..... =\\

Trivia: It was filmed almost entirely in and around the little village of Claremont, Ont. (about 20 miles N.east of Toronto) I recognized many local landmarks/intersections/buildings. I think the Drive-in scene was filmed at the now demolished \"Oshawa Drive-in\" just before it was torn down.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "but there are not too many of them. Probably the worst \"major release\" film I have seen in my life. Definitely the worst for this year. There is no point in commenting on the plot, the cast or the acting. The problem is beyond all that. It lays in the absolute stupidity of the annoying kind (not the funny kind) of everything that takes place on the screen. I don't know why I gave it a 2/10 instead of 1/10. Probably, because of Steven Martini. He really did try. Bottom line - 95 minutes washed down the toilet along with a few brain cells. Avoid at any cost.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Please, for the love of God, don't watch it. Now saying that, I know what you're thinking, it can't be that bad can it? If everyone says it as bad as they say, I have to watch it! Don't do it! It'll be like looking at a horrible accident involving little babies and a gasoline tanker! You'll be scarred for life...the image will never leave you! I could only watch a half hour of this before becoming violently sick. The acting is the worst I've ever seen, and I've seen Barbwire!!! If you do risk ripping your eyes out and rent this movie...don't say I haven't warned you! The cover and storyline are a trap!! Zombies? Satire? Shaun of the Dead was great! This movie must be the same....right? NO!! The writing = crap directing = garbage acting = there was no acting. Still not convinced? Then forever your soul will be tormented!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is the kind of picture John Lassiter would be making today, if it weren't for advances in CGI. And that's just to say that he'd be forgotten, too, if technology hadn't made things sexy and kewl since 1983. _Twice..._ has got the same wit, imagination, and sense of real excitement that you'd find in a Pixar flick, only executed under the restrictions of the medium c. 1983. Innovative animation techniques combine with a great script and excellent voicing to produce a movie that appeals on lots of levels. It should be spoken of in the same breath with _Spiritited Away_ and _Toy Story_.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm not tired to say this is one of the best political thrillers ever made. The story takes place in a fictional state, but obviously it deals with the murder of Kennedy. A truthful and honest district attorney (played by Yves Montand) does not believe that the murder was planned and executed by the single man Daslow (=Oswald) and though all other officials want to close the case he continuous to investigate with his team.

The screenplay is written tight and fast and holds the tension till the end. Just the part dealing with the Milgram experiment about authorities is (though not uninteresting) a bit out of place. The ending sequence - explaining who Icarus really is - partly shot in slow motion and intensified by a Morricone soundtrack is the most powerful sequence I have ever seen in a movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I liked this movie, Although halfway through it, I was able to tell who the secret admirer was.

I am also wondering if it was based on a true story since it told about the \"real\" people at the end of the movie. I guess I will have to research it and let ya know.

Does anyone remember what state this happened in? I believe they moved to North Carolina if I'm not mistaken.

Of course the states could have been changed to protect the innocent.

You would think that this man could have figured it out as easily as I did. Was he stupid or what?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Yes, Georgio\" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. \"Yes, Georgio\" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.

Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.

Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My commentary has nothing to do with the political sentiments found in the film. In fact, they're quite congruent with mine. What gets me is the fact that in terms of a movie, it is stupid and devoid of any semblance of story, motive or dialogue. Maybe someone should tell Neal that substituting lyrics of songs which are failing to inspire anyone outside of a dwindling audience isn't the same thing as creating characters who are motivated to speak because of events created by the writer or director. A silly narrative remains as such despite the iconic legacy of Neal Young. The most childish scene is the one where the devil dances his way into a bar, slips a tonic to an unsuspecting hero, who then finds his way onto the dance floor to mouth the words to Young song to the heroine, who is unaware of what's taken place. Somehow these two dream up a scheme where they will go up the West Coast in search of????? Sorry Neal, stick with music and leave film making to Steven Stills.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.

Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.

All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Okay, I've always been a fan of Batman. I loved the animated series, and even Batman Beyond. I even read a batman comic now and then. So as can be imagined--I was a little excited when I heard about this series, and then I was SEVERELY disappointed. This series is nothing. It doesn't even begin to compare with the original series. It's like one long TOY commercial. No depth whatsoever. And what the heck was with the Joker? Who,in my most humble opinion, is the best Batman villain of ALL time and they KILLED him. I wish I could say his design was the worst part. Actually, I wish I could say there was anything about this series that was remotely creative or interesting. In short (because believe me I could say so much more)do NOT waste your time on this show, or your money.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Never heard of this movie,saw it on DVD.Great movie,perfect example of a movie that took every cast member to make it work.No overhyped typical Hollywood movie with the same old overhyped actors.No current Quote \"A\" list actor could have pulled off any performance in this movie.Brought back memories of my own post Vietnam war military experiences.It concentrated on the people who were sent to fight.As was portrayed by the characters who had fears and emotions even if some volunteered for service.They were regular people too,some just weren't cut out for military life,I remember a few in my experience--to put it mildly couldn't adapt to military life either-but I'll never forget them-should have stayed in touch.I highly recommend it and then think about those serving present day in Afganistan.Basic training is a trip, notice those drill sergeants aren't morning people and maybe they need \"sensitivity training\" HA!HA!HA!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Tian's remake is no good at all. I only click on his remake documentary to see Wei Wei, the original actress back in the classic 1948 film say a few words to the crew. We are going to meet Wei Wei this Sunday (28/3/2010) after the showing of Xiao Cheng Zhi Chun in the Hong Kong Film Archiev. Wei Wei is almost 90 years old in silver hair, her cameo appearance in Hong Kong films is always a surprise to her fans. In this year's Hong Kong Film Festival, a special program is dedicated to Fei Mu, director of this epic movie and Wei Wei's still shot from the movie is being seen all around in Hong Kong. My son, who turns 21 this year, is surprised Wei Wei was so beautiful then.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a \"happily ever after\" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).

For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"I didn't want this to get complicated, Leese. I have to assume she's gonna read that.\" Fear takes flight at 30,000 feet in this taut, action thriller. An overnight flight to Miami quickly becomes a battle for survival when Lisa ( Rachel McAdams) realizes her seatmate ( Cillian Murphy) is planning to use her as part of a chilling assassination plot. As the minutes tick by, she's in a race against time to warn the potential victims before its to late.

One of the many reasons I love this movie, is because of the chemistry between the two stars, McAdams and Murphy, who are also two of my top favorite actors. For example, the early scenes at the airport play more like a romantic comedy: two people keep running into each other.... I got to hand it to the two as well, for making a film like this work. Especially, Murphy's character.. Jackson who really seems to be sort of complicated in that way that he acts charming and innocent, yet he's trying to do his job and make Lisa feel trapped physically and mentally. I mean, in certain parts he really seems to be concerned for Lisa.

A great thrill ride all the way through. A lot of films I would hate to see a prequel or a sequel about, but actually I wouldn't mind a prequel to this one, which would take place with Jackson surveilling Lisa. Favorite scene is probably that headbutt scene, because it was so unexpected. There was also that nice buildup to the famous 'pen' scene. When is she going to make her move? There was also that nice change in McAdam's Lisa, where she changed herself from being a victim into fighting back. I also loved the scene where she sits down in the food court and pretends to ask some ladies a survey about the food court. How great was Murphy with his whole weezing.....", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this has got to be one of those films where the trailer is 50 times better than the movie itself.I first saw the trailer in 1991, it looked great.Since then i have always wanted to see it but could never find it.....until today, yes, 14 years later.

lets just say I was so disappointed its unreal, OK i knew it wouldn't be an Oscar winner but still had hopes that it would be a fun no-brain film in the bloodsport mold. Unfortunately it was not, it's Pooh

whats with all the American rock and roll music and the acting was so bad it was quite frightening.

The fight scenes were rubbish and look fake.

this DVD only cost me £5 and I believe I was overcharged by £7

Now I'm sad as I know that I will never get that hour and a half back.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.

Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?

Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.

Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).

The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.

I'll give it a 3.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I had no idea what Jane Eyre was before I saw this miniseries. I had read and watched many classics before, and I believed that most classics were boring, over-worded, and overrated stories with moderately interesting plots at best. This Jane Eyre miniseries completely changed my conceptions.

Zelah Clarke is a fabulous actress, and she gives a wonderful portrayal of Jane Eyre. Her accent is delightful and her quiet, yet firm nature matches the young governess' character exactly. Timothy Dalton is an amazing Rochester. His passion and energy in the film makes me believe that he was born to play the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. I couldn't sleep at all the night after I had watched this miniseries. The plot is both haunting and inspiring. The characters are masterfully performed, and the story is incredible. This is the best version of Jane Eyre to ever appear on film.

I read the book later and was amazed at how closely this miniseries followed Charolette Bronte's writing. Jane Eyre is now my favorite film and book. If you want to see a masterpiece that will change your life, watch the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What a good movie! At last a picture revealing a unknown side of rock: illusions of fame. Well-known Rockers are getting old and forgotten, not the music. And with a good sense of humour. Have you ever danced on Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock?

Anyway, Still Crazy is probably the best movie about rock n'roll I have ever seen. Far much better than Spinal Tap for instance. Why? Because in Still Crazy, people are mature. They have a different point of view about rock, about love and about life. They want to catch up with their crazy youth they miss so much. Beyond the story itself, we see characters with their own personality, weaknesses and dreams. Like anyone of us.

Spend a good time watching this (listen to the awesome soundtrack! )and finally thinking of your own future.

Bye!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Fred Olen Ray is a lousy director, even as far as B movie directors go, but 'Haunting Fear' is probably one of his better films. Yes, it does butcher the great Poe story 'Premature Burial' and yes, it is badly paced and uneven throughout, but it is also pretty entertaining. Scream Queen Brinke Stevens is better than usual as a pretty, fragile housewife whose worthless husband (Jay Richardson) is plotting to do away with her because he needs money to pay off a gangster (played by Robert Quarry). Delia Sheppard, a veteran of many early 90s soft-core movies, actually gives the best performance in the film as a slutty mistress. You will also enjoy small roles played by Karen Black as a psychic, Robert Clarke as a doctor and Michael Berryman in a nice cameo in one of the better scenes. The ending didn't make much sense!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Trash/bad movies usually ain't bad because I will find them enjoyable. This one is so bad that I am out of words to describe it - its below \"bad\". There is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. Needless to say, the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn't help me seat through the entire film. One tagliner compares this one to KILLBILL which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. Obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this DVD.

If you are considering renting this one, put it down! If you are thinking of buying, Dont think! If you unlucky to have this dvd, dont play it, throw it in trash bin immediately.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Monstrous mother-son-duo (Alice Krige and Brian Krause) sucks life-force of virgins, and their newest target is pretty but lonely Tanya (Madchen Amick). However, these monsters are allergic to cat's scratches... I have never been fan of sleazy, overrated bestsellerists like King, Koontz or Barker, but this B-movie, written by Mr Dung himself, is actually not near as bad than it could be. Yes, it is sometimes jaw-droppingly atrocious, but there is actually some surprisingly impressive touches: good old-fashioned graveyard, eerie soundtrack and candlelit-Gothic-house-scene, mirror showing the monstrous form of the villains, etc. Of course, the film is polluted by Mr Dung's potty-mouthed dialogue and all-tactics-of-toilet-seat obsession to vilify fat people, leading to totally pointless subplot of rapist teacher, but there is roses among manure.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "For the first three seasons, Sabrina was a gem hidden away on TGIF (and later, early school-day afternoon reruns). Each episode had a maniac, zany energy and rapid-fire pacing that overcame the occasional awkward joke. Melissa Joan Hart exuded a keen talent for physical comedy, particularly in her facial expressions. Her two aunts, playing the \"straight men,\" or as straight as two witches could be, had great comic timing and general chemistry with Hart. Salem, as a talking cat, was free to dabble in whatever mad scheme he was interested in, and one could laugh and take it all in stride because he was, after all, a talking cat. Sabrina's friends rounded out the social experience at school, in which also housed the typical \"evil cheerleader\" and \"totalitarian principal.\" Perhaps the most interesting and unique aspect of the show was the ability to merge pop culture (e.g., bands of the era, Jerry Springer), archetypal human condition/morality (e.g., the importance of friendship, the spirit of Christmas), and the literal representation of such related metaphors in the Magical Realm. Unfortunately, like so many other shows throughout the age of television, the show hit its peak during the first three years, which coincided with Sabrina attending high school. Starting in season four, the move to college marked what would become a precipitous decline in the general quality of the show, particularly when the writers chose to introduce Josh as Harvey's rival, and concocting thin excuses for Aunts Hilda and Zelda to remain on-screen as key players. The final season, where Sabrina works at a pop culture magazine, was unequivocally disappointing. Still, in the end, Sabrina (particularly the high school years) remains a unique entry as a hybrid situational comedy with magical elements that elevates it above the tiresome fare that is produced in this genre every year.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this was a real guilt pleasure ... i saw the trailer and all the advertising, so i figured 'why not check out this vh1 movie?' and, as they used to say on t.v., 'i can't believe i watched the whole thing!' quinn and harris were believable beatle boys, and, although the accents were sort of over-the-top and difficult to decipher at times, i found the dialogue believable as well. the film touched upon the tenuous relationship of len/mc and showed how, deep down, they were simply two guys who grew up close together and shared a passion for music - coming at it, though, with different sets of issues and personal needs. you find yourself wishing they'd hopped in the cab to snl for an impromptu reunion that would have knocked the world's socks off, but you also gain a greater appreciation for why they didn't", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I love this movie because I grew up around harness racing. Pat Boone behind the sulky reminds me of my father who was drawn to the trotters because, unlike thoroughbred jockeys, men of normal height and weight can be drivers.

Yes, the 1944 Home in Indiana is a better movie, but it's also a very different movie. April Love is light and easy to watch, a feel good movie. (Disappointing though that Pat Boone's religious/moral views prohibited him from ever kissing the girl! Quite a change from today's standard fare.) Home in Indiana with Walter Brennan (filmed in black and white with no hint that anyone will ever burst into song) captures the stress and struggle better thereby making the ultimate accomplishment more satisfying but it requires a bigger emotional investment.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, \"light\" moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.

I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..

come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.

technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.

kamal at his best is the best in tollywood", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Unlike \"The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai\", or \"Big Trouble in Little China\", or \"Conan the Barbarian\", which are horrible films that have a certain coolness and self-deprecating humor that turn them into cult sensations, The Golden Child is just plain bad.

The premise itself is not unworkable, and there are some funny moments. But here the Eddy Murphy \"flip attitude\" just deflates any feeling of tension or danger in the story. And the special effects are silly enough to do more damage to that tension. The \"mystic secrets\" of Tibetan Buddhism are lampooned rather than drawn upon to compel.

Without a feeling that anything is at stake, or that the characters are faced by real danger, why should we care?

Who should see this film:

-- big fans of Eddy Murphy who can't help themselves

-- I can't think of anyone else

I'll give this film a 4 out of 10 for the occasional joke that worked.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film is about a group of extra terrestrial gay black men exterminating females on Earth, in order to create a gay Universe.

I watched it with the intent of seeing how bad it was. Still, I was shocked at how bad it was. It looked more like a film made 50 years ago. The acting, if any, is ultra bad. The sets and props are so ridiculously fake, making any college film look mega budget. And the special effects are laughably simple, indeed jaw dropping as others have commented, but jaw droppingly embarrassing.

One has to be severely intoxicated, or in an altered state of consciousness in order to appreciate this film. If I was from Denmark, I would be severely embarrassed and humiliated that my countrymen produced such a horrifyingly bad film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was very fond of this film. It kept me guessing till just before the very end what would happen. One of the better movies about the partition that I have seen. Urmila Matondkar is gorgeous too. This is one of the most personal and down-to-earth films I've seen on the partition. It's a little less mainstream than Gadar, and is really an emotional roller coaster where you start out with one opinion of what is going on, and come out completely one the other side. This isn't typical bollywood fare, but rather an art-house type film. The best part of this movie is that it doesn't dehumanize one side of the partition conflict when focusing on the story of another. It doesn't blame or castigate but rather lets you draw your own conclusions about things.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): \"The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk.\" Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I agree with the last reviewer that this movie had terrible acting. Yes, there was a lot of gore and some nudity. But it was overshadowed by a slow-moving, meaningless plot and dumb ending. Where was this supposed to be filmed anyway: a Canadian Chinatown or Hong Kong? Hostel was a much better movie and I would recommend seeing that instead. A technical annoyance I had with the DVD is that if you shut off the Spanish subtitles, they return after a few scenes and then you have to go back to the main menu and turn them off again. Also, don't waste your time on the deleted scenes because there's no audio and it just looks like tourist footage.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is beautifully designed! There are no flaws. Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot. The script is an invitation to a complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.

Paxton is at his best in this role. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are without miscue. Each shot meticulously done! Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its first hour. This may not be the best picture of the year, but it's a gem that has been very well polished. It's not for the simple mind.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The first few minutes of \"The Bodyguard\" do have a campy charm: it opens with crawling text from the Bible (the part that Samuel Jackson recites to his soon-to-be victims in \"Pulp Fiction\"), continues with two karate school teachers in New York arguing about the eternal question of mankind (who is better? Sonny Chiba or Bruce Lee?), and then Chiba appears, playing himself; he immediately stops a plane hijacking and breaks a bottle in two with his bare hand. Unfortunately, any entertainment value, intentional or unintentional, soon gets crushed by the disjointed story, the lack of action for long periods of time, and the poor quality of any present action. To keep it simple, here's why \"The Bodyguard\" is an unbearable movie to watch:

1) You don't know what's going on.

2) There are barely any fights.

3) The fights that are there, are short and terribly filmed.

Sonny Chiba is cool. Judy Lee is gorgeous, her face is glorious. It's only for them that I give \"The Bodyguard\" a 2nd star out of 10. This movie makes 87 minutes feel like 5 hours.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I don't know what it was about this film that made me react so viscerally against it. Perhaps it was the characters who so unlikable and were not compelling enough to care about. Perhaps it was the disorganized storyline. Perhaps it was the fact that Rob Lowe wore a long dangly earring and eyeliner. Perhaps it was because at some point in the movie they all break out in song. Perhaps it was because the 1980s were never that 80s. Perhaps it was because everything was a garish hyperbole. Perhaps it was because a character pumps his fist while driving away from the camera during a fade out. I don't know what it was that made me hate it so, but if it means trying to watch it again I'm not willing to find out.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Always fancied this film from the video cover. Eventually got round to buying it for a fiver in a sale and boy what a film. A simply stunning performance from all of the case and it's filmed so beautifully. Even at times from a distance so you can barely hear what the dialogue is, as if you really are that distance away picking up bits of the tale. It's really moving, frequently amusing and very watchable. Not much dialogue but is filmed in such a way that you feel so much throuout. A 9/10 from me. A must see.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This effort is based on the true story of Jim Morris, a high school science teacher/baseball coach, who is inspired by his players to try out for the pros and fulfill his life-long dream of playing in the majors. Dennis Quaid, no stranger to sports films, plays Morris with enough conviction to make the part work and the producers do a credible job of recreating the real-world events that led to Morris brief stint as a relief pitcher for the woefull Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The first half of the film, dealing with his rag tag bunch of High School Baseball players (all of whom look way too old to actualy be in High School) is less effective and probably a bit too long. Overall the film does suffer from some pacing issues and a few extra subplots that we probably could have done without. However, it is still a fairly involving movie with an inspirational theme that proves once again that baseball is the national pastime for a reason. GRADE: B-", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Please, spare me of these movies that teach us that crime is fun and justified. Couple that with a vacuous script with an intense desire to be a Farrelly or a Coen brother, plus the lives of yet ANOTHER group of supposedly high school age people acting out their Dawson Creek-brand teen angst complete with a GenXYZ soundtrack that woefully tries to make the movie \"feel\" cool and, we have intensely and painfully inept satire.

This isn't even watered-down 'Ferris Bueller'...I'd rather watch a traffic light change.

Only one scene stands out as anywhere near worth the price of admission: when the Betty Masked girls meet a Richard Nixon Masked friend. It's a surreal moment. Priceless even.

But for the rest of it, I'd rather have a toothache. At least I can apply some Benzocaine(tm) to stop the pain.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was actually my favorite series of Scooby Doo when I was younger. I thought each episode had more of an edge to it and the villains had a lot of creative thought put into them (and even very scary and believable as well). Some of the best episodes were \"I Left My Neck In San Francisco\", \"Twenty Thousand Screams Under The Sea\", \"The Ghoul, The Bat And The Ugly\" and \"When You Wish Upon A Star Creature\". If you have never seen these episodes please do. This series was a bit of a mixed bag though as there were other episodes which didn't seem to have the same kind of edge to them such as \"Rocky Mountain YIIII!\" and \"The Ransom Of Scooby Chief\". As like the series before it, it was very well put together, interesting storyline and brilliantly drawn. As everyone says though, it would have been so much better without Scrappy Doo. The character was tiresome and distracting to the story that was being told.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie down-shifts from 4th into 1st without bothering with 3rd or 2nd, grinding gears all the way to the sappy, b-movie finish-line. The con at the beginning is easily the best and cleverest part of the movie. That is worth seeing. The scene with Harlow in the bathtub occurs so fast, you may miss it. Definitely not worth all the ballyhoo provided by Robert Osborne in his TCM intro to this bad-to-mediocre confusion. There is no real conflict, and all of the characters in this supposed fringe society turn out to be saints - especially the unbelievable character, Al. I wonder if he's got a job for me in Cincinnati?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": ". . . is just as good as the original. Very nearly achieves greatness because of Cundieff's remarkable ear for music and dialogue. Skewers the self-important swagger of the hip-hop poseurs. The group \"Niggaz with Hats\" (NWH) are every rap group you ever heard and utterly self-parodic. Wardrobe is unbelievable. Buy the OOP soundtrack if you can.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

I have seen this movie many times. At least a Dozen. But unfortunatly not recently. However, Etched in my memory never to leave me is a scene in which Mickey Rooney, -\"Killer Mears\" knows that he is to be executed and it's getting close to the moment of truth, He dances, and cries, and laughs, he vacillates from hesteria to euphoria and runs the gambit of ever emotion. Never have I seen such a brilliant performance by any actor living or dead, past or present. It was then I know for sure that Mickey Rooney, yes, \"Andy Hardy\" was and is a actor of great genius. However I kept it, my opinion to myself for years thinking, surely I must be alone in this viewpoint. About 15 years or so after I saw this film for the last time on television, I chanced to read the old Q & A section of the Los Angeles Times. The question was posed to Lawrence Olivier, and the question was: \"Mr. Olivier You are considered one of the greatest actors of all time, whom then do YOU consider to be among the greatest actors?\" His answer was, \"Peter Finch and Mickey Rooney\" I was stunned, but not surprised. I immediatly flashed back to his \"Killer Mears\" And I felt very good for having seen this great ability in him, and now having my view supported by another whos work I admired.. Later of course there was \"Bill\" and many other great moments with Mikey Rooney. This film, \"The Last Mile\" should be seen by all acting students. I Frankly cannot remember a great deal about the film after all these years but Mr. Rooney in it, will never leave me. If anyone out there remembers this film the same as I do? I would be interested in hearing from you. For this picture etched in my heart alone I gave it a 10 just on the face of his performance.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "One of the worst movies I ever saw. My only thought was: \"how can I get my money back from Hollywood Video\". This is no way worth four dollars, or any dollars. I think it was an attempt to rip off The Mexican, or Vin Diesel's movies, but it failed miserably to do this.

The acting was terrible, I felt sorry for the actors that they couldn't find something better to do with their time. The story was ridiculous. We were calling out the lines ahead of the actors, it was so predictable. The Mexican accent of the leading lady was insultingly exaggerated, worse than a cartoon.

Skip it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, the sixth installment of the Nightmare on Elm Street series and once again another bad sequel. I think this is tied up with the last sequel of the Dream Child. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street series box DVD set for my birthday, so I got to see all the sequels. May I say that I'm just getting more and more disappointed though with these sequels, at least the past two, it just seems like Freddy lost his edge. It's almost like the writers were trying to give Freddy a soul and they're just destroying it instead of reinventing the story. This was a sequel that wasn't needed, sorry to Robert Englund, but this was very much below what Freddy Krueger represents.

Freddy is back, but he's got something we don't know about, a daughter. Maggie, she's not aware that he is her father, but soon she finds out what his dark secrets are and he wants her help. She has to do her best to resist his powers, but it's hard with all the good memories she has of her loving father. Ironic, isn't it? But Freddy isn't giving up without manipulating her into his ways.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is also presented in 3-D, radical, huh? Note the sarcasm. This is one of the worst sequels, it's tied up with the fifth sequel of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, I'd rather watch the second Nightmare on Elm Street to be honest. This just had bad acting, stupid editing, and just over all a bad idea for a story. I didn't like the concept of it and it just ruined the whole idea of who Freddy Krueger really is, the death master of nightmares, not Father Knows Best.

2/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This piece ain't really worth a comment.. It's simply the worst \"horror\" movie i have ever seen. The actors are bad as bad can be and the whole plot is so silly it nearly made me cry. Shame on you I say!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There's a good movie lurking here, but this isn't it. The basic idea is good: to explore the moral issues that would face a group of young survivors of the apocalypse. But the logic is so muddled that it's impossible to get involved.

For example, our four heroes are (understandably) paranoid about catching the mysterious airborne contagion that's wiped out virtually all of mankind. Yet they wear surgical masks some times, not others. Some times they're fanatical about wiping down with bleach any area touched by an infected person. Other times, they seem completely unconcerned.

Worse, after apparently surviving some weeks or months in this new kill-or-be-killed world, these people constantly behave like total newbs. They don't bother accumulating proper equipment, or food. They're forever running out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. They don't take elementary precautions when meeting strangers. And after wading through the rotting corpses of the entire human race, they're as squeamish as sheltered debutantes. You have to constantly wonder how they could have survived this long... and even if they did, why anyone would want to make a movie about them.

So when these dweebs stop to agonize over the moral dimensions of their actions, it's impossible to take their soul-searching seriously. Their actions would first have to make some kind of minimal sense.

On top of all this, we must contend with the dubious acting abilities of Chris Pine. His portrayal of an arrogant young James T Kirk might have seemed shrewd, when viewed in isolation. But in Carriers he plays on exactly that same note: arrogant and boneheaded. It's impossible not to suspect that this constitutes his entire dramatic range.

On the positive side, the film *looks* excellent. It's got an over-sharp, saturated look that really suits the southwestern US locale. But that can't save the truly feeble writing nor the paper-thin (and annoying) characters. Even if you're a fan of the end-of-the-world genre, you should save yourself the agony of watching Carriers.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Sandler is amazing again... I have already become a Sandler fan. This movie is the saddest Sandler story. Its expression is fantastic. I cried more watching Click but there are some similar points. To consider the value of the family before losing it and to be able to say 'I love you' are a few of the most impressive truths in life... It is tough, it is real... and actually there is a real owner of this success, Binder. I don't think another director could give these emotions in such a way.

Cheadle and Burrows are also amazing... Cheadle is one of my favorites since Crash. Don't expect laughing or much positive atmosphere... If you are ready to face the realities of life, don't miss this movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm not at all picky about horror movies, and I'm willing to watch pretty much any of them. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to re-watch many of them, or that I won't have criticism for them. This movie is creepy, and is very well done. In fact, I think this movie would make an excellent double-bill with Session 9.

I should specify, before I get to my comments, that I watched this alone. I started watching it before going to bed, and got about 15 minutes in before I realized that it was too effective, so I saved the rest of it for the morning. Even while watching it in broad daylight, it was still creepy. However, I can't vouch for how effective it would be when watching in a larger group.

After the death of their daughter, a couple move to a remote cabin as a means of trying to come to terms with this death. Let me make note of this death - this is one of the rare movies that doesn't shy away from the death of a child. This is much more important, as it both sets the tone, as well as explains much of the acting that permeates the movie.

The couple is not doing well. The wife has distanced herself from the relationship, and the husband is doing what he can to try to bring her back. While some of the comments have complained about their acting - one specified that they act more like a father and daughter than husband and wife, and that's legitimate. He's trying to give her more direction. It's a role that men sometimes take on.

There are a variety of scares in the film, and most are fairly non-violent, though grotesque in some ways. The story itself feels very straightforward for most of the film, and takes an odd turn near the end. While the turn is not absurd, it is certainly not what you expected from the way things had been progressing.

Moody, atmospheric, and very well done for something that appears to have been shot on video.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I found it a real task to sit through this film. The sound track was not the best and some of the accents made it difficult to understand what was being said. There was little to move the plot along and often the action simply stopped and there was a prolonged period of conversations which seemed extraneous to the movie. These conversations switched between family groups and the observer was left to try and piece together what the common thread was that tied them together. It is rare that I rate a film this low and do so in this case as the entire viewing experience left me thinking \"so what\" and \"why did I waste my time watching this.\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Peter Fonda is so intentionally enervated as an actor that his lachrymose line-readings cancel out any irony or humor in the dialogue. He trades sassy barbs and non-witty repartee with Brooke Shields as if he were a wooden block with receding hair; even his smaller touches (like fingering a non-existent mustache on his grizzled face) don't reveal a character so much as an unsure actor being directed by himself, an unsure filmmaker. In the Southwest circa 1950, a poor gambler (not above a little cheating) wins an orphaned, would-be teen Lolita in a botched poker game; after getting hold of a treasure map promising gold in the Grand Canyon, the bickering twosome become prospectors. Some lovely vistas, and an odd but interesting cameo by Henry Fonda as a grizzled canyon man, are the sole compensations in fatigued comedy-drama, with the two leads being trailed by cartoonish killers who will stop at nothing until they get their hands on that map. Shields is very pretty, but--although the camera loves her pouty, glossy beauty--she has no screen presence (and her tinny voice has no range whatsoever); every time she opens her mouth, one is inclined to either cringe or duck. *1/2 from ****", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a \"fresh start\". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie blew me away. If you can see only one of the animated bug movies this year see this one instead of Antz. the plot, characters, and jokes are better in A Bugs life. Also when you go stay in your seat until the end of the credits. it's the best part of the movie. Rating 9", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A May day 1938 when happen a huge rally celebrating Hitler's visit to Rome serves as the backdrop for a love story between Antoniette(Sophia Loren)married to fascist(John Vernon) and Gabriel(Marcello Mastroianni). She's a boring housewife with several sons and he's a unhappy, solitary homosexual fired from radio and pursued by the fascists. She's left alone in her home when her spouse must to attend the historical celebration. Then both develop a very enjoyable relationship in spite of their differences. The film is set on the historic meeting Fuher Hitler and Duce Mussolini along with others authorities as Count Ciano and King Victor Manuel III, describing the events by a radio-voice in off which sometimes is irritating.

It's a romantic drama carried out with sense and sensibility. An unrelentingly passionate romance between two conflicting characters. Magnificent performances from two pros make a splendid movie well worth seeing. Of course Ruggero Macarri and Ettore Scola's sensible screenplay results in ever interesting, elaborate and sentimental. Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by Pascualino De Santis. Emotive musical score by Armando Trovajoly with sensitive leitmotif. The film won deservedly Golden Globes 1978 to best Foreign Film.

Director Scola's imagination stretches to light up the limited scenarios where are developing the drama. Usually his films take place on a few stages and are semi-theatrical. For example : ¨Le Bal¨(1982) uses a French dance-hall to illustrate the changes in society 2)¨Nuit of Varennes(1983) a stagecoach is the scenario where meet an unlikely group as Thomas Paine, Luis XVI and Marie Antoinette who fled from revolutionary Paris 3) ¨The family¨(1987)all take place in the family's grand old Roman flat; and of course 4)¨Una Giornata Particulare¨ or ¨A special day¨ where Loren and Mastroianni strikes up a marvelous relationship into their respective apartments and at the flat roof.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "MY EYES! IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY MAKE ME UNSEE THIS MOVIE! what drugs are you people on! this could very well be the worst movie ever! i felt like i was on a bad acid trip the whole time, i need to call a therapist to help me deal with the trauma of this epic disaster. From start to finish glow ropes is an unholy masterpiece of satanic cinema. when i thought to watch this movie with my Jewish best friend and his family we thought \"oh hey, this may be funny! it will probably be bad but still a little funny\" how wrong we were, we were not prepared for how awful this movie could be. All of my friends lined up for lobotomies as soon as the film was over, and during the course of the movie, one of my friends attempted to hang himself with his belt while another tried to slit his wrists with a wooden spoon. I wish I had watched the video from The Ring instead, that way the pain and suffering would be over in only seven short days. For all who wish to see this movie, YOU ARE NOT PREPARED! you may think you are some sort of \"tough guy\" by renting this but this movie will break you, push you to the ground and urinate on you.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I can see little girls enjoying this show, but calling this a family show is ridiculous. I'm amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely unfunny and stupid show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really dumb lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light unfunny joke. As for the actors, I didn't like them either. Bob Saget was painfully unfunny as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a one note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's horrid. John Stamos was the most tolerable character but he was so clichéd it was hard to watch him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely bad actress and showed no emotion ever. The middle girl Stephanie was too clichéd as the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what bad actresses the Olsen twins were. You can always tell when they are switching them off. The plot lines to too many story lines were so unrealistically stupid it's cringe worthy. This is a \"family\" show that tried to replace any good substance with cuteness and love, and though those are needed for a show about a family they overdid it way too much. This will be remembered as my least favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.

My rating: Terrible show. TVG 30 mins.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film has a special place in my heart, as when I caught it the first time, I was teaching adult literacy. It rang very true to me and even an outstanding student I had at the time. There are scenes which make you gulp with sudden emotion, and those which even put a smile on your face through sheer identification with the characters and their situation.

Excellent performances by Jane Fonda and Robert DeNiro that rank with their best work, a great turn by a young Martha Plimpton, an inspiring story line, and a haunting musical score makes for a most enjoyable and rewarding experience.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "First off, I dislike almost all Neil Simon movies. But there is something about this that is unique, that draws me in, and I would say it is among the most entertaining comedies I have seen. The second time I watched it, the connection was clear. When did Neil Simon meet my grandmothers?

Ah, afraid they might sue, so he changed them into men. And how dull would it be if they were only housewives, show biz stars is more fun. Well this is a personal review, and my still living grandmother at age 97 (she even outlived Walter Matthau's magnificent impersonation of her!)would deny it -- but some of you must find resonance in these characters.

Secondly, I have little tolerance for George Burns, but somehow he turned in one of the finest supporting performances I can recall (and my late grandmother even enjoyed it, although failing to recognize the remarkable similarities she shared with the film character).

Very ethnic in flavor, and over the top, you will either laugh and laugh or turn this off. For me, the pleasure lingers.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The history of the FBI, as told from the point of view of Agent Stewart via flashbacks, interwoven with his personal life story. Stewart and Miles (as his wife) are pretty good, as is Hamilton as an earnest agent. The problem is that the episodic nature of the story makes it difficult to get involved. It's like watching bits and pieces of a dozen different movies as we get glimpses of a who's who cast of gangsters. Some of the episodes are too long, some too short, and some just look out of place (Stewart's daughter's school sequence). Overall, it goes on way too long. Nevertheless, it's worth a look for its handsome production values.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. It is not funny. It is not interesting and should not have been made.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The movie opens upon Julian Sands, lying on his back, a black kitten drooling blood into his awaiting mouth from where he holds it, about two feet above him. That was so provocative, and I thought, \"Here we go! A good vampire movie!\"

And then it died. That was literally the only scene which captured any part of the imagination. It was slow, uneventful drivel thereafter. I was vastly disappointed, as my previous experience with Sands' acting was quite enjoyable. However, this attempt was obviously misdirected and the screenplay left a lot to be desired.

Even Julian Sands's questionable performance could not begin to save this already sunken barge of a movie.

It rates a 1.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Justifications for what happened to his movie in terms of distributors and secondary directors, drunks and receptionists doing script rewrites aside, let's just take this movie as it's offered, without extraneous explanations.

This movie is God awful. Straight up craptastic. Rather than rehash what may serve as a plot, I'll run a highlight reel of some curious points that made me scratch my head.

A class (of 5) take a field trip for a history class to the middle of friggin' nowhere Ireland. These students may be Canadian or American, it's difficult to tell. That it was filmed in a Canadian forest rather than Ireland is rather obvious as well. One student seems to know nothing about history and is basically the \"dumb jock\" character from a number of kick ass 80's movie, except when he channels Randy from Scream. One character may be Chris Klein's stunt double. He has a girlfriend who probably gets killed, but it's never really established if that is true. One character is sullen and removed from her peers...just...cuz... and then there's a blonde girl. Yay blonde girl.

Ireland has a population of 2. They're cousins. Gary, who is clearly the same age or younger than the rest of the cast, is called \"sir\" more than once. He's very ominous and wears a knit cap. His cousin is a roughed up porn star with the worst Irish accent to befoul film in my lifetime and most likely beyond.

Picturesque Ireland features many Canadian forests and swampy areas and 2 ducks which appear more than once in cut scenes.

The producers got a discount on volume fake entrails. Good for them.

Unbeknownst to me, horribly inbred freaks have access to brand spanking new hunting knives. Perhaps there's some kind of outdoorsman outlet nearby with a blind and deaf clerk working the register.

Also unbeknownst to me, if you inbreed for roughly 600 years, as the story leads us to believe happened, you end up being somewhat lumpy, yet amazingly spry and fairly strong. Genetics are a wonderful game of craps.

There may or may not be more than one freak in this film. Reference is made to \"them\" and we see shadows, yet only one odd looking dude is seen ever. And when one odd looking dude is finally killed, apparently all danger is passed. I'm running with my initial assumption that no one thought to outfit a second man in full make up, thus they just used the one. That's what it looks like on screen, anyway.

Richard Grieco should be ashamed.

Also of note, aside from those shiny new knives, the inbred freaks have access to some posh leather gear, as once Richard Grieco cuts his bonds, there are fresh ones ready for the next sucker who gets tied up...who also then escapes, because the chains give you enough slack to just undo them, making one wonder why they even bother tying anyone up.

A dead body in a shack will be maggot-ridden after what I would guess is about 2 hours has passed. Said dead body will also have glasses on, when no characters wore them. Curious.

Jenna Jameson appears for no reason from stage left, chats for 2 minutes, vanishes stage left. In the middle of a giant forest. That's not unusual, as Gary can also pop out of nowhere, which is also known as whatever exists in TV land off the screen.

Ms. Jameson dies sadly and somehow her clothes vanish like my hopes that this movie wouldn't suck wind.

I offer a special nod to the \"Breeder\" character, the poor girl who has been used by the freaks for months (or maybe years) for breeding purposes. The poor girl who still has eye shadow on and emotes on camera with all the passion and conviction of a stuffed chihuahua.

The ending of this movie was clearly tacked on by a drunk or someone with a fierce mental disability that has been cultivated and encouraged with excessive gasoline drinking over the years.

Apparently this wasn't just random crap I found on the movie network late at night, apparently people have heard of and even followed this movie through it's production. How sad for you all. I have nothing more to say. May God have mercy on us all.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Perhaps I would have liked this film more if I wasn't so attached to the characters in Henry Fool. To those who've never seen Henry Fool, I wouldn't worry. As Hartley jokingly said in his introduction to the film at TIFF, the film has lots of exposition and explanations.

This film is very heavy in plot, which keeps the film moving. There are many humorous moments and the film certainly has Hartley's trademark humour and rhythm of dialogue. Over all, a technically well made film and sure to satisfy new fans of Hartley who are just beginning explore his work. As for the older fans who loved his earlier works like Trust and Amateur, this film could go either way. I have mixed feelings about the film and Hartley's later films in general. What Hartley does best is setting his stories in small situations, focusing on the intimate and idiosyncratic ways in which his characters interact with each other. Since his late 90s and onward, his films have widened in scope in terms of subject matter. Mass media in No Such Thing, Religion in the Book of Life and now Terrorism in Fay Grim. I don't know if Hartley's talents are suited to such big subject matter or if he's able to do it justice.

Strangely enough, the film can still be reduced to intimate relationships, a simple love story about a woman who goes to seek out the husband she loves. The only problem is, I've seen Henry Fool and everyone seems incredibly out of character in this film. You can tell this film was written long after Henry Fool was finished without any intention of a sequel. Somehow, the terrorist plot feels conveniently tacked on through the use of Henry's books of confessions as a macguffin (in the hitchcockian sense). Fay's motivations for finding Henry seemed motivated purely by the needs of the plot rather than what being faithful to who fay was as person in Henry Fool.

I guess I'm slightly disappointed in the film because it's not true to the characters in the Henry Fool and it doesn't exactly work as a straight ahead thriller. There's too much irony and wryness in Hartley's approach to such as big topic as terrorism. It somehow works and doesn't work at the same time. All I could say, you would either love or hate the film depending on your take on Hartley's work and how well you know Hartley's work. Fans of Henry Fool, be severely warned for a disappointment. For the rest, welcome to the world of Hal Hartley and enjoy the ride.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you like occasional nudity with junior high school level slap stick comedy, then look no further.

Starting at about the halfway point, the beautiful and erotic Arielle Dombasle starts disrobing at every opportunity. That is the only thing that made this movie worth watching.

The story is both lame and preposterous, the humor is corny, and character development is basically non-existent.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This work is a bold look into the mindset of men who find themselves in wheelchairs. This film never tries to tone it down, cotton candy-ize, or soft soap the angst, confusion, and pain of what these guys live with. That is its strength, I think.

But more so, the performances are fantastic, with well conceived and delivered dialog, which draws you in and makes you feel a part of the experience. The characters never attempt to block out the audience from knowing what's on their mind-what's in their hearts.

I found it plodding, but enjoyable.

It rates a 6.6/10 from...

the Fiend :.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Why this movie has all but disappeared into obscurity is an absolute crime. \"Conan\" is perhaps the only Sword and Sorcery movie better. The brutal violence, cool character designs, and good pacing, make this one of the best fantasies around. It is certainly the greatest animated movie aimed at a more adult audience that I have ever seen. This is not similar to Bakshi's usual frenetic style. It's quite a departure for Bakshi, and in my opinion his best work. I hope that this film gets the recognition it deserves.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Many of these other viewers complain that the story line has already been attempted. That may be so, but the addition of the narrator and Dr.Suess like scenery makes this show a must watch. With adult innuendo throughout the series and a touch of childhood through the set, the show is both reminiscent and invigorating. The investigative portion of the show is not what drags viewers in. The twisted plot and love lines scattered throughout this seeming paradise are what keep loyal viewers coming back for more. This is a success that ABC should never let go of. Bravo ABC. LOST was getting old, way to revitalize prime time. 9 episodes prior to the writers strike left audiences wanting more.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.

Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the \"dirty ho\" \"S.H.I.T\" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.

Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Believe it or not, Inspector Gadget's Last Case is what got me hooked on the whole Gadget thing.

My name is Miriam and I am twelve years old, so obviously I wasn't around when Inspector Gadget was at the top of his career. Sure, I'd heard of him, but I didn't really know him.

While reading, note that I NEVER SAW THE ORIGINAL SERIES (I would if it came on!). This is just about the only Gadget thing I've ever watched (even though I am now obsessed) and I will be focusing on what I liked about it since everyone else is so negative. For all you pessimists, I've got some cons down there, too. =P First off, for a childish sense of humor, you could deem this movie pretty funny. I thought it was, so sue me. I also thought the animation and character designs were good, and I'm also happy there was more Gadget in it, since he's my favorite character. (I do NOT like Penny.) Then there was Claw (his voice was awful, though) and the Madcat; I thought they were done fairly good too. Gadget's idiocy seemed pretty well in place, if not a bit exaggerated (i.e. sucking his hat-hand thing's thumb. Would make a good screen shot, though. =P) Oh, and I liked the song that ran in the credits. Yes, I am strange.

And, like all movies, there are some negatives, too.

Talking cars? What's up with that? You can tell this was aimed at younger boys. That wouldn't bother me quite so much if there wasn't the fact that the cars basically saved the day. I would have much preferred if Penny and Brain had taken their place. And, apparently, Gadget loved his car more than would be called natural. A bit weird, to say the least.

Oh, and the Chief was downright mean to Gadget. I mean, sheesh, yeah, he wasn't always the most cheerful of people, but he didn't HATE Gadget, from what I've read. Like the Inspector, his personality was exaggerated.

Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about this movie. I thought the animation made up for the car-centered plot and that it was overall pretty decent; more so than the live-action Gadget films (butchered, butchered, BUTCHERED!) at least. Maybe I'm just biased because this is what got me into Gadget in the first place, or maybe my mind is twisted, or maybe I'm just odd, but I really liked this movie, even if I'm the oldest it's recommended for.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Broken Bow\" takes us back to where it all began. Set 150 years in our future and 100 years before Kirk, Spock and McCoy. This installment of the \"Star Trek\" franchise, is in my opinion the first series since \"TOS\" to recapture the feelings of wonder, danger and excitement of \"Going Where No Man Has Gone Before\". Scott Bakula is perfectly cast as Jonathan Archer, the first Captain of the first \"Star Ship Enterprise\". He and the entire cast truly show a true reverence for the Star Trek legacy. John Billingsley is Brilliant as the alien Dr. Phlox, and Jolene Blalock is totally luscious as the tempting but logical Vulcan science officer T'Pol. Broken Bow is in my opinion the best premier episode of any of the Treks, and I believe Gene Roddenberry would surely be proud.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A concept with potential, and it was fun to see these two holiday icons together, but...

Rudolph's glowing nose didn't require the \"explanation\" offered in this film - much like The Force in the Star Wars films didn't need the explanation of \"medichlorians in the bloodstream.\" But mainly, the film left me cold because of Winterbolt's over-complicated plot to destroy Santa. He's got the power to put suggestions into people's minds, so why does he do things in such a roundabout way? Breaking the magic of Rudolph's nose, framing Rudolph, threatening to melt the Frosty family...The comedically exaggerated plots of Pinky and the Brain and \"Phineas and Ferb's\" Dr. Doofenshmirtz (which are done that way on purpose and played for laughs) seem simple and straightforward compared to Winterbolt's, which we're expected to take somewhat seriously.

There is a particularly (and amusingly) strange moment when a character throws her two guns at the bad guy, like boomerangs. I understand if they don't want to have guns being shot in a family film, but then why have guns in the first place?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A very good movie. A classic sci-fi film with humor, action and everything. This movie offers a greater number of aliens. We see the Rebel Alliance leaders and much of the Imperial forces. The Emperor is somewhat an original character. I liked the Ewoks representing somehow the indigenous savages and the Vietnamese. (Excellent references) I loved the duel between Vader and Luke which is the best of the saga. In Return of the Jedi the epilogue of the first trilogy is over and the Empire finally falls. I also appreciated the victory celebration where it fulfills Vader's redemption and returns hi into Anakin Skywalker spirit along with Yoda and Obi-Wan. It gives a sadness and a tear. The greatest scenes in Star Wars are among this movie: When Vader turns on the Emperor. Luke watches and finds comfort in seeing Obi-Wan, Yoda and...his father (1997 version not Hayden Christenssen). The next best scene is when Luke rushes to strike back Darth Vader to protect Leia. There is a deep dark side of this film despite there is a good ending. I felt there was much more than meets the eye. And as always the John William's music will bring the classicism into Star Wars universe.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "THE SEVENTH SIGN has a great opening hook as the Israeli defence force come across a terrorist base . This is the type of hook that is a must when writing a script , it grabs the reader / audience and the introduction of David Bannon as he rents a room from Abby and Russell Quinnn telegraphs the point that this is a man who`s not who he says he is . However after the great opening third I found the rest of the movie confusing and uninvolving with a large number of plotholes and isn`t all that different from umpteen other supernatural thrillers that I`ve seen", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his \"I'll be back line\" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "That's what t.v. should be. And Pushing Daisies lives up to those expectations. A beautifully crafted and well-designed show, Pushing Daisies is one of the few shows left on prime-time that has integrity, is good for the entire family and sparks your imagination. It's not about the normal action, sex, money or murder angles of every other show on t.v. It's a show that makes you think and laugh, but although the basic plot may seem impossible, the concepts are real to us all. Wanting something you can't have, hoping for someone to want us, running away from your past and searching for family, even in the most unlikely of places, etc...

I realize that ABC has basically canceled this wonderful show at this point, and will most likely replace it with some show beyond the point of integrity. I suppose everything does come back to money... it's too bad that there are now no other shows on ABC that actually make you feel good after watching.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Since starting to read the book this movie is based on, I'm having mixed feelings about the filmed result. I learned some time ago to see the movie adaptation of a book before I read the book, because I found that if I read the book first I was inevitably disappointed in the film. This would undoubtedly have been true here, whereas in the case of Atonement, which is probably the best filmed adaptation of a book I've ever seen, it would probably not have mattered.

I'm trying to figure out what the cause is, and I suspect that I have to point my finger squarely at Michael Cunningham. Much as I respect him for The Hours (which I have not read but which I saw and was awed by) I cannot escape the feeling that he not so much adapted Susan Minton's book as he did take a few of the characters and the basic premise and write his own movie out of it.

It's not that I dislike the movie. I actually love the movie, which is why, since I started reading the novel, I'm feeling disturbed about the whole thing. I feel disloyal to Ms. Minton for enjoying the movie which was so thooughly a departure from her work. Reading it, I can understand why she had such a struggle adapting it. Unlike what one reviewer of the movie said, it's not so much that some novels don't deserve to be a movie; it's more like some books just can't make the transition. Ms. Minton's novel operates on a level so personal and intimate to her central character, so internally, that it seems impossible to me to place it in a physical realm. Even though a lot of the book is memory of real events, it is memory, and so fragmented and ethereal as to be, I feel, not filmable. I think that Ms. Minton's work is a real work of literature, but cannot make the transition to film, which in no way detracts from its value.

I cannot yet report that Evening, the film, does not represent Evening, the novel, in any more than the most superficial way, since I'm only halfway through, but the original would have to make a tremendous leap to resemble the film that follows at this point. I guess I'm writing this because I feel that if you're going to adapt a novel, adapt it, but don't make it something else that it's not. I'm not sure if Michael Cunningham has done anything wholly original, but from what I can see so far the things he has done are all based on someone else's work. We would not have The Hours if Virginia Woolf had not written Mrs. Dalloway, and we would not have Evening, in its distressed form, if Susan Minton had not had so much trouble doing what probably should not have been attempted in the first place. But it's too much to say that it would be better if Ms. Minton had left well enough alone, because Evening, the film, is a satisfactory and beautiful work of its own.

Thus my confusion, mixed feelings, sense of disloyalty, and ultimate conclusion that, in this case, the novel cannot be the film and vice versa, and my eventual gratitude to both writers for doing what they did, so that we have both works as they are.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It is not the same as the other films about dancing. A few normal people found themselves from dancing. Unlike the dancing films in Hollywood, the characters in this film are not handsome or hot young people. They are someone that you may see everyday in your offices. They are some depressed about their lives and finally find themselves and their dreams from dancing. This touches me very deeply.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Leonard Maltin compared this film to a Mel Brooks comedy. He was far too kind to Ms. Rivers, and far too cruel to Mr. Brooks. Not even the raunchiest Mel Brooks films are this tasteless, and at least they're genuinely funny. This picture deserves a place on the hundred-worst list.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Watching That Lady In Ermine I was wondering what Betty Grable was doing in a project that seemed to be aimed for Marlene Dietrich to do. Someone over at 20th Century Fox may have decided one sex symbol is as good as another. Darryl F. Zanuck should have known better.

Betty plays a 19th century Italian countess whose domain has been invaded by a troop of Hungarian Hussars captained by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Her ghostly ancestor whose portrait hangs in the palace hall along with the rest of her distinguished family tree, sees no small resemblance in Doug now and another invader some 300 years earlier whom she dealt with when armies failed.

Besides that the current Betty has just been married to Cesar Romero and the invasion has come at a most inopportune moment, before things have been consummated. That's going to give anyone a bad attitude, I guarantee.

Fresh, wholesome all American Betty is NOT the actress to do seductive and mysterious. Marlene Dietrich might have put this over, but with Betty it falls flatter than yesterday's presidential candidate. She and Fairbanks have no chemistry at all, though Doug is as charming as ever and someone I can watch in anything.

Frederick Hollander and Leo Robin wrote the score for this film and This Is The Moment got an Oscar nomination for Best Song. That Lady In Ermine's one chance for Oscar glory fell to Buttons And Bows.

Ernest Lubitsch died midway during the film and Otto Preminger finished That Lady In Ermine. I can't believe Lubitsch had Grable in mind for the lead here. Neither will you if you see That Lady In Ermine.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Good film. Tells a boyish fantasy story, telling us how trapped we are in social situations and what kind of extreme measures one has to take to behave differently. Or at least the feeling: that you have to break every rule if you are to break one. If you wanted to express love for someone you don't know, how would you do it without creating a pressing social situation? Also it's about the fascism of deciding over others cultural life, of what kind of culture that is jammed down our throats. What gives Disney or FOX or the suicide bomber the right to decide what is our choice. Are one not allowed to drink the morning coffee by one self. Do we have to listen to the NRJ shouting, see the stupid tabloid headlines and the street commercials before we even have had our morning coffee?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I simply cannot believe the number of people comparing this favourably with the first film. It moved me to leave this comment! This is just an obvious attempt to cash-in on the success of the first film. The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.

The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.

How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in? The ease at which Doyle finds his guy is just pathetic. Like all the French Police were just drinking coffee until Doyle turns up from America and does some REAL police work. What a joke. Try going to a foreign city and unearthing the biggest crims in the place with a travel map and some tourist pamphlets. Pathetic.

A truly awful sequel, anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I didn't approach \"Still Crazy\" with any real anticipation. Just another rock'n'roll picture, I figured... good nostalgia for the baby boomers. This film is partially that, but so much more. Brian Gibson, the director, previously helmed a biography of Tina Turner, and is quite successful in his style. I suppose it is fitting that this was his last film.

The cast is well-chosen. Bill Nighy is perfect in his role as the band's frontman. Actor-turned-director Bruce Robinson appears as the band's washed-up guitarist. He does a superb job, even though he hasn't appeared on film since the late 70's. If you're looking for an touching and funny film (with some great songs), you've found it.

7.4 out of 10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There should be more movies about our Native Americans. I especially think that using actual real Native Americans, would be the the right thing. I know that this Archie Belaney, who was played by Pierce Brosnan he did an excellent job in portraying that character, since he was an Englishman. But my suggestion to Hollywood, is to put more American Indians into the roles, and never use anyone else. The Sioux Nation has been put on the back burner far too long. Their poverty is a disgrace to our country. It is my firm belief that our country should return the Black Hills to the Sioux. We ask Israel to return their lands to the Arabs, but we do not make any effort to do the same, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We must practice what we preach!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I got the DVD very cheap and I'm a total Drewbie, and thats probably the only constellation where this movie could ever interest anyone.

An early Drew movie, she's looking great, and she gets a quite lot of really cute scenes of her, like a shower scene, a sexy dance scene, quite a number of sexy outfits etc. She does never show the friendly charm we know from her more recent movies.

The movie itself is pretty average or sub-average, and much more looking like being made for the TV than one for the cinema. There is no real horror or tension built up and the dialogs are often cheesy.

The most interesting part is probably the end because I honestly don't understand it. But maybe there is nothing to understand about it anyway. But at least you don't get the end you would be expecting, and it also comes much sooner than one would have expected.

Overall I think this movie is exclusively for Drewbies.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Stifler, has finished running his naked mile and is now attending Beta House. Crazy stuff happens, people run around naked and nerds are made fun of and this series is dead in the water. The Naked Mile was a crap film, but I found it to be significantly better then Band Camp. It seems they've gone back to what didn't work for them and it shows that they don't care either. You can tell where the target audience is and they nailed it perfectly. Young teenage boys who like to see naked women, crude humour and beer drinking will love Beta House, everyone else can pretty much look away.

Star Wars became a massive success that stunned audiences with it's ahead of its time special effects. Lord of the Rings created an entire world of mythical creatures and massive battles that dazzled the eye. The Matrix changed the way action and sci/fi films were made, specifically with the cutting edge special effects. With all the advancement in technology, we eagerly await the next big thing that will have our jaws dropped to the floor. Then comes American Pie: Beta House, which pushes the boundaries of what technology can do. When people have created spaceships, landscapes and creatures using CGI, Beta House decides to use this technology to create semen. Yes, the thing that creates life, the thing you see so many times in pornography films is created and time slows down to show us the white residue shoot across the room onto a teddy bear. Is this funny? Disgusting? Neither? Beta House shows more nudity then The Naked Mile, which is surprising considering the previous installments title. Does the film need it? Of course not, does it ever advance the plot, does it ever? Does it ever get a laugh? Does it ever get young boys aroused? Yes the women are beautiful, but if I am the one who thinks there is too much nudity then you might as well just have made a porno.

The female who catches the affections of our main character is pretty and doesn't annoy the viewer, like previous girls have done in the series, but not once did I ever believe this character would ever do what she does. I'm pretty sure every action from the characters in this film are far from realistic. The American Pie series has fallen from a realm of reality into a fantasy world. None of the events in this film would ever happen, if they ever did then I need to attend this school IMMEDIATELY. Is this film suppose to make people feel like they are having a good time? Well it doesn't, we are watching them have a good time, by the end of the film we hate them for all the fun they are having.

There is a \"Deer Hunter\" scene in the film, but to make it \"funny\" for today's audience they decided to substitute bullets wit horse semen. Are you laughing yet? Instead of shooting themselves with said semen in the head, or face, they place the gun in their mouths. Are you on the floor laughing yet? The first time we are introduced to Stifler's roommate, he's having sex with his girlfriend. Are you cheering at the nudity yet? The film at first seems like it will be about the boys trying to get into the frat house, but then it shifts to them already being in the frat house, but needing to perform certain tasks. Then it shifts to a competition between nerds and the boys. It goes a little \"Revenge of the Nerds\" on us for a bit and it seems out of place. I honestly do not know what these film is about because it goes all over the place.

Most of the comedy seems forced for shock value. Even at the beginning with the Dad showing his son the list of people he has had sex with. The joke is in there somewhere, I think it might be the fact that his wife is not the last name on the list, or it could have been that one of his son's friend's mother was on the list. Either one, it doesn't work.

I guess if you haven't guessed it yet, this film is not funny. Nor does it seem to be focused, the story is pathetic and the so called crude humour that the series has been known for doesn't shock. Skip this lame installment and any future ones as well. I do not know why I have seen all the entries in the series, but for some unknown reason they seem to have found their way to my eyes.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is likely the worst movie I've ever seen in my life -- surpassing the previous most god-awful movie, \"Spawn of Slithis,\" which I saw when I was about 10.

Bad acting, stilted and ridiculous dialog, incomprehensible plot, mishmashed cut scenes, even the music was annoying. Did I leave anything out? Well, the special effects weren't bad -- but CGI does not a decent movie make.

I can't believe I actually spent money to see this movie. If anyone has the contact info for Hyung-rae Shim (the director), please forward it to my user name \"at gmail,\" and I'll contact him to personally demand a refund.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The only remarkable fact is the participation of Klaus Kinski who plays a priest. Don't ask me why he does it! A bad, bad movie overall.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"The Triumph of Love\" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb.

Maybe it all got lost in the translation.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is a farce! Names are grossly mispronounced and the plot is twisted and gnarled into something unrecognizable by any literature enthusiast. And they have the gall to give Beowulf a ridiculous cannon/crossbow weapon. Beowulf doesn't need a weapon like that! In the poem, he rips off Grendel's arm with his bare hands! And I can't believe that the scriptwriters did such a thing. The way Grendel is portrayed is impressive however. That and the cast are the only positive points of the feature. My English teacher would go insane if she saw this abomination. Unless you are a die-hard fan of the epic poem \"Beowulf,\" avoid this film at all costs. And even then, I wouldn't recommend it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "OK, this movie starts out like a cheesy Lifetime movie and doesn't get better till almost well through the movie. The script is full of 'cheese' and 'fluff' and cast is not well directed for the most part. For the first half of the movie the little girl grated on my nerves. I do not think this is one of her best acting jobs. The only reason I bought the movie is because it was on sale and had Ellen Burstyn in it. She's terrific but this is also not one of her best acting gigs. The story is based on true events and that helps the movie. Actually, I didn't even like the movie at first and was getting disgusted when I saw stills of the balloon traveling, I mean..let it get where it's suppose to go and be done with it! But all is forgiven by the time it does reach it's destination and the story comes to a close. If this doesn't bring a tear to your eye, nothing will! It's cheesy and predictable but also makes you feel good about the world again.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I really wanted to like this movie. It has a nice prison setting, conspiracy theories, bloodthirsty zombies, a perfectly hideous 80s-touch and it is a directorial effort by actor John Saxon, who also plays a bad (you guessed it) a bad guy. It reminds me of some (beloved) Italian horror flicks. But the direction is very wooden and there is no nightmarish/frightening moment in there. It just goes on and on and on, and then it (logically) has to end. More suspense and more daring visuals and its destiny as a cult classic would have been sealed.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The plot of this film might not be extraordinary, but what makes the film really special, are its characters (and the actors who play them – of course!). I won't go into the details of the plot of the movie, but I would certainly like to say this – This film is not just for everyone! The film is really witty and you need to be equally clever to get all the satire. If you're not alert even for a second, you'll probably end up missing one of the subtle points. The movie is full of such seemingly trivial but witty stuff - like the announcements going on in the background at Turaqistan, the advertisements on the tankers (which I almost missed) and it are these that make the movie hilarious throughout.

Coming to the actors, John Cusack has played his multi-faceted role very efficiently (what with him being the co-writer and the producer too) and he plays his character – Hauser, the killer with a heart – exquisitely. Cusack's done a similar kind of role before in Grosse Pointe Blank, but his comic disposition in the movie is simply superb.

However the actress who steals all the show is Hilary Duff! I have always been a huge fan of Ms. Duff. But to be honest I was a bit disappointed when I heard about the kind of role she's playing in the movie. But after watching the movie the disappointment gave way to great respect for her as an actor. Let's face it! The kid's growing, but yes, so is her talent! All those critics, who shouted hoarse that Hilary cannot act, will be silent for a while. Hilary had to play a really complex character – tough on the outside, yet a sweet child on the inside – and she's done complete justice to it. She makes you laugh, and she makes you cry – to cut the long story short ('cause I could go on raving about her for ever) she's BRILLIANT! Marisa Tomei and Joan Cusack have done a good job too. Especially, Joan's hysterics are uproarious! However, I was rather disappointed with Ben Kingsley being wasted in such a small role and his performance seemed lackluster.

In general War, Inc. keeps you on your toes throughout with its intelligent humor, and ends with just the right amount of twists in the plot. I would highly recommend this movie to all (and more so to Hilary Duff fans)!!! P.S. - I am really glad to hear the movie is going to break free of its limited release and release at other places soon!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Lot of silly plot holes in the film. First we see him watching his master practice kung-fu, and die in the midst of his practice. That's fine with me. And then at the end of the film, we see him use the kung-fu that he learned just by watching his master when he was still a kid. Is that even possible? I don't think so.

This show is purely for Jay Chou fans, and the film lacks a depth in terms of character development, cinematography styles and unfolding of plot.

Anybody notice that the captain of the basket team (forgot his name) and the idolized player Li Xiao look so similar to each other, to the extent that you'd think they were the one and same person? Long hair, sunshine-boy look, tall and strong. The two of them looked like they came out from a mass production factory designed to churn out products that makes teenage girls scream wild in orgasm. Not that those two actors had anything of value to contribute to the movie as a whole for the movie industry at all.

The jokes were lame and not funny at all.

The scene with regards to the 4 masters of Jay Chou coming back to help him out in the basketball court, degenerated into a pointless plot when they started bashing their opponents ala Royal Rumble style. Worse of all, when the 4 masters won the fight, the crowd began cheering, and the match continued. It was truly a WTF? moment.

At the end of the show, when they win the match, all thanks to Jay Chou's excellent kung fu skills. How he acquired those kung-fu skills is a mystery, because the show somehow shows him acquiring the skills just by observing his master.

And then his long-lost father comes out of the woodwork to acknowledge Jay Chou as his long-lost son seemed just a tad too quick of the director to wrap up the film.

In short, this is a Jay Chou-flick (instead of the usual \"chick flick\"). Watch it only if Jay Chou is your fan. If you are one of those whose tastes in movies coincide greatly with those in the list of IMDb's top 250 films of all time, then this film is not for you.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Houseboat Horror\" is often regarded as the worst Australian film ever made and described as a typical slasher film,which carried the promotion 'See the movie that can't get an Academy Award'.An underground disco band members begins to die slashed to death by burned maniac as they are attempting to shoot a music video on a remote lake in the Australian outback.Badly acted and written slasher flick with zero suspense and annoying characters.It certainly delivers the gore:heads are split in half with a machete,throats are cut and a woman is killed with a horseshoe.If you like cheesy slasher movies you can give this one a try,but you have been warned.At least it's better than Swedish \"The Bleeder\".4 out of 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Every year I watch hundreds of films, including many low budget amateurish straight-to-DVD abominations that nobody in their right mind would ever want to see. I have seen thousands of films in my time, many excellent, many forgettable. Zombie Nation I will remember forever as one of the most hopelessly laughable 'horror' films I have ever seen – in fact I still haven't recovered from the experience of watching it.

The day after, it seems like some kind of weird dream. Did I really see what I thought I saw? Why do the police work out of a warehouse? Did the voodoo priestesses really recommend that the 'zombies' eat cheeseburgers? Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe?

I wouldn't recommend Zombie Nation if you want to see a 'good' film, and neither would I recommend it as 'so bad its good'. However, if you are entertained by the prospect of watching probably the most indefensibly abysmal film ever – this is for you. Now, whenever anyone asks me what the worst film I have ever seen is, I will say Zombie Nation.

Seriously – I think it's a greater crime to make a boring film than a bad one, and Ulli Lommel deserves credit for producing a film that actually stuns you with its ineptitude. He really is the Ed Wood Jr. of the digital age, and I for one can't wait to see if he makes another film as consistently ridiculous as this one.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "as a sequel,this is not a bad movie.i actually liked it better than the 1st one.i found it more entertaining.it seemed like it was shot documentary style.at first this bothered me,as i thought it just looked too low budget.but it grew on me,and it made the movie seem more authentic.this movie has more dry one liners than the original,which is a good thing,in my opinion.i do think at times they went a bit over the top with some of the scenes and the characters.it almost becomes a parody of itself,which may be the point.this movie at least has some suspense,which the 1st one did not have,in my view.it has some of the same great music from the original,which is great.the acting again was pretty decent for the most part,though like i said,some of it seemed over the top.i also felt that the movie loses a lot of momentum towards the end and there are a few minutes which seem really slow and just don't seem to flow,like the rest of the movie.overall,though,i thought this was a pretty sequel.my rating for \"Return to Cabin by the Lake\" is 7/10*", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film is a great fun. I recommend you watch it yourself and then watch it again with your friends. I did last night and it was fascinating how well Norma Khouri could pull everybody into her world! I did feel a little bit strange watching my friends go through the same roller coaster as I did the first time. But they all thanked me and loved the movie. You know it is a great film if you spend 2 hours after the film talking about the movie!

I once saw a con man almost up toNorma Khouri's level, but no where near the same size ring. He fooledtons of very gullible and rich folks at my old Berkeley CA A.A. group where everyone trusts everyone else. He would \"sponsor\" only people who seemed very well to do. Who knew he would have stolen in excess of 100k(in 1987 when that was real money) after being in town for only 1 month. His victims were very fragile as they were in their first month or week of being sober. He was evil with a great laugh and a great smile on his face.

The above crime is nothing compared to what Norma Khouri did to her old neighbor. But I don't want to give anything away.

I just found this one night on a late night movie channel,\"Showtim\" I think. This is always a movie fans greatest experience to be totally tricked into seeing something and having your mind blown. Just drag your friends over to see this and don't tell them a thing. It is a very entertaining film, it moves quickly and never bores you.

This should be a international classic for all time. I believe all great movies eventually rise to the top. Time will be very good to this film. I am just sorry no one has heard of it yet,in some ways that makes the surprises even better.

The director and editor were fantastic. They deserved winning the best documentary.

JUST WATCH THIS FILM!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.

One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.

I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.

12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am only 11 years old but I discovered Full House when I was about five and watched it constantly until I was seven. Then I grew older and figured Full House could wait and that I had \"more important\" things to do. Plus there was also the fact that my younger brother who watched it faithfully with me for those two years started to dislike it thinking it too \"girly.\"

Then I realized every afternoon at five it was on 23 and I once again became addicted to it. Full House has made me laugh and cry. It's made me realize how nice it would be if our world was like the world of Full House plus a mom. I have heard people say Full House is cheesy and unbelievable. But look at the big picture: three girls whose mom was killed by a drunk driver. The sisters fight and get their feelings hurt. The three men who live with the girls can get into bickers at times. What's any more real than that?

If anything the show has lifted me up when I'm down and brought me up even higher when I thought I was at the point of complete happiness. I have howled like a hyena at the show and gained a massive obsessiveness over Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. (Of course Hilary Duff has now taken that spot but they were literally the cutest babies I have ever seen. They are great actresses and seem to be very nice people.)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This review is dedicated to the late Keith Moon and John Entwistle.

The Original Drum and Bass.

There seems to be very little early Who footage around these days, if there is more then lets be 'aving it, now-a-days it tends to be of a very different kind of Who altogether, a parody, a shadow of their (much) better years. To be fair, not one of them has to prove anything to anyone anymore, they've earned their respect and with overtime.

This concert footage for me is one of their best. To command an audience of around a 400,000 plus strong crowed takes skill, charisma, wit and a whole lot of bloody good music.

We all know of the other acts on the bill, The Doors (their last ever show weeks before Jim Morrison died), Moody Blues, Hendrix, Taste, Free and many more. The point being that whoever were there it was The Who that the majority had come to see. This show was one year after the Great Hippie Fest of the 1960's; Woodstock. The film and record had come out and so had The Who's greatest work to date, Tommy. The ever hungry crowd wanted a taste, to be able to experience their own unique event, to be able to \"Grove and Love\" in the knowledge that this gig was their own. To do this you needed the best of what Rock 'n Roll had to throw at the hungrily baited crowd.

At two 'o clock in the morning in late August 1970 the M.C. announces, \"Ladies and Gentlemen, a small Rock 'n Roll band from Shepherds Bush London, the 'OO\".

John Entwistle's body suit is of black leather, on the front is the out line of a human skeleton from neck to toe, Roger dressed in his traditional stage outfit of long tassel's and long flowing hair, Keith in a white t-shirt and jeans, as Pete had his white boiler suit and Doc Martins that he'd preferred to wear.

The Who never stopped their onslaught of High Energy Rock for over two hours, performing theirs and other artists' greatest tracks such as Young Man Blues, Shaking' all Over, and then as on queue, Keith baiting the crowed to \"Shut up, it's a bleeding Opera\" with Tommy, the Rock Opera. The crowed went wild. This is what they had come to hear, and the Who didn't disappoint, straight into Overture and never coming up for air until the final note of \"Tommy can you Hear me?\" Amazing.

To capture a show of this magnitude of a band of this stature at their peak at a Festival that was to be the last of its kind anywhere in the World was a fantastic piece of Cinematic History.

The English DVD only comes in a soundtrack of English/Linear PCM Stereo, were as in the States, I think, you can get it with 5.1 at least, \"Check local press for details…\" on that, okay.

The duration of the DVD is 85 minutes with no extras, which is a disappointment. Yes, for a slice of Rock and Festival History this DVD would send you in a nostalgia trip down memory lane the moment you press play, for some of the best Who concert footage as it was meant to be, Live, Raw and in your Face!

I would have given this DVD ten if it wasn't for the lack of 5.1, and some extras would have been nice.

Thanks Roger, Pete, John and Keith.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The absolute summum of the oeuvre of that crafty Dane Douglas Sirk (born Detlef Sierck), Written on the Wind compels our prurient attention in every gaudy frame. From its justly famous opening sequence, with the leaves blowing into the baronial foyer of a Texas mansion and the wind riffling the pages of the calendar into a flashback, the movie compresses into its 99 minutes all the familial intrigue that was to fuel such later, little-screen knockoffs as Dallas, Dynasty and Falcon Crest over their years-long runs.

The combination of wealth and dysfunction is a theme Americans, in our dollar-based society, find irresistible. Brother and sister Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are the spoiled, troubled heirs to the Hadly oil fortune; boyhood chum Rock Hudson and new bride Lauren Bacall are the sane outsiders who try to keep the lid on the roiling cauldron. (It's been rumored that the story was based on Libby Holmann's marriage into Reynolds tobacco money.) As always, the misfits get all the scenery to chew -- and the best lines to spit out (Malone, in her Oscar-nabbing performance as the boozing nymphomaniac with a jones for Hudson, gets to detonate a whole fireworks display of them). Hudson, while good, can't compete with all this over-the-top emoting; Bacall starts out strong but grows recessive, a mere plot convenience. No matter; with a succession of set-pieces shot in extravagant hues, Sirk gives an object lesson in how to turn out overwrought melodrama set in the lush consumer paradise of late-50s America. Nobody ever did it better.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Legend of Bloody Jack is set in the Alaskan wilderness & starts as a relative of some murderous deceased occultist Lumberjack reads incantations (The Evil Dead (1982) style) from an ancient spell book in an attempt to resurrect him, he succeeds & not being a big believer in family unity the Lumberjack dude kills his relative. Two days later & Ray (Travis Quentin Young) along with his sister Dawn (Erica Hoag), her boyfriend Nick (Craig Bonacorsi) & four of their friends pull up outside a cosy log cabin (The Evil Dead style...) with a view to a relaxing weekend in the wilderness. Unfortuntaely the killer Lumberjack dude show's up with his axe & starts to slaughter the friends one-by-one...

Edited, written, executive produced & directed by Todd Portugal this is a pretty rotten modern slasher flick the likes of which are killing the horror genre for me, I'm just not a big fan of ultra low budget horror films with the production values of a holiday video. The script is absolutely terrible in every way for 80 minutes, it has every bad slasher cliché, the character's are awful, the dialogue is terrible & it's hard to care about anyone or anything in this pretty worthless excuse for a teen slasher film. The teens are even more annoying & stupid than usual, the script is more moronic, predictable & flawed than usual & the killer Lumberjack dude is just lame. Then there's the final 10 minutes or so which, if you make it that far & believe it's tough going, produces one of the worst twist ending in slasher film history which as far as I'm concerned pokes fun at us the paying audience who has just had to sit through 90 minutes worth of crap. I will now spoil the ending so anyone who doesn't want to know it stop reading now. Basically just before the end of the film it cuts back to Ray telling a story & it turns out he was telling the story of what we had just seen & Nick & Dawn & everyone else berates him for telling such a bad story (I felt their pain) & then proceed to pick holes in it & laugh at it. From saying why did they stand around & argue, why didn't they pick the axe up & such things, I felt like this was poking fun at the audience as those were the sorts of things I was asking myself while watching this crap & to have it shoved down my throat & made perfectly clear that the makers knew the script was crap & could see all the holes in it & went for a twist ending which unashamedly rubbishes the preceding 80 minutes (which we have just had to sit through remember) is just a little grating. Then to add insult to injury the Lumberjack dude turns up & kills everyone within two minutes, why didn't he do that to start with? It would have saved everyone a lot of time.

Director Portugal turns in a real mess, this has the worst continuity between night & day in a film I have ever seen. The whole film is meant to set at night & I suspect the makers tried to use the day for night process but it didn't work & most of it looks like it is set during the day. For example, look at when Lisa is trapped in the bathroom & she climbs out of the window. It is clearly pitch black outside when we are looking out from inside the bathroom but when she falls to the ground & the films cuts to an exterior shot it's bright daylight. Then there's the fact Ranger Vince says we can't get a search party out here until 'the morning' indicating it was supposed to be night, then several minutes later when he walks outside & it looks like it's the middle of the day he is actually carrying around a torch which is clearly on & he is clearly pointing it in the directions where he is looking like it's night. Anytime there is a scene set in the cabin look at the windows, it's pitch black outside & when the Ranger walks in through the door to start with is also another clear example. The continuity in this film is simply the worst I have ever seen. There isn't much gore, there are a few scenes of an axe going into people bodies but nothing memorable. It's not scary, there's no tension or atmosphere & the appalling day & night continuity is just so distracting because it's so obvious.

Technically the film is rock bottom, again the continuity between night & day has to been seen to be believed how bad it is. The special effects are poor & they couldn't even afford to show a car blowing up even though it's pretty vital to the plot. This has amateur hour written all over it from start to finish. The acting is absolutely brilliant & everyone involved should get an Oscar, nah only joking, not really they were utterly awful & even the girls who got their breasts out weren't very good looking.

The Legend of Bloody Jack is just an awful teen slasher flick, it looks like it was shot on a camcorder without the use of a tripod or steadycam, it has awful effects, is boring & has a twist ending which is either the most insulting in horror film history or I've got it totally wrong & it's the most clever. Not recommended, watch a decent slasher from the 70's or 80's to remind you how they should be done.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou.

Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie.

Beyonce ??? That was acting???

This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical.

If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.

And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I thought the kids in the movie were great. I deal with kids in that age group, and I thought their behaviors were very believable. I did have a problem with the reference to the private parts made by the 5-year old. I didn't think the comment was necessary and actually slightly lowered my opinion of the movie.

I think Luke Benward is up and coming star. I would like to see more of him on the big screen. I enjoyed his reactions to the situations that he found himself in. Often kids in this age group do things without thinking through the consequences. Almost all of the actors did this throughout the movie.

I also think the message of bullying needs to be examined more in movies with this age group. It is a major problem in schools today.

The ending was quite unexpected. Billy's thoughts on whether he won or didn't win the bet were very surprising. How he handled that situation was excellent. Too often today kids are not willing to compromise. The actors in this movie showed that compromise is an important part of life.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I went into this movie hoping for the best. I like wartime musicals in general. Dick Powell and Lucille Ball did good jobs with their roles; however, the writers gave them boring dialog. The love-interest between the two of them was not given any real growth; just suddenly it was there. I did not think much of the music; the best number was the snippet we heard of Spike Jones with \"Der Fuhrer's Face.\" The one complete number that Spike Jones did had little of his great musical comedy; pretty tame stuff,even with the monkey. Bert Lahr's comedy skits were interminable.

There were parts to enjoy: Lucille Ball was quite a looker, and there was a good selection of bit players who really deserved more time on screen.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The killings in this movie isn't that bad, but for sure the movie is. It's even worse than that. It's not even worth the wear it might cause when you slide it into your DVD-player.

Not even the wear it causes on your shoulders carrying it from the DVD-store, not to speak of the money and time you spend renting and watching it. Horrible.

It's beyond understanding how anyone could say anything positive about this movie. It was just a bare masochistic tendency of mine that caused me not to stop watching, add to that the group pressure from my co-watchers.

The manuscript is awful, the directing even worse and the acting is plain despicable.

I hope you don't see this as a spoiling your fun, i'd rather see it as a fair warning: Do not waste your time watching this garbage!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).

The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am quite the Mitchell Leisen fan so it was a great anticipation that I rented this movie but the print I got was extremely bad, so worn down from use and scorched seemingly beyond repair, the movie was so dark. So dark that in certain scenes that are cinematographed in the dark, you can't see a single thing. That said, I believe I share the same opinion as the first review of this movie. It starts out unusually and does not tote the lines and rhythms of your typical Hollywood 30's movie. Heck, not even your typical Hollywod movie of any era. It seems the director has been influenced by the Europeans because there is a certain caustic realism to the proceedings from the opening shot which is so crafted in camera movement and placement as Maggie (Carole Lombard) and Skid (Fred Macmurray) meet. You half expect them to start singing \"Make believe\" from Show boat.It starts with a few laughs and poor Anthony in a one scene role where he speaks not a word of English gets slapped around by Freddie. Skids is a bum who doesn't care that he's a bum. That's why he signs up in the army where he can hide from the world. He's just been released though and in a set of screenplay shenanigans, she misses her boat for New York. This is when the movie kicks into high gear and we begin to get those French movie of the sixties vibes to the whole proceedings. The scenes are so well acted by Lombard and Cecil Cunningham, the movie gains a pulse. MacMurray is good too as he and Lombard fall for each other as she nurtures his talent for the trumpet. Then the temptress arrives in the form of Dorothy Lamour. Enough with plot. The movie has fantastic montage sequences that dazzled me. They are very good. And Lombard scores a home run in this movie but in the second half, a bit more is called of Freddie and he fails to deliver the goods. With a heavily melodramatic ending and an actor you don't believe, the movie falls short but since it is not your typical movie in structure, set design, and direction. It is worth a look. For what is what it was one of the 37 hits of the 1936-37 season. I don't know its exact rank though.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Not that I tinkle myself with glee at the sight of realistic blood shed, but when I put a DVD in expecting a bloodbath, and what I get is one bloody scene (the eyeball) at the tail end of asinine fake slapping, and spinning in a desk chair, I end up thinking \"well that's 43 minutes of my life gone forever.\" I wouldn't considers this or Flower of Flesh and Blood \"movies\" so much as an exercise of will; to see if you can sit through them. Flower of Flesh and Blood had a few tough spots to watch. The Devil's Experiment did not. It was at best, stupid, and at worst...well...really stupid. Perhaps my expectation were too high. I put the DVD thinking \"oh man, this is gonna be sick.\" After watching them fake slap the girl about a thousand times, I was watching it in fast forward.

Two kinds of people would be interested in this film. 1) People who seek out F'd up films just to see how F'd up it really is, or 2) horror completest. I sought this and the other Guinea Pig films for the latter reason, but even if I fell into the category of the former, this film wouldn't float my boat. As a matter of fact, I could imagine this film increasing one's blood lust...as in \"WOULD YOU JUST KILL THE B*TCH ALREADY!!\" So in conclusion, the only reason to own this film is for collection purposes. If you want carnage that traditional horror doesn't provide, get Traces of Death. Sure, that sucks too, but at least you'll get the blood and guts you expect.

The only reason I can see for anyone praising this crap is because they feel they're supposed to. No artistic merit that I can comprehend, no reason for it's notoriety, no nothing. Just a lame attempt to be shocking.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have read the book and I must say that this movie stays true to form. I think this is the beginning of the psychological thrillers in the same genre of Psycho. Cristina Raines gives an excellent performance as the lead, and Burgess Meredith gives an excellent supporting actor as the next-door neighbor. I have seen this movie at least twice and I think that I am going to buy both the book and the movie for my collection. The suspense just keeps building up to the climatic end, the twist you will never see coming. If you like movies like Signs and The Village, the Sentinel will be a classic prelude. Also, what is interesting is the actors in the movie-you would not recognize them if you did not read the credits. The late Jerry Orbach is great as the commercial director and Jeff Goldblum is excellent as the photographer. Also there is Beverly D'Angelo, who is underrated but great.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "One of the most timely and engrossing documentaries, you'll ever watch. While the story takes place in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, it provides an intimate look into political dynamics, that prevail throughout the western Hemisphere. While essentially another chapter in the story of the \"U.S. backed, Latin American coup\", this film chronicles in real-time, what can happen when the poorest people, are armed with unity, political savvy, and courage!

The political insights offered by this film are invaluable. One gets clear examples of the private media, as a formidable force for mass deception and propaganda. We see the poor people of Caracas grappling with the brutal realities of \"American politics\". One gets a clear sense of impending doom, if the people fail to address the blatant tyranny, which has been abruptly, and illegally, thrust upon them by the conspirators. We also see the arrogance and fascism, of the CIA backed, private media, plutocrats, and generals, who've conspired to bring Venezuela back under Washington's domination. Though ably led by President Hugo Chavez, the people of Caracas are forced to act without him, after Chavez was forcibly kidnapped by renegade generals. Their response is the highpoint of the film. If one seeks an excellent portrait of what the U.S. government, Hugo Chavez, and revolutionary Venezuela, are all about, this movie is it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I never actually thought that a film could be so atrocious, but alas I was wrong. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible effects. The Crocodile was awful and as for the stupid sex/killing scene all in one, that was a bad move from the word go. It was truly shocking and that is not a compliment! How can someone make this film, watch it back and then actually say \"Yeah, thats a good movie. People will watch that\" If you haven't seen it I beg you DON'T BOTHER :-(", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When I saw that IMDb users rated this movie the bottom 250 movies, I thought it was too harsh but little did I know that the low rating was absolutely correct.

I am a big fan of the Wayans brothers. I loved their Scary Movie 2 and even enjoyed White Chicks. Little Man, however, had very few laughs and the jokes were stale.

Obviously, the joke will revolve around Marlon Wayans, who plays a grown midget that was recently let out of prison. He and his partner, Tracy Morgan, steal a diamond meant for a gangster. Things go awry and the midget has to place the diamond with an unsuspecting couple played by Shawn Wayans and Kerry Washington. In order to get the diamond back, the midget pretends to be an abandoned baby left on the unsuspecting couples doorstep. Of course, he is taken in and the drama begins on quest for the diamond.

The movie has some actors and actresses from Saturday Night Live like Molly Shannon and Rob Schneider as well from In Living Colour. All these talents, however, cannot help the poor script and the jokes which simply was not funny.

The special effects to make Marlon Wayans to look like a midget was OK. I mean, it was not 100% believable but it was OK...nothing great. I just wish that the Wayans brothers had put more effort into developing a script with good jokes rather than trying to shore up their poor script with cameos from their famous comedic actors and actresses.

Wait for it on cable or television. It really is not worth any amount of money.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I can't figure out how anyone can get a budget for a movie this bad. It's like the TV station are desperate for anything, anything at all. They're buried underneath a bunch of snow, the electricity constantly flashes on and off, yet magically there is a background light that stays constant. Where does all this (fake) light come from? That, and all that stupid bickering between the characters. They seem to be more interested in complaining to each other than trying to invent ways to survive. It tries to create that feel of emergency and people helping. But because it's such bad directing and acting, you will not your Florence Nightingale fix with this flick, sorry. I'm joining the negative feedback, and I concur that this is one of the worst movies ever.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It is a well known fact that when Gene Roddenberry first pitched Star Trek to NBC, the original pilot episode, The Cage, was rejected for being \"too cerebral\". When the series was given another chance, Roddenberry thought it would be fun to establish the events of the rejected episode as canon, and did so by writing The Menagerie, which has the unique distinction of being the sequel to what was still, at the time, an unaired episode.

This time, rather than exploring a new planet, Kirk and his crew are on Starbase 11, paying a visit to the former commander of the Enterprise, Christopher Pike (Sean Kenney), now horribly disfigured and paralyzed because of an accident. Pike joins his successor on the starship, where an unpleasant surprise awaits: Spock, who used to serve under Pike, has effectively hijacked the vessel and set the course for Talos IV, a planet which is off-limits (the punishment is death) since Pike and Spock's last visit there, 13 years earlier. Naturally, being a logical creature, Spock turns himself in and arranges a court-martial so that he can justify his actions.

There's no need to say more about the plot, since the rest will play out in Part 2. What really impresses is how Roddenberry creates the connection between The Cage and the rest of the Star Trek universe, by coming up with a particular type of flashback (to say more would be too much) that allows everyone, on screen and off, to see what could have been of Trek, had NBC not turned down the original project. In particular, it's fun to see Jeffrey Hunter (who was unable to return in The Menagerie) play Pike as a more serious captain than Kirk usually is and Nimoy's early days as Spock, whose personality hadn't been fully established yet: this is the only time in the entire series that everybody's favorite Vulcan spontaneously grins.

In short, not just a great \"mystery\" episode, but also a treat for those who can't be bothered to track down The Cage in its original form (it's available as part of the Season 3 box set).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.

Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far.

A big, huge, waste of money. Useless.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Call me adolescent but I really do think that this is a great series. If you haven't had a chance to experience a few episodes of the latest Star Trek series, you should definitely watch this one. Perhaps more compelling than that of Voyager's Caretaker, which launched the series with Cpt. Janeway, Archer's adventures are completely different, yet strangely familiar...The music is catchy too. No true Sci-fi fan can go without seeing at least one Star Trek episode--and these installments make the wait worthwhile.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was a fan of the book ever since third grade, so of course I had watched the movie, read the sequel, and then watched the television show. It was a good show in itself, and now as an adult I still enjoy the show. My only real problem with it was that it didn't follow the book. The first time I saw it, I was so disappointed that I turned it off. But that's coming from a girl who owns a first addition of the book. But after time I decided to give it a try again and ignored the book (kind of like what you have to do with the Harry Potter movies). I found the series wonderful! It was clean cut and something that everyone could enjoy, just the right amount comedy to keep everyone going. It is truly enjoyable! Clean and wonderful!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you weren't there, then unfortunately this movie will be beyond compassion for you. Which as I say is a shame because although some of the acting is amateurish, it is meant to be for realism. Let's face it--in real life, we don't say things in an exacting or perfect way, even when we mean to. In this sense, it works. This, however, does not apply to our \"known\" actors in this film, notably Jodie Foster (born a natural). The fact that the other 3 girls are not accomplished only adds to the story--Jodie plays the glue that struggles to keep their friendship close, even with the obvious feeling of fatality. Meaning that no matter how close friends are, eventually there are some people that just fade away, no matter how you try.

And therein is the core of the movie. It's not about partying, it's not about sexuality, but about these 4 girls and their final time as still young girls before they have to go the world alone.

If you have ever had a friendship like that in your life, you will feel this movie--it will mean a lot to you, no matter what era it is set in, or what era you grew up in. We all knew these girls in school, or at the very least knew of them. We all knew the frustrated virgin, half wanting to hold onto childhood and half wanting desperately to grow up and thinking that will do it for her. We all knew the boy-crazy one, the fashion plate whose vanity hides her fear of the world, her fear of acceptance. We all knew the party girl, the one they whispered about, with tales of not only her sad home life but of her notorious exploits. And we all knew the \"mother figure\", the one a little more real, a little more grounded, a little more sad because she knew what would happen. Maybe you were one of those girls. Maybe, like me, you had been each one at one time or another...

This film really captures that fragile time in life when want, needs, pressures, womanhood, childhood, the world and loneliness are all embodied in each female's head, each factor on the precipice. Which aspect do you hang on to? What do you toss over the edge, no matter how you may want to hold on? And how painful is goodbye to everything you've known? That's what this movie is--steps into womanhood while clinging onto childhood, and how damn tough it is to keep walking. If you were there, you know...and love this film, as I do. Aching and tenderly done. A fine piece of captured femininity.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Oh man, it is amazing how somebody can claim global warming to be a science, well, I guess this elitist nonsense is now replacing the science of eugenics! Al Gore tries to make this issue sound complicated, even though it just needs common sense to see this whole thing is a big hoax by a man with his own moneymaking agenda!

How have scientists estimated historical temperatures of this planet? By estimating the sun spot activity. Has nobody ever questioned if this method has been accurate? No, not even Gore himself! So how the heck would it not be accurate to forecast future temperature with sun spot activity if it has been that accurate in the past? According to sun spot activity the temperature today is totally in line with what it should be. How come the temperature in the entire universe has risen (relatively) equal much as on earth? Does our SUVs cause temperature on Jupiter to rise?

Use some common sense! You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this can be nothing else than a HOAX. Please research it yourself. What does Al Gore and his elitist friends like Rothschild (banking family that arranged live earth event) to gain from this? Well, the new world bank will be founded on carbon credits, that is tax on everything that gives CO2 omissions, and it is easier to get away with these taxes if the people are lured to think it is to save the world when it is only about money, centralized control and more power to the elitist bankers. Al Gore has even a company that sells carbon credits! Is it not noble to pay voluntarily carbon credits to save the world, especially if it goes into his own company?

I do not want you to blindly believe me, please do your own research and use your own common sense and I am sure you will come to the right conclusion!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I absolutely despise this movie. No wonder Jose Larraz \"disowned\" it at one point and refuses to discuss it. I admire Larraz's work, especially his more obscure slasher/sex maniac thrillers like SAVAGE LUST or SCREAM AND DIE. His work has a kind of inescapable artiness about it that he can't seem to switch off, owing in part to his secondary career as a painter & cartoonist. It's too bad he never made a Western, his vision would have been perfect.

BLACK CANDLES is easily his most notorious film and probably his best known after the masterpiece VAMPYRES. And it's notoriety revolves around one scene where a Satanic coven enacts a bizarre rite involving extracting the reproductive fluid of a goat -- symbolizing The Beast -- as some kind of nauseating balm to be used in preparing the waif like sister of a murdered man for her role as the bride of Satan. The scene in question is staged in a way that looks rather convincing even without the display of any plumbing apparatus the goat may have been endowed with, relying upon the histrionics of the actress recruited to play the supplicant in the ritual and lots of guttural chanting on the film's recycled musical score heard in a half-dozen films attributed to Jacinto Molina. The perverse nature of the scene is more implied than shown in graphic detail, heightened somewhat by the knowledge that said supplicant is actually the teen-aged daughter of the Satanic priest. My but they had fun concocting this movie.

The problem with it is that there isn't much to deconstruct or contemplate aside from the paper thin ROSEMARY'S BABY derived story of a woman being weaned into her role as Satan's bride by a sophisticated coven of Satanists living in the hedgrowed outlands of a very sinister Britain. Led by Eurohorror sensation Helga Line these Satanists are comprised of doctors, lawyers, land owning magnates and other upper crust dignitaries who actually owe their professional success to their worship of the devil. All you have to do is sell your soul and the world can be yours, only watch out whom you may sell out to pay back petty personal conflict or you may end up being felched with a sword.

The film attempts to combine this heady Satanic trip with oodles or borderline graphic sex, and should correctly be regarded as a kind of apex or culmination of the sex and horror Spanish thriller traditions popularized in part by Mr. Molina & Ms. Line, and which had amazingly flourished under the disapproving eye of one Generalissimo Franco, the dictator who controlled Spain up until 1976. While he lived his decree was that Spanish cinema was to be free of graphic depictions of on-screen sex. Spanish directors often made two versions of their films, one with the sex concealed for their own screens and one with the fornication on display for export. As difficult as it was for the filmmakers to express themselves the result was a sort of interesting tension that usually results when artists flirt with the forbidden: Spanish horror from the 1970s has a very special flavor to it that is somewhat of an acquired taste. It's not for everyone.

But in a bizarre turn of events, without Franco's influence on their culture Spanish horror sort of dried up in the late 1970s, when their Gothic castles and demonic orgies suddenly found themselves passé when compared to new sensations like JAWS and the STAR WARS phenomenon. And without Franco's constraints their were suddenly a flood of overtly graphic thrillers that came tumbling out of the pipes in the very late 70s/early 80s, of which BLACK CANDLES is perhaps the best known due to it's emphasis on sexual deviancy with a barnyard animal. Larraz' major horror films have always revolved around sexual taboos (the lesbianism of VAMPYRES, the incest of SCREAM AND DIE & DEVIATION) but here the effect of the depravity is to overshadow the rest of the production. Nobody cares about anything else but the traditionally censored trip to the Goat Barn, and watching a cut version without the scene in the barn is almost an exercise in pointlessness. The sex isn't graphic enough to rate as porn and the chills aren't chilling enough to rate as horror.

So, BLACK CANDLES is essentially a behavior study -- Here is how high society British Satanists might behave in their secluded mansions out in the West Midlands or whatever. Between sex scenes the actors/actresses sit around and have lots of discussions. The best thing the film has going for it is an undeniably oppressive atmosphere of claustrophobia, with most of it's action taking place in the tightly confined interiors of Ms. Line's character's mansion. Nearly every avenue of fornication is hinted at so fans of soft-core sex romps with a hinting of supernatural horror will be amused, and of course the vicarious sex criminals amongst us will enjoy choking their chickens to the goat barn scene. But the ultimate conclusion of the film is silly, pretentious, intelligence insulting, and probably perfect for such an otherwise forgettable exercise in applied sleaze.

2/10; Without the Goat Barn this movie just isn't the same, and with the scene it's probably a bit too much for most viewers. Larraz was correct to disown it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. \"Amazon Women on the Moon\", \"Kentucky Fried Movie\", \"The Meaning of Life\", and \"Mr. Mike's Mondo Video\". Notice how I didn't mention \"Tunnel Vision\"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "But it does have some good action and a plot that is somewhat interesting. Nevsky acts like a body builder and he isn't all that attractive, in fact, IMO, he is UGLY. ( his acting skills lack everything! ) Sascha is played very well by Joanna Pacula, but she needed more lines than she was given, her character needed to be developed. There are way too many men in this story, there is zero romance, too much action, and way too dumb of an ending. It is very violent. I did however love the scenery, this movie takes you all over the world, and that is a bonus. I also liked how it had some stuff about the mafia in it, not too much or too little, but enough that it got my attention. The actors needed to be more handsome...The biggest problem I had was that Nevsky was just too normal, not sexy enough. I think for most guys, Sascha will be hot enough, but for us ladies that are fans of action, Nevsky just doesn't cut it. Overall, this movie was fine, I didn't love it nor did I hate it, just found it to be another normal action flick.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.

I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.

Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.

There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.

A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, \"Back to the Future\" is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.

I don't recommend this film to anyone.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was an excellent 2-part episode, although I had never been seen the older ones, I never thought the doctor would go up against anything that is paranormal, extra terrestial of course but not paranormal.

This episode brings the things that we most fear and how would we humans, in a futuristic time, would fight and defeat real live evil when most odds say that would be impossible.

Being that it's a family film I am surprised that they brought some stuff in like fear and faith, especially if its also going to entertain American audiences. But who care about what Yanks say, we rock! Doctor Who has shown potential ever since from episode one from the new series in 2005, first being so harmless to scary, from fun to serious, from light to darkness. I hope many old fans will one day soon say \"The old Doctor Who has returned\".

10 out of 10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Yes I have rated this film as one star awful. Yet, it will be in my rotation of Christmas movies henceforth. This truly is so bad it's good. This is another K.Gordon Murray production (read: buys a really cheap/bad Mexican movie, spends zero money getting it dubbed into English and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960's.) It's a shame I stumbled on this so late in life as I'm sure some \"mood enhancers\" would make this an even better experience. I'm not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said, a Christmas movie with Merlin, the Devil, mechanical wind-up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors I have ever seen bar none. I plan on running this over the holidays back to back with Kelsey Grammar's \"A Christmas Carol\". Truly a holiday experience made in Hell. Now if I can only find \"To All A Goodnight (aka Slayride)\" on DVD I'll have a triple feature that can't be beat. You have to see this movie. It moves so slowly that I defy you not to touch the fast forward button-especially on the two dance routines! This thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese-guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. Feliz Navidad amigos!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Kurosawa, fresh into color, losses sight of his usual themes of truth and perception of reality and opts for a depressing take on Tokyo's slums. Kurosawa stretches for a style that was, in my opinion, his antithesis- that is to say, I feel as if Kurosawa wanted to make an Ozu picture. Poorly paced, poorly conceived, this movie is a rare dud in this auteur body of excellent work. While Ikiru, while being mundane and depressing, was still interesting and well paced, and while Stray Dog depicted the slums and social poverty of Japan without being too heavy handed or boring, do desu ka den has all the somberness that one could expect with its content, with none of the redeeming qualities of earlier Kurosawa pictures.

Be warned, this is not a movie that Kurosawa should be judged by.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Oh man, why? \"Six Degrees\" is a show about this so called theory that we all are linked by someone. If focus on the lives of a group of people and the consequences of their actions.

When I first heard of this show, it didn't caught my attention at all. It seemed too ordinary, actually. Then, i saw some episodes... and loved it! First of all, the characters. They are all well-written and different from each other. There's a alcohol addicted, a woman whose fiancée cheats on her, a woman who just lost her husband, a driver who has a troubled brother and so on... Unlike what we're used to, most of the characters interact with each other in casualties, like in our daily routines. Great! My favourite ones are Mae, Carlos and Whitney.

Then, the cast. They are all great. Jay Hernandez, from \"Hostel\", shows here his acting habilities in a more 3d character than his previous work as Paxton. The other ones give great performances too, specially Campbell Scott, who plays Steven and Bridget Moynahan, who plays Whitney.

Well when i came to IMDb, after watching some episodes, i couldn't believe that it got cancelled. Seriously, i can't understand the low ratings.

It's too bad it didn't have more than one season. It would really be a good show to follow!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have spent the last week watching John Cassavetes films - starting with 'a woman under the influence' and ending on 'opening night'. I am completely and utterly blown away, in particular by these two films. from the first minute to the last in 'opening night' i was completely and utterly absorbed. i've only experienced it on a few occasions, but the feeling that this film was perfect lasted from about two thirds in, right through till the credits came up. everything about this film, from the way it was shot, the incredible performance of Gena Rowlands, the credits, the opening, the music, the plot, the sense of depth, the pace, the tenderness, the originality, the characters, the deft little moments.... for me, is truly sublime. i couldn't agree more with the previous comment about taking it to a desert island because the sheer depth of this film is something to behold. if your unlucky enough to have a house fire, i guarantee that instead of making a last ditch attempt to rescue that stash of money under your bed, you'll be rescuing your copy of this film instead.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar \"nunsploitation\" which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.

Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.

With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Pakeezah has a very interesting history (which is well documented in the 'Trivia' section) about how it came to be. It seems as if destiny conspired to test Kamal Amrohi (the director) while at the same time secretly desiring to see him complete his masterpiece.

Pakeezah rides on metaphors, poetry and visual elocution. As a result the intensity with which emotions come out achieve a dimension which may not be very real but are very effective and leave an impact on the viewer.

Meena Kumari lives the tragedy of Nargis and Sahib Jaan like her own. The other stars of the film, besides her, are Ghulam Mohammed (the music director), Lata Mangeshkar, Naushad (background score) and Joseph Wirsching (the d.o.p). Their music and cinematography leaves you spell bound.

Pakeezah is a classic in world cinema. It reveals new layers to you every time you watch it again. Kamal Amrohi is one of the rare poets of cinema and he left us all a gift.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Steve Carell once again stars in a light romantic movie about choices, family and pressure. By judging on the plot and cover art of the movie I was expecting a flat-out comedy, lots of laughs and unrealistic elements, but I guess I was wrong. Sure the movie had some comedy, but it felt much more of a light Drama to me and Steve Carell once again gave a great performance. The movie itself really tackles true observations and that was a strong element I found. But, the ending felt a little bit rushed and predictable. Through-out, the cinematography was great, the acting was great and the message it delivered was obvious but yet still very important. Though, it came down to old, flat and predictable ending. I'd reckon if different choices were made at the end of the movie (perhaps for the bad, even) this movie would get better publicity. Still a fun movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I know that you've already entered this in film festivals (or at least I think you have, I may just be making that up) but I think this should get \"best animated short film\" in every one. Bravo. I can't wait for the full film. I realize that you may not hear this often enough because of the bizarre nature of your animations, but hear it now and accept it as the truth. Kudos, my friend. Okay, now I'm just trying to get ten lines of text... Though I still mean it. And here comes yet another -SHOE!- and I cannot stop here yet. This is extremely annoying and yet at the same time I have nothing better to do. In fact, I'll probably watch all of your movies in yet another spasmodic \"Jason Steele Marathon.\" I do have a lot of those.

-R", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I already know that critics and some audiences say that it was a satire, there were numerous political and social messages, the names make refer to some other names etc. It might be. I cannot realize such things (I don't want to do anyway) because I am not interested in, I am interested in 'cinema'. As for the movie itself, again it is said that the movie is clever and dramatically powerful. I could not see anything which we don't see in monster movies except the scene which takes place in a office in the second half. Yes, that scene says somethings about humanity, but it does not make the movie brilliant. The movie is entertaining (mildly) and exciting in some moments or scenes, but no more than that. As for the biggest flaw of the movie, it is visual effects. It was just shocking, I could not pull myself together for a while, because I had expected a realistic monster, because it is not one of the old Gojira movies, it was made in 2006, but it was not. It is like if you don't believe that there is a monster, you cannot care about. If you agree with me about this, I highly recommend you Cloverfield that is extremely realistic. The design of the monster is not interesting, but at least planned, there is an effort. Dramatically powerful critique. Some critics talk about it as if it is a Kurosawa movie. Yes, it is rather a drama than a thriller or action, but it should not mean that it is dramatically powerful. I don't want to compare The Host with other monster movies, but I try to mean that The Host does not do something that other monster movies do not do. By the way, may be some people call the movie masterpiece because of their sympathy for Asian cinema. Yes, I like Asian cinema too, but this is the fact.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Simon Pegg plays the part of Sidney Young, a young entertainment writer who has begun the beginnings of a career writing for a grassroots magazine that specializes in badmouthing the shallowness and superficiality of the rich and famous. He is making a career out of lampooning celebrities, although he has a desperate wish to be a celebrity himself. The movie is based on the very bizarre career of Toby Young, who also ran a small magazine in Britain called the Modern Review, which offered scathing criticism of pretty much everything imaginable, until he closed the magazine in a hail of verbal bullets with his co-editor, and then went on to a spectacularly failed career as a writer for Vanity Fair, which is pretty much the part of his life told in this movie.

He is at first thrilled to go work for a major publication (called Sharp's Magazine in the movie), and despite active nerves he is positively beaming on his first day. He meets the chief editor, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges), who is hard as nails but who is also exactly the kind of editor he needs to be for a goof-off like Young to keep his job at the magazine. He offers little in the form of immediate acceptance of Young, but he also has what can only be described as a liberal tolerance of Young's off-the-wall antics and inappropriate behavior.

Much of the comedy in the movie is derived from Young's misunderstanding of or indifference to the generally accepted code of public behavior and the peculiar etiquette involved in dealing with the rich and famous. But Sidney's reasons for acting in such a weird way and for giving outwardly offensive interviews is because he believes that he loathes the entire celebrity culture and, it would seem, he believes in that age-old saying – 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em…and THEN beat 'em.\"

Complicating matters are two very different women. There is a charming, regular girl at the magazine named Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst) who at first is appalled by Sidney's obvious arrogance and womanizing ways, and a stunning model named Sophie (Megan Fox), who represents the celebrity culture. Needless to say, Sidney's endless attack of superficiality and stardom is a superficial lust for Sophie, the one with the look of a star.

Sophie is stunningly beautiful, it's true, but also comes across as having not a single thought rattling around in her head. Alison is a regular girl, not very interesting or attractive, but Dunst's performance makes her a real person. A relationship with her would have all the reality of a Britney Spears marriage, and yet the movie retains some level of believability because, despite how obvious this is, we also feel Sidney's pain in not pursuing her (I felt it, anyway).

How To Lose Friends and Alienate People has a pretty interesting premise and is full of honest, satisfactory performances, and although it turns into a bit of your standard romantic comedy by the third act, it has a variety of well-developed and interesting characters. Danny Huston, for example, gives us a great performance as Alison's other love interest, who pays homage to The Big Lebowski (also starring Bridges) with his ever-present White Russian, one of my personal favorite drinks. Buying Absolute and Kahlua here in China costs the equivalent of about $350, but my kitchen is never without them.

I am looking forward to the day when Simon Pegg will branch out a little bit, because I love his films but I am completely unsure about his range. He played a serious character in Hot Fuzz, but only serious in relation to the lunacy surrounding him, and ultimately went back to being himself again, which he has pretty much been in Shaun of the Dead, Run, Fat Boy, Run, and now How To Lose Friends. He's a rising star, it will be interesting to see what else he can do.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Doyle had never wanted to resurrect Holmes from his joint death with Professor Moriarty in THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM. However,financial considerations made him willing (in 1901) to write THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, which is still considered his best Holmes' novel and possibly his best novel. But it was a \"memoir\" of the great detective, written before his death. Only a greater outcry from his public led Doyle to fully resurrect Holmes in THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE, published in 1905.

It is not that the new short stories (and the last novel) are really bad. Maybe three of the stories are really terrible, but even the terrible ones are very readable. Several of the later ones (like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SOLITARY CYCLIST) are really very good. But the unevenness of production (in particularly after the stories in HIS LAST BOW (1917)) become increasingly apparent. He repeats past story lines, and he shows really negative aspects of Holmes. In the story THE ADVENTURE OF THE THREE GABLES Holmes shows a sneering sarcasm at a character who is of African ancestry.

SPOILER COMING UP:

THE ADVENTURE OF CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON deals with Holmes trying to recover compromising letters from Milverton, a hugely successful blackmailer. It is an interesting example of how Doyle could make a highly readable story with a minimum of plot for there is little real detective work in the tale. Holmes is hired to try to negotiate with Milverton regarding the purchase of the letters, but to get them back no matter what! Milverton proves not only unwilling to consider a smaller amount for the papers but prepared to protect himself from Holmes attempting a search of his person. Later we learn Holmes has gotten into the household of Milverton by romancing a maid while disguised. At the end Holmes goes with Watson to burglarize Milverton's home. He and Watson are in the house when they find that Milverton is awaiting some new business deal in his study (someone with information that Milverton can use). Carefully hiding, Holmes and Watson watch as a woman comes in, who turns out to be a victim of collateral damage from Milverton's past activities, and who shoots the blackmailer to death. Holmes and Watson are able to set fire to Milverton's collection of compromising documents before fleeing the house, and subsequently discover (for themselves) the identity of the woman. The police (under Lestrade) don't discover who the two mysterious men seen running from Milverton's home are, and they are so disgusted by Milverton's activities (they never were able to bring anything home against him) that it is obvious the murder will never be solved.

The tale is not one of the fascinating ones with real detective work involved like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SPECKLED BAND or SILVER BLAZE. It is a tale of mood and late action - the issue being will Holmes and Watson get the papers or will they be caught by Milverton? It is not one of the best stories, but it is in the bulk of the tales as being really well told and interesting.

At the time he wrote CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON, Conan Doyle had an experience with the police regarding his sometimes activities as a highly respected amateur detective/crusader. An artist was found murdered in his studio in London, and Conan Doyle began writing his opinions about how the killing was committed. Then he stopped - apparently warned by his friends at Scotland Yard that the murder did not bare looking into. The victim had been a homosexual, and the police were certain that it was a lover's spat gone horribly wrong. For the sake of the family of the Victim (this was in 1905) Doyle dropped his interest in the case. So he was aware that sometimes the British police behaved with restraint on matters that did not seem to justify their full probing - as Lestrade's restraint towards whoever did kill the villainous Milverton in the story.

Given the description of the story it could have been told in the normal hour long version of the series. But the teleplay for THE MASTER BLACKMAILER spent some time showing the horrible dilemma Milverton's victims (in Victorian/Edwardian England) faced. We see a promising young aristocratic army officer kill himself when faced with a homosexual exposure because of Milverton's extravagant demands, all at the start of the teleplay. And it is not only homosexuals. Men and women of good reputation in heterosexual marriages could be smeared by uncovering illegitimate children or past indiscreet relationships. Indeed, in the story, the woman who kills Milverton is avenging the destruction of her husband (a prominent nobleman) destroyed by the blackmailer.

Milverton is well played at his most poisonous blandness by that fine actor Robert Hardy, who even when confronted by the unexpected furies he has unleashed is totally unperturbed (he looks like he will just have the angry woman showed out of his home in a moment). Brett and Hardwicke do quite well in their Holmes and Watson roles, as to be expected.

How serious was the loss of character by rumor or innuendo in 1905? In 1898 one of the heroes of the various imperial wars, and the leader of the last victorious charge at the battle of Omdurman that destroyed the Mahdist army (see FOUR FEATHERS) was Sir Hector MacDonald. He was governor of Ceylon in 1903 when he suddenly, unexpectedly resigned. Sir Hector returned to London, and shot himself in a hotel while awaiting some sort of hearing. It later came out that \"Fighting Mac\", frequently considered the most popular army commander in Britain, had been caught having sleeping arrangements with native boys. Milverton would have eaten him up very quickly...or his real life counterparts would have.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Lion King 1 1/2\" is the funniest non-theatrical release from Disney. I recently saw this movie again after not seeing it in many years. I remember first time I saw it I didn't had any expectations at all and were pleasantly surprised by this watchable and highly entertaining movie.

Is it better than \"Simba's Pride\"? In many ways, yes. Though \"Simba's Pride\" wasn't exactly bad, it did suffer some problems: lack of an good script and bad characterizations, which made impact of what otherwise a okay film.

Anyway: It's nice to see Timon and Pumbaa's personalities blossom again in the way that we (or certainly me) loved about them in this film; in \"Simba's Pride\" they were completely annoying and I didn't liked the \"Timon and Pumbaa\" series neither.

This film could easily have been a stupid one, but fortunately the filmmakers didn't took the wrong turn and instead focused to make this film at times extremely hilarious. There are a few jokes that adults can enjoy on their own. The score is quite good. There are two new songs, which are catchy and two new characters, Timon's mom, (voiced by recognizable Marge Simpsons' Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max, which are enjoyable. The friendship between Timon and Pumbaa are touchingly portrayed. The emotional scenes are well integrated in the comical story and doesn't feel out of place, which it could have easily done (especially in comedies).

But is there something that distracts this picture from getting 10 votes from me? Yes, there is. Although they fortunately doesn't impact too much, but I'll mention them: 1. Many of the scenes from the first film are used in this one. Personally, it was weird to see the old scenes integrated with the new ones.

2. During the climax, some of the jokes becomes lame.

3. Storywise, this is Timon's story and although the filmmakers try to integrate his tale with Simba's, it makes the screenplay feel a little rushed at times.

But hey, those details doesn't impact this otherwise amusing movie. It is the only really acceptable Disney sequel, which should be in every movie collection.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie was so ridiculous i never even finished watching it i actually thought someone had made their own version and dubbed it onto the DVD from the movie store. This movie made me sick not because it was gory, but because i wasted 2 50 on it!!!! It looks like my brother and i went into a house and made the movie ourselves and edited slaughterhouse footage into it! I am so ticked off, even The BTK Killer deserves more credit than that it was not even accurate i mean come on the cow head was obviously made out of play dough or BUBBLE GUM OMG I cant even get all the words out to explain it DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Well this just maybe the worst movie ever at least the worst movie i have ever seen. They have tried out these 666 child of Satan the anti Christ kinda movies about 1000 times and none of them is good and this just maybe the worst of them. They think that it's going to be better movie as more they use that fake blood. This movie doesn't have any idea in it, actors and filming is just terrible. Cant even make out that 10 line minium of this movie. Really nothing to tell about but that it's just horrible. How they can make movies like that in their right mind just can't understand that. This cant be a Hollywood movie, is it? Just don't go watch this use your money more wisely.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A Chinese scholar who criticizes harshly the arrogant nationalist, warmongering policies of the ruling clique around the emperor in pre-war Japan, is accused of being a 'communist' and jailed for life. His loving wife, who supports totally her husband and his ideas, is left alone to save her family from starvation. This movie is a huge statue erected in praise of the role of the mother in the history of mankind. Sayuri Yoshinaga is not less than sublime in the title role and it was a monumental scandal that she didn't get an Asian Oscar for the best female role in 2009. It went to a young girl with very limited acting potential.

This deeply moving and most 'human' feature is a must see for all 'true children' on earth.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is funny and suitable for any age. It is definitely family-type entertainment. The cast does a fine job playing folks in the mid-western town of Big Bean, Illinois. Where we must assume nothing ever happens since the excitement (pre-invasion) of the decade is the new (and only) exit ramp from the Interstate. The location appeals as suitably boring and totally unlikely for the invasion of earth by Martians. But these Martians are totally inept, despite being well-equipped with an arsenal of suitably ghastly and deadly weapons... including one set on eradicating the Martians, too! The Martians dead-pan their lines and throw in just the right accents to make us the viewers and the locals wish to help them... leave earth. J. J. Anderson playing the very young Halloween carnivorous duck has just great lines. Watch this movie for laugher and entertainment; thought-provoking it isn't. But subtle and enjoyable it is.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is good for TV. I like it because I'm a HUGE fan of disaster films even though this is a family film. Accuracy on the film from the book is half-and-half They got the characters names right but in the book there was no storm chaser, the the car scene involving the Hatch family running away from the tornado wasn't in the book instead it involved Dan hatch and his friend riding with a police officer on their way to the police station for safety. and in the book Dan and his friend are both 12-years old. Thats all i can think of. Overall this was a good movie even though it could of have been a little more accurate to the book. Did you know the book was based on a true story of a series of tornadoes devastating a small Nebraska town in 1980?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film is like marmite. You either love it or you hate it. If you go into this film expecting a proper film with decent production values, a good plot and great characters you'll hate it. If you go into this film expecting a low budget slasher you'll probably hate it.

If you go into this film expecting to see one of the most deranged characters ever put to film in the form of Harry Russo you will love it. John Giancaspro is absolutely brilliant in his over the top portrayal of the insane, murderous coke fiend.

The special effects are abysmal at best but really, who cares? If you're the kind of person who's prepared to watch a film Schizophreniac: The Whore Mangler you've undoubtedly seen scores of horror films filled with gore. With the budget this film was made for even if they had tried it probably would've mediocre at best. I'd much rather be able to laugh at something abysmal than be unaffected by the mediocre.

To sum it up, you'll probably hate this film but if you're one of the few who decide to see it anyway it'll become the best thing since sliced bread #2 I hate marmite.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Also known in a different form as \"House of Exorcism,\" this messy

little film takes itself so seriously as to kill any entertainment value

whatsoever.

The spare plot involves European tourist Elke Sommer who has a

chance run in with Telly Savalas, who looks just like the devil she

saw on a fresco in the square. Sommer is given a ride to a

mysterious house in the country, where Savalas happens to be

butler. There, she is mistaken for a long dead woman, and the real

soap opera theatrics begin. The house's blind matriarch's

husband had an affair with the dead woman, who was the

matriarch's son's fiancee. The couple who gave Sommer the ride?

Well, the woman is giving the chauffeur, uh, \"back seat driving

lessons,\" and the husband knows and does not care. Eventually,

most of the cast is killed, Sommer is drugged and raped,

escapes, and the viewer is taken to a climax on board an empty

airplane...which must have resembled the empty theaters this

thing played in.

The alternate version of this, \"House of Exorcism,\" has scenes

added involving a priest.

The VHS copy of this, from Elite Entertainment, is crystal clear and

letterboxed. There are \"extras\" after the end credits; deleted sex

and gore scenes.

Mario Bava's direction is fast and furious, but his screenplay is

awful. There are half baked ideas, abandoned plotlines, and

stunning conveniences that do nothing more than propel this thing

in some sort of forward direction. You have life like dummies for

practice funerals, the blind matriarch does not act all that blind,

and Savalas is given the same lollipops he had in \"Kojak,\" (who

haunts ya, baby?).

The project seems like they had two name stars, then wrote the

script quickly, something that happens in Hollywood on a daily

occurrence now. Savalas looks completely lost, delivering his

lines haltingly, and wishing his character had not died in \"The Dirty

Dozen.\" Sommer runs around and screams and gasps a lot, but

her character is a blank, I use the term \"character\" loosely. The

only thing we know about her is her name.

This is a real weird film, and your reaction to it might depend on

how heavily you are into Eurohorror, and Kojak. I for one cannot

recomment \"Lisa and the Devil.\"

This is unrated, and including all the extras at the end of the VHS

copy, contains strong physical violence, sexual violence, strong

gore, strong female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, and adult

situations", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I've seen this about 2 or 3 times and haven't regretted it. Homeward bound is not just a typical animal movie. Its unique, fun and bursting with adventure. The things that make it a fun movie are the animals (obvious)who are wonderfully trained. A very good effort.

8.5/10!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When I watched this film the first time, it was a taped copy and the title was/is Caged Terror. I still own the tape, and I confess, I've watched it more than once from beginning to end! The film is extremely low budget and the dialogue is often unintentionally amusing! I have gotten a few of my friends to watch this and we've had some great laughs from the terrible script. The film concerns a couple, (remember this is like early 70's so they are just too hip man!) who go on a week-end camping trip in what I believe was supposed to be upstate NY. They have some hilarious dialogue after catching and eating a fish and the girl bemoans the death of the fish and that they ate it! The guy comes back with something goofy about how they ate the fish and now it was a part of them, and he goes; \"And that's beautiful man!\" Heavy man, really heavy! LOL! Anyway, along come a couple of Vietnam vets, one of who plays the flute, I believe. (At any rate they are musical fellows!) The guys are clearly attracted to the girl and when the couple prove unfriendly, they end up terrorizing them during the night. The guy ends up caged in a chicken coop, and has to watch his girl friend being ravished by the two guys. Actually, by the end of the night, she seems to be pretty into it, and when morning comes, the guys leave and the girl and guy are free to leave. Supposedly the guy has learned a lesson about how to treat people, and the girl has a smile on her face! :) Anyway, I would recommend this film highly to anyone looking for a damn good laugh! It never fails to amuse me anyway! If I could find this on DVD and replace my old tape copy, I'd actually buy it again, it's classic camp! You gotta love this stuff!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Falls into the film category of \"Way too ridiculous in the dialogue and execution departments to be taken seriously\". Whereas Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth or My Boyfriend's Back know they are bad, Scarecrows doesn't. Evil Dead set such a high standard for the comedic horror on a budget genre, that Scarecrows is simply out of place.

Suspicions of inexperience are immediately at play as there are no hints of noise or vibration in the hull and cockpit of an airborne plane. The repeated display of a picture of 3 men just screams for a story arc, but nothing comes. Although the men are obviously the scarecrows, there is no explanation.

Knowing this film is too serious for it's own good may produce some grins. I don't recall if Joe Bob Briggs ever previewed Scarecrows, but I believe that he wouldn't stoop this low. However, with an IMDb rating of over 6, there are many people that disagree.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Not only was this movie better than all the final season of H:LOTS. But it was better than any movie made for TV I have ever seen!

Looking at the \"Top 250\" I see that only one small screen movie has made it: How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I think it is time to increase that group to 2.

I will admit that the original series had several shows that were better than this, but I didn't mind. I just LOVED being able to enter the world of the Baltimore Homicide Squad again!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I do not expect this film to be well understood by viewers out of Romania. This tells something certainly about the value, or maybe about the lack of universality of the film, but also tells something about how different history and even life of common people was in Romania compared to other countries, even in Eastern Europe.

The film is an adaptation of a novel by Marin Preda, a controversial novelist who died during the Communist rule soon after the book was published. It tells the story of an intellectual, professor of philosophy whose life is crushed after he is imprisoned on false accusations at the end of the Stalinist era. Basically the first part of the film tells the story of his fight for survival in prison, the second describes his tentative to regain his life after being released. His release is actually only apparent, Romania of the 60s asks from him different types of compromises and crimes, but yet his fight for survival is as tough morally as in prison.

The film is splendidly acted by some of the best Romanian actors. Stefan Iordache who has the lead role would be in another time and another place a mega-star, we can get here a good glimpse of his fabulous acting art. Although suffering from a hesitant story-telling and falling sometimes in non-essential details or character comics, the film is still an important landmark for the Romanian cinema, as well as for the process of recovering the moral and historic values in the Romanian society.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Although this film was made before Dogme emerged as the predominant method of filmmaking, and before digital triumphed over -- strike that. You get the point. This 1991 masterpiece clearly anticipated those developments. Corin Nemec is just outstanding as the ne'er do well author and narrator. The pace is slow, but elegantly so, because the cinematography is so beautiful. Record it the next time its on T.V., because I guarantee you'll never see a better nostalgia rip-off made-for- T.V. movie. Direct-to-video never felt so good!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In this 1943 film, Judy Garland is deemed not to be ready for the big-time yet by the man who loves her-Van Heflin. This film was certainly a big change for Mr. Heflin, especially after his supporting Oscar win the year before in \"Johnny Eager.\"

Wasn't Spring Byington too old to be the widowed mother of 5 children, with four of them appearing to look like her grandchildren?

The singing and dancing are just marvelously staged but the way that the blossoming romance between Heflin and Garland was depicted left a lot to be desired. It was a Gigi-like one where a young girl is eventually swept off her feet by a charmer.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, \"Aerobicide\" is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah…). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called \"Surf Nazis Must Die\". What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. \"Aerobicide\" (a.k.a. \"Killer Workout\") is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with \"Death Spa\". Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes … and both films are pretty dumb.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "HLOTS was an outstanding series, its what NYPD Blue will never be, on HLOTS the plots are real, the dialog is real, the Relationships are real. With HLOTS back as a movie, Tying up all the loose ends, it was good to have all the gang back together, even a few that passed away show up (wont say how) The storyline was fast paced, emotional and full of the spirit the series had week in and week out. Homicide , Life on the Streets, Network drama at Its BEST!!!! 5 STARS!!!! Thumbs UP and all That. Thanks NBC for giving us the Finally we didn't get!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "'Succubus', the edited version of 'Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden', is a struggle to sit through, even at a lean 76 minutes; any more of this dreadfully boring and pretentious Euro horror tripe and I may have slipped into a coma.

Jess Franco once again delivers a truly awful piece of 60s trash that appears to have been made by a cast and crew out of of their heads on Class A hallucinogenics, since not one second of this mess made any sense whatsoever. Apparently, this is one of the better of his 180+ films – it's hard to believe that there are worse efforts out there.

The unfathomable plot deals with Franco's usual themes of sex, violence and lesbianism and throws in a bit of S&M for good measure, and yet it still manages to remain mind numbingly tedious.

I may leave it quite a while before entering the world of dodgy Euro Horror again – life is too short to be spent watching bilge like this.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Choke starts as a rock band known as The Choke prepare for a gig at a nightclub called 'Club 905' owned & run by Guy Johnson (Andrew Parker). Lead singer Dylan (Sean Cook) & guitar player Mike (Jason McKee) plan to tell the other band members, bass player London (Brooke Bailey) & drummer Nancy (Tom Olson), that they are both going solo & their services won't be needed any longer. Once at the club Dylan prepares but Mike doesn't show up & the gig turns into a disaster. Then just as the band think things couldn't get any worse they find a dead body in the cellar, that all the doors have been locked so they can't get out & that they can't trust anyone as a mysterious killer begins picking them off one-by-one...

Produced & directed by Juan A. Mas The Choke is a standard by-the-numbers teen slasher that really doesn't have anything going for it. The script by Jessica Dolan & Susannah Lowber (not too many horror films out there penned by ladies...) has some surprisingly good character's in it & some nifty dialogue but while it's much better than a lot of modern shot on a camcorder type horror in that respect it's so slow & boring that even a few interesting character's can't come anywhere close to saving it. As one would expect all the usual teen slasher clichés are used, from the isolated location the victims can't escape from, the cast of good looking teenagers who keep splitting up, a few murders & a really poor twist ending that tries to mimic something like Scream (1996) & be surprising but doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it logically (they couldn't have done some of the things they were supposed to) & to make matters even worse I guessed who the killer was fairly early on & even though I don't want to boast I was spot on. Then there's the fact that the makers of The Choke felt that it's audience would be entertained by showing endless (well it feels endless while watching it) scenes of teenagers walking around dark corridors doing nothing in particular, I am sorry but there is only so many scenes like this that I can take before it starts to become tedious. The kill count is low, at first they all decide to stick together (good idea) but then they all just randomly decide to split up & go their separate ways (bad idea when there's a killer on the loose), the pace is lethargic, the kill scenes are unimaginative & to top it all off the twist ending is poor.

Director Mas does alright, the film looks OK for the most part although there are the odd occasions where he uses some annoying post production editing technique like slow motion or frame skipping. The gore levels aren't really up to scratch, there's some blood splatter, a guy with a hole in his chest, a few dead bodies & someone impaled on some metal poles. Most of the kills happen off screen with the axe kill at the end a good example of the film not actually showing anything. Since the film is about a rock band there's quite a rock orientated soundtrack with some truly horrible, horrible rock songs used on it. I am sorry rock fans but to my ears this crap is just noise pollution. It's not scary, there's no real atmosphere & the lack of blood & gore is just inexcusable when the rest of the film is so bad.

With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 The Choke is well made with reasonable production values, it looks cheap to be sure but not as cheap as many low budget horror films look. Shot in a place called Spokane in Washington apparently. The acting is one of the films strongest points as it's generally pretty good all round, I mean no-one is going to win an Oscar but it ain't half bad.

The Choke is a throughly routine Scream style teen slasher that has one of the weakest twist endings ever & a criminal lack of blood, gore, violence, nudity & dead bodies. I mean if a slasher hasn't got any sex or gore then what's the point? Those are the only things that the average slasher is worth watching for, right?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Return To the Lost World was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 version of The Lost World.

In this sequel, the same five people, lead by Challenger return to the plateau where a group has started drilling for oil which is threatening to destroy the land. Gomez has something to do with this. They manage to defeat the drillers and the plateau is saved, much to the delight of the natives.

Like in The Lost World, what few dinosaurs we see are made of rubber and these include a T-Rex and Ankylosaurus.

John Ryhs-Davies and David Warner reprise their roles as Challenger and Summerlee and three of the other actors are also back.

Despite reading several bad reviews of this and those cheap looking rubber dinosaurs, I enjoyed Return to the Lost World.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Peaceful rancher Robert Sterling is on the losing side of a range war with his ruthless neighbors, that is until notorious outlaw Robert Preston shows up out of the blue to level the playing field. Soon he begins to go too far, feeding a growing sense of unease in Sterling, especially when his son begins to idolize the wily criminal.

The Sundowners is a tightly-paced, gritty, and surprisingly tough little picture with a great performance by Preston. Here, he comes across as an evil version of Shane, that is until the real nature of the rancher and the outlaw's relationship is revealed. Most movie guides and video boxes spoil the surprise!

Rounding out the cast is Chill Wills, Jack Elam, and the debut of John Drew Barrymore, who became more famous for his offspring than his acting.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!

I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV !", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A tragically wonderful movie... brings us to a Japan that does not exist anymore. Despite Hollywood's technical expertise, I have yet to see a (hollywood) movie that can match the authenticity of the atmosphere in this small town by the river near the sea... Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai looked liked the last installment of the Lord of The Rings in trying to capture rural Old Japan.

If you like serene but intense story lines, this is a must see film. It will be a respite from hollow flashy films much like the last 1000 blockbusters you saw. I think this is one of Kurosawa's better stories.

Even if it's a movie about geishas and brothels and the complicated rules that govern life in such settings, it did not turn into a skin flick. The characters are full of depth and act with much intensity.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I love special effects and witnessing new technologies that make science fiction seem real. The special effects of this movie are very good. I have seen most of this movie, since it's been airing on HBO for the past couple of months. I must admit, I MAY have missed a few scenes, but I'm usually drawn into movies, and have seen some scenes more than once. But every time I see some of \"Hollow Man,\" I feel depressed, almost like a \"film noir.\" I'm not sure why; perhaps it's that I don't want Kevin Bacon to be evil, and there's disappointment in that. But I think it's witnessing just HOW relentlessly evil he becomes. Regardless, I can recommend this movie for excitement (although some parts move slowly), but I do NOT recommend for youngsters under the age of 14 (perhaps 12, if they are mature).", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I tried twice to get through this film, succeeding the first time - and it was like pulling teeth - and failing the second time despite a great DVD transfer. The problem? It's simply too boring.

If you can get to the dramatic courtroom scene, which takes up most of the second half of the film, you have it made, but it's tough getting to that point. There are some interesting talks by \"Abraham Lincoln\" (Henry Fonda) during the trial. The ending is touching as Lincoln walks off and they superimpose his Memoral statue over the screen.

It's a nice story, well-acted and such....but it lacks spark in the first half and discourages the viewer from hanging in there. I suspect the real Abe Lincoln was a lot more interesting than this film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Not a movie, but a lip synched collection of performances from acts that were part of the British Invasion, that followed the dynamic entrance of the Beatles to the music world. Some of these acts did not make a big splash on this side of the pond, but a lot of them did. Featured are: Herman's Hermits, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Peter and Gordon, Honeycombs, Nashville Teens, Animals, and of course,the Beatles.

It is so much fun watching these young acts before they honed and polished their acts.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Presenting Lily Mars may have provided Judy Garland with one of the easier roles she had while at MGM because Lily Mars is definitely a character she could identify with. A young girl with talent enough for ten, she knows she has what it takes to make it in the theater no matter how much producer Van Heflin from her home town discourages her.

I really liked Judy in this one as the girl determined to make it in the theater. Because it is Judy Garland with the talent of Judy Garland you in the audience know she has the right stuff even if it takes Van Heflin nearly the whole movie to be convinced.

Both Judy and Heflin hail from the same small town, Heflin's dad was the town doctor who delivered her and Heflin while he may have moved away and become a big producer on Broadway, their respective moms, Fay Bainter and Spring Byington have kept in touch. That's her entrée, but Heflin's constantly barraged with stagestruck kids, but never anyone quite like Lily Mars.

No real big song hits came out of Presenting Lily Mars for Garland, though she sings all her numbers. The best in the film is a revival of that gaslight era chestnut, Every Little Movement Has A Meaning All Its Own. Judy sings it with Connie Gilchrist playing the cleaning lady in a Broadway theater where Heflin's show is being produced. Gilchrist was a star back in the days of the FloraDora Girls and she and Judy deliver the song in grand style with Connie. It's the best scene in the film as Gilchrist encourages Judy to keep at it. Composer Karl Hoschna had died a long time ago, but lyricist Otto Harbach was still alive and I'm betting he liked what he heard.

European musical star Marta Eggerth is in Presenting Lily Mars as the show's star who's at first bemused, then angry and finally, understanding of Garland and Heflin. She did a couple of films with MGM and then went back to Europe for more work on the continent. I'm betting MGM didn't quite know what to do with her and her thick Hungarian accent, though Louis B. Mayer never met a soprano he didn't like.

Van Heflin does well as the patient producer who puts up with a lot from Garland and Eggerth. Heflin was just coming off his Oscar for Johnny Eager the previous year and he and Garland wouldn't appear to be an ideal screen team, but they're not bad together.

Presenting Lily Mars is a fine showcase for the talents of Judy Garland. And she didn't have to share the screen in another backstage film with Mickey Rooney.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Having the opportunity to watch some of the filming in the Slavic Village-Broadway area I couldn't wait to see it's final copy.

Viewing this film at the Cleveland Premier last Friday, I haven't laughed out loud at a comedy in a long time! It is great slapstick. The Russo Brothers did a fine job directing. The entire cast performs their best comedic acting... No slow or dry segments... George Clooney is one of my favorite actors and he's great as the crippled safe breaker in this flick. I was most imprest by William H. Macy as crook \"Riley\" and Michael Jeter's as \"Toto\" they keep you in \"stitches\". I believe they have the funniest roles in the entire movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is a crappy and forgettable Sean Connery vehicle. The performances are generally crappy especially by Capshaw, Fishburne, and the usually solid Ed Harris. Connery seems miscast as a Harvard Academic. The movie absolutely gets worse as it goes along. It is a third rate mystery that becomes extremely contrived by the time it unravels. The movie squanders an excellent supporting cast. George Plimpton also turns up in a minor role to add some gravitas to Connery as they debate the death penalty. The violence and the atmosphere pepper a third rate mystery/thriller that is manipulation to the highest degree. The scripting and direction are extremely poor. Connery's charisma and screen presence are the film's only virtue. Manipulative, Violent, and Ridiculous. 2/10 Avoid It.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Sly's best out and out action film. It is a superbly enjoyable movie with some interesting characters, solid performances and Renny Harlins direction is stylishly assured. Stallone is rarely this interesting in his action films and he certainly looks the part in terms of the action scenes. This was one of the best action films of the year and one of the most thrilling and enjoyable of the 90's, a definite genre classic. As a Stallone fan this is one I look back on with fond memories. Plenty of superb action and Sly in prime action man form. Action lovers appreciate this film because it has all the hallmarks that make a good aciton film. The film looks great and there is great support from Janine Turner, Michael Rooker and John Lithgow. ****", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Really, the use of stock nature documentary of swarming bats employed by THE BAT PEOPLE is some of the most effective ever. There are shots of teeming bats hanging from the ceilings of caves, swarming bats flying out of caves or swirling about near the mouths of caves. That alone is enough to be unsettling: Imagine all of them swarming after you? And they do indeed swarm in what should have been a show-stopper sequence that happened at about the forty minute mark, a downright inappropriately hilarious sequence where a teeming swarm of bats seem to attack a police car, splattering across the windshield like bloody broken eggs. The problem is that this sequence happens about fifty minutes too late to save the film, most of which consists of one or more people running around, screaming, waving their arms about at jabbering excitedly about some poor goofball who managed to get bitten by a bat during his vacation.

The fear is that he is coming down with rabies, which does indeed suck, so their vacation is ruined, as the plot synopsis on the top of THE BAT PEOPLE's reference page does indeed point out. So here is an effective summary of the movie: A young couple goes on a romantic getaway which is ruined when the guy is bitten by a bat. They bravely try to stick it out but he starts raving, trying to convince those around him that it's a bit more involved than rabies, that he can't control himself, and they everyone should KEEP AWAY.

Now, when some one is frothing at the mouth, covered with sweat, eyes boggling about like one of the cheaper Muppets and screaming at you to GET AWAY FROM ME, you get away from him. You don't try to give him drugs, you don't try to tell him you love him, you give the guy his space, go home, and try that scenic getaway next year.

But no, the people in this movie all behave like morons, insist on pushing the guy to his brink, and he flips out, mutates into a part man part bat type creature, and kills a bunch of non-essential secondary characters. Nothing wrong with that, but the movie forgets that it's a low budget Creature Feature and tries to be some sort of psychological study. Instead of a monster movie, we get lots of people running around trying to get this guy to take a chill pill, and eventually he runs off into the hills looking very much more human than he should have, people insist on trying to chase him down and pay the expected price.

The main thing wrong with the movie is that this should have happened in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, thirty tops, and the movie should have been about the guy AFTER he had turned into a Bat Person, rather than about the journey there. It takes a good eighty minutes to really pick up steam on that front, with some interesting character sketches along the way involving the always entertaining Michael Pataki as a small town cop who's lost his moral edge, and the late Paul Carr as a physician friend who doesn't quite get the message.

The movie is dreadfully boring, about fifteen minutes too long and missed the opportunity to be a nice, forgettable little Creature Feature about a mutant run amok like the Italian horror favorite RATMAN, which I watched today and was sadly inspired to try this one after seeing. Me and my bright ideas, though the scene with the cop car was a howler: Too bad we couldn't have had another twenty minutes of that.

3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is not a kung fu movie. This is a comedy about kung fu. And if, before making this film, Sammo Hung hadn't spent some time watching films by the great French comic filmmaker Jaques Tati (i.ie., e.g., esp. Jour de fête), he is certainly on the same wave length.

Personally, I think Tati's films are hilarious; but they're not to all tastes. Some have told me that they loathe his work. I've never figured out why, but I think it's because the character that Tati usually plays himself is so totally dead pan, so unaffected by the events around him (which he is usually causing) that many miss the more subtle comic bits happening around him.

At any rate, Tati's main shtick - or at least his best known - is to take a pretentiously upright petite bourgeoisie with 19th century sensibilities and drop him into 20th century France where he must confront a society that is largely defined by the gradual eroding of those sensibilities. He usually has serious difficulties with little things like record players or radios. He's a hazard in a car, but the world's no safer when he rides a bicycle. But through it all, he never loses his aplomb, which is derived from his inner recognition that the nineteenth century was more interesting than the 20th overall.

In a similar fashion, the character Sammo Hung himself plays is a country boy come to the big city of Hong Kong, utterly convinced that what makes the city interesting is that Bruce Lee made kung fu movies there. This gets him into trouble in small ways, since he takes in stride happenstance which would never be noticed in a small town but which are deemed inappropriate in a big city - such as the moment when he appears to be urinating in the street, A cop stops him, only to discover that Hung is actually just squeezing water out of his shirt, soaked during an accidental dip in the bay. What's interesting about this gag is why it is Hung doesn't understand what the cop's fuss is all about - in a country town, as long as no one's looking, if you gotta go you gotta go. In other words, Hung is not really urinating in the street - but he certainly would - and what's the problem officer? Of course Hung's obsession with Bruce Lee also gets him into big troubles as well. He beats a gang of thugs who have refused to pay his restaurant-owner uncle. Of course, in a Bruce Lee movie, the thugs would be considered trounced, and they would have learned their lesson. But in Hung's Hong Kong, reality unfortunately prevails, and the thugs return when he's not around, to trounce his uncle.

Of course, Hung finally triumphs in the end, just as Tati always did. Characters like this must always triumph (at least in comedy) because they are completely innocent, and as such, despite their comic missteps and misunderstandings, they really represent what is best in the humans we admire and wish to be. We don't really want to be Bruce Lee (who has to experience the loss of all of his friends before he gets a chance to beat the bad-guy), we, in our own innocence, really want a world where Lee's heroics are possible.

Unfortunately, that world only exists on film.

\"Ah, but what if...?\" - and in that question we find Sammo Hung at his comic best.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Dick Tracy is easily the best comic book based movie made to date. The movie has the same feel as the comic book, staying true to the color scheme. The Batman series has climbed, fallen, climbed and fallen again. Dick Tracy has true staying power as something that both adults and children can enjoy. The good guys triumph over evil, without blood and gore to get the point across. Al Pacino does a wonderful job of his own adaptation of Big Boy Caprice and Madonna is memorable as Breathless. But the best job by far is Warren Beatty who just epitomizes Dick Tracy just as he did with Clyde Barrows. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD on April 2, 2002, my tape is wearing thin.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie catches a lot of flak, but this is usually based on the horrible looking and covered / clothed version of the film that played US television and has also been issued to death on VHS and DVD buy companies like Alpha, Unicorn, etc. This movie never had a theatrical release in the states, although it was picked up by Avco Embassy in 1973. In Spain at the time, when there was nudity involved, the filmmakers shot two versions, one with clothes and one with out. The fully uncut English dubbed export print was titled WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS and seems to have been released to home video only in Sweden back in the 80's. It can be found on Ebay and the likes and comes highly recommended. My guess is Avco cut the film down for a R rated release that never happened. In 1974 it was released by Avco to television titled FURY OF THE WOLFMAN and the clothed version was used for this TV print. Cut to 12 years later and FURY OF THE WOLFMAN pops up on home video on the Charter label. This version appears to be what Avco was going to release back in '73. It's the uncovered version, with some nudity that would never pass on TV or in a PG movie. There are several scenes on the Charter tape that play out with nudity that are clothed in the TV print ( the source for all those dollar Dud's and VHS editions ). But a comparison to the fully uncut WOLFMAN NEVER SLEEPS reveals that 2 scenes are cut on this version! ( spoilers in next paragraph ) The scene where Ilona has Waldermar chained to the wall and whips him after he transforms into the werewolf is incomplete. After whipping him into submission, she starts to remove her clothes and begins making love to the werewolf!!! The werewolf responds positively to these sexual shenanigans too. This scene certainly ranks as one of the most unusual in the history of horror films and is a delirious treat. It's not graphic but the implied bestiality was too much for US audiences, or more likely the MPAA. Ilona is desperately in love with Waldemar and could not possess him, hence her whole scheme to mind control Waldermar's wife and involve her in an affair. She wanted to wreck his marriage, and she accomplishes this while Waldemar is in Tibet. Unfortunately he returns a werewolf, but this does not slow her down a bit. If she can't physically have him as a man, she loves him enough to have sex with him as a werewolf. This also helps explain the later scene where the werewolf beds down with a woman he spots getting naked before bedtime while peeping through her window. This scene is presented sans nudity in the covered version and really makes no sense. In the uncut version, it would seem Ilona's affections have made the werewolf horny and in need of release, so he rapes the first woman he can after escaping. The other cut is a complete scene of Waldemar in bed with Karen and she is seen naked. A very similar bedroom scene was cut out of the US version of WEREWOLF SHADOW ( WEREWOLF VS THE VAMPIRE WOMAN ) as well. The film does have it's problems though, for certain. The director was drunk, the bad stand in for the werewolf at points, the atrocious English dubbing, the inclusion of sequences from the first Waldemar film MARK OF THE WOLFMAN aka FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR and the grotesque overuse of that film's music score throughout etc, but seen in it's original widescreen format and uncut ( ie: WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS ) it is one of the wildest and most outrageous of the Daninsky werewolf series, with a plot line unmatched in it's everything but the kitchen sink approach. The cut / clothed pan and scan full screen copies of this film do it no favors, and unfortunately that's the version almost everyone commenting on the film have seen. The film carries a 1970 copyright, and I'd bet the 1972 release date on the IMDb is incorrect. The film precedes WEREWOLF SHADOW ( aka WEREWOLF VS THE VAMPIRE WOMAN ) in the series and was certainly released before WEREWOLF SHADOW. The ending of WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS / FURY OF THE WOLFMAN dovetails directly into the opening of WEREWOLF SHADOW, offering concrete evidence of this. Sadly a complete version of this may never get a decent release. A perfect release would be the uncut English version but in Spanish with English subtitles. The English dubbing severely hurts the movie. But any Spanish language version would reflect the covered version as shown in Spain during the Franco era, where nudity was verboten.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The plot didn't make a whole lot of sense and the acting was awful. I'm a big fan of Amber Benson, I think she's usually a wonderful actress, I can't imagine why she decided to do this film. Her character, Piper, is drunk for almost the whole film, with the exception of the opening scene. On the plus side, there was several points in the film where the acting was so bad, I actually laughed out loud. But despite that, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's only 80 minutes long, but that's 80 minutes of your life that you will have completely wasted.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Esther Kahn is a young Jewish woman living in an overcrowded, Jewish Ghetto in 19th century England. She is surrounded by looming, oppressive, dreary, featureless, worn brick architecture, narrow sidewalks and streets, blacked out windows, and hordes of black-and-brown jacketed crowds.

She lives in a tiny apartment with her large family whom operate a clothes shop within the apartment. As child, she worked, had no privacy, wore colourless clothing, shared a bed, and remained silent to avert the mockery of her mother and siblings who ridiculed her for mimicking them out of boredom.

As a young woman, her life remains the same - she has no privacy, lives in a state of mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and inertia, exudes a blank, featureless expression, is clothed in plain, unremarkable clothing, and is continuously oppressed and dwarfed by the grey, mundane, massively imposing buildings, and narrow streets, and narrow hallways, and narrow doorways, and her loud-mouthed mother and siblings, and the prosaic, banal lifestyle of her family.

Her only form of mental escape is the Yiddish theatre. Sitting in the balcony, front row, leaning over the rail, there is a vast space between her mind and the stage, a space that enables her to breathe, think, feel, and yearn.

Yet despite the freedom of thought the open stage provides for Esther, her face and body remain torpidly somnolent, impassive, dispassionate.

The plain and common looking Summer Phoenix brilliantly conveys Esther's emotionless demeanour - Summer/Esther does not convey any desire to want anything or anticipate anything.

After an unusual explosive confrontation with her mother, Esther finally decides to break free from the bleak life she is trapped in.

She is eventually cast in minor parts in a few stage plays, and meets Nathan Quellen, portrayed by quintessential British actor Ian Holm, who commences to teach Esther the technical skill of acting.

From this point forward, Esther begins a grueling dual journey of learning how to act and learning how to feel.

She begins experiencing emotions she never felt before, and she begins gaining the experience she needs to fully comprehend and wield the technical aspects of acting.

Nathan walks her across the stage through the physical and emotional steps of surprise, hesitancy, anger, disgust, self-loathing, etc; she then begins walking through those emotions in her personal life.

There are three truths, Nathan tells her - the truth of how a character reacts, the truth of how the actor would react, and the truth that a character and actor are not the same person.

These technical steps and three truths slowly deconstruct Esther's defenses and lead her to two edifying experiences in the denouement of the film which mark the beginning of her freedom of thought, movement, and emotion.

Esther Kahn is a technically challenging film to watch because of its odd and narrow camera shots, lackluster photo direction which conveys the realistic lackluster setting of the Ghetto, and Summer Phoenix's characterless and insipid and unappealing portrayal which brilliantly conveys Kahn's mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and lackluster nature.

A must-see film for people who want to learn the technical craft of acting, and for people who appreciate minimalistic films and character studies.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Kate Beckinsale steals the show! Bravo! Too bad Knightly ins't as good looking as Jeremy Northam. Mark Strong did a fabulous job. Bernard Hepton was perfect as Emmas father. I love the end scene (which is an addition to the novel-but well written) when the harvest is in and Knightly dines with his workers and high society friends. Emma must show that she accepts this now. She is a changed woman. That is too much too quick, but OK. I'll buy into it. Samantha Bond plays Emma's ex-governess and confidant. She is wonderful. just as I would have imagined her. I believe that when the UK does a Jane Austen its the best. American versions of English literature are done for money and not for quality. See this one!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "i am totally addicted to this show. i can't wait till the week goes by to see the next showing. it's a great story line and it has the best actors and actresses on the show. i will tune in every week to watch it even if i am not home i always have my vcr set to tape monarch cove. simon rex is the best actor on the show. it is suspenseful and exciting. i think this show should stay on the air and i believe everyone should tune in to watch it. i saw the very first episode and actually i wasn't going to watch it but i was watching lifetime one day and i decided to watch it because it was on and i absolutely love it and right now it's my favorite show. i am really mean it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Of all the versions of the Odyssey (or of any Greek mythological story for that matter), this in my opinion is the best of them all. Almost true to the original storyline - with some minor deviations and omissions, e.g. the absence of Scylla & Charybdis and the fact that Eumaeus the swineherd recognizes Odysseus in disguise in his hut - realistic acting and authentic scenery and costumes all contribute to make this a truly memorable masterpiece,not some Hollywoodish sword-and-sandal B-flick. Notwithstanding the fact that the dialogue and subtitles are completely in Italian, if one is familiar with the storyline, he can still make heads and tails of what is going on and what the actors are saying (provided you have a good handy text of the Odyssey at hand). At least I did, and so much so that it has inspired me to study the Italian language to better appreciate the movie even more.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.

I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005). I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music. (Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's. Esther had no uncle. Charlie Drake never played Krook in either version, nor did he play Toby Esterhase in TTSS! Krook is played by comedian Johnny Vegas in the 2005 version. Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.

Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel. Now read the book! It's not perfect, and the sentimentality may make you wince at times, but I defy you not to cry - and laugh!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have loved this movie since I first saw it in 1979. I'm still amazed at how accurately Kurt Russell portrays Elvis, right down to how he moves and the expressions on his face. Sometimes its scary how much he looks, acts, and talks like the real Elvis. Thankfully this is being released on DVD, so all of us that have been waiting can finally have an excellent quality version of the full length film. I have heard the detractors, who say that there are some inaccuracies, or some things left out, but I think that keeping in mind that John Carpenter only had about 2 1/2 hours to work with, and that this was being shown on television (just two years after Elvis's death!) that he did a fine job with this. In fact I haven't seen another Elvis movie that even comes close to this one. Highly recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Biggest one that bugs the hell out of me is that they say Zues takes DUTCH commands. But she is speaking German to him. The 2 languishes are completely different, its like saying \"well he takes French commands\" and start talking Spanish.

James Belushi gives more the feeling of being a comedy actor not a detective in the slightest. The role just doesn't fit him, even if its mend to be a comedy.

To many stereotype/predicable stuff. Typical comment or comebacks.

If you don't look at those things i think it could be a nice movie to watch if its ever on TV. But i wouldn't suggesting renting it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"The Man In The Attic\" is a movie set in the 1910s. It is inspired by a true story. Unfortunately, it's a story that really didn't need to be told.

Looking at the box, the people responsible for packaging the movie tried their best to make this film appear steamy and erotic. They use terms such as \"illicit passion\", \"forbidden affair\", and \"unlimited pleasures\". They even show a picture of Neil Patrick Harris (little Doogie Howser, M.D.) holding a gun!

The story involves Krista, played by Anne Archer. She is unhappily married to a gentleman who owns his own business. Edward (Harris) is an employee of her husband's company. Krista and Edward end up falling in love with each other.

The supposedly \"shocking\" part of the movie is this: Krista's husband finds out about the affair and forbids them from ever seeing each other again. So what do they decide to do? Krista ends up having Edward live up in their attic. Wow! Krista ends up seeing someone else and Edward gets extremely jealous. So on and so on and so on.

\"The Man In The Attic\" doesn't cover any new territory. It's a Showtime original picture, which explains why the stars are a couple of B-list actors and both appear briefly in the buff.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "War Inc. is a funny but strange film. The actors are likable, the film is likable also, but I don't know how to describe the plot. I will go into the plot later on. This is a movie with some weird casting choices. Besides John Cusack as a hit-man, which we saw years ago in Grosse Point blank which I liked.

Here we have Hilary Duff playing a Russian pop star named Yonica Babyya or something like that. Her character is odd. There is a scene where she sticks a scorpion down her pants. And hits on Hauser(Cusack). There is a twist in the end involving the two characters. It makes sense.

That is the only casting choice I am going into. Cause it just plain strange. The whole movie is strange. But at times incredibly funny and I was never bored. Here we have some of the best actors out there. Excluding Miss Duff. She ain't great. But here we have John Cusack, Marisa Tomeii, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley. See what I mean?

This is the story of a hit-man named Hauser(Cusack). He is sent down to some Middle Eastern city to put a hit on an oil man named Omar Sheriif(not the actor). While trying to deal with his own personal problems, he has to help out the wedding of a popstar(played by Hilary Duff). And he falls in love with a news reporter(played by Marisa Tomeii). There is a thing about the popstar though. Hauser is disgusted by her. There is a scene where she is singing a song to him and afterwards he throws up.

The twist in the end of the film reveals kind of why. The thing about the twist is that I did kind of see it coming. But that doesn't matter. This is a strange, funny, and entertaining comedy. I love most of the actors. So really, how could I not recommend it?

War,Inc.:3.5/5", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Well, i could nt get into the plot, but thats just me maybe. Listless camera-movements at times, nevertheless this movie has got a charming vintage quality.The acting is genuine at times and entertaining with the occasional chase sequence involving scantily clad ladies, which was nice. The climax is confused and disjointed, but still ...err riveting, thanx to Stella Stevens.

The stunts are interesting, specially because of the 70's las vegas backdrop. There are a few jerky hand-held camera-movements at the end, which keep me guessing, for a while. But i don't think I ll b chasing the DVD, just yet.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Eight Simple rules started as a very entertaining series. I love John Ritter and his character Paul Hennessey and the relationship he had with his children was the best part of the show.

I have always preferred Kerry to Bridget, Bridget has been done before, Kerry is quite unique and i can relate to her in many ways, although i'm not sure i like the direction her character went in later series.

Early episodes were fun, good simple teenage plots about Paul and Cate disciplining the kids, however i think the show lost it's sparkle when John Ritter died. I admired the cast and crew for wishing to continue the series but when he died, i felt the programme did to. To me the whole point of the show was based around the guide of the '8 simple rules of dating my teenage daughter' it was written by a real man with teenage daughters and the relevance and the angle of the show had changed without the Hennessey dad.

Bridget seemed to get more annoying, Rory stayed the same and Cate was always giving her offspring life's lessons which before seemed funnier when it was all left to Paul. I think the Granddad is funny (Especially when he's watching Great escape) but feel C.J is unnecessary to the show. He is funny in parts but I felt the story lines at the time of his arrival were very similar to other American comedy series. Over all the newer ones aren't bad just missing excitement and does anyone else find it irritating that Cate works at the school and C.J and Granddad's always there too? I would always recommend this show to friends as it was very strong at the beginning and well worth watching for Paul and Kerry, but later ones were about average at best.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Tara Reid as an intellectual, Christian Slater(usually great) as a dollar store Constantine and Stephen Dorff as...well it's STEPHEN DORFF FOR Christ SAKE!!!! I personally just want to thank those brilliant casting directors for the hard work and effort. You guys are on. Heres an idea, just my humble lowly opinion as the movie going public but it follows directly with your previous choices,a movie about the most brilliant neuro-physicist in history invent one pill to cure all diseases ever known to man and get this, heres the clincher they have to be played by Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton. I knew you guys would love that. Seriously though you owe me $7.50.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable.

But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.

Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Having seen the first ten episodes, I must say this show sucks.

What bothers me the most, is that the show was shot in Canada. I know it's cheaper, but they should have shot it in California, so we could have had scenes in the desert. That would have been more true to the movie. The first scene where they are outside in another world is in the mountains, with lots of pinetrees where it looks cold. That does'nt feel very Egyptian. What worked so well in the movie was that it felt like you were in the ancient Egypt. Here it feels like they're running around fighting aliens in a Canadian forrest. And it's so lame that appaerantly, on other planets, the fall comes as well. You can see leaves on the ground in the forrests that all look like forrests outside Vancouver. It just makes the show even more unbelievable and dumb.

And then there is Richard Dean Anderson. He is no Kurt Russel. Sure he does a decent job and he tries to copy Russels performance a little bit, but he is just not as cool as Russel. And not nearly as good an actor as Russel. And Russells way of playing O Neill, well he was much more cynical. Andersons O Neil, is way too soft. I liked it that Russels version just did'nt give a s*** and had no trouble detonating the bomb until the very end of the movie.

Michael Shanks does a really good job as Jackson though taking over from James Spader.

Teal'c is a really annoying character. He is Jaffa. Not a Jaffa. Just Jaffa. Aaaarrgh!! A former bodyguard of a pathetic Ra character, seen only in the pilot and in one other episode so far. Teal'c speaks talks and acts like a robot. I've seen better acting from Jean Claude Van Damme.

And the fact that Teal'c and the Ra character and the people they saved in the movie, can speak English all of a sudden is also incredibly dumb. What made the aliens so scary in the movie was that they spoke an ancient language and were real monsters.

As for the special effects, they are really good in the pilot. But the very rare effects in the actual show are badly done and looks cheap. Especially a planet they visit with crystals. It's so obvious they walk around on a soundstage with a badly made painting in the background. It's an insult to us viewers that they made it look so cheap. Especially when they could have made it in front of a bluescreen with cgi backgrounds.

The X-files had better effects when they aired their first episodes in 1993. That was 4 years before SG-1 started. And they did'nt have the apparent two million dollar budget per episode, that SG-1 supposedly had. They must have spend all the money on catering. Because I don't see it on the screen.

Incredibly boring and pointless show, that could have been great if they had shot the show in Hollywood with a bigger budget and better writers and better characters.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I just saw the movie on tv. I really enjoyed it. I like a good mystery. and this one had me guessing up to the end. Sean Connery did a good job. I would recomend it to a friend.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I recently caught up with this little gem of a film on cable. It took me by surprise, even though, I should have expected it from the team involved with this movie.

Henry Bromwell directed this film with a sure hand, and it shows. One always wonders about the secret life of hit killers. One doesn't have to go too far to realize they probably are one's own neighbors, or social acquaintances, or even friends; they're no different from us, at least on the surface.

In this story, the grandfather, is a despicable character who does not hesitate in eliminating anyone for the right price. He has no scruples in teaching the ropes to his own son, and even to the grandson!

Alex, is a man living in turmoil. He knows what he has done in the past and suddenly is coming to realize the consequence of his actions. He has to see someone to help him find peace with himself. In going to Dr. Parks, he is trying to find absolution, although, he doesn't find it there. On the contrary, there is a dramatic twist when Alex learns about who is supposed to kill next.

Alex, brilliantly portrayed by William H. Macy, mesmerizes us. Not only is he a fantastic actor, but he makes us believe he is that man. One of the best things in the movie is the late John Ritter. He is equally convincing as Dr. Parks, the man who unravels the mystery.

Donald Sutherland, as the grandfather is perfect. He is a natural actor in everything he does. Neve Campbell surprised in her pivotal role of Sarah. She shows a capability and range that are incredible. Tracey Ullman is Martha, the suffering wife, and she doesn't get to do much. Also Barbara Bain, in a rare appearance, is the grandmother from hell. David Dorfman, is a delight in the film. He shows a maturity beyond his years.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.

One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.

Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.

The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This really is an incredible film. Not only does it document the eternal struggle of indigenous and disenfranchised people to gain their rightful voice but it also shows the United States up for its dishonesty, subterfuge, and blatant disregard for human rights and self-determination. Chavez is shown as a very brave and charismatic leader struggling against what can only be characterized as a despicable elite devoid of any sense of proportion or justice. These filmmakers have recorded a coup unlike anything witnessed before.

And in the cross hairs we see the USA, once again pulling the strings and blurring all sense of reality. It's heart-breaking to watch the initial stages of the revolt knowing full well that the subversion of democracy that we're witnessing is a tool long used by successive American governments and their seemingly blinkered citizens. The footage makes it clear that this is not a manipulation of TV or generic footage but an active documentation of a people and its government fighting for its future. Truly a moving experience for anyone with a conscience. These Irish film makers deserve our gratitude. Long live Chavez.

We need to enshrine the notion that each country must be allowed to choose its government and to develop in ways that the majority sees fit. First phase in this process is the need to know what the realities of the situation are, and this documentary does a great job of doing just that.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "To me this just comes off as a soap opera. I guess any depiction of profligate people can be considered \"social commentary.\" But in the final analysis, I simply don't care how you characterize this film. None of the characters are very likable or engaging. I felt no chemistry between Hudson and Bacall. If there is a love story here, it is lost in the malaise. And despite the twist ending provided by a complete and immediate (and therefore, incomprehensible) reversal by Dorothy Maguire on the witness stand, the story is insufficient to hold my interest. No matter how much Freudian symbolism and psychology are throw in, this story is sleazy, melodramatic and trite.

Rock Hudson is nobly wooden. This is Lauren Bacall's least engaging role and one of her poorest performances. Dorothy Maguire and Robert Stack deliver more inspired performances, but her character is vile, and his is pathetic. Robert Keith, as the loving, out-of-touch father of two miscreant adult children, is the most sympathetic character. Most interesting of all, however, is the severe-looking Robert Wilke in a small role as the bar owner. He is best remembered as a nasty henchman in countless Westerns, but here he is an honest, likable fellow.

I take my social commentary with an interesting, engaging story and a few likable characters, thank you.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When i first went to watch The Shining I was expecting a decent film from what I had heard about it and I liked a lot of Stanley Kubrick's other work but when I started to watch it it was so much better than I thought it would be.At times I seriously felt ridiculously uneasy and I couldn't take my eyes of the screen still there's something very disturbing about everything in the film. Now some people don't like Kubrick's version of The Shining since it doesn't entirely follow Stephen King's book but in my opinion both Kubrick's version,the mini-series and the book are all great.Jack Nicholson gives an awesome performance.If you are looking for a good original movie that will keep you thinking even after the movies over then watch The Shining.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie makes a statement about Joseph Smith, what he stood for, and what the LDS church believes. With all the current media coverage of a certain fugitive people have confused the LDS church with the FLDS church and criminal fugitive Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is Not associated with the LDS church yet media groups internationally have asked for comments about Jeffs from The LDS church. Jeffs is not mentioned in the movie at all but I think that it is ironic that this movie with all it's points about Joseph also point away from the fews of the FLDS church and their leader at this time in the media world. This is a movie about Joseph Smith and a great one at that. Some of the most obvious differences between Jeffs and Joseph is portrayed in Joseph's humanity, acceptance and love. Jeffs views and opinions differ greatly from Joseph Smith and the LDS Church and it is seen in this movie. Jeffs thinks of the \"Negro\" as devils. Joseph Smith knew they were children of god and gave up his wife's favorite horse to a African American (former slave) to buy his son's freedom. Joseph is shown doing housework for his wife Emma and is criticized by a member until Joseph tells him that a man may lose his wife in the next life if she chooses not to stay with her husband and that doing chores is a way to help and cherish your wife. Jeffs brought one of his polygamist wives to her knees in front of a class full of students by grabbing her braid and twisting it painfully till she came to her knees. Lastly Joseph participated with law enforcement and sought aid from the government at all times. Jeffs thumbs his nose at government and flees at all times.

I loved this movie and if you don't know much about Joseph Smith and what the LDS church believes, then this is the movie to see. And if you had confused the LDS Church with the FLDS church then you really need to get your act together. We are not much different from anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, the Sanctity of marriage and the family, as well a patriotic to our homeland and country. We are all different as well just like you can find different protestants, Presbyterians, methodist, baptist and Catholics. What's important is our message and what we stand for. This movie trys to portray that but there is so much of Joseph's life that can't be covered in a mere 2 hour movie. This was a really great show.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I do not know who is to blame, Miss Leigh or her director, but her performance as Catherine is almost impossible to watch. Ben Chaplin on the other hand does a superior job - against all odds as far as I am concerned. His character is entirely too charming and appealing. but certainly not shown as greedy enough, to put up with Leigh's character's silliness. Chaplin appears bemused by what cannot possibly be understood as Leigh's shyness and lack of grace, but rather her orthopedic unsteadiness. There has to be some element of believability to his interest, but as played it is incomprehensible. The performances do not jibe. Maggie Smith and Albert Finney are, of course, wonderful despite any effort to derail them. The supporting cast is also a pleasure to watch. What a pity, too, the leads don't work together because the production is lovely to look at.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly \"tutti-fruttis.\" Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico \"Ratso\" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.

There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery \"Everybody's Talking'\"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.

A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.

Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!

10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Wow, I loved this film. It may not have had the funding and advertising that the latest hollywood blockbusters get but it packs twice the emotional punch. The tale revolves around this one family from Utah and it's the connections between the people in the family that provide the film with its punch. The main lead (Giovanni Ribisi) plays his part very well, at no time does he leave you to believe that he's acting all his feelings. It's his brother (Elias Koteas) who stole the show for me though. When the two were in scenes together they bounded their lines off of each other, giving fantastic performances. Great cast, great film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "[WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS]

I have this adult friend for whom the notion that her parents have sex makes her terribly uneasy. She came to mind when I reflected on the audience's reaction to \"The Mother.\"

People gasped when May (Anne Reid) writhed passionately in bed with her younger hunk lover, Darren (Daniel Craig) or later saw sexually explicit drawings by May. I doubt the audience was aghast at the nudity or the drawings' content as much as feeling uneasy at seeing a woman in her 60s rapturously enjoying sex.

Screenwriter Hanif Kureishi (\"My Beautiful Laundrette,\" \"My Son the Fanatic\") again proves why he's among the most trenchant storytellers on either side of the Atlantic. His story's not easy to take. This searing family drama isn't a film you can claim you enjoyed watching because it's raw, complex, and often makes us very uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it's powerfully good stuff.

Kureishi and Roger Michell (who directed \"Notting Hill,\" of all things) craft an unsentimental, wrenching and superbly-acted portrait of an older woman who realizes, after all these years, she can and should still enjoy all of life's pleasures. In a wonderfully epiphanous moment, when her son, Bobby, asks her not to be difficult, May shoots back, \"Why not?\"

Why not, indeed.

Anne Reid deserves an Oscar nomination for her turn as May. It's subtle, restrained, powerful and sad, often all at the same time. Watch Reid when May observes Darren and Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) in a seemingly passionate clutch in a pub. Or, when she begs Paula to open the front door after a disastrous date. Reid's eyes and face reveal all of May's anguish and despair. In the film's most devastating moment, May drops to her knees before Darren, willing to do anything for him, only asking him to be kind. This is a tremendously gutsy performance by a remarkable actress.

I enjoyed Michell's use of natural sound, especially when May and Toots first arrive at Bobby's place. It perfectly illustrated the cacophony around May and Toots, the flippant manner in which their own family welcomes them.

This film, at times, reminded me of the honesty and rawness of Mike Leigh's work, except \"The Mother\" hangs on to a slight sense of optimism to keep afloat.

My one quibble: Michell's decision to give May and Darren's first love scene an almost cheesy sensibility. The lovers remain out of focus while, in the foreground, a white curtain flutters gently in the breeze. And the only sound is of May in the throes of passion.

The problem with Michell's approach is that both Reid and Craig, who completely envelops the role of Darren, plough their way so fearlessly into these roles that it's unfair to hide their characters' almost primitive energy from the audience. Especially since Michell has no qualms about making later sex scenes visceral.

This film doesn't have immensely likable characters. We sympathize with May, but she, too, causes her daughter's suffering. But I doubt Kureishi intended to people his story with likable folk. His point, I believe, was to unmask a family that's already cracking when something emotionally cataclysmic happens. It's unflinching in its candor and ultimately unforgettable.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The story has been told before. A deadly disease is spreading around... But the extra in this film is Peter Weller, his interpretation of Muller on the run is real. He is indeed a desperate person just going home to see his child. This person could be working next to you.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This has always been one of my favourite movies, and will always be. Over the last few years I have become a 50's / 60's Sci-fi freak, trying to collect all of the better ones that were made back then. I love lots of things about them from how corny they could be to how technically correct some of them were. The great colours and the sets get me going too. It's a pity when they re-make some of these good old movies; they nearly always stuff it up, - just look at the recent re-do of The day the Earth stood still, it's utter garbage!! Forbidden Planet is one of the benchmark space films of all time, and now they're trying to re-make it too, and I shudder to think what the new one will be like! To my mind, some things, such as fantastic classic movies, should just be left alone to be what they are, classic examples of great attempts at telling simple stories, and giving people a thrill in the process. Once they add all the techno-crap that we have available now, the film just seems to be more dog-meat from the Hollywood sausage factory, - nothing special at all. By the way, I notice that the astronauts' uniforms in Forbidden Planet were also used for \"Queen of Outer Space\"! That just tells you that the budgets were a bit lower back then, doesn't it? Hey, less money and better films, hmmm....

Great performances in this movie from Leslie Nielsen, in a serious role, and Anne Francis, Walter Pidgeon (who has always been one of my favourite actors), Earl Holiman, and of course Robby the Robot!

The special effects are fantastic, and the storyline is not too far-fetched. This is a great sci-fi experience!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Dark Remains is a home run plain and simple. The film is full of creepy visuals, and scares' that will make the most seasoned horror veteran jump straight out of there seat. The staircase scene in particular, these guys are good. Although they weren't working on a huge budget everything looks good, and the actors come through. Dark Remains does have one of those interpretive endings which may be a negative for some, but I guess it makes you think. Cheri Christian and Greg Thompson are spot on as the grieving couple trying to rebuild there lives', however some side characters like the Sheriff didn't convince me. They aren't all that important anyways. I give Dark Remains a perfect ten rating for being ten times scarier than any recent studio ghost story/ Japanese remake.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - \"this aint f***ing Disneyworld\" is apt.

Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine \"Under Siege\" meets \"The Love Boat\", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.

If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.

Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have never seen such a movie before. I was on the edge of my seat and constantly laughing throughout the entire movie. I never thought such horrible acting existed it was all just too funny. The story behind the movie is decent but the movies scenes fail to portray them. I have never seen such a stupid movie in my life which is why it I think its worth watching. I give this movie 10 out of 10 for being the most pathetic movie ever created, this movie seems like it was solely created to become trash. I mean the scenes seem so fake and the actors act like \"the camera is in front of them\". You will get a kick just watching how lame this movie is, me and my friend could not stop making jokes during the movie, the darthvader guy who tries to get the girl got ran over not once but twice and the second time he got ran over it sounded like he said sh!# although he doesn't speak English lol. If you watch this movie you will think to yourself that all those other movies you didn't like you took for granted they are way better than this. This movie should be seen out of curiosity as well as what kind of movie DEFINES lame. The evil serpent encountered the girl so many times it was ridiculous, the evil serpent just roared and roared and let her get away every time. The evil serpent had so many chances it was like god was trying to say hurry up and eat the girl how many miracles do you want. The transition between scenes leaves you wondering did I miss something? So many plot holes from scene to scene. I was laughing like crazy when they decided to \"Escape To Mexico\" to get away from the serpent. Hmmmm hopping the border will save you from a serpent from Korea? interesting... very interesting.... I guess hopping the border solves all problems. Another scene that completely stupified me.. they met for the first time and had a romantic scene at the beach they kissed and didn't even know each other... the scene was so clichéd and the was no substance at least in other movies it might seem logical afterwhile but i mean they JUST MET even though they are reincarnations there feelings were like they instantly loved each other instead of it rather developing. Anyways this movie is worth watching for the sake of opening your eyes and seeing the light. Bad Hollywood movies will seem like heaven when compared to this. In the end its worth watching you wont get bored you will be occupied criticizing every moment, every scene in your head.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this \"TRUE\" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.

I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Well it was a nice surprise after all. its trailer did not predict a good film at all, it was even a bit misleading. Especially the part of Jeff Bridges was a positive surprise, well written, sardonic and funny. Less real though, I do not think a guy who got where he got would show signs of such irreverence towards everything that his current company stands for. One does not become a top suit just to doubt it all suddenly again. The ending of the film, during the showing of Dolce Vita, was too corny, cliché and quite disappointing. And of course a guy like Pegg's character would not last past his first week in a blitz New York magazine like this. I hope one day I will see a decent role written for Megan Fox, here she looked a poor actress playing a bimbo. And by the way, I do not see why she is the \"sex symbol\" of the year, I see hotter girls on nearly every cover of every magazine.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is an excellent, fast paced thriller by Wes Craven (Nightmare on Elm Street), who for 85 minutes leaves aside the supernatural and presents us with something even more terrifying - the evil of human beings. We are far more likely to encounter the benign evil of Jackson Rippner than Freddy Kruger, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins) does an excellent job of presenting a sociable, friendly, even charismatic killer. The performances by Murphy and by Rachel McAdams (Claire, from The Wedding Crashers)are brilliant. Most of the film takes place on a very intimate level, between two people, their eyes, their faces. It is action on a small scale, not the broad sweep of the canvas, and it is no less compelling for these limitations. The cinematography is nothing special, though of course one can do only so much with a camera in the confines of a passenger jet, but the dialog is excellent, the story taut. There are no distractions, no subplots confuse the issue which is at its heart a battle between the main characters. By keeping his focus and avoiding distractions, Wes Craven is able to take what is a very minimal plot and turning it into an exciting, fast-paced action thriller.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Going into this movie you know that this is movie has six lab technicians in a sealed lab with an invisible maniac. So right away you're guessing who will live and who will die. The survivors end up being exactly who you'd expect them to be, so no points for plot twists there.

And if you're not sure if this is a B-movie or a movie that just happens to take place in a lab with an engaging story, William Devane plays a part: instant B-movie status.

The movie is promising in the beginning. At the lab we are introduced to the invisible gorilla who is becoming increasingly violent. Oooh, foreboding. The best scene in the whole movie is when the lab team makes the gorilla visible again. Great special effects. Same thing when they make Bacon invisible.

There are a couple of bare breasts, a really lame dirty joke and enough out of place swearing to give this movie an R-rating that it really didn't need.

For a thriller there weren't really any surprises, except when Shue makes like MacGyver in the freezer, which is more of a 'Whaaaa?' OK, there is one surprise. That's when Caine (Bacon) comes back one last time in the elevator shaft. It was a surprise but only because you're yelling at TV, 'Noooo! You're dead already! End the movie!' Speaking of yelling at the TV,that's all I did for the last 25 minutes or so. 'Put on your f#@%ing goggles!' Instead of putting their infrared goggles on so that they can see him, they try every other trick in the book (fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems...).

The story really lost it at the end. But the special effects were good; that's the only reason I give it a 2/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Unfortunately many consumers who write reviews for IMDb equate low budget with not good. Whatever else this movie might need, more budget really isn't part of it. Big sets and lots of special effects would have turned it into another Lara Croft movie. What we have here is a step or two better than that.

The nearly unknown Alexandra Staden is captivating as the enigmatic Modesty, and this is crucial for this movie to work. Her wise little smiles and knowing looks are formidable, and you find yourself wishing that the camera won't leaver her face. It makes it workable that the bad guy Nikolai, played by also little known (in the U.S. at least) Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau might take an unusually cerebral interest in her, something Modesty can exploit. She is able to divert his raping her with just a shove and spitting out \"stop wasting my time!\" then storming off between his heavily armed yet suddenly diffident henchmen. Making a scene like that plausible doesn't happen by accident.

Probably the biggest problem I have with the rail-thin Staden playing Modesty is it just isn't very believable for her to go hand to hand with an athletic and muscled looking guy like Coaster-Waldau and beat him. She just ain't a Peta Wilson or a pumped-up Hilary Swank type actress who can throw a convincing punch. Coaster-Waldau letting himself be overpowered by Staden looks like he's just roughhousing with his little sister.

Since this is not really an action film, this isn't a big flaw. I just hope they do better on that if and when they make sequels.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "After Chicago, I was beginning to lose all respect for Richard Gere and then along came The Flock. There's just so far a nice smile and a couple of stock facial gestures can get you, but he proved to me that he's finally gotten hold of his craft and can act with the best of them. Clare Danes was also super as his \"trainee/replacement\". Some have suggested there was too much unnecessary violence, but I don't see it that way. Nothing I saw detracted from the power of this film. I was really shocked I hadn't heard of it being released in theaters and came across it at Blockbuster instead. Really an exceptional film with just the right blend of action, suspense, thrills, and social consciousness. As good as 7even? Well, maybe. And you'll see better acting out of Gere than anyone's ever gotten out of Pitt.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Misty Ayers had a smoking body, and that's all this movie was about. Pure exploitation flick. I started playing a game with myself, counting the number of times they looped the stock orchestral music. And of course the music is completely unrelated to the scenes. Case in point: casually walking into a room and saying \"Hello\" was scored with chase music from a roman epic. I'd like to know why this film sat on the shelf for 11 years before being released. What I learned from this movie: that women's low-rise panties existed in 1954. I'm talking Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien movie panties. At least 20 of the first 30 minutes is Misty leisurely taking off and putting on her clothing (except for bra and panties, sadly). Also includes horrendous dubbing, leading to a \"Look out! Godzirra!\" effect.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This 1998 film was based on a script by the late Edward D. Wood, a script that featured NO dialogue in the tradition of films such as THE THIEF. While much of Wood's work was quirky low-budget entries into various genre-film traditions, his first released feature GLEN OR GLENDA was a truly visionary attempt to express the inexpressible through primitive avant-garde techniques. I WOKE UP EARLY THE DAY I DIED represents THAT side of Ed Wood, the experimenter, although this film is a comedy (a nightmarish comedy, however!), while the cross-dressing theme of GLEN OR GLENDA was taken so seriously by Wood that there was not room for comedy there. From the first few seconds of this film I knew that I was being taken to a new cinematic world, and I can't really compare that world with anything else. The technical side of the film--production design, sound design, music scoring, photography, etc.--is groundbreaking on any number of levels. In particular, although the film has no \"dialogue\" there is sound of all kinds and also \"language\", but you'll have to see how it's done yourself, as the cleverness and surprise of the methods provides a level of excitement throughout. The Glen or Glenda-esque technique of juxtaposing stock footage for surreal effects works well in the film and is kept to a minimum. The whole film is played at a hysterical fever-pitch, and Billy Zane provides an amazing tour-de-force performance that shows what a brilliant physical comedian and actor he is. In a just world, he would have been given some award for this performance. He even LOOKS like Ed Wood, and as played by Zane this character is at various timesfunny, sleazy, tragic, sympathetic, and anonymous(sometimes simultaneously!!!). What a shame that this film was caught up in legal troubles and never received a North American theatrical or video release, only playing a few festivals. Right now, it's only available on video in Germany (in fact, my copy is from a German source--the excerpts from Wood's screenplay that are shown on the screen from time to time are translated into german, although the newspaper headlines (that great low-budget technique of giving plot elements, especially those that would be too expensive to film, via newspaper headlines is used here in the Wood tradition)that Zane sees are in English). I think that this film could have gotten a word-of-mouth following had it been played at midnight in some large cities with some careful promotion. And if played off city by city slowing on the art-film circuit, it could have done well. In fact, if the legal issues can be resolved, I'd like to suggest that the film should STILL be given a theatrical release, especially a MIDNIGHT \"cult\" release. This is a classic waiting to be discovered.

Did I \"understand\" every scene? No, but I \"felt\" every scene emotionally. Did everything \"work\" in the film? Perhaps not. I've only seen it twice, and the first time I saw it I was interruped a number of times. However, with all the assembly-line junk playing the multiplexes and with so much \"alternative\" film being fetishistic or pretentious shot-on-video film-school rejects, we need actual Hollywood-made experimentation like this. The recent Bob Dylan film \"Masked and Anonymous\" took similar chances as did something like Steven Soderbergh's FULL FRONTAL. This film could find an audience much larger than either of those. If you are reading this review a few years from now and the idea of this film sounds intriguing, see if it has ever been released on video. You will NOT be bored. Invite some friends over...make it a party. Play the amazing soundtrack LOUD. I have a feeling that, wherever he is in the afterlife, Ed Wood is happy with this film and feels as though his unique vision has been justified and validated somewhat by the making of this film. Wood's probably also laughing that, just like he always seemed to get the bad breaks in life, the film made in tribute to him after his death is held up in lawsuits and sits unreleased in the country of its making.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is Jackie Chan's best film, and my personal favourite. After the disappointing U.S made 'The Protector' directed by James Glickenhaus, Jackie took the concept and placed it slap bang into Hong Kong. This is also probably Jackies most violent movie, with the audience cringing at the bone breaking stunts.

The action is fast and furious, Jackie and his crew really did put max effort into the fight design. Bones were broken and blood spilt in the process of making this film as you'll see in the credits.

The script is a simple cops and robbers affair, nothing special, after all it was written around the action. I must say that the english version has some dodgy dubbing, but it shouldn't put you off too much.

So, get the lads round, crack open the beers and enjoy. By the way, the film was nicknamed 'Glass Story' by the stunt crew. Why? I'll let you find out for yourself!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I pulled down a VHS box from my vast collection - many unseen - and picked out a movie, based on the box art, I thought would be fun, and yes, bad. Prison had that 80s cheesy look all over that box. I sat down and watched, and lo! and behold!, found that sometimes we do indeed sit down to a movie with preconceived expectations in mind. Fortunately, I reversed mine quickly and soon realized I was sitting down not just to an okay film but a rather good movie in total. Prison tells the story of an old, dilapidated prison being reopened to save on budgetary concerns. It looks creepy as all empty and filled with prisoners. The prison used as a set is incredibly atmospheric and easily the most important character in the film. The story using the prison as its central setting tells in a prologue of a man being killed via the electric chair. We see Lane Smith as a guard - tearing away a Crucifix before sending the man to his Maker. We then go to present day, first with a government board at a meeting deciding to open the prison and send a beautiful doctor in to make sure that conditions are acceptable as she campaigned vigorously against re-opening the old prison. Then we see the new warden, Lane Smith, haunted by a nightmare in bed - and given the new job of opening a prison he has not been to in years. Well, the rest follows suit: prisoners and guards arrive with plenty of stereotypes abounding. We are given some character depth and several of the prisoners are interesting characters. The acting is better than one might expect with Lane Smith doing as always a workmanlike job. Viggo Mortenson as a very different prisoner being solid. Tom Everett, Tiny Lister, and Ivan Kane really exploring the boundaries of their stereotypical characters. Chelsea Field is okay as the female lead. The best performance is by Lincoln Kilpatrick, an underrated character actor, as Cresus - a prisoner who had been in that very same prison years ago when the \"man\" had been executed\" with some kind of terrible secret. Prison is not the next best thing to sliced bread or anything like that, but it is definitely worth a look and definitely better than most would expect from it. I was pleasantly surprised at the way director Renny Harlin created a story so visually atmospheric. The film has a tense, taut pace and Harlin knows how to build his scenes. There are a few excessively shot gore scenes - the one with the barbed wire was a bit much as was the one with all the pipes. But these scenes are visually creative and interesting. The acting is uniformly decent. The script actually much more cohesive than one usually gets from films like these. That may in part be credited to Irwin Yablans who wrote the story. You may remember he came up with the idea of making Halloween scary as a holiday. Here he makes incarceration a hell of a lot more scarier than it already is. Give Prison a break(get it).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I didn't really know what this movie was about when I went to the theater to see it (hype about the Satanism etc etc etc) as the trailers in the last movie I saw looked pretty interesting.

Oh dear, Roman Catholic mythology? Not my idea of a good scare and honestly, I just felt like watching a really good, scary movie, not some loosely plotted religious farce that tries to score cheap thrills by having some chick getting bloody every few minutes!

I'll try to keep away from the spoilers (!) but I found it very odd that an Atheist, who gets a string of rosary beads from a deceased priest, could suddenly end up with Christ's wounds (aren't stigmata supposed to be deeply religious??) I mean, she hangs out with losers, does loser stuff, behaves like a typical rebel et al, and here she is displaying the wounds of Jesus Christ?? Come on!

Scenes of her crucified, head thrown back, screaming, blood everywhere, became rather tedious after seeing it a dozen times. It was neither frightening or scary, just repulsive. It did, however, become quite painful to watch - those flicking scenes were highly annoying...

CONCLUSION: If your a Catholic, defintly don't see this. If you're not, still don't see it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS \"orbits\" in time around their \"perfect day.\" The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.

The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out \"You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?\" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, \"The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it\"--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, \"What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?\" and \"You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet.\"

The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.

The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.

Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The movie is a fantasy. The story line is thin but serves as the structure upon which some wonderful songs are sung and sung beautifully. (I still cannot believe that such handsome and attractive people could sing this well.) Some of the dialog is wonderfully clever. The costumes made me feel as though I was watching a haute couture fashion show from 1942.

Movies are designed to serve various purposes. This one is designed to entertain and it certainly does. If I have one negative comment it would be that Nelson Eddy was a little too old to be the handsome dashing Count. Some of the closeups made me uncomfortable. But he could still sing and sing magnificently. However, Jeanette MacDonald was just as dazzling as ever. She makes a spectacular angel.

This genre is well before my time, and I an new to the Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy films and related conversation. The music in this movie is beautiful. As much as I love the classic rock music which fills most modern movies, there is no question in my mind that this music is simply and clearly more memorable, more delightful, better constructed. The stars in this movie are more talented than the stars I see in the movie theaters today. And Jeanette MacDonald, without the benefit of Beverly Hills plastic surgeons, was more beautiful than the stars I see today. I am unclear as to why so many other posters are apologetic about liking this movie and more generally this group of movies. They say it is dated and try to explain why it is the way it is. And those that do not like it say that it is not very good but compared to what? I think this movie will doubtless still be entertaining people when so many other movie are long forgotten. There is just too much quality in every way in this movie for it not to be remembered and enjoyed. I recommend this movie without reservation to anyone who appreciates great talent, great beauty and great music.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Until the 1990s there had never been a film based upon Jane Austen's \"Emma\". Then two came along in the same year, 1996. Or, if you count 1995's \"Clueless\", which updates Austen's plot to a modern American high school, three in two years.

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from a well-to-do family in Regency England. She is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Today in 2008 Kate Beckinsale is a Hollywood star, but in 1996, despite being only a year younger, was not nearly as well-known internationally as Gwyneth Paltrow. She is, however, just as convincing as Austen's well-intentioned but often wrong-headed heroine. Beckinsale seems to have a gift for classical roles- she made a delightful Hero in Kenneth Branagh's version of \"Much Ado about Nothing\"- and I sometimes find myself wishing that Hollywood could have found more suitable roles for her rather than wasting her in turkeys like \"Pearl Harbor\" or \"Underworld\".

I preferred Jeremy Northam to Mark Strong as Emma's love interest Mr Knightley, largely because he came closer to my own conception of the character as a gentlemanly, chivalrous older man, in some ways more of a father-figure to Emma than a lover. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Strong tends to downplay the question of the age difference (he is 37, she 21) and makes Knightley more of a passionate lover and less of a wise mentor than does Northam. Samantha Morton (another actress who would go on to bigger things) is perhaps closer to the Harriet of the novel than was Toni Collette.

This was the more small-scale of the two versions, being made for television rather than the cinema, and the sets and costumes seem less lavish and there are fewer big names among the cast. Costume drama, however, is generally something that British television does well, and this version can certainly hold its own with the cinema version; both are entertaining and well-made versions of Austen's novel. 7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A clever script from the late SEBASTIAN JAPRISOT and smart performances from the two male leads - ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON (or should it be the other way around) result in an engaging and entertaining thriller.

Add to the above the competent direction from veteran JEAN HERMAN and a sparse but effective score by FRANCOIS DE ROUBAIX, it becomes easy why this film has an odd timeless quality.

This is a buddy buddy or bonding story with two loners, both disillusioned and world weary, returning, presumably from Algiers. Like the other colonial powers of this time (post WW II leading into the 60s), France had struggled to keep up appearances overseas. Losing Algiers was a bitter blow.

ADIEU L'AMI (the original title) chronicles the actions of our two (anti) heroes as they struggle to make a go of it, after their discharge.

One thing happens after another, and the viewer really has to pay attention, because JAPRISOT is lean and economical with his script: if it is there, then there must be a reason.

Suffice to say, these two men battle it out, physically and psychologically, one long weekend. Their motivation is quite different, their goals are different - their survival depends entirely on each other. That ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON are outwardly so different - the former, arguably a pretty boy, and the latter an ugly thug, adds to the chemistry.

That quest makes for a great story, which in turn, makes for a great film.

Lest I forget there are women in this film, and true to the Japrisot method, they too are memorable, though not nearly as fleshed out; to say much more would be to spoil one's delight in discovering their true nature.

FAREWELL, FRIEND HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE UK; AN ANAMORPHIC IMAGE, 16.9 ENHANCED; IN English ONLY (not even subtitles for the hard of hearing); A RUNNING TIME OF 110 MINUTES; MONO SOUNDTRACK but the DE ROUBAIX music has lots of punch!

Highly recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is the kind of film for a snowy Sunday afternoon when the rest of the world can go ahead with its own business as you descend into a big arm-chair and mellow for a couple of hours. Wonderful performances from Cher and Nicolas Cage (as always) gently row the plot along. There are no rapids to cross, no dangerous waters, just a warm and witty paddle through New York life at its best. A family film in every sense and one that deserves the praise it received.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.

As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.

Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.

Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Somerset Maugham's characters are brought to life in RKO's \"Of Human Bondage\"; but the movie is a too skeletal version of the novel, with Bette Davis' star-making performance sucking up all of the energy. Otherwise, it's the story of Leslie Howard (as Philip Carey); he dreams of becoming a painter, but is told he has no talent for the arts. As the film progresses, Mr. Howard's struggles, instead, to become a doctor. His efforts seem to indicate some bad advice regarding the arts; though successful in medicine, his painting seemed easier - also, note the symbolism of his disability, a \"club foot\" (explained in the film).

Along the way (right away, in this version), Howard becomes infatuated with waitress Davis (as Mildred Rogers). Davis' characterization of \"Mildred\" is extraordinary, culminating in a spectacular speech, when she tells Howard, among other things, that she had to \"WIPE MY MOUTH!\" after kissing him. Howard also performs well, but the story fails to explain his prolonged fascination and love for Davis; so, their performances are wasted.

Still, a film to watch for the acting, including some good supporting players. Bette Davis' characterization was famous for inspiring a \"write-in\" campaign for the 1934 \"Best Actress\" Academy Award. For the record, she placed third. The results were:

1. Claudette Colbert - \"It Happened One Night\"

2. Norma Shearer - \"The Barretts of Wimpole Street\"

3. Bette Davis - \"Of Human Bondage\"

4. Grace Moore - \"One Night of Love\"

******* Of Human Bondage (6/28/34) John Cromwell ~ Leslie Howard, Bette Davis, Reginald Denny", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was 5 years old when I saw this musical movie while on vacation with my family in St. Thomas in 1977 and immediately fell in love with it. 27 years later, it is still an original inspiration for achieveing my goals that I have set to accomplish since that time!

This tragic story of a hard-core \"behind the scenes\" of the entertainment industry during the late 50's, \"Sparkle\" successfully portrays the struggle of three young sisters looking for their place in the sun. This story could simply become the biographical story of many young aspiring artists about what could materialize when things seem to happen too fast and role models are not available to lend a helping hand.

The phenomenal music written and composed by Aretha Franklin and Curtis Mayfield, the soundtrack carries the plot with every song. From being subjected to situations that almost leave no choice for strong long-term decision-making, to making the ultimate sacrifice in order to get ahead, all three young girls, Sparkle, Sister, and Delores, represent the different routes that one could take when you set out to achieve your ideal opportunity as your contribution to society.

This movie could have possibly spawned the ideas of creating \"Dreamgirls\" on Broadway, and Mariah Carey's \"Glitter,\" 25 years later. As an original audience member of both productions, I have seen a lot of similarities in both stories to \"Sparkle,\" as well as in \"Saturday Night Fever,\" \"Fame,\" \"Flashdance,\" and the off-Broadway smash hit \"Mama, I Want To Sing.\"", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The US State Dept. would not like us to see this movie, because they have a beef with the Iranian govt. However, it shows us just how civilized Iran really is, despite the content of the film, which centers on the struggle of women there for equal rights in the simplest of terms: the ability to watch a soccer game at the stadium, which is strictly limited to male audiences alone. The film is hilariously funny, and in and of itself is proof of freedom of speech and expression in Iran. I enjoyed this movie intensely. Five girls try to penetrate the police border at the ticket gates to a soccer match between Iran and Bahrain. The ensuing comedy is too funny to describe, from the bus trip to the stadium, to the interceding of the police and subsequent detention of the girls, to the resulting end. Don't miss this classic film. Its a MUST see. One of the best foreign films I've seen in years.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Orson Welles' \"The Lady From Shanghai\" does not have the brilliant screenplay of \"Citizen Kane,\" e.g., but Charles Lawton, Jr.'s cinematography, the unforgettable set pieces (such as the scene in the aquarium, the seagoing scene featuring a stunning, blonde-tressed Rita Hayworth singing \"Please Don't Love Me,\" and the truly amazing Hall of Mirrors climax), and the wonderful cast (Everett Sloane in his greatest performance, Welles in a beautifully under-played role, the afore-mentioned Miss Hayworth--Welles' wife at the time--at her most gorgeous) make for a very memorable filmgoing experience. The bizarre murder mystery plot is fun and compelling, not inscrutable at all. The viewer is surprised by the twists and turns, and Welles' closing line is an unheralded classic. \"The Lady From Shanghai\" gets four stars from this impartial arbiter.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie was very sweet and heartwarming! I cry almost every time I watch the movie. I would recommend this movie for every one. The movie was so inspiring to me. The actors did a great job of acting, and the movie was very well played and done. The movie was about a little girl who owned a parrot of whom she named Paulie. Paulie had gotten separated from her by her parents because they thought it would be best for her.

After Paulie had experienced so many people he ended up in a cage by himself in a basement. Finally this Russian man who had gotten a job at a place as a janitor. Had found Paulie in the basement and Paulie began to talk to him telling him the story of his life. In the end the man helped Paulie reunite with Marie (the little girl who raised Paulie). Love overcame all the obstacles.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It does touch a few interesting points.. But! - It fails to show evidence of all the 'exclusive' studies shown. Who are the 'friends' and 'small groups of scientists' that gathered this data? - What's up with all the Al Gore biography going on there? Like how he liked playing with the cows on the ranch or that his kid got hit by a car.. too bad but.. what does that have to do with the ozone layer?

I've seen MUCH better stuff, in much less time, on Discovery Channel.. I really don't understand why this has such a high score on IMDb. Unless you've been living under a rock, this 'documentary' shouldn't be any news to you... all this is old news... And all Al Gore is trying to do is get some popularity points. P.S. i'm not American so don't even try saying that i'm a bush fan :p", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am not sure why I like Dolph Lundgren. I guess seeing him on screen makes me feel that anyone who works hard can succeed regardless of talent. That is a good feeling for all of us who lack talent. Some of the other reviews point out how dumb Detention is, but many neglect to point out the positives.

Any movie where at least one annoying teenager gets killed can't be all bad. Why do so many movies that have a cast of teens always need to include the stereotypical teens? Aren't there any other kind of teens? Does every group of teens have one angry black guy? One genius nerd that nobody likes? One slutty girl who is very friendly and (in this movie) pregnant? One disturbed anti-social white kid from a broken home who everyone agrees is talented (but what is the talent?). And one laid-back black kid who is in tune with the Universe and so cool that all the other neurotic kids trust him. Then add a couple of generic expendable teens of any color. They don't say much but get shot at some point.

Detention would have been better if the bad guys had gotten to blow up the school. Preferably with the writers inside. The dialogue is bad, and the plot is worse. When the bad guys (and girl) finally hijack a van full of drugs, then they sit inside the van making out. They drive the van to the school because they want to re-paint the van at the school's paint shop, but they never get around to re-painting the van. By the way, it would have been easier to just put all the drugs in another car or two cars or another van or a truck and drive away without repainting the Police Van. They also never move the drugs or sell them or do anything else with the big score.

For some reason, they decide they have to kill the kids and the teacher (Dolph Lundgren) even though when the villains take over the school nobody is remotely aware of it because it is after school hours. The handful of people still in the school have nothing to do with painting vehicles, so why go after them?

Anyhow, the best part of this movie is that the villains are all armed with numerous machine guns, and they keep finding the teens (including a guy in a wheel chair) and they keep shooting hundreds of bullets at the teens and usually miss. Towards the end of the movie there is some bloodshed. For every time someone gets shot, there must be at least three hundred bullets fired that miss. The stunts are pretty bad.

I read one of the reviews that says that this movie had a budget of $10 Million, and I am amazed. When I saw the movie I figured maybe Lundgren had done it as some kind of charity work for some film school where he is the teacher. Like maybe this movie was their end of the year exam. It was a test to watch it, but I passed.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Okay. Yes, this was a very-tight-budget movie with continuity errors (like single scenes obviously filmed in sunshine and then in shadow and then mixed together), and as much as I love Nick Mancuso he was often a little too good at the burnt-out part, and some of the minor supporting cast was really bad (plus at least one actor was used for two different but conspicuous roles). But come on. Richard Grieco was hysterical (his hair alone is worth the trip). Steven Ford was very likable. Mancuso had some great lines, while Nancy Allen, ironically, was completely bland and uninteresting. Classic? No. Bad parts? Yes. Entertaining? Big yes. I would have loved to have been on-set the day they decided what kind of hairstyle Grieco would have. \"Are you fast?\" ... \"Y'ain't THAT fast.\"", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I enjoyed the movie very much, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It contains no violence or sex or drugs or special effects, and doesn't need them one bit, holding my attention the entire time with the visuals, story, and interspersed words of wisdom.

However: [1] some of the foreign language accents made the dialog difficult to hear & understand; [2] there is unnecessary overuse of swearing (especially the F-word, which is the only reason this movie was rated R). [3] The movie is balanced with humor and emotion, but most of the emotion that holds you throughout the film, except the final resolution last minutes, is unpleasant due to the exaggerated long-lasting dysfunctional reaction of some of the characters to loss, living in the depths of bitterness and depression for too long. [4] I will not recommend this movie because of 5-seconds of background narration, which did not add one bit to the side-character it applied to, or the film -- it only turned me off to the movie and stuck in my brain through the whole movie and afterward: the main character's mother of German ancestry, when watching old WWII movies, \"secretly roots for the Germans.\" There would be no \"local color\" or art if the Nazi's won the war. I don't know of any Germans today except radical skinheads who think the world would be a better place if the Nazi's won WWII.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What The Bleep Do We Know is a deluded and haphazard look at the mysteries of the universe. We are presented with a parade of apparent experts (none of whom are named) who ramble and pontificate in a thoroughly unscientific manner. Their interviews are chopped up into aggravatingly small segments and dispersed throughout some flashy cgi and banal mini-plots.

The film pilfers themes from science, philosophy, theology and politics, minces them together without any regard for accuracy, and then somehow extracts a few prosaic and absurd conclusions. We are led to believe that quantum physics is telling us the purpose of our existence, and any other difficult to answer question the film-makers would like to point their finger at.

It is riddled errors and logical non-sequiturs. How did we start at quantum mechanics and end up with this pseudo-scientific spirituality and mysticism? It's like saying 'two plus two equals four, therefore I can move objects with my mind'.

There is nothing original in this film, and almost nothing that is accurate. Any discriminating viewer will be annoyed by heavy-handed editing, intrusive and pointless special effects and general lack of substance. Educated viewers will be frustrated to tears by the violence done to science and every other subject this film touches on.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines\". --- It is obvious that the person who wrote this comment hasn't understood the reasoning behind this documentary or the original book. Please don't ruin this great piece by your simple mindedness. The reasons are far more complex than the single thing you mentioned. Please read the book as is it a great source of information. I enjoyed it a lot. This book is even a taught as a text book at some universities.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Let me be up-front, I like pulp. However it is like one of these \"easier dives\" that you see at the Olympics. It has to be marked down a little because it is easier to give a cheap thrill than drag you inside the world of, say, a late medieval painter.

This is only a two hour ghost train ride and while often (or more accurately, most of the time!) ludicrous and unlikely it always goes forward and it always entertains. If not always in the right way. Check out the memorable quotes section for a chuckle.

(However quite why it has been given a \"Worst Film\" Razzie is baffling - I bet there was a thousand worse films made in 2006, but this film got the treatment because it was viewed as a fashionable victim.)

Head case and popular novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now over in London writing a novel, but death and destruction follow her around like flies follow a horse during a spot of hot weather. God heavens, she can't even visit the toilet without tripping over at least two corpses and I am sure if she opened the closet in her vast penthouse flat one would come tumbling out in grand Hollywood style.

Yes, clearly a very dangerous lady to be circling around (if you like your pulse to be above zero), but is she personally responsible? I mean why would anyone put two-and-two together and start thinking she might be a murderer? Equally her reaction to such accusations seems very casual. However is this just a personality disorder (some form of b/s risk addiction) or further evidence of her guilt?

For reasons I cannot fully understand or explain Stone is assigned to psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) for evaluation rather than taken down the cells following another \"lover found dead in mysterious circumstances\". Thankfully (for Stone) he is far crazier than any of his patients and has a troubled home/working life of his own. In the blink of an eye the relationship changes from doctor to patient and then it is hard to tell because it all becomes something of a revolving blur.

In to this heady mix comes Roy Washburn (a strange Welsh sounding David Thewlis) who tells the love struck doctor - in his capacity of policeman of many years standing - that the lady in question may be dangerous. I mean, hold the front page. However Glass is now too glassy-eyed to realise or care. Like a dizzy boxer in front of a prime-time Mike Tyson he ripe for the big take-down, however not before finding that Washburn might have a secret or two himself.

Now comes Millena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling) a fellow psychiatrist and a rare example (in this film) of someone who isn't barking mad or else a murder suspect. Presuming that she has actually watched the finished film she must look back with nostalgia when her underwear came off with the ease of Stone's - thankfully (for us at least) those days are long gone. Strangely she doesn't think Stone is quite as dangerous as everyone else - or else she doesn't think the script is good enough or her cheque large enough to do any proper acting.

After several laps of the track roughly outlined above it comes to a climax that mixes provincial rep with a cliff-hanger/twist, that while as farcical as the rest of the movie, gives us enough elbowroom for Basic Instinct 3 - highly unlikely this may be at this point in time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I just watched this movie today and not only is it, terrible and awful but it looks like the director just got a few friends together to make a movie about a sick man. I also think that this movie has the look of a porn video with it's clear crisp just filmed view.

Thank heavens I work in a video store and I didn't have to pay for it cause this movie is crap x infinity..DO NOT BUY OR RENT THIS MOVIE!!!!! You'd have a better time watching Dude Where's My Car than this piece of crap! And that's not saying a lot for that movie either.

The acting is lousy and the movie is just very unwatchable. I was watching this movie and I wanted to kill myself during and after the movie.

I walked home and threw up after watching this piece of dirt movie, I then took a shower and burnt my clothes.

If I had half a mind I would of took the movie outside and burned it too cause no one should be subjected to it...well maybe members of Al Queda..especially the ones we have in custody and also child rapists who are in prison on life sentences with out parole....just make a set up like a clock work Orange, And then force these cheese head to watch it over and over again.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.

The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.

There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to.

What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.

Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I like this film for several reasons. I have a soft spot for films about intricately plotted criminal plots like TOPKAPI. I also enjoy films (like TOPKAPI and BIG DEAL ON MADONNA STREET) that spoof the the genre. One of the best ones is DISORGANIZED CRIME.

Corbin Bernsen has met four cons over the years, and he decides they can all be useful in a bank robbery he is planning in a small Montana town. But he hasn't given any details on the crime to the fellows, nor do they really know each other at all. Shortly after he sends for them Bernsen is arrested by two New Jersey policemen (Ed O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck) whom he escaped from before and have a warrant to bring him back. While he is in their custody the four cons (Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Philips, Ruben Blades, and Will Russ) show up without a clue about why they are there except that Bernsen was planning something.

The first twenty minutes of the film deal with the four cons slowly getting used to each other, with Gwynne and Philips managing to push away their own suspicions to figure out they have to trust each other. At the same time we see Bernsen patiently waiting for the right moment to escape from O'Neill and Roebuck again - not too difficult as they are not the brightest bulbs who ever existed. The result are two sets of plots that will keep juxtaposing against each other throughout the film: the four cons trying to figure out what Bernsen's scheme was, and how to put it into operation, and Bernsen trying to maintain his own freedom from his pursuers and regain his cabin (and hopefully find his gang there for him to take command of). There is also a third, smaller, plot involving the growing annoyance and anger of local Sheriff Hoyt Axton against the idiots from New Jersey who keep getting into his hair.

There are many delightful moments in the film, such as Axton, egged on by O'Neil and Roebuck, into surrounding a house in the town that Bernsen is supposed to be hiding inside of, and yelling (through a megaphone, \"Come out, we have you surrounded!!\", only to have the scene switch to a huge, Montana plain that Bernsen is struggling and stumbling through miles from where the police think he is at that moment. There are moments of misadventures by our four cons, who fortunately put the oldest (Gwynne) into leadership position. This does not always guarantee anything. At one point their car won't start, and they have to thumb a ride by truck. Unfortunately it is a truck carrying manure.

The conclusion with the gang successfully carrying out the robbery, including disabling all the police cars at the critical time (Philips specialty is cars) is also a gem of timing, suspense, and comic results. The film is very entertaining, and certainly worth watching.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A truly dreadful film. I did not know initially that this was a Kiwi effort - but very soon I started to realize that all the characters were speaking with hardly disguised kiwi accents under the fake American ones. Why did it need to be set n America anyway? - it could have been set in NZ and then the actors could have used their normal voices. Surely someone in the production team could hear the dreadful attempts at speaking with American accents? A bad bad film. I am surprised it has lasted this long - how did it make it out of the can? It just seemed like a very poor attempt at a Segal/Willis type action man flick.A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY! If there was any TAXPAYER money in this piece of trash, I would be leading a revolution to have all the money put back into the Treasury. I am still reeling (get it? pun, reeling!) at the absolute garbage I have just seen. Why did I continue to watch? Well, I am a movie fanatic and cant help ,myself!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you are the sort of person looking for a realistic film or one with a strong and believable plot, then this film is NOT for you. Nope--you'll hate it. However, for those who like sweet, slightly screwball comedies, then you'll have a nice time watching this slight film.

Tony Randall works for the IRS and he investigates a very nice farmer who never realized he needed to file an income tax return. However hard he tries to convince them of the seriousness of his visit, everyone in the family is thrilled to have company. They dote on him and treat him like one of the family,...and have plans on getting him hitched to their daughter, Debbie Reynolds. That's really about all the plot there is. But the film gets high marks for a fun script and decent acting. A really nice little curio from the late 1950s.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie, to me, is about family. Jimmy Morris lived his dream not just for himself, but for his family. I can't begin to tell you how I would be able to tell my little girl that daddy was going to Kansas City to cover Priest Holmes and the Kansas City Chiefs. She'd think it was the coolest thing, like Morris' son did. Living dreams with the family is what this one is about. I think only a father who has a close relationship with his family can truly appreciate what Jimmy Morris did.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Lots of reviews on this page mention that this movie is a little dark for kids. That depends on the kid. This isn't a movie for a 2-6 year old; it's more geared toward the 8 years and older crowd. I saw this movie when I was 10, I absolutely loved it. At the time most animated movies were a little too childish for my tastes. This movie deals with more serious issues, and therefore has a little more emotional impact. In this movie characters can DIE, and be sent to HELL! This gives a little more emotional weight to the scenes where characters are risking their lives. The good guys aren't always perfectly sweet and nice (like other cartoons). They have \"real\" motivations, like revenge, and greed, but also compassion and friendship; shows that things aren't always black and white.

Excellent Movie", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Comedy Central has had success with original programming using professional comics. The Chapelle Show, Mind of Mencia, The Daily Show and the hugely popular Colbert Report all star professional comics and all are, or in the case of Chapelle Show, were, solid shows. Given that Sarah Silverman is one of the best female comics in the business, I was expecting good stuff when I tuned in.

I was so disappointed.

There were some mildly funny sequences, but given that the star is the caliber of Silverman, the show could have been much better. It was just the pilot, and hopefully next week's show will be better. If not, get her some help in the form of better writers for the show.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I remember liking this more than Nausicaa of the valley of the winds at an age when that tone of story was too serious for me. Laputa, whose title seems to have affected its release in the U.S. to avoid confusion to its wide Hispanic audiences, has the cartoonish knack of the director's debut production Conan. In fact, Pazu has the thick bones and immortal vitality of Conan--who jumped off a thousand stories carrying his girl in his arms and landed on his feet, then started running. This makes him the most animated and pleasing character to watch. The techie fans of Nausica may be disappointed by the flying bugs and the retro technology through out Laputa--the only exception may be the robot. Unlike Princess Mononoke and Valley of the Winds, the theme in Laputa is not directly connected to environmentalism. If it has a theme at all it's anti-warfare. The importance of living naturally--this is related with the flying castle, is dismissably shortly discussed, and not really followed through. Overall, I now regard the piece as being at an intersection between feel-good and corny.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I recently found a copy for $5 at a video store, and snapped it up eagerly. While the music and (obviously) graphics aren't up to the standards of my favorite of the series, Beyond the Mind's Eye, I am still entranced by one segment:

Stanley and Stella in \"Breaking the Ice\". The music is brilliant, and the emotions feel real. The clip on Odyssey's website doesn't have the story nor the music, unfortunately.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.

Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Previously, I wrote that I loved \"Titanic\", cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.

Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0.

In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in \"Titanic\". (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for \"Titanic\", pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)

Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of \"Titanic\" to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical \"bombs\" (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). \"Heaven's Gate\" (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). \"Big Top Pee-wee\" (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). \"Cat People\" (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). \"Blind Date\" (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). \"Jumpin' Jack Flash\" (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH \"TITANIC\"? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN \"TITANIC\", AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, \"Titanic\" got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.

Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I remember I loved this movie when it came out. I was 12 years old, had a Commodore 64 and loved to play Rambo on it. I was therefore really thrilled when I got to buy this movie really cheap. I put it in my VCR and started up: Man this movie is really bad! Sylvester Stallone says like 3 words in the entire movie (except for that awful sentimental speech at the end), and has the same expression on his face all the way. And that stupid love thing in the middle, it's just so amazingly predictable. I just ended up fast forwarding the entire thing and went to exchange the movie for something else.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of \"Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring\"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of \"3 Iron\"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of \"The Coast Guard\" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in \"Samaritan Girl\"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.

Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as \"beautiful\" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.

What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to \"Audition\" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen \"Audition,\" but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of \"The Isle.\" Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.

The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As a gamer, I can't say I like this film. Fact is, I down right hate it. I tried to watch it as open minded as possible, but when it gets down to it, it feels rather insulting to my social group.

To me, there are several reasons why.

1. The characters seem unnatural. I've met lots of players, of all different walks of life. I don't know any who act like any of the characters in the film. It's like the producers of the film have taken the worst aspects of the worst stereotypes and put them all into 5 people. Most gamers are rather social people, some with rather active lives.

2. The style doesn't work. The mockumentary style is ill suited to the subject matter of the film. An actual documentary on gamers would actually work better. While it is good looking (I.E. cleanly put together), it isn't very good.

3. The dialogue feels forced, unnatural. It also seems to lack any real world context. Gamers swear, I'll admit that, but we don't have Tourette's Syndrome.

4. The humor is lacking. While self-deprecating humor is a mainstay of my group and several other groups I've encountered, this is less self-deprecation, and more like toilet humor. Likewise, a large part of gamer humor is full of in-jokes and anecdotes, not toilet humor. Most gamers would balk at and shun anybody who made such jokes.

5. The biggest problem to me is basically this: Accuracy. I don't mean rules, but instead dynamics. Invariably, this film is going to be compared to the even lower budget films The Gamers and The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, both of which portray the players as actual people playing an actual game. The difference is, Gamers: The Movie presents a situation where you want to beat the players senseless vs. The Gamers, where you can say something like: \"Huh, I know a guy like that... Yep, that's definitely like Gary.\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I really looked forward to seeing Nana after seeing Renoir amazing debut work, Whirlpool of Fate. I had read that Nana was generally considered his best silent film so I had high hopes. Sadly this felt like a huge step backwards.

Catherine Hessling is the main problem with this film. Her acting is over the top, even for a silent film. Her acting is more like what one would expect in a film from the early teens, not the late 20s. She usually has the same face, which reminds me (sorry to say) of someone with constipation pains. It was also very difficult to believe that any man would fall for this femme fatale. There was nothing charming about her at all.

The film was also quite long drawn, the camera work was uninteresting (aside from a shot of a horse race) and the editing was dull. The story reminded me of Pabst's Pandora's Box. It is interesting to compare the two because there are only 3 years between these films. Pandora's Box simply scores on every level where Nana fails.

This film is only for Renoir completists or very serious silent films buffs.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The first scene in 'Problem Child' has a baby peeing into a nun's face. For this movie, that's witty. A nasty, mean-spirited 'comedy', it's inept on so many levels it beggars belief. John Ritter is the kind father who adopts the child from Hell, and kudos to him for maintaining his dignity in the surrounding onslaught of one-note, annoying performances and puerile humour. And what the hell's Jack Warden doing in this mess? Slackly directed by Dennis Dugan and obnoxious in its attempts to turn on the sentimentality when it's done with the crudity, the movie is made so badly it's quite a bizarre experience. But never mind all that. The lowlight of the whole thing is Michael Oliver, the most repulsive and unlikeable kid actor ever to hit the screen – believe me, you will want to smack him right in the mouth.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I wish more movies were two hours long. On the other hand, I wish more American Civil War movies were MERELY two hours long. \"Gone with the Wind\", \"Gettysburg\" - that's about the length I've come to expect; although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted; and even \"Gettysburg\" lasted as long as it did because things HAPPENED in the course of it.

By contrast Ang Lee's film is bloated and uneventful. It actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. That wasn't a compliment. It's really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation: at the time it feels as though it will never end, afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all.

The film gets off on the wrong foot, as Lee plays his interminable credits OVER the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. The central two are Jake, the son of German immigrants who are staunch supporters of Lincoln, and Jack, an equally staunch Southerner whose values Jake shares. (I had to re-read that sentence to make sure I hadn't written \"Jack\" instead of \"Jake\" at some point or vice versa.) The two go off to become \"bushwhackers\" - Southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can't even be bothered to join the official Southern army, which I presume they think is for sissies. I'm afraid Lee lost me right there. It's easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes: if we have some independent reason to like them, or feel as if we know them in some way, then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. Not so here. We aren't properly introduced to Jake for at least an hour; when we are, it becomes clear he's a gormless pimple of a man, who isn't a confederate by choice so much as by habit - the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does, whose psychology is purely immitative. The people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. I found myself cheering whenever the Northern cavalry appeared on the screen. I thought: good - kill the rebels, end the damned war, let me go home.

Aggravating this problem is the horrible, horrible dialogue. Everyone speaks in the same whining Southern accent. I've heard accents from all over the English-speaking world and this is the worst of them all. I don't care if Southerners really did talk like that, it's simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. And believe me, we do listen to it for the full two hours: Lee's picture is a talky one, largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical, say-everything-three-times, folksy drawl. It would help if they talked faster, but not much. Can't these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate?

In short: the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life, who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech, who don't bathe often enough, to whom nothing of interest happens, despite their being involved in a war. Good points? Jewel was nice to look at, and so was the scenery. But I have complaints even here. The cinematography, nicely framed, looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake; and as for Jewel, we were teased with her body, but never actually allowed to gaze upon it, which I think is the least we were owed.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Jag är nyfiken – Yellow\" is a lot of fun. Like at least one other reviewer, I was, on numerous occasions, laughing out loud. Yellow is energetic, playful, self-aware, explorative. Don't expect Bergman here. This movie is about a youth in the early- to mid-60s in Sweden and about the issues, read *contradictions*, that the nation and the world were facing. At times Yellow appears to be an earnest social-political documentary, with Lena, the main character, and others interviewing both common people and politicians (e.g. Olaf Palme at home). At other times, Yellow seems to parody this kind of documentary. All the while, Yellow acts as a personal documentary exploring Lena's life - her home life, her loves, her political views, her view of herself. She is a complete person – complex, flawed, contradictory, happy, sad, curious. And placed over all of this is the wonderful additional dimension of the director, Sjöman, and his crew documenting themselves documenting Lena. It is this that, for me, really gives Yellow wings. Not only do they suddenly appear at some very funny times and in some funny ways, reminding the viewer that this is fiction and artifice, but their presence is itself another layer of the film; they are filming themselves filming themselves. I am reminded of a Bjork music video with this same quality – a music video about the making of a music video, ad infinitum, with each iteration getting weirder and more cartoonish. I think Sjöman may have had something similar in mind. While \"Jag är nyfiken – Yellow\" may not be everyone's cup of tea, it is certainly intelligent, witty, refreshing, ebullient, and authentic.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Nora is a single mother-of-two who still wants to live the life of a young artist in the 1970s, as do her friends, a group of writers, singers and actors. The ‘free love' philosophy isn't quite out of the system – and Nora didn't count on falling in love, particularly with a junkie. Hazlehurst won her first of two AFI Awards in the space of four years for her amazing portrayal of Nora, who makes sure she does the right thing by her children, but falls in love with junkie Javo (Friels) at the same time. Garner – who would later costar in films such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES and STRANGE PLANET – is well-cast as Nora's pre-pubescent daughter, and Caton (perhaps in readiness for his role as host of the lifestyle program HOT PROPERTY in 2000???) appears as a bearded painter. Early effort by director Cameron is a winner; he went on to make the award-winning miniseries MY BROTHER JACK among his later projects. But it's the stunning delivery by Hazlehurst which brings to life the intelligent, searching script, based on Helen Garner's award-winning novel.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie is great and I like the story. I prefer this movie than other movie such The cell ( sick movie ) and Highlander ( silly movie ). I just tell the truth, I like a reality hehe and also a true story :)

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Here, on IMDb.com I read an opinion, that Grey Owl is best character of Pierce Brosnan ever performed. I do not know if he had better nor worse roles, I'm not his fan, but this one was really exceptional.

The other thing - impressive hand of the movie director. I give my respect. The serenity, the beauty and spirit of wilderness was illustrated really exlusively, I never met such proximity it in any movie before.

Another thing left in my mind after the film - this is the movie, closest to the original books, and atmosphere in it.

And little bit more. I pay my respect to the original Grey Owl.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.

This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.

Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.

The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This \"screwy comedy\" seems very forced. Indeed, the actors TRY very hard to make a go of an essentially unfunny script. And, as a result it doesn't really go anywhere. The idea of a woman finding out she was pregnant after getting a quickie divorce just isn't all that funny. And then, when Cooper sneaks off with the baby because he doesn't want it put up for adoption just seems terribly unfunny and it's really pushing hard to turn this into a comedy. It's really a shame, too, as the actors were more capable than the script and I found myself just bored by the whole mess. Considering that Cooper made so many GOOD comedies, I recommend you see them instead.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"The Straight Story\" is a truly beautiful movie about an elderly man named Alvin Straight, who rides his lawnmower across the country to visit his estranged, dying brother. But that's just the basic synapsis...this movie is about so much more than that. This was Richard's Farnworth's last role before he died, and it's definitely one that he will be remembered for. He's a stubborn old man, not unlike a lot of the old men that you and I probably know.

\"The Straight Story\" is a movie that everyone should watch at least once in their lives. It will reach down and touch some part of you, at least if you have a heart, it will.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "'The Student of Prague' is an early feature-length horror drama or, rather, it is an \"autorenfilm\" (i.e. an author's film). This film is a member of a movement of many movements that tried to lend respectability to cinéma, or just make a profit, by adapting literature or theatre onto the screen. Fortunately, the story of this book with moving pictures is good. Using Alfred de Musset's poem and a story by Edgar Allen Poe, it centres on the doppelgänger theme.

Unfortunately, the most cinematic this film gets is the double exposure effects to make Paul Wegener appear twice within scenes. Guido Seeber was a special effects wizard for his day, but he's not very good at positioning the camera or moving it. Film scholar Leon Hunt (printed in \"Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative\"), however, has made an interesting analysis on this film using framing to amplify the doubles theme: characters being split by left/right, near/far and frontal/diagonal framing of characters and shots. Regardless, the film mostly consists of extended long shots from a fixed position, which is noticeably primitive. Worse is the lack of editing; there's very little scene dissection and scenes linger. None of this is unusual for 1913, but there were more advanced films in this respect around the same time, including the better parts of 'Atlantis' (August Blom, 1913), 'Twilight of a Woman's Soul' (Yevgeni Bauer, 1913) and the short films of D.W. Griffith.

An expanded universal film vocabulary by 1926 would allow for a vastly superior remake. Furthermore, the remake has a reason for the Lyduschka character, other than being an occasional troublemaker and spectator surrogate. Here, the obtrusively acted gypsy lurks around, seemingly, with a cloak of invisibility. I know their world is silent to me, but I assume, with their lips moving and such, that their world would not be silent to them, so how can Lyduschka leer over others' shoulders and not be noticed?

Nevertheless, this is one of the most interesting early films conceptually. Wegener, who seems to have been the primary mind behind this film, in addition to playing the lead, would later play the title role and co-direct 'The Golem' in 1920--helping to further inaugurate the supernatural thread in German silent cinéma.

(Note: The first version I viewed was about an hour long (surely not quite complete) and was in poor condition, with faces bleached at times and such. I'm not sure who was the distributor. I've also since seen the Alpha DVD, which, at 41 minutes, is missing footage present in the aforementioned print and also has fewer and very different title cards, but is visually not as bad. The repetitive score is best muted, though.)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I rented this movie on DVD without knowing what to expect - and as I am about to study film-making in Canada of all places, I most certainly will bring this up in class.

The story, centered around the probably most unlucky film team in the history of film itself, is brilliantly written and the very talented actors manage to deliver every single pun on time.

If you simply couldn't laugh during \"Hollywood North\" I suggest seeing a psychiatrist right away - you might have serious issues.

Besides the wonderful script I also noticed the great chemistry between actors Deborah Kara Unger and Matthew Modine - where they really just acting? Jennifer Tilly (playing a hilariously bad actress) and Martin Landau, also delivered a very edgy, yet funny performance.

Great film, even better cast.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When I first watched this, we borrowed it from our local library about a year ago and watched it about 3 times. We've just watched it again and I liked it MORE than I did the last time I'd watched it!! :) :()

The film is mainly about two dogs called Charlie and Itchy (voiced by Dom DeLuise and I love Dom DeLuise!) . Charlie is half a gangster and half a goodie, which I like. Itchy is his sidekick. Charlie is killed by his friend (NOT) and sent to heaven. When Charlie comes back to life, it is the start of an amazing adventure.

The five main reasons why I'm absolutely CRAZY about this film: One: I love the characters (except Carface). My favourite three are Charlie, Itchy and a little girl called Anne-Marie who comes slightly later. Two: I love the period of history in which this film is set. It is set during the prohibition in the United States. Three: The Don Bluth animation (as usual) is superb. The backgrounds are good too. Four: There is a strange excitement in this film that keeps me on the edge of my seat. Five: The songs in this are lovely. My favourite song starts with \"I need Brazil, the throb, the thrill\"...

So, watch this lovely film when you can, you won't be disappointed! :) ;) :()", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Anyone who visited drive-ins in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, must have seen a film or two by American International Pictures, a distributor that resembled 1980s giant Cannon Films. Wherever movie-goers ventured, AIP would be right there to supply the latest en vogue titles - in the 50s came horror movies like 'Voodoo Woman' and 'The Undead;' in the 60s were Frankie Avalon-Annette Funicello beach comedies and biker flicks like 'The Glory Stompers;' and into the 70s, AIP churned out grindhouse-level trash like 'Cannibal Girls' and 'Sugar Hill.'

'Dillinger,' released in 1973, is one of the more 'highbrow' AIP efforts that capture the true spirit of drive-in film-making; it is one of those uneven, over-the-top flicks that satisfied the masses' thirst for entertainment, craftsmanship and common sense be damned. On the whole, 'Dillinger' is typical for its era: entertaining and worth a couple of hours, but certainly not memorable. Heavy on action and short on both acting and historical fact, 'Dillinger' was a fair effort by screenwriter-director John Milius ('Magnum Force') but certainly left room for improvement in his extensive career.

The 109-minute 'Dillinger' - epic for AIP's scope - follows the quest of FBI Midwest chief Melvin Purvis, played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson. Purvis was the investigator who sought revenge for four FBI agents killed in a 1933 Kansas City ambush that helped gangster Frank Nash to escape justice. At large were the men who supposedly plotted that breakout, including expert bankrobber John Dillinger (Warren Oates), Pretty Boy Floyd (Steve Kanaly), and psychopath Baby Face Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). Dillinger eventually joined forces with Floyd and Nelson, taking along Homer Van Meter (Harry Dean Stanton) and Harry Pierpont (Geoffrey Lewis). He also hooked up with Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips), a prostitute of French and Indian extraction. While taking place over several months in 1933-4, 'Dillinger' is basically a chase film, with Purvis's entourage looking to run down and kill off the men wanted by J. Edgar Hoover.

'Dillinger' has a documentary feel, listing dates and places while Johnson supplies loose narrative as Purvis. Milius keeps an honest Depression look, using authentic fashion, cars, weapons, and buildings; he also sprinkles around black-and-white photography and stock footage of gangster shootouts. The film is never boring, moving at a quick, if haphazard, pace. The action scenes are Dillinger's strongpoint, edited competently by Fred Feitshans Jr in his last professional effort. Thousands of blank ammunition rounds must have been used to make this film, not to mention pounds of explosives. This film is certainly not for the squeamish, with people getting shot and dropping dead all over the place. The violence, while gratuitous, brings some understanding of the mayhem that organized crime dumped on American life.

This film never transcends its exploitation status, however, because the needed writing just isn't there. John Milius, somewhat overrated as a filmmaker, places way too much emphasis on action. The action scenes (mostly blood-filled shootouts) are impressive and comparable with any major crime film of its era, including 1967's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' But we simply don't get to know much about Dillinger and his gang members as people; the vital relationship that develops between Dillinger and Frechette is barely touched upon, with the pair meeting in a bar during one scene and cavorting as lovers just ten minutes afterward. Melvin Purvis also seems to wander in and out of the storyline, becoming a prominent figure only when Milius needs to keep the film from unraveling. All too often, the film takes on a shoot-'em-up persona when its characters could have been explored in detail.

Aside from this, the picture's main crime is ignorance of historical fact. While many say that 'Dillinger' is just a film, it's films such as this one that create fables and make them permanent. Those with knowledge of gangster history will point out that John Dillinger was not the last of his ring to die, as Milius's screenplay and the film's documentary style encourage us to believe. In fact, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter; he also was said not to be carrying a gun on the night of his death, nor did he have Billie Frechette in tow. While these inaccuracies might make for high drama, there is no reason why Milius couldn't have stayed with the facts and written a great story around them.

Warren Oates's performance as Dillinger is quite good, although he sometimes looks unconvincing. Oates is humorous and nicely portrays how Dillinger became consumed by his larger-than-life image in the American press; however, we never really feel the menace he invoked in his lifetime. Ben Johnson gives some life to Purvis, suave but rather flat. Michelle Phillips brings emotion to the Billie Frechette character and it's really too bad that Milius's screenplay didn't flesh out her relationship with Dillinger. We never learn what drew her to a cold-blooded killer, other than the stereotype of an easy-going girl who is attracted to men of danger. The supporting roles with Kanaly, Dreyfuss, Stanton, Lewis, and a briefly-appearing Cloris Leachman, are acceptable for such talent.

As a piece of 1970s exploitation, 'Dillinger' appears doomed to retail bargain bins, which is exactly where I picked up MGM's DVD release for $4.99. The film is nicely presented in widescreen (a must for drive-in flicks) with subtitles in French and Spanish. Dillinger's theatrical trailer is supplied as a lone extra. Largely forgotten except by gangster movie fans and drive-in enthusiasts, the film doesn't really call for much else in way of supplementary material. For fans of the genre, it's certainly worth checking out.

** out of 4

Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The power to dream is a wonderful thing. There's a saying, \"Not all dreamers achieve, but all achievers dream.\" By exploring our imagination we shape our own futures. Or build empires. Perhaps overcome our fears, limitations and obstacles. Gain wisdom and benefit mankind. Or (put simply) just find our way to true love and happiness. Freud might express such things in symbols. The language of fantasy.

Tristan ventures out of a rather twee English village called Wall. He goes through a break in the wall. A portal. In search of something that will prove his love to Victoria (Sienna Miller). Victoria doesn't take him very seriously. So he pledges to bring back a falling star.

Stormhold is the world outside the wall. He discovers the fallen star has taken the form of a beautiful girl, Yvaine (Claire Danes). To complicate matters, three evil witches want to get hold of Yvaine. If they can eat her heart, it will replenish their youth. (One of the witches is played by Michelle Pfeiffer, who does fabulous young-old transformations of looks and manner.) The 'good guy' they meet on their way is Captain Shakespeare (Robert de Niro). He has a fierce, swashbuckling pirate exterior but is a sweetie closet queen underneath. Heirs of Stormhold meanwhile are engaged in a pitched battle over inheriting the Kingdom. Ricky Gervais is an added extras. A buffoon trader throwing in standard Gervais-type gags well. Tristan's purity of spirit arouses the love of Yvaine, so there is a nice little triangle going. Till he achieves the maturity to discern pedestal divas from real women.

Stardust is a full-on, large scale fantasy that does credit to its myriad stars. Wholly positive, and written with a clarity that makes it more worthy of psychoanalysis that a coven full of Harry Potter romps. Production values rival Hollywood, and the storyline is free of the racial stereotyping, misogyny, religious or class agendas than shape and pervert so many large scale fantasies.

That is not to say that Stardust is without its faults. Plot and dialogue have many predictable elements, and the fairytale quality may be too saccharine for some audiences. But if you want an excuse to let your heart fly, this film may well provide it.

As a boy, I remember listening in wonder to albums by the Moody Blues (who practiced in a house not far from where I lived). They made records with names like \"In Search of the Lost Chord,\" and wrote lyrics like, \"Thinking is the best way to travel.\" I would fill my head with books on magic and mystery, from Timothy Leary to Aleister Crowley. Shaping dreams. Learning to make them real. Nowadays people might talk of NLP or positive thinking. Adults that remember how to dream with the force of youth but with the vision and application of maturity. Do you still enjoy that feeling?

You are advised not to wait for Stardust on DVD. See it on the biggest cinema screen you can find. And Dolby Digital Surround Sound if you can get it. The actors look like they had a ball. Maybe you will too.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Dana Andrews is one of those actors that I've probably seen in a dozen films, but who has never really registered for me. Often stolid, taciturn, playing the same kinds of roles and looking somewhat like the similarly underrated Glenn Ford, he's an actor that takes some effort to really appreciate; but once you hit the right film....

And this is it. Preminger's moody look at New York's underbelly is as dirty and seedy as just about any 50s noir, and Andrews is in his element as too-tough cop Mark Dixon who just doesn't know how to play the game to get ahead: he hates criminals too much to always play by the rules. Early on in the film, he accidentally kills the witness to a murder involving an illegal crap game set up by a mobster who Dixon hates for personal reasons, and he spends the rest of the film trying to cover up his involvement and bring the mobster to his kind of \"justice\". Along the way he gets involved with the estranged wife of the man he killed (Gene Tierney) and also has to try to get her father off the hook for the murder.

Stunningly photographed by Joseph LaShelle, with hard and sparkling dialogue by Ben Hecht and a truly powerful ending with elements of tragedy and found grace in just a minute or two of time, this is another noir for the ages and might be my favorite Preminger film thus far -- it's every bit as good as the more-heralded Laura.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Warning: contains a spoiler. Corny plot and in many cases terrible acting. Fontaine is great, but some others, particularly Richard Ney, Ivy's husband, are exceedingly wooden. Ney lies in bed, dying of arsenical poisoning, with every hair in place. Yet the movie is so juicy and so suspenseful. More faithful to the book than most movies of its era. Casting Joan Fontaine as a poisoner (and an adulteress, which was just as shocking then - I'm not kidding, kids) was a masterful stroke. She's just her usual Joan Fontainey self. As murderers were supposed to, she dies by falling \"feet foremost through the floor into an empty space.\"", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My room-mate ordered this one off of the web a while back and I finally got around to watching it. It is gross. It is cheezy. It is pretty dumb... but it is also a lot of fun. I mean, this was the most fun we have had watching a movie like this since \"City Of The Walking Dead\" ages ago. It was like being at the old Drive-In Theater again! You could tell the guy who made this movie liked all the horrible dubbed zombie movies. This one has all the cliches and tricks from those films rolled into one, and it's neat because it is SUPPOSE to be like that. The cheeze factor is high, the gore flows and the laughs roll! The effects go from sloppy to good, with the one where the guy gets torn in half and the one where a guy gets his heart shoved through his chest both being excellent! The acting goes from terrible to actually pretty good. There is not much plot, just lots and lots of gore. This one is patterned after the zombie movies from Italy and Spain I think, because they linger on the gross scenes forever, like this movie. If you like Troma movies, cheezy B-grade stuff, then you can do no wrong watching this one. A nice way to waste a Friday night!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "OMG this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot I'm a Film student. I don't understand why Angelina Jolie would be in this movie? Did she need the money that badly? I love AJ and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. It was SOO bad! not even good bad, just bad bad. It had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. I cant even say AJ looked good in it because well she didn't. The plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet then its not. All round disappointing. Maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise I really don't recommend it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As the celebration of Christmas has evolved through the years, whether one concentrates on the religious or the secular traditions, it is a time when people are supposed to behave a little better to each other. That has somehow slipped past one Ebenezer Scrooge, merchant and money lender in 19th century London.

As his nephew points out to his uncle, he doesn't keep Christmas in any way because Scrooge feels the whole thing is humbug. The humanity in Scrooge was driven out long ago, he's a hard case, a whole lot like his 20th Century counterpart, Mr. Potter of Bedford Falls, New York.

But as Charles Dickens told this tale, redemption is not too late for any of us and a lonely ghost and three spirits visit Scrooge and show him how.

A Christmas Carol is such a timeless holiday classic that we sometimes forget that it is as much a social commentary of 19th century Great Britain as Oliver Twist was. The characters in this film are middle and lower class. The Cratchits are a couple of rungs above the street people in Oliver Twist, but they are having to struggle to stay up there. Still love and happiness radiate their home, no thanks to the guy Bob Cratchit works for.

Like George Bailey who did a whole lot of good in his life and just had to be reminded how much, Ebenezer Scrooge needed a wake up call as to the potentiality he still had for doing some good in this old world.

Patrick Stewart in his live performances and filmed play has pretty much taken over the part of Scrooge. But George C. Scott captures the old miser pretty well in this film. The meanness of him, but with a trace of sadness that makes us root for him to change. Scott joins a fine tradition of people like Reginald Owen and Alastair Sim who've both done great interpretations of Scrooge.

Among the supporting roles I particularly enjoyed David Warner as Bob Cratchit and Edward Woodward as a hearty and stern spirit of Christmas present.

According to IMDb this is one of 32 versions of A Christmas Carol made that they have archived and it is one of the best.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first!

There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is an unusual Laurel & Hardy comedy with something of a split personality: at times it feels like two movies made in different styles spliced into a single short. Happily, each portion is funny in its own right, and the boys' seemingly effortless clowning carries the day and synthesizes the film's disparate elements into an entertaining whole. While I've never heard a fan cite DIRTY WORK as his or her favorite Laurel & Hardy comedy, it's nonetheless one that everybody seems to like.

Our story is set in the home of Professor Noodle, who represents one key element of the story-line: a wildly over-the-top parody of Mad Scientist scenarios. This marks a rare venture into sci-fi territory for L&H; Abbott & Costello and The Three Stooges tangled with mad doctors far more often than Stan & Ollie. In any event, the professor is obsessed with creating a rejuvenating serum that can make people younger, while his sarcastic butler, Jessup, expresses the viewer's skepticism with rolled eyes and the occasional dry quip. Meanwhile, Stan & Ollie are chimney sweeps who show up at the Professor's home the very day he perfects his solution. \"Their\" portion of the film consists of characteristic (but first-rate) slapstick involving the chimney, the roof, shovels, and a number of unfortunate mishaps. If you don't enjoy watching these guys screw up a task then you probably won't like DIRTY WORK, but for fans of the team this movie is a feast. The highlight comes when Ollie plummets through the chimney, lands in the fireplace, and is then pummeled with bricks that fall onto his head with maddening rhythmic precision, one by one. I also like the shot of Ollie tumbling off the roof into a greenhouse; the process work is so slapdash I suspect it was something of an inside joke, the way W.C. Fields' movies would feature the world's worst rear-projection screens.

The slapstick stuff is great fun, but it's the mad scientist motif that makes this film offbeat, and two supporting players deserve a tip of the bowler hat: prolific character actor Lucien Littlefield is terrific as the professor, delivering his overripe lines with relish and cackling with hammy glee, while Sam Adams is a stitch in the less showy role of Jessup the butler. As great as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were in their prime, it's always worth noting that their supporting casts at the Hal Roach Studio gave their films an enormous boost. So too, usually, did the background music of Le Roy Shield, but DIRTY WORK marks a rare occasion from this period that a Roach comedy has no musical accompaniment at all after the opening credits. Mood music might have enhanced the proceedings, but no matter; this is a highly enjoyable comedy anyhow, and a prime example of what made Laurel & Hardy so popular in their day.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Its hard to make heads or tails of this film. Unless you're well oiled and in the mood to mock, don't view Santa Claus. It mixes Santa, Satan, Merlin, and moralizing in a most unappetizing way. It certainly is not for fretful children.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "With the exception of about 10 sublime minutes with HB Warner on the celestial train, this was 94 minutes of jaw-dropping horribleness! The acting was atrocious, but the story is what I really found appalling. The acting was wooden and stilted, even by early talkies standards (the exceptions being Lee Tracy and HB Warner, neither of whom can do wrong). Rose Hobart was absolutely horrid and lifeless as Julie (as she likewise was in 1932's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an otherwise excellent flick). And the rest of the cast was worse, there being no words to describe their awfulness.

Worse than the acting, however, was the story. For some unknown reason, Julie loves Liliom, a cad and user of women with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He marries Julie but doesn't support her, instead lying in bed all day or hanging out with his low-life criminal pal (Lee Tracy). And, oh yeah, he never has a kind word to say to Julie and he regularly beats her. Julie loves him nonetheless and continually makes excuses for him, which only seems to make him more abusive. What's even sicker is that this movie presents this story to us as a love story. Somehow we are supposed to see Julie as a noble character whose pure love redeems Liliom. WTF?

The last 1/3 of this movie takes place after Liliom has killed himself (a robbery plot goes awry and Liliom plunges a knife into himself rather than being taken in by the police). As he lay dying, he tells Julie \"I beat you all the time, but I'm not sorry for it.\" When he at last dies, she finally tells him she loves him. (Neither character ever said \"I love you\" to the other while they were alive.) After his death, God's Chief Magistrate gives Liliom one more day on earth so that he can \"do something good\" for his unborn daughter. The price for this is 10 years in hell. After 10 years, Liliom is allowed one day on earth to see his now 10-yr-old daughter. He approaches her in the front yard of her home and tries to cajole her into letting him \"do something good\" for her; he tries to get her to play cards, he tries to give her Gabriel's horn, but she's not interested and rebuffs him. So he slaps her. He. Slaps. Her. And then he disappears back to the afterlife. Looking on, we see his daughter tell Julie about this. The girl says the slap didn't hurt, that it felt like a kiss. This is supposed to be the movie's magical moment. The girl asks her mother if such a thing is possible, and Julie replies that \"someone can be beat you and beat you and beat you and not hurt you at all.\" Then the music swells and Liliom rides up to heaven in the celestial train. BLECH!

There was one saving grace to this film, and that is the interview between the Chief Magistrate (HB Warner was truly magnificent here) and Liliom on the celestial train. The Magistrate had some very profound things to say to Liliom about life and second chances and death. This scene alone made me bump this rating from 1 to 2 stars. Regarding Liliom's suicide as a means for escaping his problems, the Magistrate says \"People suppose that when they die, their difficulties are ended for them. You thought that by killing yourself that you would cancel all your responsibilities. It is not as simple as that. On Earth your name is still spoken; your face is still remembered. As long as one is left who remembers you, so long is the matter unended. Until you have been completely forgotten, you will not be finished with the Earth, even though you are dead.\" Some great sublime transcendental stuff amongst some of the most horrible trash I've ever seen.

By the way, this story has apparently been filmed many times both as \"Liliom\" and as the musical \"Carousel.\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Timeless musical gem, with Gene Kelly in top form, stylish direction by Vincente Minnelli, and wonderful musical numbers. It is great entertainment from start to finish, one of those films that people watch with a smile and say \"they don't make 'em like they used to!\" But they never did quite make them like this. The climactic 25 minute musical sequence without any dialogue is among the most beautiful in film history. Movie magic, clearly derived from the heart and soul of everyone involved. A must see!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Saw this a couple times on the Sundance Channel several years ago and received a nice cinematic jolt to the system. A semi-surreal yet hard edged take on modern media culture (or the lack of it), focusing on some seriously wacked, way-beyond-the-Hollywood-fringe dwellers. It had an amusing early performance from Mark Ruffalo, and some memorable cinematography from the DP who did the Polish Brothers movies. There was a savage umcompromising humor and a weirdly original feel to it that definitely set it apart. This film had cult classic written all over it, and I'm surprised it's not yet out on DVD.

Hopefully soon.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My children just happened to stop at this movie the other night and as things started to play out it really piqued my interest. I had to head out for bowling league so I had them record it for me on the dvr so I could watch the rest later. Well I just got done watching it and the front of my shirt must be soaked after crying buckets. It was an excellent movie even though I could almost feel the pain and anguish these girls were experiencing. And I never in a million years would have guessed the reason why Alissia had gone from this beautiful girl to an anti-social goth. This was probably WHY my shirt was soaked because I've experienced that same pain that Alissia was feeling. I too would not have sought out this movie, but I'm sure glad I saw it. Very moving, very touching. Great for those who love a good drama or tear-jerker.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am so glad that i got a chance to see this rare little gem of a movie. I saw it at an independent film festival, so don't expect it to come to your town anytime soon. During the film, i noticed about 10 people get up and walk out. Too bad for them (down here in the south, folks don't like having to read subtitles). The movie starts out slow, but is so rich in dialogue that i never felt bored. When the action finally arrives, i found myself glued to the screen as if i were riding a roller coaster.

I also got a big kick of the Chapter Titles appearing before the chapters, especially the ones that introduce the characters as they appear on screen. It reminded me of Zelda (Ocarina of Time) when you face level bosses.

If this is the future of \"video game/comic book\" movies, then i welcome it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The performances in this movie were fantastic. The dialogue was great. Jason Patric delivered a fantastic performance as \"Kid\" Collins in this wonderful adaptation of the Jim Thompson novel. Far superior to \"The Grifters\", which was a good movie, this film really stayed true to the pulp fiction/film noir roots from which the story came. I recommend this movie to all film noir fans.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "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.

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.

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).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic \"Private Lessons\" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.

\"Private Lessons II\" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.

The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Jill Dunne (played by Mitzi Kapture), is an attractive, nice woman, over-whelmed by a smart-mouthed teenage daughter, Liv (Martha MacIsaac) and a petty, two-timing husband, Sean (Rick Roberts), both of which were tediously self-centered, and obnoxious.

This was advertised as a troubled family stalked by a crazed killer during a relentless storm.

The storm doesn't even happen until about the last 5 minutes of the film, and then it isn't anything to send anybody running to the storm cellar.

The stalking, likewise doesn't get intense until almost the end of the film.

Most of the film we spend listening to Jill and her insufferable daughter, Liv, argue until I just wanted to back slap the daughter into next week.

Jill's problem with Liv is that she has taken up with Zack, a boy of questionable character, and they are constantly making out--in fact Jill comes home to find the two of them on Liv's bed.

The rest of the time we spend listening to Jill's husband Sean either whine at Jill or criticize her.

Sean was not at all appealing--since his face is so covered in freckles you could play connect the dots.

The story begins with Jill being notified of an out-standing bill on their credit card for a hotel she has never been to, and that she thought Sean had never been to either.

Jill goes to the hotel where she meets the owner & manager, Richard Grant (Nick Mancuso), a very nice, older, divorced man, who is sympathetic to her. In fact, when he spots her husband there again, he phones Jill and tips her off.

Jill returns to the hotel, sees Sean with another woman. She is upset, leaves without Sean seeing her, and does absolutely nothing. In fact, she doesn't even say anything to Sean when he arrives home. This made no sense to me.

Jill has given Richard her business card, and so he calls her and she is apparently in real estate. She shows him a condo. Afterwards they have a drink, and things get cozy between them.

Richard and Jill are getting it on, hot and heavy. In fact, he seems a bit more aggressive than necessary, when Jill suddenly decides to cut out.

Jill and Sean have a confrontation about his cheating. Sean whines about how Jill has been letting him down since her father died. Apparently his lack of any morals is all her fault. Eventually Jill confesses her own lack of morals and near adultery to Sean--and of course that's all her fault too, as far as Sean is concerned.

The little family decides to go on a camping trip--which means more whining and grousing among them, especially from the spoiled daughter.

I was so rooting for the stalker to get everybody, but Jill.

3 stars", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Chilly, alienating adaptation of Rebecca West's book about an Army Captain returning from duty in WWII with his memory impaired (now there's an original idea!). It seems he remembers old flame Glenda Jackson but not current wife Julie Christie, which should be enough to set off some emotional sparks. This extremely well-cast soaper brings together leading man Alan Bates with director Alan Bridges and co-stars Jackson, Christie, Ann-Margret, and Ian Holm, but the burners are all on low. There are a handful of good scenes (particularly whenever Jackson is on-screen), but Bridges' pacing is unrelievedly sluggish and the film's dulled-out color is enervating. Long on the shelf, this \"Soldier\" is best left forgotten. *1/2 from ****", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and \"cleaverly\" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.

Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.

It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "God Bless 80's slasher films. This is a fun, fun movie. This is what slasher films are all about. Now I'm not saying horror movies, just slasher films. It goes like this: A high school nerd is picked on by all these stupid jocks and cheerleaders, and then one of their pranks goes horribly wrong. Disfigured and back for revenge, sporting a Joker/Jester mask (pretty creepy looking, might i add), Marty begins to kill off those teens one by one many years later, after he manages to make them believe that their old abandoned high school is having a reunion. That is basically the plot? What's wrong with that? That's the beauty of 80's slasher films, most of them i would say. A lot of things could be so ridiculous, but they keep drawing you more in an' in as they go by. Especially this film.

It features some outrageous killings, and some are quite creative as well. (poisoning of a beer can, acid bath, i can't remember a javelin ever being used before in any other slasher film either)It really is a fun, fun movie. That's all it is. Nevermind the fact that the characters are complete idiots, never mind their stupidity, and never mind the outrageous, random things that occur in this film. Such as lights being able to be controlled by the killer (when he's not even switching any buttons, you'll see) and toilets being able to cough up blood, baths being able to have acid come out of them, just use that as part of your entertainment! Because thats what really makes it entertaining.

Movies like this represent 80's slashers. Never again could movies like this get made, know why? It isn't the 80's anymore. That is why you should just cherish them for what they are, good fun! I highly recommend this film if you're a hardcore fan of Slahsers such as Friday the 13th.

One last note this movie also had a kick ass villain as well, Marty Rantzen. A disfigured, nerd, who kills all his old foes in a creepy Jester mask. A good villain makes a good slasher. Simon Scuddamore, who played Marty apparently committed suicide shortly after Slaughter High was released. That alone adds something creepy to the film, and sticks with it and it even makes you feel more sorry for the Marty character, i guess. All in all, great 80's slashers fun! It's a shame it will never be the same again...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Jake Speed is a film that lacks one thing – a charismatic lead. Unfortunately that's something that really taints the entire movie and it's a shame because at heart it is an enjoyable action movie with a witty enough script and an interesting, if derivative, premise. Although it's genesis probably can be traced back to the success of the Indiana Jones trilogy – the film actually plays a little more like 'Romancing the Stone' albeit in reverse. It's not an author of romantic adventure fiction being led on an adventure by a character very much like one of her creations it is an adventure fiction character (who happens to chronicle his own adventures) leading an ordinary woman on one of his adventures.

When a young woman goes missing in Paris, her sister Margaret (played by the appealing Karin Kopins) gets embroiled with pulp hero Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford) and his sidekick Dennis (Dennis Christopher) who both turn out to be real and very flawed individuals in an adventure that takes them into the heart of a civil war torn African state and ultimately into the clutches of two brothers the deliciously evil Sid (John Hurt) and his ridiculously camp sibling Maurice (Roy London). That's the plot – it's not labyrinthine and it's not complicated but the story that it tells doesn't require great depth.

The action sequences are appealing to begin with and it's certainly true that the heroic trio are put through their paces (whether caught in battles between government and rebel forces or being dropped into a pit full of lions) and there are certainly some quite funny lines. However the film does seem to struggle to find an ending and unfortunately the action sequences that are quite appealing to begin with go nowhere and ultimately become a bit bland and irksome. This, however, may not have been such an issue if it was possible to like Jake Speed but due to Wayne Crawford's performance it becomes harder to really care what happens. Now I don't know if he was stretching himself a little thin as he was also the producer and writer of the movie or whether he's simply not a good actor (as I haven't seen him in much else) but he never really convinces as a roguish mixture of Doc Savage, Indiana Jones and Jack Colton.

This is a shame because most of the other characters play their roles well – Karen Kopins is funny and convincing and her character shares some nice banter with Jake (unfortunately it never convinces). Dennis Christopher is perfect as the archetypal sidekick and John Hurt plays the part with camp relish – almost as if he were in a sixties episode of Batman. He strides about his few scenes growling in a ridiculous cockney accent putting in a performance that almost belongs in another film. Sid is no Moriarty (he is presented as Jake's nemesis from a number of his previous adventures / books) but he is always fun to watch.

Jake Speed tries to channel the same fun B movie spirit as 'Night of the Comet' (a film produced by Crawford a few years beforehand) and almost succeeds but misses – which is a shame because Jake would have been good to watch in a few more adventures and may have been served better by a television series.

I would recommend this out of curiosity appeal but ultimately it leaves a bitter taste because most of the elements were there to make something genuinely good.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The primary aspect of this film which most people miss is that Luhzin lives his life as a chess game. So many people have seen this film and just don't get it, and I don't understand why. While watching this film I was taken on a private journey which floored me. I will try to explain this without any spoilers, but be forewarned, I do talk about things that happen in the movie.

**** Possible Spoilers **** Be Forewarned!****

His is a life of \"large moves\" versus \"small moves\". He chooses Natalia to be his Queen, and he and she behave as his Aunt first described the King and Queen and their moves when she introduced him to chess as a boy. Listen closely to that description.

When someone asks him a question, he flashbacks to the past as if reviewing past moves. (The flashbacks are beautifully lit, by the way.) The flashbacks are quite interesting as well, for they give not only his point of view as a child, but the point of view of the other character as well. It's stunning.

Various characters become either his helpers or his enemies, pawns, bishops and knights, their actions enlightening you as to who's side they are on. Even their placement in a scene is pivotal to understanding what is going on. Beautifully done.

I will not comment more on what happens to the character of Luhzin, but I hope that this will illuminate what is actually happening at the end.

This film is constantly working on many levels, which is why I endorse it. It was a treat and a joy to watch.

If you like this film I would recommend a film called Fresh. The only way that these films are similar is the use of chess and the characters being treated as pieces.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Ursula Andress' naked body is one of those things that make you believe in God. The other two women (especially the one who plays the maid) have great bodies as well. Then why is the higher grade that I can give to a film with such quality and quantity of nudity only 3 out of 10? Because, to get to Ursula's unbelievable body, we have to sit through a movie that is otherwise unfunny and boring (keep in mind that I watched the full 101-minute version, not the 78-minute American one which probably cuts out a lot of the extraneous material). In typical Italian-comedy tradition, most of the characters are exaggerated caricatures (the army freak, the \"latin lover\", the constant drunk, the naive maid) that are not funny, simply overacted. Final word: watch this, but keep your finger on the fast-forward button, you're gonna need it. (*)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The subsequent two seasons of this original series was less than lacklustre. The latter seasons disastrous reshuffle contributed to its three season short life span. Maybe if the plug was pulled after the first season it would've gained a cult following.

Aside from that, the first season was truly hilarious! Witty, clever with superb writing it was promising. The first season's excellent brew had the right ingredients - characters/actors, storyline and so forth. Plus a comedy about a paparazzi reporter was original to boot. Nora and her fellow \"photographers\" on the prowl, night after night, day after day for the exclusives.

A lot of things don't make sense to me. Like how this show, and another fav of mine - Gross Pointe never \"made it\". If only the first seasons of the Naked Truth, and Grosse Pointe were released on DVD, please anyone out there?!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.

Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).

According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.

These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Ying, a Chinese girl who speaks Czech, invited us to screening of a Czech movie (with English subtitles) in the Department of Visual and Environmental Studies (VES). It was the first time I saw Samotáři (Loners, 2000) and it was pretty good.

Much like in many other Czech movies, the seven central characters seem to have a pretty difficult, dirty life; the web indicates that this theme was popular among the U.S. movies in the early 1990s. Their relationships are breaking up, combining, and recombining. Another typical feature of the Czech movies is that neither of the characters is designed to be a universally negative one and neither of them is a permanently positive character either. Also, you can see how the characters judge the features of others depending on the context; that's a very realistic feature of the movie's psychological analysis.

Ondřej is a talented and married young surgeon who has two daughters. Nevertheless, you learn that he has only studied neurobiology to prove how much he loved another woman, Hanka. He is so obsessed that he repeatedly dresses up as a plumber to get into Hanka's parents' house - a house that he repeatedly burns.

Meanwhile, Hanka has a very mixed relationship with her parents. She just decides - by tossing up a coin - to break up with Petr who works in a private radio station. Hanka does not view her parents' bourgeois life as a good example but seems rather unsuccessful in creating a better environment. But she is a very flexible figure, as far as the type of her boyfriends go.

For a while, Hanka seems to have serious plans with Jakub, an innocent drug addict whose memory seems to be rather devastated by the drugs. However, the friends from his band inform Jakub that he already has another girlfriend. Hanka is disappointed and returns to her parents.

When Hanka and Petr break up, it is organized by Robert, a matchmaker who also works for a travel agency where his job is to show the life of ordinary Czech people to Japanese tourists. Robert - who also provides Jakub with marijuana - is never serious about anything and he usually sleeps with many different women; eventually, his mother dies in a hospital and he has his own ways to deal with the depression.

Vesna (a Slavic word for \"Spring\") who came to Prague from Macedonia works as a barmaid - and you won't learn whether she came to Czechia in order to see her dad or UFOs. She seems pretty confused but sometimes helps the other characters from their problems.

Petr works in the radio station and he is the only one who likes his job - a job that he eventually loses. He announces to his audience that he broke up with Hanka - which is how Ondřej learns about the news that make him very happy.

Finally, Ondřej's wife Lenka is always ready to forgive him and stabilize their marriage - even after Ondřej asks a magician to make him disappear so that Ondřej can try to capture Hanka again. (The magician pays his debt because he is a brother of a victim of an important car accident - Jakub and Hanka bring the victim to the hospital and Ondřej saves his life.) Lenka also works for the travel agency - as a translator - and eventually she has to translate some hysterical scenes for 20 or so Japanese tourists who are shooting their movies during Hanka parents' dinner.

The seven characters interact in interesting and exciting ways that would be natural if Prague were smaller by four orders of magnitude. Given the actual size of the Czech capital, it looks a bit unlikely that all these events would take place among seven people, but it is fun.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm one of the millions of Columbo addicts all over the world and just watched this,the episode that started it all, on British Channel 5. It IS fascinating to think what sprung from this so-so movie and I can only marvel at whoever spotted the massive potential of \"Columbo\" and added all the little touches that make it such a marvellous & classic series. That said, this particular movie is not as good as the rest (except for the embarrassing final episode & the patronising British episode). If Columbo had been made as per the original 'pilot' it certainly would NOT have gone on for very long, or be watched and loved world-wide. In this film Lt Columbo is smartly dressed, drives a normal car, has a partner, doesn't talk about his alleged relatives and comes across as quite aggressive. There's also none of the cat-and-mouse chemistry between Columbo and \"the villain\". Watchable, but only for the novelty of seeing how Columbo started out.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A few years ago, I bought several $1 DVD's that contained two movies each. One of them had Three Broadway Girls (an alternate title for The Greeks Had a Word for Them) and this one, Happy Go Lovely. It's basically a backstage musical comedy that takes place in Scotland and concerns mistaken identity involving one of the dancers hitching a ride from a millionaire's limousine. Vera-Ellen is that dancer and-wow, what legs! Ceasar Romero is her producer who takes a chance on her after the original leading lady leaves because he thinks she's dating the millionaire whose car I just mentioned. And David Niven is that rich guy who, when looking for Vera-Ellen, is mistaken for a reporter who's supposed to interview her but gets stalled by Romero. What I've just mentioned may be confusing but (mostly) makes sense if you're willing to check your brain while watching this charmingly screwball comedy with wonderful musical numbers as performed by the exquisite Ms. Vera-Ellen. Romero can be a bit frantic here but Niven becomes hilariously bemused throughout. The print I saw was actually pretty good considering its age and the fact that it's in public domain. And Vera-Ellen does pretty well with her lines since she's not really an actress. So on that note, I highly recommend Happy Go Lovely for movie buffs who love old-fashioned musical comedies.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A movie about Vixen (Erica Gavin) who has a Mountie husband who she loves...but she loves sex too! In the course of the movie she gets multiple men in bed--including her husband AND brother! Also there's a (tame) lesbian sequence.

This film put Russ Meyer on the map and was (I believe) the first critically acclaimed X rated film ever. It was a big hit when it came out. Unfortunately, it doesn't date well.

It is well-directed and Erica Gavin is just great (whatever happened to her), and it was VERY colorful...but by today's standards it's extremely tame. I'm surprised it has an NC-17 rating now--there's no hardcore sex and it only has topless females and no male nudity at all. Also it's (sadly) pretty dull and the addition of politics at the end was confusing (and pretty silly). It is worth catching though to see what was considered very shocking in 1968. Purportedly I saw the cut version (which has an R rating) but I've heard only a few seconds here and there are missing.

Meyer's next film \"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls\" is much better and dates VERY well. Catch that instead.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles. Then it is perhaps best not to try to recreate the past, but to produce an illustration that works best with the other available Beatles material. This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.

*** SPOILERS here on ***

Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect. The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time. The Beatles perform \"Ask Me Why\", \"P.S. I Love You\" and even \"Don't Bother Me\". The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them. Of that original Hamburg repertoire only \"Johnny B. Goode\" and Stu Sutcliffe's \"Love Me Tender\" are retained.

The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate. The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either. Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film. Also as a bonus you get to see the original Cavern club in the film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Despite its interesting premise, 'Sniper' is quite tedious. With a tighter script and sharper directing it could have been electrifying; instead it plods along with little tension.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Bette Midler showcases her talents and beauty in \"Diva Las Vegas\". I am thrilled that I taped it and I am able to view whenever I want to. She possesses what it takes to keep an audience in captivity. Her voice is as beautiful as ever and will truly impress you. The highlight of the show was her singing \"Stay With Me\" from her 1979 movie \"The Rose\". You can feel the emotion in the song and will end up having goose bumps. The show will leave you with the urge to go out and either rent a Bette Midler movie or go to the nearest music store and purchase one of Bette Midler's albums.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am from the Dallas/Fort Worth area and lived in Arlington for a few years. This movie was way off as far as making it look like Arlington. I saw mountains in the background of one scene! Texas doesn't have mountains. I guess that happens when a movie that is supposed to be in Texas is filmed in Canada. The accents are also really bad. They should have gotten actors from Texas to play the parts. There a lot of aspiring actors from Texas out in Hollywood. The movie is really sad though, because it is a true story. I pray that the killer is found and convicted. The one good thing is that bc of her death, we now have the Amber Alert to help find missing children quickly after they are abducted.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Some unsuspecting films carry a message that resonates in the hours and days after viewing. Such is the case for CAROL'S JOURNEY (EL VIAJE DE CAROL), a beautifully crafted 2002 film from Spain based on the novel 'A boca de noche' by Ángel García Roldán who also adapted the book as a screenplay. War and its consequences are not new subject matter for films, but when that war theme plays in the background as a subtle driving force to develop characters (especially children) who must face adult life influenced by the games of adults, the result is a different and more tender examination of the coming of age film genre.

Carol (Clara Lago) is a 12-year-old Spanish American youngster from New York who with her critically ill mother Aurora (María Barranco) returns to her Aurora's home in 1938 at the height of the Spanish Civil War, a home that has been left deserted by her father Don Amalio (Álvaro de Luna) since his wife's death. Carol's father Robert (Ben Temple) is a fighter pilot who has sided with the Republicans against Franco and is rarely with his family. Aurora has a past: she left her lover Alfonso (Alberto Jiménez) to marry Robert, and Alfonso in turn married Aurora's cold sister Dolores (Lucina Gil). Carol is an independent girl who remains aloof to all but her grandfather Don Amalio until she meets others her age but not of her 'class': Tomiche (Juan José Ballesta) and his two friends at first resent Carol, but as events develop Carol and Tomiche are bonded by what feels like the first awakenings of love. When Aurora dies of her illness, Carol must live with Alfonso and Dolores and their daughter Blanca (Luna McGill), yet turns to her grandfather for support and to her mother's best friend and teacher Maruja (the always radiant Rosa Maria Sardà) to understand the disparity between classes and the senseless war that keeps her beloved father from her side. Through a series of incidents Carol and Tomiche learn the rigors of becoming adults, facing more traumas in a brief period of the war than most of us experience in a lifetime. The ending, though sad, is uplifting as Carol's journey to maturity is complete.

The film is shot in Galicia and Portugal and contains some extraordinarily beautiful settings captured with gentle sensitive lighting by cinematographer Gonzalo F. Berridi and enhanced by the musical score by Bingen Mendizábal. Director Imanol Uribe understands the fine line separating pathos from bathos, and in electing to concentrate the story on the children involved, he makes an even stronger statement about the futility and cruelty of war. The cast is exceptional: the stars clearly are young Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta, but they are supported by the fine veteran actors in the adult roles. This is a visually stunning work with a lasting message and should find a much larger audience than it has to this date. Grady Harp", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: \"I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now.\" \"Are you?\" \"Yes, I am.\" That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is \"better\" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was having just about the worst day of my life. Then I stumbled on this cute film, watched it, and now I'm ready to go out & kiss a streetlamp.

I have to admit, I only watched it for 2 reasons: VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS. But it's really so much more. The plot is actually quite clever and creatively woven. It's almost like a Shakespearean comedy with all of its delightful misunderstandings. And of course there's also... VERA-ELLEN'S LEGS.

The only unfortunate aspect of this film is that the version I purchased (the \"100 Family Classics\" collection by Mill Creek Entertainment) doesn't have the best video quality, and I've heard the same about the Alpha release. The brightness and contrast are a bit too high, so a lot of the scenes seem bleached out especially when Vera is dancing in a white dress. But I suppose you can fiddle with the controls of your TV set to compensate. I can only imagine how it looked on the big screen back in '51. The stage sets, costumes & colours are otherwise dazzling & delightfully creepy--sort of in a \"Cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" vein.

As far as the romance goes, this is just perfect. Not sappy, not contrived, not melodramatic. Just 100% ahhhhhh. Too bad, you poor schmucks, your miserable lives will never be as charming as this. Har har har. Wait, what am I laughing at? My life sucks just as bad as yours. Oh hell. Time to watch this movie again.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Geniuses William Cameron Menzies and Herbert George Wells craft this extraordinary anticipation film, with ambition and scope hard to find today. They predict World War II and the way Great Britain was attacked, and also the fact that the war would be followed by a space race. They change the timing; in the film the war and the space exploration are much longer, but there are so many qualitatively correct things that it's amazing. We even see an helicopter (the film is older than them).

Unforgettable giant planes and a futuristic meritocracy of scientists that seem Romans with bubble-helmets: if you can see through those funny costumes you may appreciate the state of the art architecture by masters from the 30s, Well's vision of a rationalistic society, interesting reflections on the nature of power, and John Cabal as archetype of the adventurous and inventive human being, the one that chooses to shape reality and not to be shaped by it.

9 1/2 out of 10. Inspiring like that final monologue by John Cabal.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The book is so good that at least the opening of this made-for-tv movie will move you, but then, as it diverges more and more from the book, taking out all the religion and love and mathematics and putting in cotton candy cliches, it becomes boring. Still, from comments I've heard, people who have not read the book tend to like it, and if it leads even on child to read A Wrinkle in Time, it will have served its purpose. The most embarrassing change is to make the Happy Medium a clone of Mary Poppins' Uncle Albert (I love to Laugh). Nothing is quite so squirm inducing as characters on the screen laughing hilariously at things that are totally unfunny.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When George C. Scott played the title role in \"Patton,\" you saw him directing tanks with pumps of his fist, shooting at German dive bombers with a revolver, and spewing profanity at superiors and subordinates alike. The most action we get from Gregory Peck as \"MacArthur,\" a figure from the same war of debatably greater accomplishment, is when he taps mapboards with his finger and raises that famous eyebrow of his.

Comparing Peck's performance with Scott's may be unfair. Yet the fact \"MacArthur\" was made by the same producer and scored by the same composer begs parallels, as does the fact both films open with the generals addressing cadets at West Point. It's clear to me the filmmakers were looking to mimic that Oscar-winning film of a few years before. But while Peck looks the part more than Scott ever did, he comes off as mostly bland in a story that feels less like drama than a Wikipedia walkthrough of MacArthur's later career.

\"To this day there are those who think he was a dangerous demagogue and others who say he was one of the greatest men who ever lived,\" an opening title crawl tells us. It's a typical dishwater bit of post-Vietnam sophistry about those who led America's military, very much of its time, but what we get here is neither view. MacArthur as presented here doesn't anger or inspire the way he did in life.

Director Joseph Sargent, who went on to helm the famous turkey \"Jaws The Revenge,\" does a paint-by-numbers job with bland battle montages and some obvious set use (as when the Chinese attack U.S. forces in Korea), while the script by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins trots out a MacArthur who comes across as good-natured to the point of blandness, a bit too caught up in his public image, but never less than decent.

Here you see him stepping off the landing craft making his return to the Phillipines. There you see him addressing Congress in his \"Old Soldiers Never Die\" speech. For a long stretch of time he sits in a movie theater in Toyko, waiting for the North Koreans to cross the 38th parallel so we can get on with the story while newsreel footage details Japan's rise from the ashes under his enlightened rule. Peck's co-actors, Marj Dusay as his devoted wife (\"you're my finest soldier\") and Nicolas Coaster as a loyal aide, burnish teary eyes in the direction of their companion's magnificence but garner no interest on their own.

Even when he argues with others, Peck never raises his voice and for the most part wins his arguments with thunderous eloquence. When Admiral Nimitz suggests delaying the recapture of the Philippines, a point of personal pride as well as tactical concern for MacArthur, MacArthur comes back with the comment: \"Just now, as I listened to his plan, I thought I saw our flag going down.\" Doubtless the real Nimitz would have had something to say about that, but the character in the movie just bows his head and meekly accepts the insult in the presence of President Roosevelt.

The only person in the movie who MacArthur seriously disagrees with is Harry S Truman, who Ed Flanders does a fine job with despite a prosthetic nose that makes him resemble Toucan Sam. Truman's firing of MacArthur should be a dramatic high point, but here it takes place in a quiet dinner conversation, in which Peck plays MacArthur as nothing less than a genial martyr.

I've never been sold by Peck's standing at the upper pantheon of screen stars; he delivers great presence but lacks complexity even in many of his best-known roles. But it's unfair to dock him so much here, as he gets little help defining MacArthur as anything other than a speechifying bore. Except for two scenes, one where he rails against the surrender of the Philippines (\"He struck Old Glory and ran up a bedsheet!\") and another where he has a mini-breakdown while awaiting the U.S. invasion of Inchon, inveighing against Communists undermining him at the White House, Peck really plays Peck here, not the complex character who inspired the famous sobriquet \"American Caesar.\" The real MacArthur might have been worthy of such a comparison. What you get here is less worthy of Shakespeare than Shakes the Clown.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Even 15 years after the end of the Vietnam war \"Jacknife\" came not too late or was even superfluous. It's one of the few that try to deal with the second sad side of the war: The time after. Different from movies like \"Taxi driver\" or \"Rambo\" which use to present their main characters as broken heroes in a bad after war environment this movie allows the audience to face a different view on the Vietnam vets. Their development is shown very precisely before and especially after the war. The problems are obvious but in all this tragic there is always the feeling of some hope on the basis of love and friendship. \"Jacknife\" might be the quietest Vietnam movie ever but after almost 15 years this is really plausible and therefor justified. Moreover, it can make us believe that the war has not finished, yet; at least for some of us.

The three main characters are amazing. De Niro has done one of his best jobs but Ed Harris is the star of this movie. Possibly,this was his best performance ever.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Actually one particular person/character isn't \"right there\", but my summary line is referring to the power of the movie. And this is all achieved without any fancy camera moves and/or big production sets, but with a great story and very (believable) and good actors conveying the story (arc).

You could call it a companion piece to great japan movies/cinema (such as Tokyo Story etc.), not so much story-wise of course, but more mood-wise! Great acting, nuances in the performances that are truly gems. If you're eager to experience a touching story and want to see a movie touching you emotionally, than this is the one to go. As you have noticed (as with many of my reviews), I'm not getting into the story. There are places here at IMDb where you can look those up, I'm not one to spoiler the story whatsoever!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

In late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).

Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's \"Where the Heart Is\") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as \"daintily odd\" and raised a querulous eyebrow over \"all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys\". Quite.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "BASEketball is an extremely funny movie that delivers acting that generally makes the movie alot funnier,comedy material that is more than crap in your pants funny,and a pretty good plot despite the fact that its the classic slackers v.s the evil rich guy.The one and only thing I didnt like about BASEketball,was that that kid wasnt really needed in the movie,but,if the kid wasnt in the movie,some of the funny scenes wouldnt have existed.If you have read any pro reviews about this movie,exclude them all because basically all the reviewers didnt like this film.BASEketball is a great comedy that gives everyone what they want.8 out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "it is of course very nice to see improvements on Turkish movie industry, however, i would have expected something more creative from Togan Gokbakar. starting from the script, which i believe it was not a wise written one as some may think. especially the cheesiness of the dialogs, which were putting the audience in a position that, as if they were not smart enough to understand the situations, which, most of the times makes the movie unbearable. it also has an obvious ending; you can easily guess the murderer from the beginning. the weakest part of the scenario is that the impossibility of seriously mentally ill patients to act like normal people, like professionals right away!!!did they ever search for the possibility of patients who are on heavy medicals, to act like professionals and use all the medical terms that even normal people cannot use?????!!!!!!also in the scene where staff was searching for the most dangerous patient, with out any weapon to protect themselves was another weird point of the film. and that scene was so suitable for \"Dikkat Sahan Cikabilir\" title!! those are not the only weak parts of the movie. there were also a lot of preciosities in the film. the depiction of the most dangerous patient was an exact copy from Hannibal, also appearance of Togan in the very end is obviously the worst mistake that he could have done in his first movie! the fuss about the greatness of the movie and the interviews that actor's gave just made people to be curious and force them to see it. Gen is a total disappointment. i would have wonder, if Sahan was not this famous, would Togan be able to shoot this movie, with this much of budget amount?? i hope Togan would realize that it is not fashionable to play in a role as a director as he said in an interview. it was Hitchcock who did it wisely and Night Shyamalan continued it successfully! he should be aware of the fact that he is not Hitchcock nor Shyamalan yet!!!!hoping him to be more careful and creative next time in this big industry!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor \"Robot Jox\". This must be also the reason why its most common name is \"Robot Wars\" and not the alternate name \"Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars\".

\"Robot Jox\" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.

Just like \"Robot Jox\" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that \"Robot Jox\" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.

What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.

Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?

For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.

You can better watch a \"Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers\" episode, for some more action and likability.

3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There are so many goofy things about this movie that I can't possibly name but a few:

BOGART's character: 1. His name – Whip McCord (too easy, so I'll leave it at that. Boy, it makes `Humphrey' sound good.) 2. His long, curly hair and silly sideburns. 3. His Black Bart get-up, complete with spurs! 4. Not sure what shade of lipgloss they've got him wearing, but it ain't none too flattering.

CAGNEY's character (Jim Kincaid ): 1. His lipstick doesn't do him any favors, either. 2. The man is being swallowed by his hat during the entire film! Could they not find a hat to fit him? Even a LITTLE?!!?! 3. His pants are too tight in the rear. 4. He blows the smoke off his gun one too many times, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

If you are a casual Bogart or Cagney fan, and figure it might be a change of pace to see them in a western, do yourself a favor and forget that thought. EVEN THE HORSES LOOK EMBARRASSED! (That is, when they don't look bored.)

In all fairness, I admit that westerns are my least favorite film genre, but I've still seen much, MUCH better than this.

On a comedy level, or as high camp, The Oklahoma Kid works. Otherwise, it's viewer beware. Therefore, see this only if a) you must see every western out there b) you are a TRUE Cagney or Bogie completist c) any of the above comments appeal to you. Woah…..", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I enjoyed the acting and it moved along well. The director seemed to really grasp the story he was trying to tell. I have to see the big budget one coming out today, obviously they had a lot more money to throw at it but was very watchable. When you see a movie like this for a small budget you have to take that in to account when you are viewing it. There were some things that could of been better but most are budget related. The acting was pretty good the F/X and stunts were well done. A couple of standouts were the guy who played the camera asst. and the boy who played the child. These kind of films have kept LA working and this is one that turned out OK.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I, like many die-hard Trekkers (or Trekkies, i don't care!) suffered through seven seasons of \"Star Trek Voyager\", dreaming of a better show when it was over, lamenting the end of \"Deep Space Nine\" in 1999. prayers, answered. \"Enterprise\" is fantastic. Fresh perspective, radically different characters, stunning new visuals, a pop-song for the intro. (I was shocked!) I can't think of anything I didn't like. sign me up for 10 seasons of this show. \"Star Trek\" is back - \"Voyager,\" nobody misses you! Keep on Trekkin'!

>", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The name of this film alone made me want to see just what it was all about, so I taped this film during the early hours of the AM. If you ever wanted to see what miners had to go through during the early days and actually see a dramatic scene when the mine crumbles in on the men. This film clearly wants to show that Germany and France can work together and be friends after WW I and how the Germans came to the aid of the French miners much to the unbelief of the French townsfolk. The actors were all outstanding, with unusual scenes in the mine with a horse and a small young boy who worked in the mine. There is an old old retired miner who manges to go down the mine by ladder when the elevator breaks down. If you are a real film buff, this is a film you will not want to miss.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Here goes the perfect example of what not to do when you have a great idea. That is the problem isn't? The concept is fresh and full of potential, but the script and the execution of it lacks any real substance. It should grab you from the start and then pull a little on your emotions, get you interested and invested in the characters. This movie doesn't have what it takes to take off and sustain flight, and here is why. First you don't really care about the characters because they are not presented in a way that people can relate to, I mean this is not Superman or Mission Impossible here, it's suppose to be about normal people put in a stressful situation. They are not believable in the way they act and interact. Example : Jeffrey Combs as a cop over chewing is gum, frowning and looking intense all the time isn't the way to go here. I mean what is that?, he looks like he's on the toilet or something. I loved him in re-animator and the way he was playing the intense/neurotic, unappreciated medical genius was right on the money. But not for this, he tries too hard to over compensate by looking so intense and on edge but in a still mild neurotic manner, it's not natural, I'm surprised he didn't dislocate his jaw during filming. The movie is basically on life support, it barely has a pulse and it kept me waiting for something that would never come.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie has so many wonderful elements to it! The debut performance of Reese Witherspoon is, of course, marvelous, but so too is her chemistry with Jason London. The score is remarkable, breezy and pure. James Newton Howard enhances the quality of any film he composes for tenfold. He also seems to have a knack for lost-days-of-youth movies, be sure to catch his score for the recent \"Peter Pan\" and the haunting Gothic music of \"The Village.\" I first saw this film at about 13 or 14 and now I don't just cry at the ending, I shed a tear or two for the nostalgia. Show this movie to your daughters. It will end up becoming a lifetime comfort film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.

The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the \"gentleman\" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love \"growing\" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to \"resque\" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the \"lighter\" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a \"blockbuster\", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As someone who lives near Buffalo, New York, this movie scored points with me before I even saw it, since the story is based here. There are even some bit parts with real-life news-TV anchor people from Buffalo..and, for once, it doesn't knock the area. Hallelujah!

Theology-wise, puh-leeze!!! God is still made to look and think like humans...and, of course, be a bit on the liberal side. Being the lightweight comedy it is, it's nothing that should win any awards but it still is entertaining and is a pleasant way to kill 102 minutes.

There are some laugh-out-loud slapstick comedy scenes and, hopefully, audiences - from Christians to atheists.- got something out of this besides a few laughs, such as what prayer should really be all about. Kudos to the writers for at least getting that theology correct and giving a good message.

Overall, it's a good-hearted film that should offend very few.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this is the worst movie i've ever seen. i'm not kidding. the next time it comes on, i will just continually run my head into a wall. it would me more enjoyable to sit in an emergency room trying to explain to a doctor why my brain is swollen than attempting to make it through this movie again.

i hope that black and stiller never work together on a project this bad again. they are both good comedians, so i was shocked this was so awkward.

if they had to do it all over again, i'm pretty sure that they would decide to not do it. the folks that fronted the money, must have lost a ton. not really- because the special effects (all 2 of them) were terrible.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This sequel is a total rehash of the first film. A completely pointless movie. It basically just took every single sceanrio of the first film and they redid it in Omen IV except with a female antichrist this time. It even ends the same way as the first one! The music is too busy and interfering, and because its pretty much a copy of Omen I, it's extremely predictable. It's not a horrible movie, it's not terribly made, there is much worse movies out there, this just had absolutely no point in being made. The Omen remake from 2006 is much worse, even more pointless than this, so I guess it has that. If you someone pointed a gun to your head and you had to choose to watch this sequel or the 2006 reamke, I guess I'd choose this.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "SYNOPSIS The future as seen from 1939 England. As war loomed over Europe, the salvation of mankind will not be found in the politics of the past. It is up to the brave new world of science to overcome man's past mistakes.

CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Beware your leaders and what you are told. Thinking outside the box can lead to a brighter tomorrow. There will always be descent and fear, and learning to overcome it is our only hope.

PROS AND CONS I had seen this film long ago and recently downloaded it off of the internet (it is in the public domain). This is a fascinating work on numerous levels. Since it is a story about the future as seen from 1939, it has obvious flaws. This vision of the future is both terrifying and whimsical. This film was cutting edge for its day. The special effects are very good as is the story line. The acting suffers a bit in the British theatrical sense, in that it can lean a bit toward Shakespeare.

One of the underlying themes of the film is that science and technology can solve all our problems, which we now know is not always true. The films other plot line is that charismatic leaders are a curse of human existence and will probably always be with us.

The underpinnings of almost all later science fiction movies can be seen in this film. The set design and wardrobe of \"Forbidden Planet\", the failings of technology in \"2001: A Space Odessy\", even the lush landscapes / cityscapes of \"Star Wars\" owe some amount of inspiration to this film.

The ending of the film leaves the viewer a bit perplexed. While it is optimistic in its ending sequence of reaching for the stars, we are left to wonder if mankind will ever be able to make it. Even as we reach, there are those that are trying to hold us back. This films vision of the future while interesting is also a bit humorous by todays standards. Huge flying machines and guns that could shoot people into space never materialized in the real world, but in 1939 they were considered the next logical step.

Many great British actors are in this film as young men. Cedric Hardwicke and Ralph Richardson are the most recognized and their oratory skills are evident here. Raymond Massey is a curious choice to play the lead character, Cabel. His character almost comes across as the new Christ sent to save the world from its own destruction with the new religion of science.

This is a good piece of cinema history whose themes are still relevant today even if its vision of the future missed the mark.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"The Thief of Bagdad\" is impressive in the shape of the evil magician Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...

He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).

The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...

The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful... The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...

The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...

For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...

With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, \"The Thief of Bagdad\" captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights...

The 1940 version remains the screen's finest fairy tale!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "First of all, I too was expecting another Hero--a fantastic work of art for the action genre. I've only seen parts of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but I can imagine that it is better than HoFD.

Basic elements from Hero are found in HoFD: Great landscapes, mesmerizing cinematography, and sincere acting (I mean, if you can't understand a word they are saying, without the subtitles, but you still care--that's good acting)

What went wrong? What begins with political intrigue wanders into a love story. Worse, it's a soap opera-like love triangle. You have three characters who, I guess, fall in love with each other- for no good reasons. This movie basically falls apart after the escape from the jail (I fell asleep about forty minutes into it). It's almost as if they changed writers at that point. The remainder of the movie is about how a character is \"like the wind.\" Ick. Also, you really have to stretch your suspension of disbelief to believe the action set pieces. This isn't unique to this genre, but since the story is weak, you can't wait for the action, and then, when the fighting does breaks out, it really wasn't that good. The beginning grabs you, but then this movie just runs out of gas.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Jack Frost is about a serial killer who is sentenced to death. On the Way to his death sentence the prison truck that he rides in collides with a chemical tanker filled with a chemical that turns his molecules with the snow on the ground turning him into a snowman. Being a killer himself that would turn him into a killer snowman. Jack now wants revenge on the sheriff who caught him. Jack now starts his rampage all over again killing people in a small town.

I don't think Jack Frost has a chance of becoming a horror classic but its a entertaining flick. Just put your brain on hold and have fun with it, but just don't take it too seriously.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode.

Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.

Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here.

And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).

And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.

And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.

Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember \"The One\"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.

Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "First off, let me start with a quote a friend of mine said while watching this movie: \"This entire movie had to have been a dare. You know, like, 'DUDE, I BET YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE WORST MOVIE EVER'\". With this movie, they've made a good effort at achieving that title. The effects are, of course, poor. The plot/dialogue is like a collage of of bits stolen from every B horror movie ever made. The actors, I'm assuming, are supposed to be in college. Yet parts of it (especially at the beginning) make it seem like they're supposed to be in high or middle school. It makes no sense. The Scarecrow going around killing people isn't the least bit enjoyable. (SPOILER: At the end, when they chant Lester's name and he reappears, the black guy and Scarecrow are both laughing, probably out of relief they were on their last scene, and at the cheesy dialogue.)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have no idea how anyone managed to stay awake during this show. The acting was ham-fisted and amateur, the story was old news, and plot development (or lack thereof) invariably had my eyelids sagging less than halfway through each episode. That's about all there is to say of it, because it genuinely lacked substance of any kind.

How can you people like crap like this? It's freaking stupid, it's an insult to your intelligence. I don't even know how to further explain it... It's as if some of you will stare mindlessly at junk like this solely because you like the way some of the actors look, or because, for whatever crazy reason, you haven't seen the same formulas in dozens of shows a million times before.

I just.. forget it. This show sucked, and thankfully it's gone forever. I wish they'd get to work on demolishing The O.C. once and for all.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is just typical Bruce Willis, action movie schtick. Watch it with some popcorn and your buddies. Rent it, to save money.

None of it is realistic. The battles aren't realistic. The soldiers aren't realistic. The victims aren't realistic. And why was Tom Skerritt's character talking to Willis from the DECK OF THE CARRIER? What's up with that? He can't do that from inside the ship?

Of course, Bruce W. gets a machete wound. There's a bunch of average explosions.

If this movie accurately represents the Navy SEALS, then don't get stuck in Africa expecting them to come rescue you!

The noble attack on the village bothered me the most. \"Front row seats to an ethnic cleansing\"...as Bruce looks at the slaughter going on in town. So what does he do? He crawls into town on his belly. Yep. How many died while they were putzing around? Oh well...a body count was needed, I guess.

And if that one African guy was so important, why didn't he get on the chopper with the elderly and children? Can he say \"Duh?\"

Finally, the movie was very dark. Not just in plot, but so much happens at night it was difficult to make out what was going on.

Rent it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is the first must see film I've seen in the last year! It's wickedly funny, incredibly original, unbelievably great looking (they went for this super cool wide-screen Technicolor look that's awesome to behold,) and it actually has depth in character and in what it says about society. It's really smart satire that nails everything from Homeland Security to race issues, while at the same time leaving you laughing and realizing how much are world lives in fear. Carrie Anne Moss turns in a comedic performance I never imagined would come from her! She's sweet, funny and sexy! Billy Connolly is great as Fido who can only grunt and moan! And Dylan Baker as the Dad is priceless. In fact the whole cast is perfect. Henry Czerny as the bad guy, Tim Blake Nelson as the neighbor with the hot sexy zombie girlfriend (getting the idea now?) Funny, though-provoking and just all round amazing! Go and see this movie! It's like nothing you've ever seen before.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Out of the first five episodes of Hammer's short-running \"Hammer House of Horror\" series, this fifth episode with the wonderful title \"The House that Bled to Death\" is arguably the creepiest one. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios' Gothic Horror films for many years, I wonder what took me so long to finally start watching the series quite recently. So far, I've only seen the first five episodes, and I have a strong feeling that the best is yet to come, but even if the series stays as entertaining as the first five episodes are, I will be satisfied. Whereas the second and third episodes were great to watch for their morbid and ingeniously dark sense of humor, this fifth entry is definitely the one out of the first five that delivers the most genuine Horror. The episode begins when an elderly man murders his wife out of unknown motivations. Years later, William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) move in the house with their little daughter Sophie (Emma Ridley). Soon after moving in, however, the family have to find out that there is something terribly wrong with the house, which is seemingly haunted... The second episode directed by Francis Megahy is a lot better than his mediocre previous entry, \"Growing Pains\" (Episode 4), and the fairly unknown actors deliver good performances. The film is also well-made in terms of effects, cinematography and score. \"The House that Bled to Death\" is a solid episode that delivers the elements that my fellow Hammer-fans should like to see in a Short Horror tale. The film delivers a creepy atmosphere, genuine scare moments and intelligent twists, and is suspenseful and highly entertaining from the beginning to the end. Overall, this is highly recommendable to Hammer fans.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching \"28 Days later\" and \"Magnolia\". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the \"F\" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am never a big fan of Taiwan movie production as opposed to Korean, Hongkong or even China. Strong acting quality is hardly found in them as clearly shown in this film. I don't consider myself as hard-to-please audience as I am, in fact, a fan of indie movies. However this movie shows weak plot and slow pace. I found myself lost in the middle as to where the plot is going. The acting certainly does not make it better. Rainie's acting is sub par as she 'over-act', trying to be perky and cute. Although I have to admit she is a pleasure to look at. Isabella Leong on the other hand plays a more suitable role as a confused, sad, regretful, extremely reserved character. Overall I find this movie is a disappointment.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Demer Daves,is a wonderful director when it comes to westerns and \"broken arrow\" remains in everybody's mind.As far as melodrama is concerned,he should leave that to knowing people like Vincente Minelli,George Cukor or the fabulous Douglas Sirk. The screenplay is so predictable that you will not be surprised once while you are watching such a tepid weepie.Natalie Wood 's character was inspired by Fannie Hurst's \"imitation of life\" (see Stahl and Sirk),but who could believe she's a black man's daughter anyway?Susan Kohner was more credible in \"imitation of life\")and Sinatra and Curtis are given so stereotyped parts that they cannot do anything with them:the poor officer,and the wealthy good-looking -and mean- sergeant.Guess whom will Natalie fall in love with?France is shown as a land of tolerance ,where interracial unions are warmly welcome.At the time(circa 1944) it was dubious,it still is for narrow-minded people you can find here there and everywhere.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen AND Robson Green!! Wow, what a trio...OK, so this is no Anna Karenina, but it is a good love story, very well-written and well-acted by all. Even a few 'laugh-out-loud' moments mixed in with some pretty serious observations on fidelity, age bias, and parental aging/Alzheimer's issues.

Quirky guitar music added to the story as well.

While I have been a fan of Ms. Annis' since 'Lillie' (in the '70s) and Mr. Kitchen's since 'The Buccaneers' and 'Enchanted April', I have only recently discovered Mr. Green ('Me and Mrs. Jones', 'Touching Evil', etc.), making me ask the question - why had I not seen 'Reckless' until recently??!! Admittedly more of a 'chick flick' than something a man will sit through, it is perfect for a rainy afternoon's lazy viewing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Why do they insist on making re-makes of great movies like \"High Noon\" \"From Here to Eternity\" and this one?

Why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white?

Why did Robert's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.

Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?

Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "

I recently viewed this atrocity in my film program, and I thought it was awful, as I said in my tagline, it was pretentious, trite, petty and phenomenally self-important.

I consider myself a fan of film, and all the things that film has to offer. If I want to watch a documentary on the Cannes Festival, I will watch A&E....and they would probably be alot more objective about it.

I dont recommend it, period.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "First off, this is no where near as bad as some of the other trash the Sci-Fi Channel has produced; that isn't to say that Grendel is a good film, in fact, it is very bad, but it definitely had potential to be a lot better. The flaws of the film come from character design, character, absurd additions to the story, the visual effects, the music, and for the most part: the acting.

When speaking of character design, I, of course, mean the way our heroes and villains look. Beowulf and the other Danes seem like ridiculous Vikings, rather than warriors of brute strength -- that helmet our main protagonist wears is just too silly. Grendel looks like the Hulk but with strange tentacle-attachments to his elbows.

The characters are very limited. Beowulf is same from beginning to end, however Finn -- a useless sidekick -- achieved some two-dimensionality, due thanks to his romantic subplot, and Unferth gets some notion as well, as he becomes less conceited.

Much like Finn, there are useless additions to this story to make it its own, while still holding to the source material. The crossbow that is gifted to Beowulf is so ridiculous, I'm surprised the cast didn't walk off the set. Besides additions, there's omissions, such as the underlying themes of Christianity and Paganism, as well as the consequences of lying.

The special effects are mighty terrible. Grendel and his mother Hag are poorly conceived, and as such, they're portrayal on screen is less than believable.

The music is overbearing, especially when a character dies.

All in all, this is not Sci-Fi's worst film to date. No. It is actually one of the better films, though trash it still it is, it is good trash, making it a guilty pleasure at best. The only thing that works is the dialogue, which is still wooden here and there.

I highly recommend you skip this film and watch Robert Zemeckis' take on the ancient story of Beowulf, simply because this film (Grendel) is only half the tale, and not the whole thing, which garners this movie a three-star review.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Hot Millions\" is a well-written, well-acted tale about an embezzler who steals (whoops! -- too low class a word for an embezzler, according to Peter Ustinov's lead character) a \"hot million\" from the London branch of a U.S. corporation by creating shell corporations on the continent and using the firm's ostensibly secure computer to transfer funds to them. (Remember, spoiler police, this is a comedy, not a mystery.)

From 1968, this movie's depiction of computers may seem naive to today's more computer-literate populace; but as one who has worked with computers since before this film was released, I would assert that even then, this smacks of having been written by and for computer illiterates, probably on purpose to heighten the droll comedic aspects of this British flick.

If one has little taste for this type of entertainment, the movie may seem to drag in spots. Fortunately, it has a nicely wrapped-up ending; unfortunately, the end credits give no indication of the classical music used therein -- the symphonic piece at the end and the piano-flute duet in the middle -- just the song sung by Lulu which I totally don't remember.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film is really terrible. terrible as in it is a waste of 84 minutes of your life. Special effects are so terrible. The acting wasn't convincing.

Its about a crocodile that attack a view tourists as they are filming a documentary about \"blood surfing\". Blood surfing is when they surf around sharks but it turns terrible wrong when a 31 foot crocodile interrupts there holiday. The sharks don't look real. The crocodile is even worse, and it gets even more pathetic when they are running away form the creature, but the crocodile gets stuck and 2 females flash it. The deaths are fake and the pirates are just to fill in time.

A pointless, terrible film thats not worth seeing!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am a great fan of David Lynch and have everything that he's made on DVD except for Hotel Room & the 2 hour Twin Peaks movie. So, when I found out about this, I immediately grabbed it and...and...what IS this? It's a bunch of crudely drawn black and white cartoons that are loud and foul mouthed and unfunny. Maybe I don't know what's good, but maybe this is just a bunch of crap that was foisted on the public under the name of David Lynch to make a few bucks, too. Let me make it clear that I didn't care about the foul language part but had to keep adjusting the sound because my neighbors might have. All in all this is a highly disappointing release and may well have just been left in the deluxe box set as a curiosity. I highly recommend you don't spend your money on this. 2 out of 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Assassin Hauser's (John Cusak) mission is to whack a Mid-Eastern oil minister, whose name happens to be Omar Sharif (Neikov), in the country of Turaqistan which is run by American interests. Hauser poses as Trade Show producer to allow him to get to Omar.

Sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. Here it does too much: the government, politics, music, war, people not generally accepted by society, and did I mention \"war.\" And, that is what we have here - a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. I am still asking myself why I continued with the DVD. Also, there are so many Cusak family members in this that John Cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there, or is that just me?

It used to be that a John Cusak movie, while a little offbeat, was, in the end, rather good. Not here. Believe that John Cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. Make of that what you will.

There is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun-fire, bombings, and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point? Probably. It just takes too long to set up the hit, which is largely forgotten until the last 15-minutes. In the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. And, chemistry between John Cusak and Marisa Tormei? I don't think so, but you know: the boy – girl thing ……and they needed something to take up more time.

Yes, for what they were supposed to be, (offbeat and annoying) the performances of Duff, and Kingsley were good. But, when I saw Dan Aykroyd's character, in the beginning of the show, sitting on a toilet taking a dump, I knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. I was not wrong. I am sure some will sing praises of this effort, but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so, too, is a mess……………

I now remember why I continued with the DVD. I was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. Never did.

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I remember seeing this when it was released, in a theater in Palo Alto, and not expecting much. I mean -- an Australian movie? But it finally got to me. Here's a scene. Richard Chamberlain is sitting cross legged on the floor of a shabby apartment in Sidney, facing an Australian aborigine elder named Charlie.

Chamberlain: \"You were outside my house last night. You frightened my wife. Who are you?\" And Charlie at a deliberate pace replies, \"Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?. . . . Are you a fish? Are you a snake? Are you a man? . . . . Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?\" It's a stunning scene, shot all in close ups, with Chamberlain's blandly handsome face filling the screen in opposition to Charlie's black, broad-nosed, bearded visage.

The two guys couldn't be more different and this film is the story of how Chamberlain accidentally stumbles from his humdrum lawyerly existence into the inexplicable, almost unspeakable, mysteries of Charlie's world.

I don't think I'll go on much about the plot. It's kind of an apocalyptic tale. But I must say, whoever did the research on Australian aboriginal belief systems should get an A plus. They've got everything in here, from pointing the bone to the dream time, a kind of parallel universe in which dreams are real. It's an extremely spooky movie without any musical stings or splendiferous special effects. Charly's world simply begins to intrude into Chamberlain's dreams, for reasons never made entirely clear.

If there's a problem with the script, that's it. Nothing is ever made entirely clear. Does Chamberlain, who seems to have some extraordinary rapport with the aborigines, die in the last wave? Do the aborigines? Does the entirety of Sidney? The basic premise is a little hard to accept too, though granted that this is a fantasy. The aborigines are invested with the kind of spiritual power that Americans bestow on American Indians, whereas the fact is that mythology is mythology and while one may be more complex or satisfying -- more elegant and beautiful, if you like -- mythology is still an attempt to transcend an ordinary, demanding, and sometimes disappointing physical existence. The mysticism of Charlie is more convincing that the miracles of Moses in Cecil B. DeMille's \"The Ten Commandments,\" but they're brothers under the skin.

But I don't care about that. Taken as a film, this one is pretty good, and it's especially important for marking the celebrity of the director, Peter Weir, and the Australian film industry. This was the first of a great wave of films from the antipodes, some of them raucous, like \"Mad Max,\" and some subtle and dramatic, like \"Lantana.\" I like Weir's stuff, which resembles Nicholas Roeg's in being pregnant with subliminal dread. Try \"Picnic at Hanging Rock\" for an example of how to make a truly chilling movie with not a drop of blood.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Alright, I have to admit that I have never seen \"Rhoda\" and only one or two episodes of \"The Mary Tyler Moore Show.\" Even though I don't know anything about this duo of comedic talent, I still liked this movie a lot.

Mary goes back to work. Rose tries her luck at being a comedian. Rhoda struggles with a photography career. And Meredith...what exactly does she do again? These three stories that we follow over two hours are amusing and entertaining in their own way. When the two long time friends reunite, it only makes the film better.

I was surprised about how good the writing was. The little jokes thrown in by Mary and Rhoda were funny. The script itself was very well put together.

I had seen Moore and Harper in other movies over the past few years and thought that they were very good. But I had no idea that they worked this well as a team. While both actresses do their share to fulfill the title of this movie, they never seem to let me down. (During the run of this movie.) Joie Lenz and Marisa Ryan play their roles okay but nothing great. The rest of the cast like Jonah, Cecile and....everybody else also works well together.

Being that this is a reunion, you would expect for a fan of either show to enjoy this. From a non-fan I still enjoyed this little get-together. Good story lines for each character and the two main characters is what makes this film very good. (The newer version of the MTM theme song doesn't hurt either.)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In light of the recent and quite good Batman the Brave and the Bold, now is the time to bear a fatal blow to that mistake in the life of Batman. Being a huge fan since the first revival by Tim Burton 20 years ago, I have been able to accept different tonalities in the character, dark or campy. This one is just not credible : too many effects, poor intrigues and so few questions. What is great about Batman is the diversity of his skills and aspects of his personality : detective, crime-fighter, playboy, philanthropist etc. The Batman shows him only in his karate days. And by the way, how come the Penguin is capable of such virtuosity when jumping in the air regardless of his portly corpulence ? And look at the Joker, a mixture of Blanka in Street Fighter 2 and a stereotypical reggae man, what Batman fan could accept such a treason ? Not me anyway. Batman is much better without \"The\" article in front of his name.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Ahista Ahista is one little small brilliant. I started watching it, and at the beginning I got a little bored since the pacing was slow and the main idea of one guy meeting a girl who is lost was not really new. But as the film went on, I started getting increasingly and gradually engaged by the film, the fantastic writing and the charming romance. The film was extremely simple and natural and after some time I felt I was watching a real documentation of one guy's life. There's one very good reason the film got this feel, and it's the fresh talent called Abhay Deol. He is extremely convincing as the simple, kind-hearted and struggling Ankush, whose new love motivates him to make amends and fight for a better life. Throughout the film, he is presented as an ordinary mischievous prankster, but also as a helping and loving person, who, like anyone else will do anything to protect his love. Deol portrays all the different shades of his character, whether positive or negative, naturally and with complete ease.

Shivam Nair's direction is very good. His depiction of the life of people in the rural neighbourhood is excellent, but what gets to be even more impressive is his portrayal of Ankush's relationships with the different people who surround him, including his friends and his love interest Megha who he is ready to do anything for. I also immensely liked the way Nair portrayed his interaction with his friend's loud and plump mother whom he calls 'khala' (aunty). He likes to drive her crazy and annoy her on every occasion, yet we see that she occupies a very special place in his heart and is like a mother-figure to him as evidenced in several scenes. Except for Abhay, the rest of the cast performed well. Though Soha Ali Khan did not stand out according to me, she was good and had some of her mother's charm. The actors who played Ankush's friends were very good as was the actress who played Ankush's 'khala'.

Apart from the performances, the film's writing was outstanding. The dialogues were sort of ordinary yet brilliant, and the script was also fantastic. That's mainly because despite a not-so-new story it was never overdone or melodramatic and there were no attempts to make it look larger-than-life. The film's biggest weakness was Himesh Reshammiya's uninspiring music which was unsuitable for this film. Otherwise, Ahista Ahista was a delightful watch and it got only better with every scene. The concept may not be new, but the film manages to look fresh and becomes increasingly heartwarming as the story goes by. The ending was bittersweet, kind of sad yet optimistic. In short, this movie really grows on you slowly, and this can be easily attributed to the wonderful writing, the moving moments, the charming romance, the realistic proceedings, and of course Abhay Deol's memorable performance.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Back in 1994, I had a really lengthy vacation around the Fourth of July - something like 17 days off in a row what with two weeks paid vacation, weekends and the holiday itself. I stayed in town during that time, hanging out at my parents' house a lot.

I didn't have a TV in my apartment so I used to watch my parents' tube. I had just finished watching a segment of the X Files when a program came on called Personal FX. I was hooked instantly. I had always been fascinated with items in our home that had come from my parents' family homes and through inheritances from relatives' estates, and often wondered about their history, value, etc.

After my long vacation, I used to go to my folks' house on my lunch-hours just to catch Personal FX.

I can remember one episode during which co-host Claire Carter announced that the New York apartment in which the series was filmed was being renovated and that once said renovations were complete that Personl FX would return to the air.

It never did! Personal FX was the first -and best - of the collectible shows. And it vanished from the air! Almost fifteen years later, I'm still sore.

Way to go, FX.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This effort was like a glitzy TV movie...I don't recall this ever being released in theaters...If so, it must've died a quick death. Watching the DVD, in the comfort of our bedroom, it was obvious this film was meant for not much more...Ed Lauter an art critic with a greed streak? What a fun turn that must've been...I haven't seen Ed since \"The Longest Yard\"...Everyone else pretty much acted by the numbers, led by Baldwin, except for Pompeo...She had zero charisma and seemed to be sleepwalking thru most of the picture...Pompeo's daughter had one dimension...she played every scene like a lovable little puppy...slowest line delivery of any 3 year old I've seen yet...

The chase scenes gave my wife and I headaches...too much quick-cutting and angle-bashing...If you 're going to shoot a chase scene in Barcelona, you might want a few WIDE shots to exploit the beauty of your backdrop, right? The whole story was pretty implausible and far-fetched, but hey, we liked it better than \"The Life Aquatic...\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.

Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.

However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they?

To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.

Ask yourself if you have a soul.

Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "2003 was seen as the year of the Matrix, with the release of two sequels and a computer game that actually linked to the plot of the film. Also released was a DVD of 9 short animated films, most written and made in Japan and made as Anime. Japan makes some of the best animation in the world. Sadly most of these shorts are disappointing. The best of them is the first part of a prequel to the first Matrix film.

The Second Renaissance is made as a historical file. It tells how humans made machines in their own likeness. Humans live the high life whilst machines are the grunts, the workers of society, second class citizens. In the year 2090, a machine, BI-66ER was put of trial for murder, after killing his owners who wanted to deactivate him. The machine does not have a fair trial and riots start around the world. The governments of the world order to dismantle machines. Many machines leave human society and form their own country in the Middle East, O1. 01 has a productive economy and easily undercut the human nations, forcing them into economic crisis. The human blockade 01 and reject the machines requests for peace, thereby it was the humans who were responsible for the war that enslaves them.

The Second Renaissance is a interesting watch, with excellent, traditional animation style and sets a compelling world. It shows how the machines were mistreated and that humanity sowed the seeds of their own destruction. There is a political and social world and the short tells a lot in it short running time. The short shares themes and a style to the classic silent film Metropolis, partly the beginning with the underworld. They are the themes of slavery, the mistreatment of the working class and racism. The short also has some religious themes and religious iconography. Mainly that men saw themselves as God and created the machines in their own likeness. Seeing themselves as the rightful masters of the machines. The machines too use religious iconography, mainly forming their nation in 'cradle of human civilisation' and the machines coming to the United Nations dressed as Adam and Eve, offering an apple.

The animation style is beautiful, done in the traditional anime style (like Akira). The set designs are great, combine futuristic with historic cities, e.g. Washington D.C.. There is well down future scene, and surprising violence, which is key to the film. The director, Mahiro Maeda, also directed the anime sequence in Kill Bill Vol. 1, so has good credentials to Hollywood. He is willing to use violence and know how to keep a story going.

The only real complain is a continuity error to the first Matrix film because Morpheus mentions that the humans have no historical records or know who started the war. But its a good watch.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.

I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.

It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.

Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.

Don't watch this film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have a high tolerance level for crap, so I was looking forward to this. It did not disappoint. Apparently based on Sheridan Le Fanu's classic Carmilla, it follows a father and daughter hunting a female vampire who, luckily, happens to be travelling with them. Then we have Santa Claus (or the General, as he likes to be called here) running over random zombies. Did I mention there was a zombie outbreak? The dead are returning to life but nobody seems too concerned. We have construction worker zombies, soldier zombies and even St.Trinian schoolgirl zombies. Apparently Santa Claus is looking for his daughter who has been turned into a vampire. Oh wait there are no vampires, the girl is in a lunatic asylum and Carmilla is her nurse, or is she? The zombies are back and Santa's mad. Lesbian sex, I like vampires and I like zombies but I especially like lesbian sex. Nothing like some simulated cunnilingus to get the juices flowing. When are we going to see vampires fight zombies? Is she a vampire or is she a lunatic? Or both? Is Carmilla a hot sexy lesbian vampire or a nurse? More cunnilingus, you can never have enough cunnilingus. Here come the St.Trinian zombies. Chainsaw time!! More lesbian sex then the zombies kill and eat the vampires. I guess the zombies won, or did they? Plot? Who needs a plot when you've got lesbian vampires and schoolgirl zombies? And cunnilingus?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I had to give this film a 10 simply because it did what so many films thrown at black audiences have FAILED MISERABLY to do. This film was void of all the video whore clichés, and it also skipped the gangsters, rappers, and foul language. It examined several relationships among physicians, African Americans, and African American male/female romantic relationships on a completely new and refreshing level. I was highly impressed with the films careful mix of light headed humor with some pretty tough and heavy issues. The film will leave you feeling happy and sad all at the same time. I saw it at the Boston Film Festival as well. It premiered at AMC Loews Boston and I truly hope this film makes it to much larger audiences. Black People (and EVERYONE else) would LOVE a movie like this- if only the industry was SMART enough to put them out there!

As an extra- if your a doctor, a resident, a medical student, a premedical student, married to a doctor, have a doctor sibling, have a doctor in the family, or know a great doctor period- they would love this film as well. It portrayed residency and the practice in a true-to-life way that was greatly appreciated by the doctors, residents, and medical students who viewed the film. Dennis Cooper completely his residency in internal medicine- so he definitely applied his knowledge/experience to the film and that is greatly apparent.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I do have the `guts' to inform you to please stay away from `Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. `Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful `dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery `brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life `Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Dan Duryea, a perfectly decent B-movie actor who made lots of lookalike noirs in the 1940s, can't do much with this one: young man is accused of murdering an unhappily married singer; when he's sentenced to die, his wife decides to solve the case herself with help from the dead woman's husband. After a dazzling opening shot, flick quickly settles into B-movie formula. It certainly looks good, but the twist finish is colorlessly handled and the cast (including Peter Lorre and Broderick Crawford) is just a bit stiff. Based on a Cornell Woolrich novel, and passable for a single viewing.

** from ****", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "...am i missing something here??? \"unexpected plot developments\"? \"plot twisting with subversive glee\"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted \"howard the duck\"...don't give me that, \"it was a hit play\" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised \"surprising corners\" and a \"twisted story...\" Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his \"hidden millions\"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the \"athlete's foot in my crotch\" gag??? are you worse in this or \"just cause\"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with \"jersey girl\" and \"white chicks\" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "To be honest I knew what to expect before I watched this film, and I've got to say it has the worst acting I've ever seen. It does have its moments, and on a comedy level its very entertaining, but i'm afraid its not scary, and stupidity is taken to a new level. There's a lot of unnecessary gore, and the plot is all over the place. I have no idea why the aliens were evil, and why they even came to this remote part of wales, (i mean who'd go there anyway?) but I didn't care at that point, because I was amused by the costumes, and the bad CGI. As far as B-movies go, this deserves the title of 'being so bad, its good', and kudos to the film-makers, because they probably knew what they were doing. Long may these films continue.....", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Holes, the novel, was forced on me in an education course. I didn't think I would like a children's novel; plus, the other couple of books I was forced to read for the class were really bad. But, to my surprise, I absolutely loved Holes. It really is one of the most perfectly written novels I've ever read. I think it has the rare quality that makes it appeal to pre-teens, teenagers, and adults. Everyone who reads it, I think, will walk away a better person. While I can't quite say that for the film, I am happy to say that they got it mostly right. I don't think viewers of the film will walk away as enriched, but they will certainly be entertained, without the side effect of being stupider when they sat down. It is an intelligent story, and it's very well told. I think it moves a tad too quickly. The novel takes more time in developing the characters. And the flashbacks come in and out so quickly that they don't have too much time to register. The interracial romance in the past feels more cliché and trite than it does in the novel. And the ending, which ties together all the loose threads, seems very ridiculous. It's exactly the same in the novel, but there's a sense of the absurd that doesn't quite exist in the film. It works a lot better. I also don't like the multitude of pop songs. I wish Disney didn't feel it such a necessity to sell soundtracks. The cast is across-the-board excellent, from the young kids to the old pros. Jon Voight is especially great. Not quite sure why we need Catwoman and the Fonze, though. 9/10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I actually didn't enjoy this movie.

I saw it at a camp, and we didn't rave about it, we laughed at it. Sure, some parts are touching, but the acting is terrible, the effects are terrible, and the whole overall movie idea is terrible (now, I know it was based on a book which I haven't read, but I hope that the book was better than this, because frankly, I thought that this movie was very bad and boring). Like I said, I went to it with a bunch of people from a camp, and we were excited to be there, plus I got a caffeinated drink, but nonetheless, I struggled to stay awake. The only thing that kept me up (other than my fear of being embarrassed once I woke up) was the gunshots, that were quite pointless as well. I just really didn't like it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a \"story\", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a \"narrative structure\" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliché, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.

*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********

On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the \"Australian\" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?

I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.

As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This review comes nearly 30 years late. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that I chanced by a copy of this movie sometime in early 2008 and watched it repeatedly for 4 months straight! I just had to write about it! I got smitten and forgot anything else existed once I saw this movie. How ironic it is to see Literature's ugliest male protagonist portrayed by the handsomest man! yet, what a welcome irony! It suited me perfectly and more so because Timothy Dalton did full justice to his role. He delivered an astounding and triumphant performance! I have never seen anything like it! All the other actors are very good too. The whole movie was put together beautifully. I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I just love it and love it! It made me happy and satisfied. It crushes me a bit to say this but I prefer Jane Eyre 1983 to A&E's P&J, which I believe is the ultimate mini-series.

The excerpts from Jane Eyre spooked me a little back in school. I never got around to reading the book seriously knowing the story line so well. Seeing this particular production made the story come to life for me and drove me to a near frenzy. The scenes and Mr. Dalton's voice haunted me endlessly and finally led me to read the book seriously, which, of course is a masterpiece. Bravo to the whole team and especially to Mr.Dalton!! This movie is now a part of me.

I give it 10/10 rating.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Evil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 4/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Well, I have finally caught up with \"Rock 'N' Roll High School,\" almost 30 years after it first became a midnight movie sensation in 1979. (Latecomer that I am, I will probably first see this summer's new documentary \"Patti Smith: Dream of Life\" sometime around 2040!) And no, the film doesn't feel dated one bit, and yes, it was worth the wait. This is a very high-energy comedy that features loads of great music and some surprising moments. It tells the story of Riff Randell, adorably played by P.J. Soles, and the battle that she and her fellow students at Vince Lombardi High wage against their new repressive principal, Miss Togar. (Danny Peary, in his book \"Cult Movies,\" quite accurately describes Mary Woronov's performance as an \"evil Eve Arden.\") A typical teens vs. Establishment story line is beefed up here with some absurdist humor (those exploding mice, that giant mouse, the Hansel and Gretel hall monitors) and some truly rousing tunes. Riff is, of course, the #1 fan of that original punk band The Ramones, and that band dishes out a baker's dozen of its greatest songs during the course of the film, including five at a concert that is a total blast. Indeed, the sight of Riff furiously dancing to \"Teenage Lobotomy\" at this blowout may be the picture's funniest moment. And the initial appearance of Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee and Marky in their Ramonesmobile, and later slinking down a street singing \"I Just Wanna Have Something To Do,\" is quite exhilarating. The film ends with an explosive confrontation that is, I would imagine, every high school kid's wet dream. Fun stuff indeed. On a side note, The Ramones were one of the loudest bands that I have ever seen in concert, so I was very amused to note that the DVD for this film comes with optional English subtitles for the hearing impaired. How many aging punks out there found these subtitles necessary, I wonder....", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Claire Denis has demonstrated repeatedly that film does not need to tell a story, that it is sufficient to create an experience that allows the viewer to take the ingredients and make of them what they will.

Ostensibly the idea within the framework of a most non-linear film is the older man living on the French-Swiss border, a man devoted to his dogs, who still has a lover, but whose cardiac status increasingly threatens his life. He has a son with a little family who infrequently meet with him, but when he discovers he is in need of a heart transplant he opts for going to Tahiti via Japan to obtain a heart transplant on the black market and to rekindle a long lost relationship with a son he had form a Tahitian women years ago.

What Denis does with this outline of a story is use her camera to explore the loneliness of the soul, the vastness of nature, man's interaction with people vs animals, etc. Much of the time the 'film' doesn't make sense, but that is because we try too hard to connect all the dots laid out before us in beautiful pictures. Life is sort of like that: we look, see, observe, integrate, process, and make of it what we will.

In using this form of film making (much as she did in the strangely beautiful 'Beau Travail') Claire Denis has developed a signature technique. Whether or not the viewer finds the finished product rewarding has much to do with our individual methods of processing visual and conceptual information. This is an interesting and visually captivating film, but many viewers will find it an overly long discourse about very little. Perhaps watching again will change that. Grady Harp", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "While in a plane, flicking through the large choice of movies, I came across Live! almost accidentally. oh boy! what a choice.

I remembered vaguely seeing the trailer over a year ago and completely forgot about it expecting no more than another cheesy nonsense movie about a stupid reality show. Now I can easily say this has been a hell of a ride. I don't remember last time I have been so excited, terrified. Not sure if it was the high altitude playing with my senses, but the suspense grow gradually through the movie until reaching a climax where you can't turn away from the screen, literally sitting on the edge of your seat and biting the remaining nails you've got.

You will first go through a personal moral assessment of where you stand about the righteousness of the show. You will drift from thinking \"how come the human being can be so vicious\" to \"why not after all?\".Ask yourself would you do it. Then learn about the contestants, their motives and start guessing. You will then watch contestant pulling the trigger one by one and get excited even though you know the first candidate is safe.

Good acting, good directing, with a movie experience that reminds you those old movies where you knew what would happen in the next scene but still were craving for more.

*Spoilers* couple of things i would have changed:

- the casting of the contestants. i have really been moved by the farmer and we should have had a bit more like him. The idea of a rich writer who wants to be famous is a bit stupid, it felt like you didn't care about some of the contestants. Although this might have been done on purpose, i think the audience should have been able to associate with the majority of the contestants. - game rules, a big glitch :

what happens if the 5th contestants doesn't die when he pulls the trigger. do you seriously think the last standing guy will pull the trigger and execute himself!!! they should have given a chance to all contestants to live, ie: if 5th is a blank too, then no one dies.

interestingly I haven't been bothered too much by this bad points cause i really had a good time. just wish i had some popcorn with me!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The name \"cult movie\" is often given to films which continue to be screened, or to sell in home movie format, more than a generation after they were first released. Superchick, which was first released in 1973, now comes into this category. Its cult status is largely due to ongoing interest in it by those women who regard it as an early and effective feminist film.

Despite the \"Superwoman\" connotation, \"Superchick\" is not a cartoon character but a very competent young lady working as an air stewardess - a career option which in the 1970's was commonly regarded as one of the most glamorous open to any girl, and which also enables her to emulate the traditional matelot who reputedly has a wife in every port. Since she holds black belt status in karate, she is in a position to make it quite clear that she is very happy with her bachelor existence, and is in no way beholden to any of her extensive suite of male admirers. This film is a situation comedy which avoids the generally much shorter lived appeal of outright farce. Its appeal to feminists is also heightened by a climax in which our heroine uses her karate abilities to avert a hijacking and save all the other passengers on her plane from a potentially unpleasant fate. To ensure that this film will appeal to men as well as to their partners, the Director has wisely ensured that is liberally sprinkled with eye candy.

Superchick can be enjoyed by those who are not too critical and want a very light easy to watch comedy which they will forget soon after viewing. It is so forgettable that they will probably find it equally enjoyable if watched again in a year's time; despite its age it may therefore retain its status as a cult movie for some time to come. However the dialogue and acting would make it hard to give this film a rating of more than 4/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Don't get me wrong, this is a terrible, clichéd film, but it is a delight for fans of Olivia Hussey - quite possibly the most intoxicating beauty ever to grace the silver screen. One poster stated that she was unpleasant to look at - I wonder what his ideal woman looks like - Paris Hil-slut? Blockbuster should really establish a sub-genre to this type of film, as the Fatal Attraction plot has become a genre unto itself. When will Blockbuster adopt the \"Adultry\" section? It will fit in quite nicely between the drama and action sections, right? This film revolves around Olivia Hussey, who spends a night of passion with an unstable yacht owner who may have murdered his ex-wife, who looks remarkably like Ms. Hussey. This ne'er-do-well proceeds to stalk Olivia and thus make her life a living-hell. I like Olivia Hussey, but I have no sympathy for characters in movies that cheat on their spouses, so I really wasn't rooting for Olivia to make it out o this stinker alive.

VIOLENCE: $$ (There is a smattering of violence in the film. Don Murray and Anthony John Denison get involved in a fisticuffs when Denison says that he will not stop seeing Olivia, Murray's wife, because she is just too good in bed. Olivia also gets to handle a shooter and might get to squeeze off a round - I'll let you watch).

NUDITY: $$ (Olivia is the queen of brief nudity and supplies a little here. She has a love scene with Anthony John Denison and also has a shower scene - shot at a distance).

STORY: $ (We've seen this plot before - a hundred times over, and oftentimes done much better. The true culprit, when trying to decipher why this film was a dud, is William Riead. The man's dialogue is sophomoric and moronic. The man has no story-telling abilities and fails to build believable human reactions to the plot. These people, of the upper strata of society, talk like middle school kids - with a habit of sleeping during English class. I have placed Riead on the Never-to-be-Viewed-Again list).

ACTING: $$$ (The acting wasn't \"phoned-in\" as the insiders say, but was hindered a great deal by Riead's juvenile script. Olivia Hussey resorts to calling Anthony Jonh Denison \"weird\" and \"crazy\" to his face when he begins to stalk her. Hussey, who is still beautiful, delivers the best performance here but Denison was equal to the task of portraying a demented, love-crazed stalker. Don Murray was basically just there - his character not fleshed out, and Edward Asner, a terrific actor when given something with substance, is ill-used in this film).", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There's so many negative reviews about \"Stay away, Joe\" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.

Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.

In my books \"Stay away, Joe\" definitely falls into the \"so bad it's good\"-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate \"the trash value\", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.

The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.

It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.

It's probably only considered a classic because \"A Christmas Carol\" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I did not see this film in the theater. I confess to an anti-Vinnie Barbarino bias. Who the hell was John Travolta to be making movies? I remember the Oscar broadcast that year, with Travolta looking absolutely devastated when he didn't win. How dare he, when there were \"real\" actors in the running? I'm sorry John, you should have won. After catching this film on cable years ago, I fell in love with the entire movie. Bud, Sissy, Uncle Bob, Wes, all wonderfully done. I, also, confess to never passing it by when I channel surf. I HAVE to stop and watch. Over the years, I've learned to do most of the dialogue, dance with my thumbs in my waistband, and learned to appreciate Travolta more. The only disappointing thing to me was the oversight, on the soundtrack, of some of the music from Urban Cowboy. \"Looking for love\" defines the film, but Urban Cowboy was chock full of classics that DIDN'T make it to the soundtrack. It should have been a double CD........", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.

I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see.

I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment.

The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.

I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying \"I love you, mommy\" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "No words can describe my utter hatred for this appalling rendition of the BTK killer. Rating this film one out of ten compliments this truly disastrous excuse for a film. From start to finish, there was not one single highlight. The entire thing was horrendously put together; the script, acting, plot, lighting, direction, ACTING, factual information, ACTING, just to name a few. A number of scenes are literally laugh-out-loud-funny, for the atrocious way in which the entire thing is put together. This review may seem like an unjust and scathing attack on a low-budget film, but this is not the case. Just thinking about the movie I have just seen makes my blood start to boil. How this film was ever granted rights for production i will NEVER know. I am almost tempted to actually recommend BTK, because it is truly a stand-out in regards to how pathetic, and disturbingly awful it is. I can honestly say, in all my years of film-going, this is the WORST. MOVIE. EVER. I wasted over an hour of my life on this useless garbage, and would gladly have jumped off the nearest building beforehand, had I known what I was in for. ZERO out of TEN.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Shintarô Katsu gained tons of fame playing the wonderful character, Zatoichi. The Zatoichi films had a weird and unbelievable concept--a blind guy is the greatest swordsman in Japan and spends each movie righting wrongs and exacting retribution on evil doers. He's a heck of a nice guy and the films are exciting and addictive (I've actually seen every movie). It is because of this I saw this final installment of the Hanzo the Razor series, as I assumed it would be very similar....and boy was I wrong! It turns out that the Hanzo films are extremely sexual in nature and they also promote the rape of \"women who deserve it\". You see, Hanzo is a policeman from the Meiji period and he regularly takes evil women into custody and interrogates them by violently raping them with his \"penis of steel\". How he made his member so strong is something you have to see to believe, but it certainly is NOT for the squeamish.

Overall, I just can't recommend anyone sees these violent and misogynistic films. However, from looking at the other reviews, I can see that they are still very popular...and that is pretty scary. Despite some decent acting and amazing fight scenes, the films just are like brain pollution--and I'd hate to imagine how the films might have contributed to violence towards women.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Though I liked On the Town better I really liked it. I'm a new comer when it comes to Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly. Though I had heard of them I had never seen anything with them in it until recently. The first one I saw was Singin in the Rain that made me a fan of Gene's. I think that is better too. But I thought that this movie was good and like all movies there are some parts that are better than others but in my book it's an awesome movie and I love it. Frank and Gene make a good team. I have yet to see them together in Take me out to the Ballgame. But I'm sticking to my guns bu saying that I really enjoyed it, and that I love it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie rivals \"Plan 9\" as one of the dumbest movie ever made. Always be concerned when the same person is the:

1. Star 2. Director 3. Producer 4. Writer 5. Stuntman, and 6. Editor. Unfortunately, Justin Kreinbrink did all 6 jobs! IMDb shows that he and his father were western 'stunt men'. So maybe that was the problem.

Here's just ONE example from the film: in the film the sheriff has to take a witness to another town for protection. Of course, the bad guys find out and are waiting for them. But, what happens? The good guys are riding along and a shot rings out and hits a tree near them. When the camera shows us the bad guys they're all just sitting on a log, chatting. What's wrong with this picture!

I could go on. Perhaps this film was meant as a comedy. If so, it didn't do that well either.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "These reviews that claim this movie is so bad its good are going way overboard with that one. This movie does not have the guilty pleasure badness that Leonard Part 6, Battlefield Earth and Gigli had. Those movies were entertaining in their awfulness but this pile of dinosaur dung is so bad its painful. I haven't been in this much pain watching a bad movie since I watched Baby Geniuses and Superbabies. Before I start the review let me tell you the story. Theodore Rex is a $35 million dollar bust The New Line Cinema refused to put in theaters. They cut the losses sending it straight to video making it the most expensive straight-to-video movie in decades. Whoopi caved in to be in this disaster after a huge paycheck.

Plot: a millionaire clones dinosaurs so he can launch missiles at the sun which would kill mankind and start another Ice Age. A female cop named Katie Coltrane and an idiotic dinosaur named Theodore Rex reluctantly team up to stop him after the death of a buddy dinosaur.

The plot is given to you in the beginning of the movie which robs the movie of all its mystery. Then you have to deal with the fact that this movie is actually quite awful. Whoopi looks agitated and is trying to wing it with her performance but to no avail. Theodore Rex is flat out annoying and his bumbling behavior wears thin after five minutes on screen. Most of the jokes revolve around him threatening to bite people and hitting people with his tail(on accident and on purpose). I thought Burglar was bad but it takes a backseat to Theodore Rex: the worst movie of Whoopi's career.

Don't let anybody tell you this monstrosity is bad enough to be enjoyable. I didn't see that when I watched this movie. All I saw was a train wreck that was written by people that must have had some sick admiration for movie Howard The Duck. The humor is on that level and Theodore Rex looks like the inbred cousin of Barney. Utterly painful from start to finish.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The movie had a good concept, but the execution just didn't live up to it.

What is this concept? Well, story-wise, it's \"Dirty Harry\" meets \"M\". A child killer has begun terrorizing a city. The lead detectives (Dennis Hopper and Frederic Forest) have never dealt with a serial killer before. The Mayor and the Police Chief, in desperation, secretly hire the local mob to speed things up...to go places and do things that the police wouldn't be able to in order to bring an end to this mess as soon as possible.

To be fair, this film DOES genuinely have some good things to offer.

Besides the concept, I liked the look of the killer's hideout. Norman Bates has his basement. This guy has an eerie sewer. In some of the shots, the light bounces off the water and creates rippling reflections on the walls; often giving these scenes a creepy, dreamlike quality.

The acting was good too. Dennis Hopper is one of those actors who gets better with age.

Once you get past that, however, it more-or-less goes downhill.

The film is paced way too fast. The actual investigation process from both teams feels very rushed as opposed to feeling intricate and fascinating. This could have been fixed in two ways: either make the film longer or cut out some of the many subplots. Either of these would have allowed the crew to devote more time to the actual mystery.

For an example of how bad this is, one of the crucial clues that helps them zero in on just the right suspect is this: at one point in his life, the suspect went to a pet shop...That's right...I'm being totally serious here. It's like they went from point A (the first clue) to point Z (the suspect) and skipped over all the \"in-between\" steps.

Then there's the characters. The only ones I actually liked were two pick-pockets you meet about half-way through the movie. Considering that they're minor characters, I'd call that a bad sign.

Finally, there's the mob angle. This is the one that gets me the most because THIS is why I coughed up the $3 to buy the DVD in the first place. I mean, what a hook! There's been an absolute glut of serial killer flicks in the last 10-15 years. The mob angle was a gimmick that COULD have helped it rise above the rest..., but it didn't.

I figured the gangsters's methods would be brutal, but fun and thrilling at the same time; kind of like a vigilante movie or something...maybe they'd even throw in some heist movie elements too. We ARE talking about criminals, after all. Instead, we're given some of the most repulsive protagonists committed to celluloid. The detectives question witnesses. What does the mob do? They interrogate and kill them. It's not even like these witnesses are really even that bad either. I actually found the criminals less likable than the killer they're hunting.

Unless the good points I mentioned are enough to get your interest, I'd say give this one a miss. Maybe some day, they'll reuse the same story idea and do it RIGHT. I hope so. I hate to see such a good concept go to waste.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.

In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "An interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for \"killing\" dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's a great American martial arts movie. The fighting scenes were pretty impressive for American movie made in 90's. Of course the fighting scenes aren't that good as in Honk Kong movies, actually only few American movies have fighting scenes which are as good as in Honk Kong movies, even nowadays. When you watch American martial arts movie, you are expecting to see less impressive fighting scenes, but still having some nice moves, which can be surprisingly good sometimes, or at least that's what I'm expecting from these movies. I was impressed by this film. Some fighting scenes were really impressive, the acting, direction and the plot were good enough, so it's a really worth watching movie, if you like American martial arts films of the 90's.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am very unpolitically correct guy, so when I say sexist I really mean it reduced the female guest lead, Dr Miranda Jones played by Diana Muldar. in spite of all her supposed brilliance and self control, to nothing more inside but a big, jealous unreasonable baby You prolly got the plot by now, after her technical sidekick Marvik, also a spurned lover, flips out when he tried to kill the Medusan, Ambassador Kollos, out of a jealous rage, but glimpsed first it instead. (You think he could have just walked in to the room with his eyes shut and phasered the box, too easy) he takes the Enterprise into un-navigable space outside the galaxy before the boys could subdue him. Well, the ship is stuck in limbo, at that point they could have gone to the good lady doctor-liaison and discussed it. \"Spock has to make a mind meld with the Medusan so we can get home. I mean like beetch do you want to stay adrift until we run out of supplies and die?\" But the lady in true Star Trek fashion is a jealous monsters who whines and wails when the idea is broached, even when her Medusan idol told her to shut up & go along with them. So the beetch out of spite messes with the melded Spock causing him to forget to put on his visor which makes Spock go insane. Kirk, naturally, figured out what a total twit she was and shamed her into fixing Spock up with her superior telepathic powers. Of course, at the end the Lady and Medusan leave and all is forgiven. You almost wish the President from Battle Star Galactica showed up to jettison the witch out of an airlock for her destructive stunt. But in Star Trek land, ladies are permitted to be totally unreasonable and cruel, yet at the same time supposedly there is sexual equality. This is what I mean by sexist.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "*McCabe and Mrs. Miller* takes place in the turn-of-the-century Pacific Northwest. Into a soggy, muddy mining camp John McCabe (a hirsute Warren Beatty) comes barging, full of cigar smoke and big ideas about building a proper saloon/whorehouse for the town, replete with a trio of the sorriest whores in movie history. He also comes with an unearned reputation as a gunslinger: too shameful about this to blatantly advertise it, but not exactly afraid to use it in order to assert alpha-male credentials amongst the locals. And thus he wrangles the boys into building his saloon at the rate of 15 cents an hour.

It looks to be a rather sorry operation until Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) shows up on a startling contraption that's half-railroad car, half-automobile (where did Altman find that thing?). Mrs. Miller immediately takes on McCabe as a business partner, with the aim of classing up the new joint with proper whores and an insistence that all visitors take a bath before entering. Noting that McCabe doesn't know how to add, she also insists on handling the accounts. It's not clear what McCabe's function will be.

The plot thickens when a pair of oily representatives from the mining company show up in town and offer McCabe to buy him out for five grand. McCabe tells them to buzz off -- he's holding out for fifteen thousand. The company finds negotiation distasteful, so they hire a trio of assassins to simply kill McCabe . . . though how they think they can get away with murdering a man in broad daylight in the center of town is as unclear as McCabe's function in the whorehouse partnership. (Excusing this whopping plot hole on the grounds that the locals would be too cowed to talk doesn't cut the mustard when one considers that any reward-money offered by the local Marshal would be pretty tempting.)

*McCabe and Mrs. Miller*, purportedly \"classic Seventies cinema\", should be a lot better than it is. The movie tells a pretty good story; the main characters have the potential to be interesting. There are some striking scenes, especially one involving what looks to be a 14-year-old stone-cold killer. But it's really, really hard to enjoy a movie when you can hardly hear what anyone is saying and when you can hardly see what anyone is doing. Once again, this director hijacks his own movie with sheer barnyard laziness and sloppiness. According to the trivia-sheet here on IMDb, the movie's editor griped to Altman that the sound was muddy; Altman disagreed; and when everyone said the sound was muddy after the movie's release, Altman blamed the editor. (Nice.) Along with the bad sound, the movie has an atrocious look. Only Robert Altman can hire a world-class DP like Vilmos Zsigmond and make a movie that looks as if they sprayed the camera lenses with dirty dishwater. Reviewers here who praise the \"dark brown glow\" of this picture have GOT to be kidding me. The interiors are shot through what appears to be a dark scum. The exterior photography is even worse: it's as if Altman placed 500 fog machines behind the copious trees. During the climactic stretch, when Beatty is dodging the assassins while the local church is on fire, Altman insists on pretty much wholly obscuring the view with an animated snow-fall that reminds one of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special.

Look -- I can't watch a movie under these conditions. Get back to me when you learn how to place boom mikes, when you remove all that annoying \"Altman-esque\" overlapping dialog, and when you wipe the lenses with some Windex, or something. 3 stars out of 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have been waiting for such an original picture such as this for quite some time now. Brokedown Palace has that `hard to believe' aspect, however with the ingenious directing, and screenplay, ‘Palace scores big.

I've really never enjoyed watching Claire Danes in any of her movies, but I'll tell you what, she really changed my mind with this one. Kate Beckinsale joins Danes on a vacation to Thailand where they meet up with a young man who convinces them to take a trip to Hong Kong with him. However, he neglected to inform them that they would be carrying an obscene amount of narcotics for him. Well, ultimately they get caught, and end up in a Thailand prison. I know, I know, how could you not know that you have 18 pounds of drugs? Well if you can get by that one tiny miscue, you will find a very well written, and acted out story. Lately I have found myself getting drawn into the storylines of the movies I watch, and developing a personal feeling for the characters that I watch. This movie is no different. By the end of the movie I found myself caring more for her than any of the other characters in the film.

Bill Pullman plays Hank Green, an attorney who lives in Thailand and specializes in international relations. As always Pullman delivers with an excellent performance and ties the movie together beautifully.

There are a few twists and turns that will, by the end of the movie, have you in tears. This is one of those movies that you have most likely passed by when searching for that movie to watch at home. It is my opinion that the next time out at the video store, do not pass by this one again.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I think that most everyone wants to believe that extraordinary things exist and this film shows no restraint in trying to exploit that to the fullest. The presentation is very interesting, well presented and the graphics are state of the art, but from a scientific point of view it just doesn't work. Hydrogen filled flying bladders? They would need to be the size of a Mack truck to be useful. And then there's the ever-present possibility of a catastrophic explosion. I have no problem with fantasy, just don't try to pass it off as fact. Some folks will always misunderstand. All in all the film is entertaining, but I constantly found myself saying \"oh brother, what a load of ....\". If you want a FAKE documentary, watch This Is Spinal Tap instead. Or at the very least turn the sound off.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.

My Grade: D+", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"The Last Wave\" is one of those movies that relies heavily on the mind. The title refers to the Aboriginal doomsday theory: there will be one last wave that wipes out everything.

David Burton (Richard Chamberlain) is a Sydney lawyer hired to defend some Aborigines accused of murder. Around this time, there has been unusually heavy rainfall in Australia. While defending the Aborigines, David learns the last wave theory, and begins to wonder whether it's just mythology.

The movie's last sequence is a metaphor for descending into the depths of one's mind. Peter Weir created a perplexing, but thought-provoking, movie. Aboriginal actor David Gulpilil (whom you may have seen in \"Walkabout\", \"Crocodile Dundee\" and \"Rabbit-Proof Fence\") provides an interesting supporting role as one of the defendants.

If you get a chance, watch the \"making of\" feature on the DVD. Peter Weir explains some of the film's undertones, some of which relate to Richard Chamberlain's background.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"A Classic is something that everybody wants to have read but nobody wants to read. A classic is also something that everyone praises but no one has read.\" -Mark Twain

'Classic' seems to be the word used to describe \"Scarface\", Brian DePalma's 1983 film about opulence, self surrender, greed, and danger among Florida's drug ring. People and critics (and rappers for that matter) deem this film 'an epic gangster classic' or 'eptiome of gangster films.' When it is anything but. It is praised for all the wrong reasons. Scarface is a terrific film that deserves praise from all over, but not all the praise it gets from audiences today, and therefor the fine points it so poignantly makes are missed by the general public.

First off, the film is about a Cuban refugee, with a past of wanting to escape communism grasp and find happiness. Simple? Yes. But the layers of De Palma's directing genius, and the great story written by Oliver Stone (yes I know, he actually wrote a real good one here) play into all of it. The characters are all looking for an escape, as escape is a natural element dealt with in the film by all. Each character has something to offer, that makes them likable by everyone who could appreciate this film. They are entwined in a world of mystique and money, but all that has a price, as they all learn. Each character thinks they are getting better chances in life, when in true dramatic irony, they are actually getting worse. 'Tragedy' would be a better word to describe this movie. All those who praise the film for it's drug usage, it's violence, it's dialog, totally missed the point. There is nothing really positive about the film besides the characters positive expectations of themselves. And that is why the film works so well. The devastation through out the film serves to deliver the message of the film, not to look cool or attract viewers. Brian De Palma doesn't make movies for cult gangsters, or brainless action fans.

Next on, the film is an adult drama. It is not a 'gangster film'. It has it's share of action, but the action is plotted very carefully, so it has a point. It's not like \"Aliens\"- an example of a big dumb action film, and most audiences perceive this film as a big dumb action gangster film about doing drugs and shooting people. Ridiculous. Hogwash. If this film is about that, then it is about how bad it is. Not a promotion of it.

This being said, the film is indeed a great film. It has great cinematography that pulls you into the story. It has a very dramatic score (in true Giorgio Moroder style), which simply could give you chills, or bring you to tears. The film is rather lengthy, but it is a story, and each moment counts. The acting is terrific. Al Pacino - enough said. He can do any role that he puts his mind to, and this was no exception. Pretty boy Steven Bauer, as Manny. I didn't think much of him in other films he did, but he actually makes you like him when he goes under maestro De Palma's direction. Michelle Pfeiffer is a true gem as Elvira. Popping' fresh off the heels of a sort of embarrassment in \"Grease 2\" she got her ticket to ride performing a no holds barred performance of a beauty that is more than meets the eye. But the three true diamonds in this rough are Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio as Tony's sister Gina, who when she smiles, or cries, we see her soul and her fresh way of living, and watch it deteriorate; Paul Shenar as Alejandro Sosa, a drug lord, who runs deeper than a river, and Shenar portrays him as so; and Miriam Colom as Tony and Gina's torn mother. These three dig the film as deep as it can go.

This reviewer learned one main thing when watching \"Scarface\" for the first time. Always go into a film unsuspecting. All the hype and talk of this film cannot possibly prepare you for what you really see. Only knowing De Palma (like I do) can give you even a glimpse of what this film holds. So ignore the rap crap, ignore the mindless violence supporters, and fix yourself a glass of Bailey's on the rocks, and indulge yourself in an emotional viewing of a great film, the real \"Scarface.\"", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "One of the first OVA's (\"original video animation\") I ever bought, this still has to be one of my favourite anime titles. A cyberpunk sci-fi action comedy set against an unlikely (for a comedy, that is) background of near-future pollution in a dystopian society.

The \"heroes\" of Dominion are the Tank Police, formed with a \"if we can't beat crime, we'll get bigger guns\" philosophy, and who are, like the name suggests, patrolling the city in tanks instead of patrol cars, and who are actually far more dangerous than any criminals they are trying to catch. Most, if not all, of these cops are borderline(?) psychopaths and neurotics, giving new meaning to the phrase \"loose cannons\".

Equally colourful and amusing are their adversaries, terrorist Buaku and his hench(wo)men, the Twin Cat Sisters, whose existence always seems to involve giving the Tank Police a hard time.

The animation is not state of the art, but it's very nice otherwise; the colourful palette and cartoonish look of the characters and mecha fit nicely with the comedic atmosphere of Dominion.

The English dubbing is, again, lots of fun. The soundtrack of the English version is also very good. I wonder if they ever made a soundtrack album of that...

Anyway, Dominion Tank Police is great. It's Japanese cyberpunk SF with lots of comedy, filled with completely over-the-top characters and situations, making sure that it never takes itself seriously. Highly recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A typical Lanza flick that had limited audience appeal with a weak story line that was put together simply to justify Lanza's MGM contract at the time.

As reported by member Lastliberal (above) Grayson could not stand Lanza because of his obscene advances towards her off (and sometimes on) camera. In addition, his gutter mannerism and the continual smell of alcohol in her face during scenes they did together were intolerable. After doing their second (and last) film together, \"Toast of New Orleans\", the normally quiet Grayson stormed into Louie B. Mayer's office and told him in no uncertain words that she would never work with Lanza again – period. Mayer felt that Grayson was much more valuable to MGM then Lanza, so Grayson's statement stuck. Grayson went on to star in a number of widely received (and far more profitable) musicals with Howard Keel and others. Later in life when asked to compare Lanza and Keel her reply was that there was no comparison between them, and that Keel was great to work with and had much more appeal to the \"real people\" in the audiences.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have to congratulate the genius who approved this one. Edward Furlong, you're not as good as you think mate, you can't grab on every piece of low-cost amateur crap, which sole intention has to be to get some bucks.

The filming is bad, and I mean BAD. Anyone with a camera would get the same result, or better.

The acting, lets just say: don't go to the supermarket looking for actors. The good ones usually come with a degree or, at least, have some damn experience! The director.. Mr. Jon Keeyes, please find your purpose in life, as a director you simply suck. Your directing is poor, the angles are all messed up (not in a good way), the lines seem as if they're being read out of toilet paper, and the damn music.. it always comes up when it shouldn't and goes out for no apparent reason. And don't go for writer either, by the way. Making movies isn't like serving on a coffeshop, it requires art and skill, things I really doubt you'll ever have.

Instead of making a badass shootout movie, you should've shot this one back to oblivion and wait 'till something good came up.. Or just go find a job on a coffeshop. You'll have less stress and you'll save movie goers some money and a bad night.

vote: 1/10 (my first one)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Maybe I'm a sap but this is the sweetest movies ever! I saw it for the first time when I was around 4 or 5, and I cried my eyes out. Between then and now (embarrassed at age 15) I have seen it over 25 times and have sobbed each and every one of them. Don't worry they're tears of happiness! And it's not all sap! There's a lot of humor and comedy in it too. Usually the whole talking animal thing can be a huge drag but in this movie it's not the case. My only word of advice: Even if you love this-Don't see the sequal...cornyness! I suggest everyone checks this out...you won't be sorry, no matter how old or young you are!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I like this film a lot. It has a wonderful chemistry between the actors and tells a story that is pretty universal, the story of the prodigal son. The aspect I like the best however was the way that the bath house was more than just a background for the story. As the father told the son the story of his wife's family in the northern deserts of china, the element of water and bathing becomes an almost sacred ritual. Water was so scarce that a simple bath had profound depth and meaning.

Overall the film was very effective. There were moments, however, when it verged on \"too\" sweet...bordering on cloying during the park recital scene. But overall, I highly recommend this film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Director Spike Lee is famous for making films pointing out racism. In many of films, such \"Do The Right Thing,\" most of the white people are all brutal racists. In this movie, interracial marriage is the subject, with racism once again being the entire issue.

What Lee does, however, is once again demonstrate his bigotry against Christianity. It's amazing the double standards that exist in the film world. If Lee or anyone else ever produced this kind of bias against another group he would be vilified, but Christians? Hey, it's \"open season\" on them.

Ossie Davis, a reverend in this film, shoots his son and then puts the smoldering gun down on top of his Bible. They zoom in on that for another closeup just in case you missed it. Hey, folks, here's another Bible reader and look what he''s like! Lee does this sort of thing in just about every movie he makes.

He shows the same hatred when dealing with race relations. Who could argue with portraying racism as an evil thing? However, Lee perpetuates it in this film as he has in his other films. His obvious bitterness toward white people doesn't help the situation. It only adds fuel to the fire.

Hey, Spike: start \"doing the right thing\" and leave your prejudices in the closet. Better yet, \"get over it.\"

This is too bad because the subject matter could have made for a thought- provoking film if it had been done with objectivity and intelligence.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Disney have done it again. Brilliant the way Timone and Pumbaa are brought back to life yet again to tell us how they came to meet and help Simba when he needed them. I love this film and watch it over and over again. It shows how Timone lived with his family and fellow meerkats before setting off to find his dream home and adventure. Then he meets Pumbaa and things do change. Together, they search for the home Timon wants and repeatedly fail, which is funny as Timone gets more and more crazy. Then Simba turns up and we see more of his childhood than we did in the previous 2 films. The rest, you already know.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "October Sky is a highly lauded movie, and it¡¦s easy to see why. The story is easy to comprehend and many turning points are gripping, the actors and actresses do fairly good jobs, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper, the hero finally gets what he wants, and it¡¦s a true story. Frankly I think the director¡¦s achievement is not comparable to the sparks and heat the original story generates. We don¡¦t see any special narrative or cinematography; the power of the movie relies much on the riveting plot and tough situation the young hero is trapped in that most audience will find themselves identify with the characters. We feel Homer¡¦s desire to earn his father¡¦s recognition and create his own future, and his resilience wins our respect. ¡§October Sky¡¨ reminds me of a later 2001 Japanese production of mini series ¡§Rocket Boy,¡¨ which might owe some of the inspiration from this movie. Actually these two works shot from two different cultures provide interesting comparison. When October Sky unfolds a story of a young man crying out loud to claim his right over his own destiny, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ offers a more compromised description that could sometimes constitute an acrid criticism of modern society. Starring the outstanding actor Yuji Oda, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ focuses on three men as ordinary as can be: a travel agent who has a dream of becoming an astronaut, a boastful advertising agent who is on the brink of being torn apart by his inferiority complex resulted from the extreme success of his father and older brother (like what Homer feels in his family), and a food company employee who is about to getting married but scared of this idea. The collected social consciousness superimposes its definition of success on its constituents and steps further to force them suffocate their dreams by claiming them ¡§impossible.¡¨ To compensate for his lost ideal, Kobayashi (Yuji) works in the tour operator because it¡¦s called ¡§Galaxy.¡¨ When his client fails him and his girlfriend decides to leave him, he finally finds strength from his father¡¦s words, who had determined to be a sailor but later found life on the sea less attractive as he had presumed. ¡§But I don¡¦t regret it,¡¨ his father told Kobayashi, ¡§at least I tried.¡¨ It is his father¡¦s confession that encourages him to resign his job and apply for astronautships despite the fact that he hurts his legs and needs to move around on a wheelchair. Kobayashi¡¦s effort finally fails, and he goes back to the travel agency. But his ¡§crazy¡¨ courage inspires his friends, and everyone loves him more. Just before the end of the series, Kobayashi is on the job as a guide of a space camp meant to let children learn more about astronauts. After the tour is over we see him leaning against a tree, unfolding a sheet of poster he tears from the bulletin board that says: ¡§Astronauts Wanted for 2004.¡¨ Kobayashi looks at the piece of paper and laughs and laughs, just like a kid looking at his ticket to Disneyland. Kobayashi may never get what he wants, but he dares his destiny and ¡§just does it.¡¨ This series is so heart-gripping not because the hero exhibits any heroic deeds, but his ordinariness and unstoppable urge to realize his dream which make us wonder and envy. Unlike Dilbert or other sarcastic writings, this show enlightens us and teaches us something. Homer and Kobayashi both have the dream, and they do what they can despite other people¡¦s opinions. I recommend other IMDB users to see the Japanese TV series. If you are a nine-to-fiver, you will feel more touched. I feel sorry that IMDB doesn¡¦t have its data, maybe you can ask somebody from Japan to help you.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Maybe it's the dubbing, or maybe it's the endless scenes of people crying, moaning or otherwise carrying on, but I found Europa '51 to be one of the most overwrought (and therefore annoying) films I've ever seen. The film starts out promisingly if familiarly, as mom Ingrid Bergman is too busy to spend time with her spoiled brat of a son (Sandro Franchina). Whilst mummy and daddy (bland Alexander Knox) entertain their guests at a dinner party, the youngster tries to kill himself, setting in motion a life changing series of events that find Bergman spending time showering compassion on the poor and needy. Spurred on by Communist newspaper editor Andrea (Ettore Giannini), she soon spends more time with the downtrodden than she does with her husband, who soon locks her up in an insane asylum for her troubles. Bergman plays the saint role to the hilt, echoing her 1948 role as Joan of Arc, and Rossellini does a fantastic job of lighting and filming her to best effect. Unfortunately, the script pounds its point home with ham-fisted subtlety, as Andrea and Mom take turns declaiming Marxist and Christian platitudes. By the final tear soaked scene, I had had more than my fill of these tiresome characters. A real step down for Rossellini as he stepped away from neo-realism and further embraced the mythical and mystical themes of 1950's Flowers of St. Francis.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable — a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. Recently I was happy to see it on DVD which is a relief from watching the old, grainy VHS versions.

I hadn't seen it in years and watched it today to find myself amazed at how well the movie stands up to time. It's one of those rare, perfect storms of comedy where great writing (truly funny line after truly funny line) is paired with great direction and outstanding performances all at the same time.

Dudley Moore got an Oscar nomination for \"Arthur\" but lost (although John Gielgud won for best supporting actor). If Moore's performance in \"Arthur\" doesn't win a Best Actor Oscar -it's proof that no comedic actor could ever win the title (another example is Gene Wilder in \"Young Frankenstein\").

Steve Gordon crafts the film beautifully keeping true to each of the characters and the warm-hearted tone of the story. Quite simply, IMHO the movie is a rare gem. It's only sad that Steve Gordon passed away just a year after \"Arthur\" was released.

Regarding the DVD that is available as of 1/2007, it's so/so. Although the video quality is a leap over the old VHS copies, there is still no widescreen version available.

The DVD has a few extras that are nice but it's just not enough. One example is commentary from the Director stating how he greatly wished how certain deleted takes and scenes could have been included (because they were hysterical), but that he had to make tough choices for a final edit. The DVD, being the perfect format to include such material, certainly should have offered it as well.

This, the original \"Arthur\", is a classic comedy that is one for the books.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Such a masterpiece as the first of these two Snowy River films was, the sequel to The Man From Snowy River is everything that a follow-up should be. It does not tread on the toes of its predecessor, preferring to leave the legend that was the first film live on in some unique immortality.

The Man From Snowy River II is based upon the return of Jim Craig to the Snowy River country after a three year absence. The film subtly tells a tale of change in the nineteenth century, of Australian history, legend and horses. The storyline demonstrates a touch of Hollywood in lighter shades, an aspect that was absolutely absent in the first film, yet this blends uniquely with the a distinct sense of Australian patriotism. The plot is far more vibrant than the first film, and much more showy, with particular aspects of the previous incorporated into the film, yet The Man From Snowy River II possesses every essential characteristic of the first film; sensationally beautiful cinematography, a stunning focus of the Australian high country, the second most impressive footage of horses ever filmed, and a fantastic and deeply moving soundtrack by Bruce Rowland which equals the first in every way. Geoff Burrowes has done a superb job with this film, and it is highly worthy of recognition, especially with regard to the quality of the Australian Film Industry. The lead cast, from Tom Burlinson to Sigrid Thornton, and a well-replaced Brian Dennehy, carry off their parts with as much passion and distinction as the first film. As far as sequels can go, The Man From Snowy River II is a masterpiece; a deeply moving and inspirational experience yet again.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork? While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more. If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child. Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style. You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles. Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait. While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments. If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait. While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera. Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many \"Best Of…\" film lists.

I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique. His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking. I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon. Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness. Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end. In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work. Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created. The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood. We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel. It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait. I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film. I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.

Then, there was the acting. While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try. I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral. I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral. Again, I was disappointed. Foxx was annoying. Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot. Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh. Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second. Fuqua should have stopped this immediately. Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of. Instead of character development, he would crack a joke. Neither style worked, no joke was funny. The rest of the cast was average. By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles. They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film. They were pawns filling in dead air space. Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.

Overall, this was a sad film. With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand. Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese. In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues. Are my words harsh? I don't think so. When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home. Bait contained none of these. While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous. Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.

Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie appears to have designed as a Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers film--the plot outline, dance numbers, zippy music and the entire formula is there...except for Ginger! Whether it REALLY was originally intended as a re-pairing of the team is uncertain but it sure has the look of one of these films. Instead of the usual sidekicks for Fred (such as Eric Blore or Edward Everett Horton), Burns and Allen are used--probably since despite being known as a comedy team, they COULD sing and dance quite well. This actually shocked me, but the team were a welcome addition and some of the traditional Fred and Ginger numbers were done with either Fred and Gracie or these two along with George. Only once, at the very end, does Ms. Fontaine dance with Fred but it's very brief and with a distant camera shot.

And speaking of Burns and Allen, I think I owe it to the team to talk about them in the film. I have never been a fan of their show or their movies. In general, I find Gracie's idiot act very annoying and I have given some poor reviews to their movie shorts and full-length films. However, in this film I must admit that they were great--not only dancing competently but I actually thought they were funny and filled the hole left by Edward Everett Horton very nicely. They were on top of their game and the writers did a wonderful job in this department.

Now as for the rest of the film, it's all a lot of fun and is entertaining. The problem for me, though, was that Joan Fontaine was not a particularly good choice for the movie--not just because she was acting outside her range (after all, she wasn't a singer or dancer), but because she had the screen presence of a ball of lint. Because of this, the usual balance and great boy-girl dialog was lacking. There was also a very charming performance by Harry Watson as a devilish little boy who did everything he could do to play cupid--all because he wanted to win a bet! And finally, I loved the Fun House and Tunnel of Love sequence--it is too hard to describe but is so much fun to watch! Overall, I did like the film quite a bit--it had a lot of charm and excellent writing. Unfortunately, it also featured a bland performance by Ms. Fontaine that knocks off a point--bringing my score for this film to 7.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Eye in the Labyrinth is not your average Giallo...and to be honest, I'm not really sure that it really is a Giallo; but Giallo or not, despite some problems, this is certainly a very interesting little film. I'm hesitant to call it a Giallo because the film doesn't feature most of the things that make these films what they are; but many genre entries break the mould, and this would seem to be one of them. The film doesn't feature any brutal murders as many Giallo's do, but this is made up for with a surreal atmosphere and a plot just about confusing enough to remain interesting for the duration. The plot seems simple enough in that it focuses on a doctor who is murdered by Julie, his patient who, for some reason, she sees him as her lover and father and is offended when he walks out on her. We then relocate to a big house lived in by a number of people, but nothing is really what it seems as there are a number of secrets surrounding various events that happened before Julie's arrival...

The film seems to be professing something about how the mind is like a labyrinth. This never really comes off, and I preferred to just sit back and enjoy what was going on rather than worrying about what point (if any) the film is trying to make. Eye in the Labyrinth is directed by Mario Caiano, the director behind the excellent Night of the Doomed some years earlier. He doesn't create the atmosphere as well in this film as he did in the earlier one; but the surreal aspects of the story come off well, and the mystery is always kept up which stops the film from becoming boring. The film stars Rosemary Dexter, who provides eye candy throughout and also delivers a good performance. Most of the rest of the cast aren't really worth mentioning, with the exceptions of Adolfo Celi, who is good as the villain of the piece and Alida Valli, whom cult fans will remember from a whole host of excellent cult flicks. The film does explain itself at the end; which is lucky as I'm sure I'm not the only viewer who was more than a little confused by then! Overall, this may not be classic stuff; but its good enough and worth seeing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It's terrible how some people can get away with such things... This is one of those overrated things again... And I hate things that are overrated that are no good... Why can't we have more TV Shows and Movies that actually have a story and excellent music and that are well written and are actually about something?? It takes many people to make this movie, the series, and the band, all possible, and those people are all wasting their time... It seems that the bands are getting younger and younger... I looked at how small that they were, and I thought that they were 5 or 6. It's sad that kids are performing that young... They are still too young... Performing takes a lot of work, and they have many other things that they need to do with their lives... The idea about having a very young band is horrible... They need to stop having bands like this... And I don't like the idea at all, nor the kids themselves... They are very annoying, very young, and their name is \"The Naked Brothers Band\" The people that are involved in this, and the people that are supporting this have all lost their minds... Whenever this band is shown on TV, change the channel, and petition to get it banned...

And I know that this is a very boring comment thing, but you get the point...

This Band Sucks... Get Rid Of It...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.

Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely \"Hey, kids, let's make a movie!\" movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.

It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.

Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to \"The Notorious Bettie Page.\" This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.

Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Follows the same path as most sequels. First one was great. Second was average and this one, full of bad acting and some stupid dialog and well as a lot of suspension of disbelief, this movie was weak.

Too predictable and I just couldn't stand that Henry Wrinkler-like boss with that stupid eye, there was so much more they could have done with this. I liked the first one a lot. I wish they would have went more down those lines, rather than what they did here.

There was too much unexplained that needed to be explained, what time period this was in and why why why is there an old fashioned phone in that room?

I understand there is another one in the works.

Blah!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Wow You guys are way too nice!!!Corny,Corny,Corny That is how I feel about that film.It started well with a good idea , A guy (Edward Asner) escape from Jail dressed as Santa,a bunch of kids find him and believes his the real Santa so the Fake Santa enlist the children to help him find a bag of stolen money.the film is like a Christmas version of \"Whistle down the wind\". The movie start well but gradually it becomes Cheesier and Cheesier to the point that at the end it becomes ridiculous and you just cant take this film seriously. For example you get the Scrooge type character called Sumner (Rene Auberjonois) who's a total Douchebag who treat his young son like a pile a rubbish ,he treat his son so bad that he don't even buy him decent clothes,the poor kid wears Jeans with Holes in it! but a 45 second scene with Fake Santa visiting Sumner and by the end of the film you get the guy all happy singing Christmas Carol and giving his neglected son a hug...yep that is how Corny it is... I'm all for feel good movie especially during Christmas and I am a big fan of seasonal TV movie but this one is way too over the top for me,it is a shame because it started well but the second half of the movie is trowing a supernatural element to the film that just don't match with the rest of it. It's not totally bad,there are some solid acting , especially from the children but there are plenty of better Christmas film around.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I used to review videos for Joe Bob Briggs' legendary \"We Are The Weird\" newsletter. I saw a lot of stinkers, but this by far was the worst, and the years have not been kind - it remains the most indecent crime against cinema I have ever witnessed. Don't get me wrong - CAGED TERROR is nominally more technically competent than, say, MONSTER-A-GO-GO or THE GUY FROM HARLEM or something of that ilk. What solidifies its claim as Worst Movie Of All Time for me is its unique blend of bare proficiency with crippling pretension. Is it a Vietnam commentary? An ecological protest? An incitement to race riot? A study of man's inhumanity to man? A novel exercise in padding nature footage out to (nearly) feature length? In short: a hep young urban professional (possibly the most loathesome screen character ever) somehow seduces a nubile Asian-American associate into camping in the woods with him. After brow-beating her with quasi-philosophical clap for the better part of an hour, they run across two wandering veterans, the unforgettable Jarvis (a righteous brother) and the Troubadour (guitar-toting Manson Family reject). Hey, a plot twist! Tension! Action! Suspense! Well, no, just a climactic getting-locked-in-a-makeshift-wire-chicken-coop-and-lightly-belittled scene. The victim in question stares listlessly at the captors and mutters, \"No... no... please... don't...\" Meanwhile, Jarvis addresses the Troubadour as \"Trouby\" once every two minutes, bringing to mind nothing so much as the alien star of Juan Picquer's POD PEOPLE. That's about all that happens in CAGED TERROR, and such a synopsis perhaps makes it seem almost tolerable. But trust me, I've seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one has remained, for the past eight years since I first saw it, the absolute worst. (I pop it in the old VCR once every two years or so just to reassure myself, and reassure myself I certainly do.) I think the element which makes CAGED TERROR so particularly hateful is this: very little happens, and although what little does happen happens quite poorly and quite slowly, what truly makes it compulsively unwatchable is the suffocating sense that the filmmakers REALLY, REALLY WANT to shove some kind of message down your throat. But because CAGED TERROR is so incompetent and ineffectual, what was intended as a civics lesson becomes a crash course in intense viewing discomfort. This film is 75 minutes long and feels like three and a half hours. It's terrible, truly truly terrible. Folks, trust me, I saw GHOSTS THAT STILL WALK and this one is worse. Go see it! You'll thank me. And curse me. Just for the record, my favorite line: (In CAGED TERROR but perhaps EVER) \"Yeah, well, you probably think the Song of Solomon was an allegory for Christ's love for the church...!\" (NOTE: Must be delivered in a tone of concerted condecension.)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "To make a good movie you either need excellent actors or an excellent director. You need at least one of the two. In this Eye of the Needle we have none.

I don't even remember the name of the director. He mustn't have done much in his career. I like very much Donald Sutherland but he absolutely cannot be the main actor in a movie. He falls short. Sutherland is excellent in a movie when he appears for not more than 15 minutes. I would say for instance that Sutherland was excellent in JFK of Oliver Stone when he talked to Kevin Costner on the bench of a park for 10 minutes non-stop without even taking a breath. Wonderful. But Sutherland being the principal actor in a movie is no good.

Kate Nelligan? She is probably good for TV series. The DVD is awful. Terrible colors. Terrible light. I couldn't even appreciate the scenery of Storm Island for how lousy the photography was.

This Ken Follett story was good but it's a pity they turned it into an uninteresting movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Of course I was watching BG. I loved S1, I liked season 2, season 3 was OK, and loved the final one. Yay, there is a spin-off show! I didn't know about this at all, one of my friends told me about this. I was really excited.

I watched the first 3 episodes... What a piece of rubbish! Teenage girl drama fest. There is no science fiction... well, hardly any. At the end of every episode we can catch a glimpse of a Cylon. That's all. Who cares this? Did they decide that the next show's target audience will be females under 18? Boring religious nonsense talking, moaning, bitching... and some more.

It is just sad that there is nothing out there at the moment to watch. Stargate ruined, BG over...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have seen Dolemite and also (Avenging) Disco Godfather, two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend Rudy Ray Moore. But this film, The Human Tornado (aka Dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. For sheer goofiness, lack of skill in film production, and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much), The Human Tornado cannot be topped.

The opening scene sets the tone. Our old pal Dolemite is shacking up with a white woman, when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason, and wouldn't you know it! The woman in bed with ol' Dole is none other than the sheriff's wife. Her cry when she sees him: \"He made me do it!\" Dolemite's cry: \"&$*@$ are you for real???\" Subtlety was never his strong point.

Highlights? The cameo by a very young Ernie Hudson (of Ghostbusters fame), the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot, and another in the next, Dolemite's suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act), and Queen Bee's demonic eyes in her first scene.

But the real joy here is Rudy Ray Moore himself. Did the man really think he looked cool in this movie? I certainly don't know why, but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. Whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff, or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e.g: Quick! Into the cave! I have a plan to let that mother $*@(%& dig his own grave!) the man commits totally. Certainly he goes overboard, nevermore so than any time he's doing kung fu. The climactic battle is filmed at high speed, but occassionaly slows down to let Rudy pose and grits his teeth. I'm not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. In any event, \"The Matrix\" it is not.

Human Tornado, much like the original Dolemite, is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. But at least it's fun, and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. Just not that much. Enjoy with my hearty recommendations.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is weak ,The box-cover says East LA's toughest gang and it is really Santa Ana's , James Cahill acts like a closet queen taking down all the tough guys in the tough Chlo gang . It is fake , boring , senseless and whack , I tried to get my money back from the video store this movie was so bad . It was also on the homo-erotic tip far from what the video-box proclaims . James Cahill should act in Gay Porno .James is in every scene , he cannot act to save his life . The film features Eva Longoria who is hot but James can't even score with her !!!!!!!!! I felt at times I was watching Gay Porn and was turned - off by the whole film . James clearly want's to be with men but rather then submit to his gay desires he beats up gang members over and over and over again . His martial Arts skills are minimal at best , Some real gang members would take him and his weak skills and rip him a new one .", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Though I really didn't feel anything for Lance's character, and felt his wife could have done much better with anyone else. It could have been a much stronger movie if they had spent more time on character development, perhaps with Lance- I would have liked it better.

However, I have to completely agree with DoyleLuver, when they said \"And to quote Glenn Quinn's character Ben: 'I'm the star here in it, that's right I'm the talented one!'\" If you watch the movie, just watch him, even when he's in the background... just his facial expressions, all in the eyes, you KNOW for sure what motivates Ben, exactly how he feels about comments, even if it's a quick look behind a character's back. Great acting in a fair film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Joan Fontaine is \"A Damsel in Distress\" in this 1937 musical starring Fred Astaire, George Burns, and Gracie Allen. The plot, what there is of it, is about a British woman (Fontaine) in love with an American, who is mistaken for Astaire, a musical comedy star.

The film, directed by George Stevens, contains some wonderful Gershwin music, including \"Nice Work if You Can Get It\" and \"A Foggy Day.\" The best scene is the \"Stiff Upper Lip\" number, which takes place in a fun house.

Astaire's singing voice sounds more robust in this film than it does in others, and he has a couple of excellent dance numbers. Burns plays his over the top publicist and Allen is Burns' secretary. She's hilarious. The problem, as others have pointed out, is Fontaine, who has to dance with Astaire at the end of the film. Stevens could easily have used a double because he shows the dance in a long shot, and it takes place among the trees. I would have thought it was a double except the dancing was so lousy.

Definitely worth seeing despite its flaws.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie should be called \"plan 9 from joseph smith.\" i think its weirdness is underappreciated. the playwright seems to have read paul ehrlich's \"the population bomb (1968),\" and crafted a musical response made especially for mormons. the whole point of the play is that having as many children as you can is part of \"heavenly father's\" (god's) plan. and anything that stands in the way of having more babies is very bad. get it?

This version was filmed in 1989, which is confusing. it's utah, so it looks and feels like 1983, the play was actually written in 1973, and of course, the theology is part 1840's, part battlestar galactica. some of the action takes place on earth and some in the \"pre-existence, an aimless romper-room where annoying kids wait to get their bodies so they can come down try not to slam the door on the missionaries, losing their shot at celestial glory.

it is as stagey as they come, but don't let the poor theatrics spoil your appreciation for this demented mormon universe where the 'cool kids' are all into population control, (presumably) counseling their parents not to have any more children!! having big families was, at the time the play was written, the cultural norm in the lds community, and more importantly, considered part of God's plan. the church has since done a 180, and have made family planning a choice of the parents, and large families are much less the cultural norm now. making the entire doctrinal premise of the movie for a modern-day mormon moot!

ahhh but it's really only as good as the music. there are some catchy tunes here that just won't let this movie die the 1970's death it was pre-destined for. the brother and sister sing some love songs to each other that make you wonder if maybe something else was going on there --wink. and the tough, cool kids make new kids on the block look like metallica. so cheers to all that! gather the family around, make some jell-o shooters and enjoy the show!

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "One thing about Hollywood, someone has a success and it's always rushed to be copied. And another thing is that players give some of their best performances away from their home studio.

Rock Hudson got such accolades for his performance in the Texas based film Giant that Universal executives must have thought, let's quick get him into another modern Texas setting.

Similarly Robert Stack got great reviews for The High and the Mighty as the pilot who was cracking under the strain of flying a damaged aircraft that it was natural to give him another crack up role.

Both of these ends were achieved in Written on the Wind. Before Hudson was the big ranch owner, now he's the son of a hunting companion of Robert Stack's father who took Hudson under his wing. In other words the James Dean part without the James Dean racism from Giant.

Lauren Bacall is the executive secretary of an advertising agency that Stack's Hadley Oil Company uses. Hudson likes her, but she's dazzled by Stack's millions and when he woos a girl he's got the means to really pursue a campaign. She marries Stack.

And last but not least in the mix we have Dorothy Malone who's Stack's amoral sister who has a yen for Rock, but Rock ain't about to get tangled up with this wild child.

Dorothy Malone spent over 10 years in a whole bunch of colorless film heroine roles before landing this gem. She got a Best Supporting Actress Award for her part as Marilee Hadley and it was well deserved.

If you like splashy technicolor Fifties soap opera than this is the film for you.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Page 3 is most definitely a very enthralling and captivating eye-opener that very cleverly exposes the hypocrite lifestyles of Mumbai's elite. From the fake kisses to the plastered smiles, Page 3 leaves no stone unturned in revealing the shocking lives of the rich and the famous. Backstabbing, gossip, corruption, and scandal lurk in every dark corner in the world of glitz and glam. Humanity and generosity are analogous to an oasis in the desert in this world where Social Darwinism is the prevailing mentality. Everyone is constantly craving for more money, more fame, and a higher reputation, driving them to do the most shameful things imaginable ranging from signing film contracts at a funeral to child molestation. Anything is possible in this metropolis where there is a such a wide gap between the social classes. The audience sees the ugliness of both of these classes through the eyes of the protagonist. She observes the suffocating atmosphere and the mind-boggling frenzy that the socialites live in. Bollywood, business tycoons, politicians, and the underworld are all intertwined in a completely convoluted mess! Kitne Ajeeb Hai is a nice track as is the peppy Kuan Main Doob Jaongi. Terrific film with excellent character development!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.

Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.

Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again?

Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.

And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?

OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "While I would say I enjoy the show, I expected something completely different from when I first saw 'What I like about you' I expected to find something along the lines of 'All That' (I am not sure if it is going on anymore) but I have to say I do like the show and while i don't classify it as a breakthrough show, it is very charming and I do like the chemistry between the characters as well (including the supporting cast)

I would definitely say that it is great to see Wesley Jonathan back on the screen because I really loved him in City Guy. I had also seen the woman who plays Valerie's friend in Popular and while I think that was an okay show, I do not really like her character in this show because she's just not my cup of tea but she rounds it out pretty well", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Van is a feelgood movie about a guy who tries to lure girls into his new van, in order to seduce them. The only thing this movie doesn't fail at is precisely depicting the van fad in the US in the late 70s. It looks like it was totally made by amateurs. It's trash, but I loved it! I have to admit I am a fan of 70s trash! Hope this one makes it to the IMDB bottom 100!

2", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is an excellent film!Tom Hanks and Paul Newman performed great!I was really surprised when Newman was beating on his son!That was a great scene and the shooting scenes were staged good.I was very surprised about the end.Rent this film today as it is one of Tom Hanks' best!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is quite an amazing film to watch. Using digital technology, the director, Rohmer, has literally encrusted his living actors into painted backdrops. Most of the time this works brilliantly, especially at the start where the film is like a pop up story book come to life. It is less successful in a few scenes, where it limits camera angles (they had not painted the side of some of the buildings for example) but it is a very interesting way to film a historical film which is as much about our own misconceptions and limited views of history as History itself. It is narrated using the memoirs of the Duc d'Orleans' ex- mistress, Grace Elliott. So, an event usually claimed as one of their own by Marxist historians, especially in France, is here told from the point of view of a female aristocratic foreigner. Inevitably a different point of view emerges -there can be no objective representation. The use of the memoirs device does give the film a rather episodic quality. Personally, I found the story line around the King's death the most interesting. A staunch Royalist she is shocked when the Duc votes for the King's death (a basic knowledge of the French Revolution is probably helpful to follow the dialogue between Grace and the Duc here. He was Louis's cousin and had himself elected to the Assembly, where he promptly changed his name to Philip Equality). The filming of Louis's death is masterly. Grace and her maidservant are in Meudon, out of Paris, watching from a hill with a telescope. We do not see the execution, we only hear the maid's commentary, like Grace. The most dramatic event of the Revolution happens off screen. Grace cannot bear to watch her king be killed. Her view is that of an aristocrat. Any justification of Louis's death is literally beyond her vision. This is powerful, keenly intelligent film making. The love story between the duc and Grace is insinuated, never told, and is powerfully moving (tho the Duc does seem a bit of a pompous fool at times; what does she see in him? No accounting for taste). The undercurrents of madness (simply existing being enough to be a suspect) that sweep individuals along in a time such as the Revolution are illustrated as Grace's life is turned upside down, her house is searched daily, yet she still orders her servants to cook her food and is incapable of dressing herself! If you have any interest at all in a subtle, well told film, making clever use of new technology to tell an old tale, or the representation of a pivotal moment in Europe's history narrated by an aristocratic foreign woman, its ultimate outsider, then this is well worth your time. It is a little slow in places but your patience is amply rewarded.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have given this show (I have only watched seven episodes) four stars because most of her jokes/set-ups appear to fail. Some are not funny outright, but some are amusing -- in a 12 year old boy kind of way. She reminds me of that New York painter who throws paint upon a canvas, calls it art and sells it for a lot of money. Silverman throws out what she's got, including the kitchen sink, while she prays that a few things stick to the wall in her effort to be funny but different.

However what she's \"got\" often times is not enough, as though she lacks the kind of follow-through a good comedian needs to succeed.

The whole enterprise is like an under done potato.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Hong Kong directors crossing over to Hollywood to make movies is nothing new, with the temporary exodus of the likes of Tsui Hark, John Woo, Ringo Lam in the 90s. From their collective output, only a few movies (or may I say just one?) made an impact at the box office. The Andrew Lau and Alan Mak partnership has been a tour de force in recent HK cinematic history, especially with their now famous Infernal Affairs trilogy which was remade into Martin Scorsese's The Departed, so it's no surprise when Hollywood comes knocking on the door.

But without fellow collaborator Mak, who usually has script/story duties, how did Lau fare with writers Hans Bauer and Craig Mitchell? It's like the X-Files without the X, in the way the story is crafted, the characters and the parallels drawn with the Chris Carter series. Richard Gere and Claire Danes pair up ala David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson, only that they don't belong to any federal investigative agency who bear arms, but are employees of Protective Services, who's chief role is to ensure that sexual predators who belong to their jurisdiction, are kept safe from society when they are released from having served time. Hence they are the shepherds tending to their flock, only that their flock suffer from sick sexual perversion with the propensity for violence.

The parallels in characterization are so blatantly obvious, that it's just a cosmetic touch up on the outside. Like Fox Mulder, Gere's Erroll Babbage is a strange, lonely man, consumed by his obsession in his quest to doggedly harass his flock to tote the line. Pained by a failed attempt to rescue a missing child, just like how Mulder pines for his missing sister, Babbage is shunned by colleagues and given the marching orders disguised as a retirement plan. He has deep disgust for the people he's monitoring, sick of their crimes and what they stand for, that he has no qualms in using unorthodox methods, short of flying off the handle while dishing out illegal, preemptive punishment. At the same time, he too has strong urges that he has to fight against, in order not to cross the line into becoming like those he loathes. As part of routine, he also scans newspapers and tabloids for clues and leads toward his objective, that of seeking closure, salvation for himself, and possessing a strong belief that the truth is still out there, and he wants to believe.

Danes' Allison Lowry on the other hand, is the ingénue brought in to replace Babbage. But in the meantime while learning the ropes on the job for the next 18 days, she is required to spy on him, and to report his shenanigans, pretty much like what Dana Scully was tasked to do with Fox Mulder. As the disbeliever of pre-emptiveness and holding onto the notion that those discharged back to society have been cured of their temptations, she slowly starts to see what Babbage sees, and understands that it takes a whole lot more than being just a desk and administrative job if she truly wants to help people.

And it is this discovery of the world of fetishes and deviant sexual practices, that we open all our eyes to, much like how 8mm starring Nicolas Cage brought snuff films into the spotlight. It's a decent investigative drama with the usual red herrings, and my, are they really good ones as it made you wonder quite often if your guesses are correct, and you soon find yourself firing from the hip as you get proved incorrect at alarming frequency, though I don't credit this to a tight narrative, but more from the sprawling number of characters (watch out for Avril Lavigne's cameo) and sub plots. The scene in the darkened ware/shophouse was akin to Se7en's David Mills and William Somerset when they raided John Doe's apartment and find plenty of bizarreness inside, though here, given the subject nature, it wasn't lingered upon much.

Apparently, The Flock somehow decided that Enrique Chediak's cinematography was good enough, despite its very strange style of having no style, utilizing almost every trick in the book to try and recreate feelings of watching another Se7en, only that this was deeply steeped in tinges of brown, rather than the doom and gloom of black. It does take a little while to get used to this, and I put this effect as one which actually distracts from what is happening in the story. Not a really good move though, with somewhat frequent repetition of scenes involving flashbacks.

But The Flock still makes decent entertainment, though X-philes out there would probably find it hard not to picture their favourite actors in the lead roles, given so much similarities in character. Gere and Danes do put forth some chemistry as the old fogey (heh) and his protégé, and while it's not exactly great, Andrew Lau did manage to pull off something enjoyable.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.

Rating: 6/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Finally! An Iranian film that is not made by Majidi, Kiarostami or the Makhmalbafs. This is a non-documentary, an entertaining black comedy with subversive young girls subtly kicking the 'system' in its ass. It's all about football and its funny, its really funny. The director says \"The places are real, the event is real, and so are the characters and the extras. This is why I purposely chose not to use professional actors, as their presence would have introduced a notion of falseness.\" The non-actors will have you rooting for them straightaway unless a. your heart is made of stone b. you are blind. Excellently scripted, the film challenges patriarchal authority with an almost absurd freshness. It has won the Jury Grand Prize, Berlin, 2006. Dear reader, it's near-perfect. WHERE, where can I get hold of it?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Cat Soup at first seems to be a very random animated film. The best way I've been able to explain it is that it's quite acidic. Though it's not totally random. The story is about Nyatta, a young cat boy and his sister Nyaako. Nyaako is very ill and dies, however, Nyatta sees her soul being taken away by death and is able to retrieve half of it. The story is about their quest to bring Nyaako fully back to life.

Though a lot of the content in this movie seems completely random, it is not. Most of it is symbolism for life, death and rebirth. You can also see references from other tales, such as Hansel and Gretal. This strangely cute short film has an interesting story, packed with a deeper meaning than what you see on the surface of the screen.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst \"kids\" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Terrible acting by Potter and a flat plot with no tension what so ever. And as for the feminist polemic, it's laughable. I saw this garbage when it was first released and though I found it tedious beyond belief I'm glad I did go to see it. That's because I now have an immediate answer to the question 'what's the worst film you've ever seen?' Plus, I have the comfort of knowing that every film I see for the rest of my life will be better than The Tango Lesson. But I have to admit I was impressed with the way Potter wrote a script that would garner the maximum number of arts council grants from around the world (as is revealed in the closing credits).

I only very recently saw Orlando and I can see how Potter learnt the wrong lessons from making that film. All it took was a bunch of frilly costumes, a few hard stares to camera by the leading lady, and a loose plot to seduce the cinema going public. So why shouldn't she think she could get away with the self-indulgent nothingness that is The Tango Lesson?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Julie Waters is always marvelous but Adrian Pasdar is a positive revelation in this wry gender-bent comedy about a transvestite who cannot suppress his obsession, and the changes he goes through when he's discovered. Unerringly eschews the vulgar, raucous easy jokes for genuine wit and true insight, and has an absolute ball while doing it. A very nice, low-key, feel-good, comedy", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This early role for Barbara Shelley(in fact,her first in Britain after working in Italy),was made when she was 24 years old,and it's certainly safe to say that she made a stunning debut in 1957's \"Cat Girl.\" While blondes and brunettes get most of the attention(I'll always cherish Yutte Stensgaard),the lovely auburn-haired actress with the deep voice always exuded intelligence as well as vulnerability(one such example being 1960's \"Village of the Damned,\" in which her screen time was much less than her character's husband,George Sanders).She is the sole reason for seeing this drab update of \"Cat People,\" and is seen to great advantage throughout(it's difficult to say if her beauty found an even better showcase).Her character apparently sleeps in the nude,and we are exposed to her luscious bare back when she is awakened(also exposed 8 years later in 1965's \"Rasputin-The Mad Monk\").The ravishing gown she wears during most of the film is a stunning strapless wonder(I don't see what held that dress up,but I'd sure like to).All in all,proof positive that Barbara Shelley,in a poorly written role that would defeat most actresses,rises above her material and makes the film consistently watchable,a real test of star power,which she would find soon enough at Hammer's studios in Bray,for the duration of the 1960's.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was expecting a lot better from the Battlestar Galactica franchise. Very boring prequel to the main series. After the first 30 minutes, I was waiting for it to end. The characters do a lot of talking about religion, computers, programming, retribution, etc... There are gangsters, mafia types, who carry out hits. However, Caprica doesn't have the action of the original series to offset the slower parts.

Let me give you some helpful advice when viewing movies: As a general rule, if there is a lot of excessive exploitive titillation, then you know the movie will be a dud. Caprica has lots of this. The director/writer usually attempts to compensate for his poor abilities by throwing in a few naked bodies. It never works and all it does is demean the (very) young actresses involved and I feel sorry for them. Directors/writers who do this should be banned from the business.

If you want to be bored for an hour and a half, by all means, rent Caprica. There's (free) porn on the 'Net if you really want to see naked bodies. Otherwise, move along, nothing to see here.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have not seen this movie in ages but figured I'd comment on it anyway, mostly because the memory of disliking it so intently is burned into my memory cells. The original THE GETAWAY was no prize to begin with but at least had the distinctions of being 1) A Sam Peckinpah movie, 2) Featured Steve McQueen, Ben Johnson, and Slim Pickens, 3) Was a relatively painless way to blow away an hour and a half of time.

By comparison, the 1994 version comes across as little more than a vanity piece for the then red hot Alec Baldwin and his soon to be divorced wife, Kim Basinger. McQueen and his then wife Allie McBride also split up soon after their version of the film was made and one can sort of picture the Baldwins at their marriage councilor arguing over who's stupid idea it was to make this movie.

Let's just get it said and out of the way -- Alec Baldwin never was and never will be anything close to the Cooler King, and one of the reasons why this remake annoyed me so much is the perceived arrogance on Baldwin's part to presume to challenge our memory of Steve McQueen in the lead role. Like someone else points out, Peckinpah's 1972 vision of the film was a satire piece meant to sort of parody the action/adventure heist genre. By contrast Baldwin, Bassinger & company seem to be trying to evoke a more serious tone, with only Michael Madsen's and James Woods' slimy unprincipled villain characters coming off as real people.

The movie is also decidedly mean spirited and unlikeable at a fundamental level that is difficult to put into words. One viewing was more than enough, not just because it didn't have anything new to offer but because of how artlessly it was made. Peckinpah's movie was actually a stylish little entertainment that had an upbeat mood, where this version is a slog that takes too long to amount to little or nothing. There's no artistic urgency to it's existence and some of the more uncomfortable scenes are so uncomfortable that they make the film difficult to enjoy.

So I don't know, this was probably one of the films that helped to initiate the wave of pointless, artistically vapid big budget remakes propped up around a then name brand actor/actress, which in itself isn't a really good thing. I'd always rather see a filmmaker at least try to come up with a new idea for a movie & fall flat with something original. This movie just made me want to pull my eyebrows out, and it's revealing that over the ensuing 15 years since it's release Mr. Baldwin has become widely renowned as one of the biggest jerks in Hollywood. Thank god for \"Team America\" for putting him in his place.

3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.

That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.

However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.

I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.

Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.

Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.

Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.

So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.

2.5/10 Bleah", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.

The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.

Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated \"Movie of the Week\" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.

Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than \"us\" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of \"oddness\" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.

It's difficult to hear the phrase \"A dingo took my baby!\" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.

Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.

Haunting questions, with or without the film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I happened to borrow this movie from a friend knowing nothing about it, and it turned out to be an outstanding documentary about a journey on an ancient vessel across vast expanses of the ocean. Thor Heyerdahl had developed a theory that the ancient Incas in Peru managed to travel thousands of miles across the ocean to Polynesia, based on certain relics that are found in both places, certain types of ancient sea-going vessels that we know they had available, analysis of ocean and wind currents, and the knowledge that the Incas did, in fact, travel in some undetermined amount at sea.

In order to test his hypothesis, Heyerdahl and his crew construct a vessel as closely as possible to what the ancient Incas had available, using only balsa wood and other materials available at the time, and set out from Lima, Peru's capital, to try to reach the islands of Polynesia, some 5,000 miles away.

His theory, like so much about ancient history, is impossible to prove with 100% certainty, but the coverage of their journey provides for strong support that he is right. The film is really little more than narration of footage taken during the 100+ day expedition, but it is a very detailed description of what it was like and the trials and tribulations that they faced. I often wish that Academy Award winning documentaries were easier to find, and this one from more than 50 years ago is still as interesting and informative as I am sure it was when it was first released.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie. Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding. So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process. The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy. Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding. Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, \"The Thing That Won't Die.\" Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out. The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not. There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored. For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man. Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Okay, now, I know there are millions of Americans who believe in The Rapture: that moment when all people born again in Christ will be raptured up to meet God and all the rest of humanity will be left on earth to perish in plagues and fire and the heartbreak of psoriasis as the Antichrist battles it out with Jesus (in an uncharacteristically warlike mode). And I know the books were best sellers. . .among believers, anyway. And I mean no disrespect to all that.

But I have to say, they stuffed this movie into a sack and beat it with the Suck Stick.

I'm sure the books are much better. Really.

The plot needs no reprising. If you've watched this movie, chances are you read the book. I may be one of the only people on earth who actually watched this just for the sheer bad-moving-making experience, and I wasn't disappointed. Especially not by Kirk Cameron, the creepy little \"Growing Pains\" gremlin, who came of age on that show, found Christ, and decided that the SHOW should reflect his Christian values. Well, Kirk, your career has gone to the dogs, but now you can be happy that you're spreading the word of God in movies so bad, they never even make it to theatrical release. Well, that's not strictly true: I guess this was the only movie ever made that went to DVD FIRST, with a voucher for a free viewing of the movie when it was briefly released in theaters! I still have the voucher! How many people do you suppose showed up? I don't know about you, but it never came to my town. Of course, I live in NYC, where we Godless liberals sit around tearing pages out of the bible and use them to roll joints. So there you go. In fact, I'll bet out of three million people on Manhattan Island, not one would be raptured.

Check out the supplementary materials on the DVD, where you'll learn the creepy behind the scenes details of these movies. . .the CAST and CREW all must be of the same religious mindset. They don't come right out and say this, but listen closely to what the filmmakers say. It's like a bunch of Pod People got together to make a Pod movie. How creepazoid is that? Honestly, this stuff just preaches to the converted, doesn't it? Can you imagine anyone who DOESN'T subscribe to the whole apocalypse thing watching this, slapping his forehead and saying, \"HOLY HOOVER DAM! I better get saved PRONTO!\" Anyhow, I'm hooked. I gotta see the rest of these Christian fiasco movies, especially the one with Gary Busey, which I think is TRIBULATIONS. At least Busey has an excuse for taking the part.. . .he cracked his head on some pavement when he crashed his motorcycle.

Oy.

Oh, and one more thing. What's with all the shots of poor,innocent dogs whimpering, their leashes dragging uselessly along the ground, because their owners have been called to heaven? What's up with that? Are we supposed to feel badly for the dogs, and if we do, what are we to make of God? Doesn't it IRK people that there's no room in heaven for man's best friend? Foo.

This is one more reason I'm agnostic. Good night and good luck.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Sensuous Nurse (1975) was a Italian sexual comedy that starred the one time Bond girl Ursula Andress. Man was she hot in this movie.. She was stacked and built like a *@#% brick house. Ursula was smoking hot in this movie. I have never seen a nurse's outfit that filled out before.

Ms. Andress stars as a nurse who is hired to take care of a rich elderly man. Even one in the house seems to be knocking the boots. One night, the nurse decides to take the grandson's temperature and give some needed T.L.C. to her ancient client. The old man takes to his nurse and this angers the rest of the family. What kind of job did the family hire her out to do? Will the geezer fall for her car giver? How can she deal with the octogenarian crone and the rest of the family? To find out you need to find a copy of the SENSUOUS NURSE!! Italian but badly dubbed into English.

Highly recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is possibly the best short crime drama I've ever seen. The acting is superb especially Amanda Burton who's character goes from scary to sweet to disturbing to sad and then some...She does an amazing job balancing Rachels/Carlas feelings and acting out the pain of someone who's lost a child, its so believable that it feels more like a real life story then a drama. The other actors are of course great too which they usually are in British TV/Film. The ending,which I'm not going to give away,is fantastic mainly because you don't really get one... (you'll get what I mean after you've seen it) This is well worth buying and seeing over and over again and if you're not touched by this you're one cold hearted person.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It appears that there's no middle ground on this movie! Most of it takes place in a dream and, like most dreams, it's often foolish and illogical. It's also a gorgeous production with some great songs and fine performances, especially by our angel.

Jeanette's deadpan, unknowing insults and various other faux pas at the dream reception are hilarious, and her jitterbug with Binnie Barnes is a surprise and a delight. At one point, she gets to sing a snippet from Carmen, followed by the final trio of Faust (holding a lapdog, for some strange reason), then \"Aloha Oe\" on the beach!

It's a surreal comedy--tremendously entertaining if you can get into the groove.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In 1930,Europe received quite a shock when Luis Bunuel's 'L'Age Dor' was released, causing a riot in Paris when screened there,resulting in it being banned for something like over forty years. Three years later,in 1933,when Europe had gotten over the shock,it was once again turned on it's ear with 'Ekstase',a symphony (of sorts)to love. The film starred a young,unknown German actress named Hedwig Kiesler,who would later change her name to Hedy Lamarr,when she moved to America to escape the madness of Adolf Hitler,as Eva,a young bride who has just married a cold,distant loveless husband (played by Emil Jerman),only to discover that she has made a major mistake. One divorce later,Eva is footloose & fancy free & is out one day, skinny dipping in a lake,when she discovers Adam,a handsome,young engineer (played by Aribert Mog)who takes a real fancy to her (and she,him). After a wild night of passion,Eva's ex-husband turns up once again,hoping to win Eva back,only to find he now has a rival. I won't spoil what transpires. Czech director, Gustav Machaty (who directed the original screen version of 'Madam X',another parable in romantic obsession) directs from a screenplay by Jacques Koerpel,Frantisek Horky & Machaty,from the novel by Robert Horky. The film's velvety cinematography (which reminded me of Avant Garde photographer,Man Ray's photos of the era,which goes for some impressionistic use of light & shadow,a lot)is by Hans Androschin & Jan Stallich). The film's brisk editing is by Antonin Zelenka & the films art direction, which goes for a lush,nearly Art Deco look,is by Bohumil Hes). If I have any quirk about this film, it is the music score,by Giuseppe Becce,which goes for an over the top,melodramatic feel to it that gets old fast (certain themes are repeated over & over again,wearing out it's welcome,fast---kind of like some of David Lean's over use of certain musical themes,especially in 'Lawrence Of Arabia',and 'Dr.Zhivago'). Some years back,a brand new restored print was made up of the best source material,cobbled together from various European existing prints available,restoring it to what is quite possibly the closest version of what it originally looked like before the Vatican condemned it as \"decadent\" (yeah,right...like the Church never did anything wrong),and the Hayes office cut it to ribbons,when it was finally released in the U.S.A. in 1936,in a \"Hayes Office\" approved cut (likewise). Minimal dialog in German with English subtitles (it was meant to be a mainly visual experience). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude skinny dipping scene by Hedy Lamarr (done tastefully,mind you) & some suggestions of sexual content (likewise)that would scarcely earn it a PG-13 rating,nowadays. Worth a look if you have any interest in early European cinema,or Avant Garde/Experimental cinema", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If this could be rated a 0, it would be. From the atrocious wooden acting to the dull, plodding pace, the puerile exploitation angle and the sophomoric pseudolesbian titillation added purely for the sake of the sad viewers, this is a disaster of a film.

The plot is predictable, as from the beginning one is absolutely certain of what will happen to all of the characters and how the plot will commence. From a boring, unexceptional beginning to a pathetic and bleak ending, every single presence in this film is wasted, and every meagre scrap of talent dug up for this turkey is squandered.

If you want to watch something as relentlessly bleak with plenty of the same childish titillation, watch one of the Ilsa films. At least they're unapologetic and up-front about what they're trying to do. How something this horrendously bad ever managed to be rated above a 5 is a miracle of how people with no taste or discerning standards can sometimes come together for the most dubious of purposes.

It's not scary, it's not interesting, and above all it's not arousing in any sense of the word. It is, in my opinion, a crime; it is a crime that such a horribly offensive and incompetent piece of trash was ever conceived of and given the resources to come into existence, and even more a tragedy that it is still defended by some woefully misguided viewers.

Not even Elvira's cheerful personality and joking ways could soften the blow that this horrifying travesty of film is. Avoid it at all costs.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "i was hoping this was going to be good as a fan of timothy dalton's james bond and although it wasn't his deserved '3rd bond outing' it was a laugh. Belushi brought some good humour to his part and dalton hammed it up nicely, but was probably underused. his part was liked a camped up version of jack nicholson in a few good men. the other brit in it was a bit shocking, but overal it was a laugh.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I vaugely recall seeing this when I was 3 years old, then my parents accidentally taped over all but a few seconds of it with some other cartoon. Then I was about 8 or 9 years old when I rediscovered it and since I was then able to comprehend things better, I thought it was a good movie then. Fast forward to Just a few weeks ago (June 2006) when I re-re discovered it thanks to some internet articles/video clips and it's just not the same movie. I'm sure it's still good with the kids, but to us 20-30 somethings it's definitely got \"Cult Status\" written all over it. It's a shame that the original production went through a painful process; if Fox gave it enough time it would probably be more recognized in the public eye today. Maybe if they were to remake it with a totally different story and an all star voice cast it could be, but that's for Fox to decide. I'm rambling here, I know. I Still think it's a great film, but it could be better than great.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I don't really know where to start. The acting in this movie was really terrible, I can't remember seeing so many 'actors' in one film that weren't able to act. Not only the acting was bad, the characters were incredibly stupid as well.

Then there's the action. I believe that even children know that when someone gets shot, there's blood involved. But when someone gets shot in Snitch'd for ten (!!) times, there's no blood at all. Well, I guess that's just me.

To make a long story short (because believe me, I can go on for hours about this film), this is without a doubt the worst film I ever saw. This film should be number 1 in the bottom 100 without a doubt.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Hiya folks,

Well, this movie sucks really. Think \"Love Actually\" in reverse. Nothing fits quite right, nothing is coherent, and certainly nothing makes you laugh. Love is rare in this film.

It IS a total flop. As indicated however, there are three redeeming points about this mangled potential of a film.

A) With a star billing of Jennifer Love Hewitt, there will be hordes of guys who will submit with grace to viewing this just to catch a glimpse of the petite Hewitt with form fitting clothing. To tell you now guys....there are some promising scenes....but it's really weak eye candy. The \"possibilities\" here are watered down. Nevertheless, I watched the whole thing tempted by the next scene of you know what.....titillating!

B) The ending is romantic and positive. That it's contrary and \"over the top\" is relevant.....yet for me was still a positive point.

C) Dougray Scott plays an amourous friendly guy........REFRESHING! THANK YOU!

2/5, not worthy of your 10 or so dollars.

2/3's of the way through, I was convinced Jennifer Love Hewitt was becoming the next softcore legend. Although I'll take that back for now.....it hinges greatly on her next film.

Oh, and her sister is way stupid. Her husband is way stupid...and what the heck, she's way stupid.

Next time. can't wait for the next Love Actually with JLH!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's rare that I come across a film this awful, this annoying and this irritating. It is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.

The plot, when it's not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing, is ludicrous. Why did Domino become such a bad-ass tough bitch? Because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this \"traumatic\" event left her emotionally stunted, and hating everyone. When the dialogue is not clichéd or banal, it's littered with laughable lines such as: \"There are three kinds of people in this world: the rich... the poor... and everyone else\". At one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. Because of a confusing mobile phone call, instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number, they blow off his arm with a shotgun. At another point, the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go!? Clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy.

Keira Knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. Mickey Rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess.

I have enjoyed some of Tony Scott's previous films, True Romance being one, but all I could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "So I finally saw the film \"My Left Foot\" last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is... The central performance of Day-Lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing, but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less.

The fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man; the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. On the one hand I can see that this is a logical correlation; mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable, and disability shouldn't obscure that. I just wish that impartial onlookers wouldn't be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. They don't. Acting out is normal, and so yes, disabled people act out - but they don't do it because they're disabled; they do it because they're being unreasonable. A physical impairment doesn't afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public, just because someone you love turns you down.

There are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able-bodied. Giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (Admittedly, I did once save a penalty from the school's star striker with my face, but I already belonged by then. It wasn't for acceptance.) Engaging in a bar brawl is another. Revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you've proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. All of these things are stupid, and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn't make them any less foolhardy.

So yes; just because you've overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn't make you any less of a jerk... Being a good person takes priority; setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As much as I like big epic pictures - I'll spare you the namedropping - it's great to kick back with a few beers and a simple action flick sometimes. Films where the plot takes a backseat to the set-pieces. Films where the dialogue isn't so cleverly written that it ties itself in endless knots of purple prose. There are HUNDREDS of films that fit the bill... but in my opinion Gone In Sixty Seconds is one of the better ones.

It's an update of the movie that shares its name. It also shares that picture's ethos, but not quite it's execution. Whatever was great about the original has been streamlined. Whatever was streamlined was also amped up thanks to a bigger budget. Often these kinds of endeavours are recipes for complete disaster - see the pug-ugly remake of The Italian Job for one that blew it - but here, thanks to a cast of mostly excellent actors, Sixty succeeds.

The plot and much of the dialogue isn't much to write IMDb about. Often you'll have scenes where the same line of dialogue goes back and forth between the actors, each of whom will voice it with different inflections. A lot of people found this annoying; I find it raises a smile. Each actor gets a chance to show off his or her definition of style here, with Cage, Jolie and Duvall leading the pack of course (and it should be noted that it's also amusing to see Mrs Pitt not given first billing here). The chemistry between good ol' Saint Nick the stalwart (see date of review) and Angelina leads to a couple of nice moments.

The villain is not even a little scary - I've seen Chris Eccleston play tough-guy roles before so I know he can handle them, but I think he was deliberately directed to make his role inconsequential as not to distract from the action. We know the heroes are going to succeed, somehow; we're just sitting in the car with them, enjoying the ride. I think a lot of these scenes were played with tongue so far in-cheek that it went over the heads of a lot of people giving this a poor rating. In fact, I wouldn't have minded some fourth-wall breaking winks at the camera: it's just that kind of movie.

All this style and not so much substance - something that often exhausts my patience if not executed *just* so - would be worthless if the action wasn't there. And for the most part, it is. Wonderfully so. I've noticed that it seems to be a common trend to be using fast-cut extreme close-up shots to direct action these days. I personally find this kind of thing exhausting. I prefer movies like this where the stunts are impressive enough to not need artificial tension ramping by raping tight shots all the time. I've been told that Cage actually did as many of the car stunts as he could get away with without losing his insurance (in real life I mean - his character clearly doesn't care) and it shows. The man can really move a vehicle and this is put to good use in the slow-burning climatic finale where he drives a Mustang into the ground in the most outlandish - and FUN - way possible.

So yes, this movie isn't an \"epic, life-affirming post-9/11 picture with obligatory social commentary\" effort. The pacing is uneven, some of the scenes could have been cut and not all the actors tow the line. But car movies rarely come better than this. So if you hate cars... why are you even reading these comments?!

I'd take it over the numerous iterations of \"The Flaccid And The Tedious\" (guess the franchise) any day. 7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Chillers starts on a cold, dark stormy night as a bus drops off three passenger's outside a bus station, a young boy named Mason (Jesse Emery), a college professor Dr. Howard Conrow (David Wohl) & a woman named Sharon Phillips (Laurie Pennington). Inside they discover that they have missed their connecting bus & are stranded for the night. In the waiting area they find two other people, Ronnie (Jim Wolf) & a sleeping woman named Lindsay (Marjorie Fitzsimmons) who is currently having a terrifying nightmare...

While swimming in an indoor pool Lindsay encounters & befriends guy named Billy Waters (Jesse Johnson), the next time Lindsay sees Billy he dives into the pool & then seemingly disappears into thin air before he surfaces. Shortly after Lindsay discovers that Billy Water died in a diving accident 5 years ago...

Lindsay wakes up & tells the others about her nightmare, everyone else responds by saying that they too have suffered disturbing dreams recently & decide to share them to pass the time...

Next up is Mason who tells a story of how he & two friends, Scott (David R. Hamm) & Jimmy (Will Tuckwiller), are terrorised during a camping trip...

Then it's Sharon whose story revolves around a newsman named Tom Williams (Thom Delventhal) who she phones up, in no time at all Tom is at her front door but he actually turns out to be a Vampire...

It's Ronnie's turn next & he describes how he discovers that he can bring the dead back to life, unfortunately he brings executed mass murderer Nelson Caulder (Bradford Boll) back to homicidal life...

Finally Dr. Conrow tells a tale of how two of his students brought an ancient Aztec war-god named Ixpe (Kimberly Harbour) back to life...

Then it's back to the bus station for one last (predictable) twist...

Written, produced & directed by Daniel Boyd Chillers is one of the worst horror anthologies I've ever seen & I usually really like this sub-genre. The script by Boyd lacks what is needed for films such as Chillers to work, you can see the final twist coming a mile off & each story is really lame. The first one is totally pointless & didn't seem to have an ending & the best thing about these anthologies are the short snappy stories that are rounded off with a neat twist. The second story is predictable &, again, just ends without any payoff. So it continues throughout Chillers that each story is deeply unsatisfying to watch & have no reward for doing so. The character's & dialogue are poorly written, the stories seem to have no original ideas of their own & as a whole the film totally sucks. At least each story doesn't last long & I liked the idea behind the linking segments.

Director Boyd was obviously working with a very low budget & it shows. All I can say is if you want to watch a 15 odd minute short story set entirely within a swimming pool then Chillers is for you. The stories are neither clever, scary or have any sort of tension or build up to anything. Having said that it does have a few nice scenes & some surprising competence shines through on occasion. Violence & gore wise there isn't much happening in Chillers, a ripped out heart, a decapitated head & a bitten off hand is as gory as it gets.

Technically Chillers is poor stuff that won't impress anyone. Basic cinematography, bad music, cheap special effects & below average production values. Chillers also features one of the worst closing theme songs ever, period. The acting is also of a very low standard.

I am sure a lot of effort was put into Chillers as a low budget film & at least the filmmakers tried so I will give credit for that at least, but that still doesn't stop me from thinking it's crap. Similar anthology films like Tales From the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), Creepshow (1982) & Tales From the Darkside: The Movie (1990) are far superior to Chillers so watch one of those instead.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The first noticeable problem about this awkwardly titled film is its casting. Ann Nelson plays the grandma here. Three years after this, she would star in \"Airplane!\" as the woman who hangs herself while listening to Robert Hays pine for Julie Hagerty. I could not get that image out of my head.

Matt Boston is a fifteen year old with problems. He has headaches. His mother had a nervous breakdown. His grandfather had a massive heart attack. A chain smoking psychiatrist decides to find out what the devil is going on with this family. First she hypnotizes Grandma Nelson. Nelson tells a tale in flashback that fills the entire first half of the film.

She and Grandpa bought an RV, cheap, and drive it around to all the tourist traps in desert California. The RV soon has a mind of its own, going off the road and such. Then, large boulders begin hurling themselves at it. The elderly couple are appropriately afraid, but stay in the vehicle in order to move the plot along.

Eventually, Grandpa has a heart attack after being stranded on the RV roof when it goes for another unplanned ride.

Boston's mom begins talking to some Native American mummies she has lying around the house. She fancies herself an author, and makes copious notes about the musty corpses. The psychiatrist reads the detailed notes, and uses her imagination to fill in the blanks. We see the mother semi-flip out, but her mental breakdown occurs offscreen, much like Gramps' heart attack.

Finally, the patient de resistance, little Matt. Matt goes under the hypnosis gun and tells his own tale. He thinks mom is wigging out (this was made in 1977). Apparently, mom is making the astral bodies of the Native American mummies sort of fly through the air. One hits Matt like a bee hits a windshield, and Matt begins acting all crazy.

The psychiatrist takes Grandma and Matt into the desert. Matt is inexplicably in a wheelchair now, and the trio confront the unseen (and unexplained) forces.

Flocker has no sense of scene construction. The one pro here involves the RV stranded in a salt flat in the desert. In the distance, the couple notice some boulders rolling toward the RV. This is a pretty creepy little scene that is eventually overplayed. As the boulders begin hurling themselves toward the vehicle, the special effects become obvious.

The scenes where the RV runs off the highway, then back on again, take forever. The scenes where Grandpa is trapped on the RV roof as it careens down a dirt road takes forever. Mom's conversations with the mummy take forever. Matt's out of body experiences take forever. This film takes forever.

I was tempted to hit the fast forward button at least a dozen times. As scenes dragged on, it was obvious Flocker was padding. Cut the fat here, and this would have clocked in at an hour. The final \"explanation,\" that the mummies' spirits were trying to kill those close to Matt never holds water. Did they inhabit the RV? The film maker never brings up the fact that the spirits are no good at their murderous ways, they never kill anybody!

As I kept thinking of Nelson in \"Airplane!,\" I also thought of other movies. Anything to keep me from falling asleep during this one. Boston is terrible as the kid, playing a fifteen year old as a cute ten year old who has a smart alecky line for all these adults who fall over themselves loving him.

In the end, Flocker has written and directed a mess. The title is just the beginning of this exercise in making the audience feel ill at ease. This is not scary, and like the ghosts, you too can still walk...away from this tape at the video store.

This is unrated, and contains some physical violence and mild profanity.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.

I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.

The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.

I found the film to be delightful!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.

It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.

Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.

Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of \"You are so lame!\" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.

This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your \"never walk out during a movie\" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).

This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As with many other pop-culture franchise series, this line just didn't know when to quit. Instead of leaving things as they were perfectly ended, they went on to generate this; the first installment of this franchise to fall sorely short of the mark.

This movie should never have happened. It was not intended for there to have been a fourth movie in this line, and it sure shows. The premise is idiotic and the portrayals were the same.

After the wonderful experience which was The Omen, this was a major disappointment which stank of 70's cheese and horrible acting. It was reminiscent of the Amityville Horror in those aspects, and left a terrible, lingering stench long after it was over.

It rates a 1.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If any show in the last ten years deserves a 10, it is this rare gem. It allows us to escape back to a time when things were simpler and more fun. Filled with heart and laughs, this show keeps you laughing through the three decades of difference. The furniture was ugly, the clothes were colorful, and the even the drugs were tolerable. The hair was feathered, the music was accompanied by roller-skates, and in the words of Merle Haggard, \"a joint was a bad place to be\". Take a trip back to the greatest time in American history. Fall in love with characters and the feel good essence of the small town where people were nicer to each other. This classic is on television as much as \"Full House\". Don't miss it, and always remember to \"Shake your groove thing!!!\"", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There have been some low moments in my life, when I have been bewildered and depressed. Sitting through Rancid Aluminium was one of these.

The warning signs were there. No premiere (even the stars didn't want to attend) and no reviews in magazines. The only reason I sat through the film was in the hope that I might catch up on some sleep.

Nothing in the film was explained. The narration was idiotic. I cheered at one point when the lead of the film appeared to have been shot, then to my growing despair, it was revealed that he hadn't really been shot dampening my joy. I sincerely hope all involved in the film are hanged for this atrocity.

There were some positive aspects, mainly unintentional moments of humour. For example, the scene in which the main character, for some unknown reason feels the need to relieve himself manually in a toilet cubicle, while telling the person in the next cubicle to put his fingers in his ears.

My words cannot explain the anger I feel, so I shall conclude thus.

Rancid Aluminium: for sadists, wastrels, and regressives only who want to torture themselves.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am wanting to make a \"Holmes with Doors\" pun but I can't quite string it all together. Suitably grubby and over edited WONDERLAND gives Kilmer a role that channels Morrison at the same time....but how coy is this film about the famous 14 inches! Australian crime films flash it all the time and skip the graphic violence instead.....as someone famous said once about US cinema double standards: \"kiss a breast and it's an X, stab it and its an action PG 13\"... WONDERLAND is 14 minutes too long too, and at the end the tawdry spiral we were all glad to escape the cinema. How many films called WONDERLAND are we going to get? There must be six in the last decade. The pixilated violence and muted color sets the seedy tone but the wobble-cam gets tiresome, as if we are gawking at their nostrils all the time. Taking a few cues form THE DOORS and TAXI DRIVER it all becomes forgettable the next day.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.

I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.

-SPOILERS FOLLOW-

First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the \"small\" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory \"crazy scientist\" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force \"half as strong\" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.

Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the \"special effects.\" Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the \"introduction\" screens with the vital stats.

Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent \"BloodRayne,\" for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.

The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.

The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Eleven \"great\" filmmakers, eleven pieces of garbage. Eleven minutes each of sheer tedium, sophistry, condescension, self-indulgence. Treats for people of all nations. Yussef Chahine of Egypt giving a \"hip hip hooray!\" for terorism in his amateurish segment. Across the green line we have Amos Gitai of Israel, using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. Alejandro González Iñárritu of Mexico concentrated on the Twin Towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. Sean Penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the Trade Center on 9-11. Shohei Imamura of Japan ignoring the whole thing. Claude Lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. Ken Loach of the UK focussing on Chile. Etc. etc.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's a good thing I didn't watch this while i was pregnant.I definitely would have cried my eyes out and/or vomit. It was Kind of gruesome mainly disturbing. I personally thought the baby was adorable in its own twisted little way.However as a mom I cringed when Beth stabbed herself in the stomach and when Virgina aborted the child during her 3rd trimester with rusty utensils no less.Also,as an animal lover i almost cried when she scratched the cat to a bloody pulp.However,As creepy and sinister as the baby was I was rooting for it to live.And as twisted as the movie was I am extremely intrigued to see the sequel...... ......... ....... ......... ......... ....... ...... .....", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was a new alltime low among westerns. The writing is excruciatingly bad, characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland, the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. And Tobey Maguire shows us the flip side of his talent, sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. 'Ride With the Devil' is among my five worst movie experiences ever, a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? \"Nuts to that\", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell.

Except..

Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This has to be one of the most beautiful, moving, thought provoking films around. It's good family entertainment and at the same time makes you think very hard about the issues involved. Every time I see the \"ghost of Zac riding the bike through the puddle at the end I can't help but cry my eyes out. John Thaw's performance is so touching and it is a shame he is no longer with us. Gone but not forgotten. A outstanding film. Full marks.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "SPOILERS. Like other posters, I felt that the ending was a bit abrupt. I would have liked to have seen the crew adjusting to life back on earth after their return. I suppose the writers anticipated this problem by \"front loading\" some Voyager on earth sequences at the beginning of the episode. (Of course, that time line has been eradicated, so it's all moot.) I did like how Admiral Janeway died for the Voyager crew. As fans, we get to have our cake and eat it to, by having Janeway both make the ultimate sacrifice and live on. I admit that the scenes of Janeway and her older self having conversations was bizarre and so easily could have crossed the line into camp. Fortunately, Mulgrew(s) pulled it off.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.

Arthur Lowe is a real treat!

I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.

Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.

I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Sleeping With the Enemy\" is a predictable, 'been there before' thriller that never seems to find any inspiration no matter how desperately cast and crew try. I can't believe a bunch of my friends talked me into seeing this at the movies some sixteen years ago.

The complete lack of originality from the Ronald Bass screenplay (based upon the Nancy Price novel) does not help, nor does the stale direction of Joseph Ruben or the very average performance from Julia Roberts. The supporting cast including Patrick Bergin and Kevin Anderson do little to help.

There really isn't a lot to say. Just give it a miss.

Sunday, April 14, 1991 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Brendan Filone is the absolute best character in The Sopranos. he died by getting shot in the eye. This was the best and well orchestrated scene ever in the Sopranos. Brendan Filone is too good. Brendan Filone shall haunt Uncle Junior in his dreams until Uncle Junior can't take it anymore. Brendan Filone is the best character. Brendan Filone was killed in episode # 3, Denial, anger, acceptance. But his legacy will live on forever. Brendan Filone is the best character on Sopranos! Brendan Filone is the best character ever. I recommend this show to anyone who likes Drama and wants to see good death scenes and great directing and producing, because it doesn't get any better than this series. Brendan Filone is the best.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Not only does this film have one of the great movie titles, it sports the third teaming of 70s child actors Ike Eissenman and Kim Richards. I seem to remember this film being broadcast Halloween week back in '78 going against Linda Blair in Stranger in our House. I missed it on the first run choosing to see the other film. Later, on repeat, I saw I made the right choice. The movie is not really bad, but, really lacks any chills or surprises. Although, I did like the scene where Richard Crenna shoots the family dog to no avail.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was disappointing. It started well enough but as it went on and lost every opportunity to soar, it fell flat. Maria Schrader's acting is dreadful, never seeming to mean what she says, or even knowing what she says until she says it. She showed no genuine emotion at all, not for her beloved goy, or her mother's story. When with Lena she seemed to have little more than an academic interest in Lena's story. There never seemed to be a real relationship between Lena and her mother except her mother seemed to be having a good time at the wedding, which isn't much. The supposed parallel between Hannah's \"mixed\" romance and her mother's relationship with her father was as cliché as they come, and failed miserably anyway. The wedding was completely unconvincing and a dumb finish. The climax of the protest was uninspiring, and no matter what Lena had or had not done to influence the outcome, she would surely have shown some complexity of feeling at the time, a haunted look, an inexplicable ambivalence. In fact, none of the characters in the film had any depth or spark. It was very hard to care about any of them, even little Ruth. Everything with Luis was a distraction. (Why did she dis him so when on the phone from the hotel? There was no context or explanation whatever for that.) If every reference to him was removed it wouldn't be noticed.

A simple story made confusing by poor character development (who was whose mother, again??) weak acting, and directing that made everyone look like they were acting. You could almost hear \"quiet on the set!....\" I started thinking this was worthy of a 7, but as the film went on it dropped rapidly to a 4, then earning a 3 after the silliness of the wedding scene. This was about as cold and sterile a movie as I have seen. A terrible waste of a good story.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "For those of us that lived thru those weeks of filming in town and around the Valley - lest we not forget the tedious days of road closures and \"film-making\". As a reminder to those that live here - locales include Boulder Creek, Bonny Doon, Davenport, Big Basin. etc. The bank was the BC firehouse; chase scenes included Moon Drive off Hwy 236, Empire Grade Rd, and Hwy 1.

Production: Jeffrey Jones was the most approachable, Matt Broderick was above us all - even back then. As far as the film goes - a joke of a script and even a bigger laugh regarding acting and plot - but who cares at this level. A nice time capsule for those that enjoy our coast and valley scenery.

Additional notes; Joe's Bar (Jed's Tavern in the film), original name of the film was Welcome to Buzzsaw - the Old Erba's parking lot was the town square, the backyard shots were off of Grove Street in Boulder Creek; turn off the thinking cap and see a few actors in their early days.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.

The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.

It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The only reason I watched this film was because I had recently read Robert Hough's less than perfect, but interesting, fictionalised account of the life of Big Cat trainer Mabel Stark. Beaty appears as a character in the book, in a less than flattering light.

I hadn't realised until checking the movie out later on the IMDb that it was originally a serial. Whoever edited the original running time of 233 minutes down to the 68 minuted version available on DVD has done a hell of a good job. The shortened version plays just as well as any B movie of the period despite the many 'duh-what?' moments. For instance are we really expected to believe our hero dug that twenty foot deep tiger trap in a morning without even getting his jodhpurs dirty? Looking over the chapter titles I see that number five is titled \"Gorilla Warfare\" and number eleven is called \"The Gorilla\". There were no gorillas at all in the movie. I guess that's where some of the cuts were made.

Historicaly interesting.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Those engaging the movie camera so early in the century must have figured out some of its potential very early on. This is a good story of a playboy type who needs money and inadvertently sells his soul to Satan for a lot of money. Unfortunately, the soul is his double and he must confront him frequently, tearing his life apart. There are some wonderful scenes with people fading out and, of course, the scenes when the two are on the stage at the same time. The middle part is a bit dull, but the Faustian story is always in the minds of the viewer. One thing I have to mention is the general unattractiveness of the people in the movie. Also, they pretty much shied away from much action which would have at least given some life to the thing. I first was made aware of this movie about 25 years ago and have finally been able to see it. I was not disappointed.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Cinderella was one of the first movies I ever saw, and to me it is timeless. It is a lovely looking film, with gorgeous animation. My favourite animation scene was the dress scene- I just love those mice. The songs are also lovely, not as good as Snow White's, but they are a delight to sing, and are reminiscent of Tchaikovsky. A dream is a Wish and So this is love? are standouts. The characters are also a delight. Cinderella is idealistic and strong, and the mice provided great comic relief. The stepsisters were also well done, as well as Lucifer. But I loved the stepmother the best, she was really evil, in comparison to a great character in the name of the Fairy Godmother. It is true, the movie drags slightly, with the antics of the mice, but they were genuinely funny, so I don't care. I don't think it is overrated, underrated don't you mean? It rarely plays on television, but the really bad sequel does on Cinemagic on a regular basis. if you want a great Cinderella adaptation, try the wonderful Ever After, or the lavish Slipper and the Rose, which isn't as good. But whatever you do, avoid the sequel, which I have the mistake of owning, because you'll thank me. 9/10. Bethany Cox", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "And a made for TV movie too, this movie was good. the acting in it and the plot was just so great. this one of the only movies I've seen that I felt warped my mind because after seeing it I was afraid of Reaper coming to kill me through my computer screen. There were just a few minor things wrong with this movie, but it's very easily over looked.

Antonio Sabbato Jr did an excellent role in this movie along with Janine Turner and Robert Wagner. this movie just has so much suspense and it made me wanting more because I never thought a low budget TV movie could be so powerful. After viewing this I read the novel this movie was based on (four times) and it too kicked was great. If you ever see this movie come on TV, I'd watch it. The effects in this movie were pretty well done, I honestly don't know what a live calcifying human would look like but with the way the FX team did this movie I was impressed and all it shows is that all these bad made for TV movies out there with low budgets shouldn't suck so bad.

watch it. It's really good, no really, it is!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Worst De Niro Scorsese collaboration in this horrible agonizing violent overlong mess. Scorsese is totally out of his element in this film with the horror cliched suddenly loud phone ringing and door slamming gimmicks that seem laughable and embarrassing coming from such a master craftsman. The cast is totally wasted here and the southern accents are very annoying and forced. Nick Noltie plays the wimpiest lawyer in history who would ever believe he can defend anyone ! De Niro's psychotic Bowden is nothing more than the typical 90's movie psycho killer. The scene with De Niro and Lewis early on is very awkward and the climax goes on and on and we should all be more than tired of the on psycho stalker that never dies. One of my most horrible movie experiences. Rent the original it's 100 times better.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What's in a name? If the name is Jerry Bruckheimer expect it to be filled with action.

In producer Bruckheimer's latest film, Gone in 60 Seconds, its all about the nomenclature. With character monikers like Kip, Sway and The Sphinx and cars idealized with names like Diane, Sue and the elusive Eleanor, it's only the non-stop action that keeps you from wanting to just play the name game.

Not a deep script by any means, but it is a great vehicle for action as Nicolas Cage as Memphis Raines, along with Angelina Jolie and Robert Duvall, comes out of car-thievery retirement to save his brother's life by stealing a list of 50 exotic cars in one night. A remake of the 1974 cult hit, this film may not be destined for the same cult status but it is entertaining.

Surprisingly, it's the action that keeps you watching not the acting. Although loaded with stars, none of them have standout performances, including a very weak performance by one of my favorite up and comers, Giovanni Ribisi. Even Jolie, coming off her recent Oscar win, is just a token love interest with hardly any screen time.

Can a series of beautiful cars and the car chases they become involved in make a great film? I think so. The film is a pleasure to look at and although one particular scene takes you into the realm of unbelieveablity, the action is non-stop and the suspense is compelling. Just be wary of other drivers fighting for a pole position as you leave the theatre.

3 1/2 out of 5", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a really interesting movie. It is an action movie with comedy mixed in. Foxx teams up with comedian Epps in this movie to give it a comedic spin. It will keep you wondering whats going to happen to Foxx next. It was a well shot movie, the director used the right colors in this movie(dark blue colors) to give it the right kind of feel. Kimberly Elise also starred in this movie and it is always a pleasure to see her on the big screen. She plays her role well. Even Jamie Kennedy is in this movie. It's worth seeing it you haven't seen it. It's definitely worth having if you are a Jamie Foxx fan. It deserves more credit than it is actually given.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "dear god where do i begin. this is bar none the best movie i've ever seen. the camera angles are great but in my opinion the acting was the best. why the script writers for this movie aren't writing big budget films i will never understand. another is the cast. it is great. this is the best ted raimi film out there for sure. i know some of you out there are probably thinking \"no way he has plenty better\" but no your wrong. raptor island is a work of art. i hope it should have goten best movie of the year instead of that crappy movie Crash with a bunch of no names AND no raptors. i believe this movie is truly the most wonderful thing EVER.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "*review may contain spoilers*

predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Though derivative, \"Labyrinth\" still stands as the highlight of the mid-half of the six-year-old show. Finally a story allows Welling to show how he has grown as an actor. It's not easy playing a character that is the embodiment of \"truth, justice, and the American way\" on a weekly basis with very little variation. His performance, permitting him to show how one might react if he/she discovers that all that he knew may be a lie, was quite believable.

Welling rose to the occasion marvelously.

As always, Michael Rosenbaum, as the \"handicapped\" Lex, delivered, as did Kristen Kreuk as a too-sweet-to-be-believed Lana. Allison Mack, the ever-present Chloe, also scored as a slightly \"off-her-rocker\" version.

The use of an annoying hum in the background added to the tone of the installment and made for an engaging drama.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "First off, I didn't know what to expect when I started the video.

Anytime someone brings back a cult type movie genre and adapts it into the present, something gets inexplicably lost in the translation.

That's not the case here. This movie just starts off on the right track. It's part familiar territory but manages to take it over the top as well. Crockzilla scene anyone? That has to be seen, and just try and keep a straight face. This movie takes some of the old fun cult movie classics and manages to blend it seamlessly into a modern production. It's good to see someone is filling the need in this market. Very well done.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "You may say to yourself, \"Don Johnson as Elvis? Can that work? Is it possible? Seems like an terrible choice to me, but perhaps I should have an open mind. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe he can pull it off.\"

NOT!

Don Johnson is not a bad actor. But he is an awful Elvis. He's too short, too weak-voiced, too sharply featured ... well you've already imagined how bad he would be. Add to that a hokey black wig and heavy-handed eye-liner and mascara and it's a big fat embarrassing mess.

The best I can say is that since Johnson's acting is decent and since his impersonation is so far off, after a while you don't even think of him as Elvis anymore. You see him as some other crazed pop star instead. Then, on that level, the movie becomes watchable.

Stephanie Zimbalist is also not ideally cast as the tall, beauty queen, Linda Thompson. But she is attractive in her own right and plays the part with the honesty, elegance and intelligence we've come to expect from all her roles. There may be too much intelligence in her performance. You have to be kind of a dope to stick with a dope abusing dope.

There's nothing new to this story; we've heard it many times before. If you've looking for new info or insight, you won't find it. It's told as a love story - an unrequited one: Linda for Elvis and Elvis for drugs.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'll probably get a lot of flack for hating this movie- guess I didn't approach it with the proper dewy-eyed nostalgia of the generation before me. But suffice it to say- St Elmo's Fire was pretty crap-freaking- tastic, even as far as Brat Pack films go.

Here is yet another lovely example of the smug, self-indulgent neurosis that is everything 80s (RENT, anyone?) The plot is virtually non- existent and the philosophies are kitchy at best, poorly delivered the rest of the time. The complete lack of anything resembling sympathetic characters doesn't help the situation. There really was no growth, no forward movement at all. Even the climactic suicide scene was effectually neutered by once again refusing to let death or anything resembling reality or adult life enter in.

Each cookie cutter figure simply goes about making you hate them in the blandest, most predictable way possible. The Stalker is a creep for no discernible reason other than he is a Stalker and Andie MacDowell is gorgeous. The Jackass does everything in his power to constantly remind you he is, well, a jackass. The Gorgeous Slut hides really soulful, deep pain with a wild lifestyle. The Poet moods and mopes around for a full 3/4 of the film until he can reveal (!) he actually is full of teddy bears and sunshine and rainbows. The Virgin finally becomes a whole, happy human being after getting every Virgin's desire of one hot roll in the sack with a Jackass before he ditches her to really change (for real this time). The Cheating Bastard cheats until it is time for him to get caught. And finally The Feminist go around dousing holy water on any soul that utters \"commitment\".

Which brings me to my final beef- what bond of super-cement was holding these people together as friends? I can't imagine being with just one of them- Now think of the vortex created by all that narcissism centered in one bar. And they were all so terrible to each other- heads in toilets, near rape, and sleeping around with everrrryone. The cherry was after two BFFs act like total baboons after screwing the Feminist, she's like, \"umm, actually I don't want to be with either of you anymore. Let's be friends! And we can hang out in a totally unawkward way every day knowing that I may hook up with one or the other at any given point, but neither of you are satisfying enough for commitment (NOT THAT WORD!).\" And they all smile as if to say, \"Golly gee, I never thought of that! What a great idea!\"

Only it's not. Kinda in the way that watching this movie is not.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect \"impossible\" couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As a rule, a Full Moon production logo is a warning sign to avoid a film. But because I've enjoyed Jeffrey Combs in other films, I gave it a shot.

It's not bad. Not great, but that's something else. The film involves a struggle with a mystic (evil) \"brother\" who wants to dominate the worlds, and the title character. Dr. Mordrid also has to deal with people, and authorities in the mundane world, which he does successfully.

Possible spoilers follow.

Dr. Mordrid can travel between \"dimensions,\" and does so to find a companion guarding a fortress; however, the guard has been blinded. His eyes are ruined pits. So the wizard passes his hands across the other's eyes, and hey, presto! His eyes have been restored! This sort of healing apparently only works with eyes.

Later, Mordred and his \"brother\" animate a couple of animal skeletons in a museum to fight. Guess which one wins.

However, side from that, the picture isn't at all bad, though much like a comic book. Dr. Mordred's more \"human\" adventures are okay, and Combs plays the role convincingly.

I've seen lots worse.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What an awful show. Science Fiction fans seem to watch anything anymore regardless of quality. It shocks me that something exceptional like Firefly lasts one season, while garbage like the Battlestar Galactica remake spawns a spin off. This spin off is pitiful in every aspect of the show. The acting is juvenile and uninspired. The characters are cardboard clichés of everything that has ever been in a bad Sci-Fi series. The story is bad. The dialog is worse than a prime time soap opera. The direction is shoddy and the sets are awful. Caprica is a waste of film, a waste of time and a waste of effort. This is one spin off that should have never been made.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "24 is the best television show!!!!! It's an incredible TV series with an incredible suspense, excellent plots and unforgettable characters. And the first episode of all is my best evidence. Because it's only the first episode, only the introduction, and you are hooked because of the plot and the continuous twists and turns.

Jack Bauer is a federal agent who is assigned the protection of the senator David Palmer. He can't trust in anybody because people of the CTU may be involved. And, when this events occurred his daughter: Kimberly escapes from house to a party. But...

At the end of the episode, you want to watch more, and more, and more.

It's only the first of the lot, and it's excellent.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Certain DVD's possess me until I just have to go out and buy it. This was one of those movies. Like many on here, I remember seeing it as a child and loved it. I never knew there were scenes and musical numbers that were cut, so I was intrigued to see what they might be. I will agree that the \"Portabellow Road\" sequence is now a tad long (as is the soccer game) but other than that, I found no qualms with the remaining scenes that were put back in their respectful place. Perhaps Disney should have had the original version (which IS the restored version) on one side with the restored version on the flip side, then people could choose what they wanted to view. All in all, it's still an entertaining movie that still manages to recapture some of my childhood memories.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts „heads down\" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...

I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the „subject\". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is just like every other dutch movie, so if you enjoy movies such as turks fruit and de kleine blonde dood. then you might be okay with this one (even though those two have much better stories and actors) Zomerhitte starts strong enough, but even that one good scene ends up having nothing to do with the storyline. There's a lot of nudity (but me and others just could not find that girl attractive), the dialog is laughable (as we did a lot to the annoyance of other movie watchers), and some of the scenes are so completely random that this is more of an unintentional comedy than anything else (like a random scene in which an owl rips somebody's eye out...it has nothing to do with anything and is only referenced once later in a sentence saying \"did you hear what happened...I was there\"). the only reason I gave it a 2 is because some of the places they are at look nice...that's it. And the reason I saw it was because we went to the sneak preview (here in Holland we have a strange system regarding sneak previews, you pay less money then for a regular movie and you don't know what movie it is that you will be watching. All you know is that it's a new movie that's not yet in the theaters). My advice is to stay far away from this film, if you really want to see a good dutch movie watch temmink or zwartboek.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In the last 10 years I have worked in 3 different indie professional wrestling organizations, managed many pro wrestlers (including 2 Backyard Wrestling stars), worked on 2 different wrestling TV programs and did voice-overs and commentary for many wrestling DVD's. I have NEVER witnessed the level of outright amateurish stupidity, lack of talent and skill, and shoddy production quality found in Splatter Rampage Wrestling. To even list this as a wrestling video of ANY kind is an outright misuse of the term. Shot with low-dollar video cameras, it's essentially home videos of kids play-fighting in back yards. The sound quality is bad, the video quality is bad, and the acting is horrendous. The \"wrestlers\" wear makeshift costumes with hand-drawn tee shirts and ski masks and hit each other with a variety of items and halfway imitate wrestling moves. Sometimes the \"matches\" are on the grass. Sometimes on a back yard trampoline. ALL are poorly acted and executed with a shameless lack of any wrestling skill. In short, don't bother with this stinker. Whether your interest in this DVD is entertainment or academic (both in my case), you will be terribly disappointed.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What a HUGE pile of dung. Shot-on-video (REALLY crappy camcorder, NOT digital) pile of garbage. It is without a doubt, the stupidest thing ever made. The fact that this crap was actually released is completely asanine. Everyone who sees it will become stupider for having watched it. Seriously. I felt like it killed several brain cells after I watched this garbage. The positive reviews of this a$$crap were obviously made by the \"filmmaker\" (and I use the term VERY loosely) himself and/or his family and friends because no normal person with the intelligence of a squirrel would honestly like this waste of life. Trust me, stay the hell away from this video. You'll thank me for it. Avoid it like herpes.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Now, admittedly, I'm no ardent student of the genre. As a matter of fact, I've tended always to shy away from Westerns because, in spite of all their critical cachet as America's primal stories (or whatever), they seem to me to forever devolve into tiresome retreads of either \"shoot up the Injuns,\" \"the big gunfight,\" or \"Hey, let's form a posse!\" In other words, it always seemed to me a genre so rooted in and tied to convention, that it left precious little room for surprise or originality. (And yes, I HAVE seen at least some of the so-called \"greats\", and unapologetically lump them into this negative assessment - including Stagecoach, Rio Bravo, My Darling Clementine, and of course the infamous [but profoundly dull] Clint Eastwood-Sergio Leone teamups in the '60s.)

But when I saw this movie on TV - as part of a commemorative Jimmy Stewart weekend upon his death - I finally GOT IT: I understood, at least in theory, what the Western mythos has to offer as a serious thematic preoccupation (aside from just action and thrills). It is the push-pull between lawlessness and order; the American West represented freedom, but also the prospect of the wild, the untamed. Respectable folk could get hurt out there. Which, of course, meant that perhaps - just perhaps - it wasn't meant for respectable folk, and that the only residents should be the amoral and the shifty, those who dispensed justice strictly from the barrel of their revolvers, and where kill or be killed would ever be the law of the land. In such an environment, of course, the true heroes are the ones who are ornery and free-spirited enough to be out there in the first place (and so reject \"society,\" at least as it manifested itself on the Eastern seaboard), and yet have enough sense of justice to believe that a society based on chaos and fear just IS NOT RIGHT. Catching and examining that disparity between law and disorder IN THE MAIN CHARACTER HIMSELF is, I believe (after seeing this movie), the highest and truest goal of any Western. Sadly, it is so often not the case, as the white hats are completely white, the black ones completely black (and let's not even get started talking about the Indians, ok) and there is precious little shades of gray in between.

Not in this one. Jimmy Stewart plays a blatant fortune hunter who follows the trail of miners before him into the Alaskan wilderness to prospect for gold. He is joined in this by his lifelong buddy, played by Walter Brennan (perhaps the Western cliché character to end them all - but nevertheless enjoyable here, as always) - and no one else. Pointedly, they are out for themselves, and while Stewart displays his patented charm (come on, we could never really dislike the guy, now could we?), we are left with little doubt that his is basically a self-centered, self-interested character: none of his \"Gosh\" or \"Oh golly gee\" humanism is allowed to come through. Or, rather, it has to be EARNED, by the end of the picture, in the way I described above. He must confront the lawlessness in himself, and weigh it against the need for order and justice which are so blatantly lacking in the border town which serves as the miners' starting point on their gold dust trail. This town is ruled tightly by its wicked sheriff, Mr. Gannon, played by John McIntire in one of the best \"bad guy\" performances I've ever seen. He comes on with so much charm and humor, and has such a relaxed and interesting rapport with Stewart, that it actually takes awhile to recognize that he *is* the bad guy - so that when it finally sinks in, it does so with double force. Further, by establishing a type of breezy (if necessarily guarded) camaraderie between McIntire and Stewart, the film plays up the notion of how close in temperament they really are - and so how far a moral distance Stewart must walk by the end of the film.

I won't go through all the twists and turns the plot takes - see those for yourself (as well as the rugged and gorgeous Alaskan scenery - filmed on location, mind you, not cheap painted stills that the studio made up). What's key here is how much this story focuses upon character, with great dialogue and character interaction substituting for gunplay much of the time - although the film has just enough action and adventure to prevent it from ever being static (read: \"talky\"). Definitely one of the greatest performances I've seen from Stewart, showing he could play the renegade, the \"man's man\" just as convincingly as the decent and upright guy next door. If anything, in fact, his \"everyman\" qualities lend greater strength to his characterization, making him seem less mythic or overblown - -like, say, Eastwood or John Wayne - and more a three-dimensional personage. His relationship with Brennan is well-played: understated, but nevertheless touching (with a faint suggestion of George and Lenny from \"Of Mice and Men\" - an altogether different type of \"western\").

I certainly have more Westerns to see, but this is for now my favorite, and the yardstick by which I will necessarily judge all the others. It deserves to be much better known and appreciated than it is.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A friend of mine was in the cast as a FEDS agent (a non-speaking part, as I recall). He brought it over on DVD so I could see it. It was \"interesting\", but very much felt like an amateur film. A well made amateur film, though. Really boring and poorly written. It was probably fun to make and be involved in, but it definitely didn't deserve any kind of wide release. Maybe in Omaha they'd enjoy it, but this California girl was bored and honestly kind of embarrassed for my friend's involvement.

If this film maker has made or makes any more films, he really should try to have a really interesting story line, and GOOD actors. I'm sure this was a great learning tool for them. I wish them luck in the future, and hope they can improve their film making.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Van Dien must cringe with embarrassment at the memory of this ludicrously poor film, as indeed must every single individual involved. To be honest I am rather embarrassed to admit I watched it from start to finish. Production values are somewhere between the original series of 'Crossroads' and 'Prisoner Cell Block H'. Most five year olds would be able to come up with more realistic dialogue and a more plausible plot. As for the acting performances, if you can imagine the most rubbish porno you have ever seen - one of those ones where the action is padded out with some interminable 'story' to explain how some pouting old peroxide blonde boiler has come to be getting spit-roasted by a couple of blokes with moustaches - you will have some idea of the standard of acting in 'Maiden Voyage'. Worse still, you can't even fast forward to the sex scenes, because there aren't any. An appallingly dreadful film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I loved KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER since I saw it on the night it premiered on September 13, 1974. I loved the monsters which seemed scary at the time and the cool music by Gil Melle (hey, where's the soundtrack guys?) and have often thought about what makes this show work for me so completely and have finally concluded that the reason it endures when many others do not is one simple, important element it has that almost no other scary show seems to have and that is a main character that most people can relate to on an everyday level. When Darren McGavin's Carl Kolchak starts to discover odd situations, he reacts like most people would. He finds them odd and as he gets closer to danger, he is frightened, even if he knows he must move forward to try to defeat whichever menace is being showcased in that episode. It's rare that he is brave enough to stand up against some superior supernatural force. He's usually set a trap and is hiding or waiting in the wings to see if it works. Sometimes, he seems as surprised that he managed to defeat a foe as we are. In one episode, he goes to find a monster in a sewer but when he first sees it, he runs to get out of there but is trapped so reluctantly, he must go back and defend himself. He's heroic because he is willing to do things most of us probably wouldn't do but that doesn't mean he probably wouldn't much rather someone else did it instead of him. He's a regular guy, doing a job, trying to make a buck, not a monster-hunter. He just gets wrapped up in things involving the supernatural, which he has an interest in but he doesn't want to be hurt or killed anymore than any of the rest of us do. If his plan to defeat the creature didn't work, you will often see him running for his life to get away from it, which is of course what I would do in the situation. That's why I was often watching the climax of the shows through my fingers as a kid. Kolchak was likable and you cared if something bad happened to him. You were scared for him and for the other characters too. The producers and writers obviously knew that anyone can create a monster suit, scary music and direct a suspenseful scene but it's all for naught if you don't care about the characters. Darren McGavin said that the reason why the show only lasted on season was because he got tired of doing a \"monster of the week\" show and he decided not to continue. I can tell you I mourned when this show was canceled when I was a kid but, as an adult, I can see why it couldn't go on in that formula for very long. I still love the 20 episodes and two movies that starred McGavin as the bumbling, determined and brusk but good-hearted reporter for the INS, known as Carl Kolchak. I seriously doubt anyone who makes shows or movies will ever really understand why I loved the show. It's not the monsters, darkly-lit sets, creepy music or goofy guest stars, although they are all vital ingredients. The secret to it's success is right there in the title - \"Kolchak: The Night Stalker\". Without McGavin's lovable, bumbling Carl Kolchak to root for and to care for, then it just ain't a Night Stalker.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Ok, so it may not be the award-winning \"movie of the year\" type-film (apart from the brilliant soundtrack that I think won a few awards), but it is a really great film about 'The Kid' (Prince / O( take your pick) and the happenings around him living in Minneapolis, playing his music. The music is absolutely superb, in my opinion you HAVE to own this soundtrack, it is truly a classic and sums up the eighties sounds and feel in a wonderful fashion. And the movie itself plays out a nice plot, it's worth seeing over and over again, espeically if you like Prince / O (which I do) of course.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "An inventive, suspenseful exercise in claustrophobia. A Japanese thriller that sets itself a tough challenge by being entirely set in two rooms. Not completely successful, but taut, surprising and well-acted. One might find the film somewhat reminiscent of SAW – two men trapped in room and pitting against each other – but unlike that film it dares to stay with its premise and keep the hero locked in his cell throughout the film. It's like watching a lab experiment. Some might find the contained suspense tedious, but this reviewer found it enthralling. The sound and imagery of the film are stunningly well realized. This is a certainly a good film to use to show off a good home video system. Just right for a late night movie fest, when one is in the paranoid mood. It certainly kept me awake that night.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is almost like two films--one literate and engaging, the other stupid and clichéd. It's really a shame all the problems weren't worked out with the writing, but considering how quickly most B-movies were written and produced, this isn't too unusual. It's a real shame, though, as this could have been a very good film.

First the good. The movie is original and involves WWII code-breakers. This is pretty fascinating and I liked watching the leading man (Lee Bowman) go through his paces as a master code-breaker. In fact, the first two-thirds of the film was very good. But now for the bad, the film just went on way too long and lost steam at about 50 minutes. Additionally, Jean Rogers' role as the \"kooky girlfriend\" must rank as one of the worst-written and distracting roles in film history!! For every smart move made by Bowman, the idiot Rogers then stepped in to screw things up as some sort of misguided \"comedy relief\". If her role had been intelligently written, the overall film would have improved immensely! Instead, watching her, it's hard to understand how we actually won WWII!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).

I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no \"nice\" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.

The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.

My Vote 4/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I came across this film by accident when listing all the films I wanted my sister to record for me whilst I was on holiday and I am so glad that I included this one. It deals with issues that most directors shy away from, my only problem with this film is that it was made for TV so I couldn't buy a copy for my friend!

It's a touching story about how people with eating disorders don't necessarily shy away from everyone and how many actually have dieting buddies. It brought to my attention that although bulimics can maintain a fairly stable weight, it has more serious consequences on their health that many people are ignorant of.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, \"Seven Pounds\" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile.

Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.

However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.

One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.

Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If the myth regarding broken mirrors would be accurate, everybody involved in this production would now face approximately 170 years of bad luck, because there are a lot of mirrors falling to little pieces here. If only the script was as shattering as the glass, then \"The Broken\" would have been a brilliant film. Now it's sadly just an overlong, derivative and dull movie with only just a handful of remarkable ideas and memorable sequences. Sean Ellis made a very stylish and elegantly photographed movie, but the story is lackluster and the total absence of logic and explanation is really frustrating. I got into a discussion with a friend regarding the basic concept and \"meaning\" of the film. He thinks Ellis found inspiration in an old legend claiming that spotting your doppelganger is a foreboding of how you're going to die. Interesting theory, but I'm not familiar with this legend and couldn't find anything on the Internet about this, neither. Personally, I just think \"The Broken\" is yet another umpteenth variation on the theme of \"Invasion of the Body Snatchers\" but without the alien interference. \"The Broken\" centers on the American McVey family living in London, and particularly Gina. When a mirror spontaneously breaks during a birthday celebration, this triggers a whole series of mysterious and seemingly supernatural events. Gina spots herself driving by in a car and follows her mirror image to an apartment building. Whilst driving home in a state of mental confusion, she causes a terrible car accident and ends up in the hospital. When dismissed, Gina feels like her whole surrounding is changing. She doesn't recognize her own boyfriend anymore and uncanny fragments of the accident keep flashing before her eyes. Does she suffer from mental traumas invoked by the accident or is there really a supernatural conspiracy happening all around her? Writer/director Sean Ellis definitely invokes feelings of curiosity and suspense in his script, but unfortunately he fails to properly elaborate them. \"The Broken\" is a truly atmospheric and stylish effort, but only after just half an hour of film, you come to the painful conclusion it shall just remain a beautiful but empty package. There's a frustratingly high amount of \"fake\" suspense in this film. This means building up tension, through ominous music and eerie camera angels, when absolutely nothing has even happened so far. By the time the actually mysteriousness kicks in, these tricks don't have any scary effect on you anymore. Some of my fellow reviewers around here compare the film and particularly Sean Ellis' style with the repertoires of David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick and even Alfred Hitchcock, but that is way, way … WAY too much honor. PS: what is up with that alternate spelling; the one with the Scandinavian \"ø\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately \"Convention City\" is lost, so well just have to watch \"Tarzan and His Mate\" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.

In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. \"Tarzan and His Mate\" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so bad. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames, however, this movie is inaccurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames at least had some hacks that worked. Whoever wrote this movie knew NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS except how to use a word processor. I doubt he or she even watched the original movie. The acting isn't even convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances watch this movie. I don't care if the channel is stuck on the TV and you can't turn the TV off. THIS MOVIE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "We fans of Ed Wood tend to be an obsessive bunch in the first place, but this movie in particular has driven me to a level of fan-dom that I have never before approached! One of the most intense thrills of non-mainstream movie adulation - at least as far as I am concerned - is the pleasure of unearthing the obscure. I remember how, as a teenager, I longed to see Eddie's \"Revenge of the Dead\" (a.k.a. \"Night of the Ghouls\"), which at that time had been vaulted for a couple of decades. Likewise such arcane masterpieces of low budget filmmaking as Doris Wishman's \"A Night to Dismember\" or half the works of Jesus Franco! However, recent years have seen video and DVD rendering these once unfindable treasures almost TOO accessible - even for those of us on the 'wrong' (!) side of the Atlantic....

And then, behold, there was \"I Woke Up Early the Day I Died\" - a movie that SHOULD have been so 'big', yet which disappeared into the ether even before Fangoria printed the first fairly lengthy article on it that first whetted my appetite. The 1990s NEEDED a hard-to-find movie though which would REALLY be worth hunting out: and this, to be sure is it.... I don't especially wish to add too much of a commentary on all those marvellous aspects of the film - its classy-yet-kitsch cast, its haunting yet often hallucinogenic visuals, its wondrous moments of \"pure cinema\" (in the sense of the 1920s French cineastes) and surrealism, or even its resoundingly memorable soundtrack - since this has all been described most eloquently by other users here.

What I DO wish to mention, briefly, is the pleasure that I have received also from hunting down certain obscure artefacts relating to this almost-lost-to-us-but-thankfully-not-quite movie! I think the German video, which I picked up while in Cologne on a cold crisp winter's day, is fairly well-known to Ed Wood's followers now. It is also quite common knowledge that a promotional poster for the film was released. However, there is thankfully more to be found!!! Firstly, there are a number of reviews available from the film's German THEATRICAL release - I have used several of these in my translation classes in an attempt to \"Woodify\" my students..... some of these reviews are positive eulogies to the film's artistry and entertainment value - and most interesting of all is that most critics placed it squarely within both the American trash AND European arthouse traditions. Secondly, there is the score by Larry Groupe', which can be acquired from the man himself - many of the tracks exert a truly emotional pull on the listener, particularly if you are contemplating the film's currently \"vaulted\" status and growing a little melancholy at the same time. Finally - for now - I wish to mention the promo SOUNDTRACK that Cinequanon put out in extremely limited numbers. BEG, BORROW, STEAL, KILL or do whatever it takes if you get the chance to acquire one of these!!!!!! It features 14 tracks from the film, including Eartha Kitt's ballad, the late Darcy Clay's \"Jesus I Was Evil\" (two versions of which are also available on CD from New Zealand, although that is another story again!), the cool radio music to which Christina Ricci dances, and also those amazing techno drops by Minty and ZHV (the latter being Billy Z's very own techno band).....

Become obsessed - let Ed Wood rule your life.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In the bygone days of the Catholic Church, a sin-eater was an individual that, through ritual, would take the sins of a dying person upon themselves. Often, these people were excommunicate or similar individuals who the church would not absolve, thereby denying them entrance into Heaven. The sin-eaters were seen as blasphemous, circumventing the chruch's monopoly on redemption. Sex this up a bit with some overt supernatural mojo, let the concept wander where it may, and you have \"The Order\", a movie that combines \"Stigmata\"'s religious anti-authoritarianism, \"The X-Files\"' paranormal investigation, and \"The Thorn Birds\"' sexual spirituality into an odd melange that sometimes works.

Alex (Heath Ledger) is a rogue priest, one of the last members of the Order of the Carolingians, a semi-heretical order of knowledge-seeking, demon-fighting priests. When Alex's mentor is found dead under bizarre circumstances, Bishop Driscoll (Peter Weller) sends Alex to investigate. Tagging along are fellow Carolingian Thomas (Mark Addy) and Mara (Shannyn Sossman), who was subject to one of Alex's exorcisms a year prior. The three go to Rome to investigate and are drawn into a dark underworld of bizarre Catholic heresy, ominous prophecies, demonic intrusions, and a man claiming to be the last surviving Sin-Eater (Benno Furmann).

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (who worked with the same principals on the scattershot and half-hearted \"A Knight's Tale\"), the film is an odd one, and difficult to classify. It wants to be several things at once -- supernatural thriller, religious intrigue, dramatic television pilot -- and only sometimes succeeds at any of them. This isn't helped by the slow pace or the fact that most of the actors seem to be sleepwalking through their performances with occasional bursts of brilliance. Ledger, in particular, has a particularly stunning scene of despair in an otherwise monochromatic performance. Sossman, however, displayed the same disconnected performance that she's given in all of her films (most notably in \"The Rules Of Attraction\").

The plot itself meanders back and forth between several different story arcs, leading you to wonder which is the main one with each arc containing its share of red herrings. Large gaps of narrative appear to be lost between scenes at times, which can be confusing for many, but this is also one of the film's saving graces. The structure of the film -- coupled by the fact that there is never a truly clear antagonist until the very end of the film -- forces the viewer to analyze and reason in a time when most films are blatantly obvious about everything (the exception to this is historical background on the Carolingians and the practice of sin-eating, both of which are explained in dry exposition). Even at the beginning of the film, character relationships and history are inferred instead of explained. Combine this with the on-location shooting and judicious use of special effects, and you have a very old-world supernatural thriller, with even the opening credits reminiscent of something from the late 70's/early 80's.

A brief mention here, as well, for the subtle and organic score by David Torn, a combination of minimalist orchestration and Lisa Gerrard-style exotic vocals. A very nice score that is evocative without being bombastic and exists in a very deceptive simplicity.

A confusing plot, a lack of purpose, and sometimes sleepy performances would often damn a movie, but for some reason, \"The Order\" remains watchable. Many people will be very turned off by the movie for its odd sensibilities, and some may even become angry that they are forced to engage the higher functions of their brain to understand it. Still, the film's sheer intangibility will prevent it from being either a critical or commercial success until the DVD, which I'm sure will be stocked with copious amounts of deleted scenes. A recommended film only for people who like to think while they watch. 6 out of 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "While \"The Kiss of the Spider Woman\" cast Raul Julia as a political prisoner in an unidentified Latin American country, this time he works for a dictator in a fictional Latin American country. Specifically, the dictator suddenly drops dead, so Julia replaces el presidente with a Broadway actor (Richard Dreyfuss) shooting a movie in the country. From there, Dreyfuss has to figure out how to be a dictator, all the while balancing it with his own life.

Is it appropriate to turn the tense situation in Latin America into comedy? Well, \"Moon Over Parador\" does a good job with it. No matter what they do in this movie, they pull it off. It just goes to show why Richard Dreyfuss is one of the greatest actors of our era, and what we lost when Raul Julia died. Definitely worth seeing. Also starring Sonia Braga (who co-starred with Raul Julia in \"TKOTSW\"), Jonathan Winters and Sammy Davis Jr.

I agree: the first lady is hot.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There really isn't much to say about this movie....it's crude, but fun.

Plot outline (From IMDB)

_____________________________________

Two losers from Milwaukee, Coop & Remer (Parker & Stone), invent a new game playing basketball, using baseball rules. When the game becomes a huge success, they, along with a billionaire's help, form the Professional Baseketball League where everyone gets the same pay and no team can change cities. Coop & Remer's team, the Milwaukee Beers is the only team standing in the way of major rule changes that the owner of the Dallas Felons (Vaughn) wants to institute.

_____________________________________

The Acting is pretty good, since there arn't many big stars in this movie. Although I am not a big fan of 'Southpark', Parker and Stone do a pretty good job in their first real movie.

There are so many funny moments in this movie I can't come close to naming them all. It never really lets up, and they don't try to put some cruddy drama in to make it more serious.

And my favorite aspect of this movie: The Soundtrack. It's GREAT. I especially like \"Take me on\" and \"Beer\" by Reel Big Fish. Very underrated.

Overall, a crude, but extremely funny, movie. 10/10

James \"Black Wolf\" Johnston", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Ha. without a doubt Tommy's the evil one here. i don't know why, but for some reason, little kids in horror movies tend to come across as little butt munches. and since they're kids, they won't die. because they're annoying...well..except for asylum of terror. but those are few and far between.

Anyway onto the movie. Can't find this movie on DVD? sure you can! all you have to do is buy the Chilling classics DVD pack! not only do you get Metamorphosis on DVD for $15, but you also get 49 OTHER MOVIES! what a bargain! pff. OK. i'm done advertising for these cheesy movies. let's just say, this movie ain't worth the 15 bucks on its own.

So we have a chemist scientist. yeah. cause all chemist scientists look as handsome as this guy playing Peter. He's trying to come up with a serum to stop deterioration of the body. the college he works at wants to pull the plug on his project, so he tries it on himself. but because this is a horror movie, he sucks it up and starts and incredibly long transformation sequence that takes nearly 3/4 of the movie.

To pad out the movie he gets into a relationship with some woman who has a son. and she was never married! scandalous! But of course Tommy is one of the most irritating characters....no. i take it back. HE IS the most irritating character. Far worse than the old crippled guy who wants to take over peter's work and gloats over him while he's in the hospital. that's right, even as an old cripple, you can still be the villain.

So we see Peter start to randomly kill some people in visions he has until he realizes he's the one doing it and just decides to kill everyone in his path to get back to normal. However at the end he ends up de-evolving into a lizard. yeah, i know don't ask. The ending really doesn't make any sense. And if you're hoping for any really good payoff, you're not going to get it.

This isn't a HORRIBLE movie....it's just frustrating because of the lack of a good payoff. if you already own the 50 movie pack and this is next on your list, you're not in for a snoozer, but you're also not in for a great movie. Just sit back, relax, and eat a lot of snack food. Because this movie isn't going to be making you jump out of your skin anytime soon.

Metamorphosis gets 4 plastic lizard heads, out of 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What a gem of a movie, so good that they made a sequel.

The film starts off really good with a nasty monster who eats a few people and a party where the 2 main characters first set eyes on each other.

Bendan Hughes plays the eccentric Vlad, a bit of an inkling there to who this character is, who has moved into town and uses the services of a particular real estate agent to find him a house.

Hell, we've all seen vampire movies, we know the format.

The movie is watchable, but the actors' performances are very wooden and they seem as they don't want to be in this film, but may be that's just all part of the decadent ambiance.

Didn't like the ending, but there is a sequel, must track it down.

When I watched the film I thought Brendan Hughes didn't really fit the part. Later on, I couldn't stop thinking about him, he sort of exudes an eerie sensuality, so maybe he was right for the part.

BRENDAN HUGHES Last seen in 'Hitler - the rise of evil' as Lt. Guffman.

Where is he now?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think \"Wow this is really good!\" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Just looking at the sets, staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget. Maybe Bela Lugosi is meant to take your mind off of things like that. Young brides drop dead at the altar after saying \"I do\". Their corpses are stolen by a renowned horticulturist Dr. Lorenz(Lugosi)and a couple of his freakish minions as his aging wife(Elizabeth Russell)needs injections of the glandular fluids of the young virgins to remain forever young...forever beautiful. An eager local cub reporter(Luana Walters)realizes that each missing bride wore the same rare orchid to the altar; an orchid in which Dr. Lorenz would be most knowledgeable. A typical horror movie storm brews making a visit to the Lorenz estate a bit spooky; especially with a dwarf and a slobbering hunchback on the premises. Other players: Angelo Rossitto, Tristram Coffin, Minerva Urecal and Frank Moran.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie for what it is, may be one of the most amazing indie films of recent day. Made on a super small budget, the film has special effects that blow away alot of the current films! IF you have a chance watch it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

However, the ladies of all ages will lap it up, no doubt; at least the opposite sex understand what it is to be a mother, and most of us men try to fathom out what it is to be a father. Whether changing nappies is not at all my favourite occupation and trying to get those bottled baby-foodstuffs into errant toothless mouths must rank very high on household duties preferably left to its mother, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.

Some good interpretations here, and a good story idea; the handling of the matter, limited to rather scanty TV-production concepts, gives the film a rather over-mellowy taste with not much new to offer. An insipid way of delivering the goods, and in the end the outcome is so forseeable during the last 20 minutes or so, even my wife dozed off, and I was jumping up to the computer to get the on-line scoring in the Barcelona-Deportivo match, hoping the away team would do something rather good. They did. This film did not.

Better by far is Mike Leigh's magnificent \"Secrets and Lies\" (qv) which touches on the same subject matter, but with Brenda Blethyn playing a far superior part.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When they killed off John Amos's character they killed the show. He was the vital part of the info structure. You had a story of an inner city family's struggling to make it the best way they knew how. They were poor, they were black, and they were living proof that if you have Jesus and your family that nothing is too hard. Sure James would lose jobs and JJ would fail in school but the family always managed to find a way.

James was the strong male role model that earned the income and disciplined the children. Florida was the strong lady that would everyone including James when he needed a shoulder to cry on or hug to make it. The kids had personalities and input which made them important as a family unit. Their neighbor Willona was also a key element because she represented not only a friend but some dear enough to be family. Things were bright, gritty, funny, and honest until they changed the course of the program. James dies and JJ took over the show.

Flo was still mom, Thelma was blossoming into a lady and Michael was still the militant midget but JJ was the show. We were expected to believe that the family with no father or prominent bread winner was going to be able to stay in the apartment. I guess James's paycheck didn't do much for the family. They were only threatened with eviction because they said they were moving and not because no one in the house was working. I know that JJ, Flo, Thelma and even Michael eventually got jobs but come on here be for real. James worked so much that you could feel for him but the others weren't realistic at all and that's a shame.

JJ was the comic relief but I felt the show need substance. It's OK to be funny but they had a chance to show a real family and what it took to survive in the real world and they threw it all away on a few laughs. Michael's character almost disappeared while the rest of the cast slipped into the shadows of the JJ Evan's show. I mean really, here was a guy that was failing in school, he kept getting laid off, and he painted for money in about two episodes. James had always been there to encourage his talent but Flo and the rest of the family didn't seem to care.

Why did it take him so long to understand that painting was what he was meant to do? He could have sold painting's on the street or worked for people that print billboards and cards. (He did but something went wrong with that.) Why did he not make it and why did the others give up on their dreams? I'll tell you why, it was because they didn't have a father in their life to care and to cheer them on and their mother stopped being their to support their dreams. The show stopped teaching us about growing, building and learning and started teaching us about gimmicks and catch phrases. They should have kept James. If any show needed a father it was that one.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "it's a weekend i've been watched this funny film. and i really like it. all the kids are cute, who remind me of my own childhood with those stupid thinking. it's a real entertaining movie for a group of families at weekend night, which could make lots of memories and laughters. Kid's humor always work. nice acting as well. simple story but cool shooting. nice job for directer to find the kid's way. when it comes to the kid movie, i think of \"12 and holding\". another one this year but differed aspect to the kid's world, which is real and cruel. awesome work. H2EFW focuses on the happy side of childhood, which every kid and family need. p.s. Twitch, i think, is the voice of Nemo from \"Finding Nemo\".", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I don't know why people always want deeper meaning in movies or else consider them worthless.

What about just being entertained? Something at which Morgan Freeman excels. He gets a chance to show off a bit. Paz Vega, his co-star, gets a career boost and Brad Silberling gets a name to draw people into watching his movie.

I thought it was a good movie. Some humor, some pathos, some bittersweetness but nothing over the top. I got an especial kick out of Jim Parsons as the receptionist at a construction company. When he looks at Freeman adoringly and says, \"You make me want to be a woman.\" He's just hilarious. The fight scene between Ms. Vega her ex-husband and his girlfriend is wonderful too.

In short, it's a cute, charming film that will make you smile. You could do much, much worse.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film is deeply disappointing. Not only that Wenders only displays a very limited musical spectrum of Blues, it is his subjective and personal interest in parts of the music he brings on film that make watching and listening absolutely boring. The only highlight of the movie is the interview of a Swedish couple who were befriended with J.B. Lenoir and show their private video footage as well as tell stories. Wenders's introduction of the filmic topic starts off quite interestingly - alluding to world's culture (or actually, American culture) traveling in space, but his limited looks on the theme as well as the neither funny nor utterly fascinating reproduction of stories from the 30s renders this movie as a mere sleeping aid. Yawn. I had expected more of him.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A young American woman visits her Irish roots and fends off a druid witch who is out to possess her. Sounds intriguing but after an interesting start, I got lost and spent most of the time wondering where it was going. The movie seems to be dithering in two directions -- are we watching the travails of the Irish-American woman battling her alcohol problem or are we watching a straight off horror flick about an evil witch that returns from the past? The director can't seem to decide. The two doesn't seem to gel and in the end you get nowhere. This could be so much better done and the story seemed to drag towards the end. This was most boring and disappointing.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Pandora's Clock\" is a gripping suspense/thriller that's a cross between a virus movie and a disaster film. This movie, which aired in two parts on NBC in its debut showing in 1996, is about an airplane flight that becomes infected with a virus when one of the passengers just happens to be carrying this disease. The U.S. Government debates on whether the plane should be destroyed or not, while the pilot (Richard Dean Anderson) and a virus expert (Daphne Zuniga) try to figure something out to avoid disaster. I'm not really a big fan of TV movies and miniseries, but I liked \"Pandora's Clock\". It's one heck of a thrill ride. Jane Leeves (TV's \"Frasier\"), Robert Loggia, and Edward Herrmann (as the President) also star.

*** (out of four)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Truly amazing film, the concept as a possible prophetic vision of the future is frightening. A world vastly overpopulated, unbearable heat due to the damaged ozone layer, and all our natural resources spent. In this nightmarish degenerate society we have the great Charlton Heston as a likable film noirish style detective trying to fathom the truth behind a murder, opposite the film noir legend Edward G Robinson turning in a fine last performance.

One of the images that will always stay with me from this film, is the masses of people that populate the stairwells and the way in which Thorne (Heston) has to hop through them every time he uses them.

The movie's use of music is note worthy too, although it contains no score in the usual sense, The opening theme is good, and the subsequent snatches of music we here in Simonson's apartment, and especially the Beethoven pieces in the euthanasia clinic are outstandingly atmospheric.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It's remarkable that for 'Young Mr. Lincoln's' supporting players Ford cast lesser known, other-than-star actors. This not only heightens his film's focus on the central character of Lincoln, but it also affords the audience a refreshing insight into Lincoln as a man of his place and time, a man embroiled, as each one of us inexorably is, in the issues and sentiments of his time and seeking his way to resolving them. It's not so much through Fonda's Lincoln's words and actions but in the faces, the reactions of the supporting players that Ford tells the story of the formation of the young Lincoln's worldview, sense of place in society and polity, and of how the people responded to Mr. Lincoln's words and deeds and placed their trust in this man whom they deemed to have earned their respect and heeding.

Give this a try: instead of focusing on Henry Fonda, next time you view 'Young Mr. Lincoln' shift your focus to the supporting characters - you will, I expect, be handsomely rewarded with a more profound appreciation of both Lincoln and Ford. I like to suspect that Ford's storytelling through the supporting characters' reactions to Fonda's Lincoln may have appealed to David Lean when he directed Omar Sharif in 'Doctor Zhivago', in which it's the supporting characters' reactions to Zhivago that actually tell about Zhivago.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I caught this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival. I hadn't heard much about it; only that it was a tightly-paced thriller, shot digitally on a very low budget. I was hoping to catch the next big Brit-Flick. But I have to say, I was severely disappointed. \"This Is Not A Love Song\" follows two criminals, who, after accidentally shooting and killing a farmer's young daughter, become embroiled in a deadly game of cat and mouse when the locals decide to take matters into their own hands and hunt them down.

The real problem is that this is yet another example of style over substance in a British film. The camera angles and editing are completely at odds with the story, as are the over the top performances, and the appalling use of slow motion, which only serves to make the whole thing look like an expensive home video. There are repeated attempts to make the film look edgy and gritty, which instead come over as hilarious and over the top(Cue a pathetic, obligatory drug scene, and countless, pointless camera zooms). No amount of cliche's such as this can disguise the fact that this is a pretty bad story.

We've seen this kind of thing many times before, and made a hundred times better, particularly in John Boorman's masterful \"Deliverance.\" But while in the latter film, we actually cared about the characters, in this film, I found myself just wanting them to be hunted down and killed as quickly as possible. Even this wouldn't have been so bad if their adversaries had been frightening or worthwhile, but instead, are merely a collection of stereotypical, inbred-looking countryfolk. Again, another offensive, overused cliche' coming to the fore. Surely there are some nice people in the country, filmmakers?

In its defense, \"This Is Not A Love Song\" does contain a couple of good, suspenseful moments, but it's hard to see this film doing anything other than going straight to video, or, at a push, getting a very limited cinema release. It's not a patch on last year's Low-Budget hunted in the hills movie, \"Dog soldiers\". Maybe British Cinema could actually get kick-started again if the right money stopped going to the wrong people.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is a splendidly done simplistic film that explores a theme, and gives each viewer something different that they take from it. The premise is simple: an unnamed celebrity actor (Morgan Freeman) decides to research for an upcoming role by visiting a store and watching people. He takes particular interest in the cashier at the \"10 Items or Less\" lane (Paz Vega), who he finds an amiable, strong, and curious presence.

Both actors play off each other brilliantly and bring solid dimension to characters in what is a character study. Not a conventional character study; they each represent entire worlds. The cashier's life is mired in a harsh and frustrating \"real world,\" while the actor is so enmeshed in his fantasy existence that he can't do simple tasks like remember phone numbers. He readily admits he's putting on a face when he talks to people, and the whole point of researching real people shows he's not one of them.

But not only is the actor inspired by real people for his work; we see the reverse process as well. Several characters recognize \"Him,\" and make reference to how he has inspired them with his movie roles.

The cashier's favorite song \"Al Pasar la Barca,\" about how a girl refuses to hide behind beauty and prefers instead to pay (ie: do honest work) for boat passage, couldn't have been chosen better. It parallels with the Vega character, the only store employee with any brains or ambition, who is willing to work hard to succeed. (That's quite an aspiration, for somebody who looks like Paz Vega.) It's an odd little film, probably made on a shoestring. If you don't mind slow pacing and a \"talky\" approach, this film will entertain. The characters are perfectly contrasted, and the effective acting makes them endearing. A nice watch.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "SPOILERS HEREIN

My High School did all they could to try and motivate us for exams. But the most memorable method they used to get us into the right state of mind was a guest speaker, who was none other than Australian Kickboxing's favorite son, Stan \"The Man\" Longinidis. The first mistake they made was giving this guy a microphone, because he was screaming half the time despite us sitting no more than 3 or 4 feet away from him. Now, his speech was full of the usual \"if you fail to prepare, then prepare to fail\" stuff, but there were various instances where I got really worked up. The guy stood there in front of us preaching how throughout his life he did everything for himself and no-one else. He was offered many deals in the past to give up kick-boxing, but he never took his eye off the prize of becoming Australia's greatest kick-boxer. He said that he wasn't a sell-out, he was happy and a retiree, he wasn't ever involved in any other activity other than Kickboxing… then he plugged his film. Yes, you heard right, he PLUGGED his new FILM. As he talked about it, he got a woman to come in and hold up a poster advertising it, and then he showed this shitty 4 minute clip of this vile film called \"Trojan Warrior\". (This all being before he was defeated by Gurkan Ozkan in his final career fight (for now))

Stan plays Ajax, a kick-boxing ex-special forces agent that is pulled into the seedy underworld of Melbourne. Ajax's cousin, Theo (Arthur Angel) recently sold out (well, at least Stan didn't stray too far away from EVERYTHING) to the feds, and as a result is on the run from all walks of organized crime. Ajax and Theo get into all sorts of ridiculous situations, from fighting in a Kebab shop to posing as playboys at a bondage party. It's all pretty ridiculous, but if Silverstein was actually aiming to make a credible film here, this man should never be handed a camera again.

I'll admit, I was actually pumped to see this. I love action films, even if they're corny, and especially if it's set in my own backyard. But what I was introduced to was a film with acting that was appalling from the word \"go\", and continued to do so after the words \"for the love of God please make it stop!\", subplots were introduced and not even touched on again after they were out in the open, characters were just thrown in for absolutely NO reason whatsoever, and the most over-choreographed fight scenes that didn't even remotely reflect Stan's actual talent in Kickboxing. The cast consisted of useless cameo appearances by just about anyone REMOTELY famous (Dermot Brereton, Mark \"Chopper\" Read and Greg Matthews). The whole time you're sitting there and playing the guessing game of just who is standing there in the background. Too bad the movie relies heavily on split-second appearances by former celebrities. Remember those plot-holes I told you about? Ajax once upon a time was apparently locked up, wrongly accused for murdering his wife. Now, we hear that Ajax was in special forces via ONE single sentence in the WHOLE film, and then leave it for buggery. This is followed by another SINGLE sentence which persuades Ajax to help the same people who wrongly locked him up. Then, get this, at the end, it is revealed to Ajax that his wife isn't actually dead, but was sold into prostitution. Do we see her? No. Does Ajax go off to find her as soon as he hears this? No. Now THAT's a marriage!

Amidst all this irritatingly puerile crap, some website described this film as \"…a cross between Jackie Chan & Guy Ritchie…\". Has this man ever sat down and watched a Jackie Chan film?! Chan shows more dexterity taking a dump than Stan did doing…, well, ANYTHING! And Guy Ritchie is the crime-film Messiah, and you're comparing him to Salik Silverstein!? This film is more like a mix between \"Pizza\" and \"Enter The Ninja\".

Now, where do you thing the whole \"Trojan Warrior\" title comes from? Ajax's fierce fighting skills like that of an Ancient Greek Warrior? No. The gangsters' unification to find Theo, like that of the Trojan Empire? No. It's because… wait for it… Theo carries a condom around with him. Yes, that right, because THEO is ALWAYS PREPARED with a Trojan BRAND RUBBER in his pocket, he is a Trojan WARRIOR!

I had the displeasure of seeing \"Trojan Warrior\" on DVD, as well as it's \"special\" features:

• Video clip of \"Chop Chop\", a rap song by Mark \"Chopper\" Read: Chopper did this for the sole purpose of proving that ANYONE can rap. The funny thing was Chopper just rapped for 30 seconds and then threw it over to these two albino teens from Doncaster, using such words as \"dis\" and \"dope\" etc in their Australian accents. Face it people, rap was developed in the States, LEAVE IT THERE! The clip looked like something a Channel 31 cameraman on ecstasy put together.

• Bloopers: There was no real difference between these and the actual film.

• Stan \"The Man\" Longinidis Kickboxing Featurette: This wasn't too bad, considering it was just 6 or 7 different fights shown from different angles (I think I saw Dennis Alexio fall over about 15 times in that 3 minute montage).

I don't want to say this film contributes to the reason this country is going to hell when it comes to film, but... oh wait, I just did. My advice to anyone reading this is for you to go out and buy 4 or 5 copies of \"Trojan Warrior\", tape them together, and use it for a paperweight, because this movie is just that damn bad.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In my book \"Basic Instinct\" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!

This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the \"There is no smoking in this room\" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away!

I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was really looking forward to seeing this film, but after watching it I was really disappointed. The best bit was when Stephen King was in it. Rober John Berk cannot act to save his life and neither can any of the others. A few of the performances even made me laugh out loud! The film was was not as I imagined it, after reading the book which was awesome, I imagined it darker and a lot scarier. If i was Stephen, I would be really mad!

I don't know why they changed the ending, I thought the ending of the book was very good. If you just found out the pie killed your daughter, you wouldn't feed it to anyone else would you?!

Book was so much better!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I attempted watching this movie twice and even then fast forwarding the irritating parts but still could not make it to the end.

I don't understand how this movie *genuinely* got any good reviews. I think these people giving such good reviews are just trying to hype the movie for marketing purposes. Their reviews seem very unrealistic and it looks like an inside job, which makes things more pitiful. Movies should get true positive comments on their own steam and not contrived ones!!

The acting was reminiscent of a cheesy porno movie, and not in a funny way. I don't mind low budget movies with bad acting if they know how to work with it.

I found the lead character to be irritating. His facial expressions and humor was unbearably childish. I thought this was intentional to make the womens conspiracy seem more enjoyable and founded, but they were even worse.

The script was also very awkward (his bosses overdone business speech) and the unfunny sarcastic remarks.

I did not find anything redeeming about this movie other than some of the attractive women.

Never have I felt that a rating was this misleading. I was interested by its premise but scared off by everything else. Of course see it if you want, but I just didn't want anyone else to get their hopes up/waste their time.

Maybe it is just me... Probably not.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This might be the WWE's 2nd best PPV of the year after Wrestlemania it was a good suprise! John Cena had an excellent match in which he upset Chris Jericho. Jeff Hardy retained his IC title in a short sloppy match with Willam Regal. Bubba & Spike Dudley won a fairly violent tables match over Benoit & Guerrero. Jamie Noble had a really good match with Kidman which was suprising to me. Booker T defeated The Big Show in a no dq match, at one point Booker T gave the scissors kick to Big Show and sent him right through the table. In a stupid decision by the WWE Christian and Lance Storm, the jealous anti-americans defeated Hogan and Edge with a lot of help from Test and Jericho. RVD and Brock had the match of the night it was filled with great high spots and RVD got to retain his ic title through a DQ so I was happy he kept the title. Triple H also signed with Eric Bischoff and Raw which means little to nothing. And in the main event the Rock became the first ever 7-time WWE world champion defeating both Kurt Angle & Undertaker in a triple threat match. Overall this is probably the WWE's 2nd best PPV of 2002! 7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?

The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).

The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space.

This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian \"philosophy\" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.

There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. \"Nil by Mouth\" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for \"In the Warzone.\" And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I won't waste a whole lot of time of this one because as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a movie to start with, just a careless mish-mash of borrowed footage and embarrassingly amateurish new footage made solely for the purpose of pasting the whole mess together and call it a \"Boogeyman\" sequel. Literally 80% of this film is stolen from its far superior predecessor \"The Boogeyman\", a film that the writers of this garbage apparently didn't even bother to watch because they couldn't even get actress Suzanna Love's original character's name (Lacy) right. And to add insult to injury the killer is invisible in the original footage and visible in the new footage, apparently they think their audience is as stupid as they are. 0 out of 10 and I wish IMDb's rating system went that low, the most callous and blatant attempt to rip off people's money I've even seen, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible.

There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them)

Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix.

Examples

>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader.

>The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????

>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....

There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's????

There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either.

Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, spend your $9 on a used textbook, not this movie. I'm a little worried that the money I spent is being used to buy Kool-Aid for shipment to Guyana.

I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Um... Okay, I guess I get the whole shaky-cam, gorilla-style filming technique but unfortunately I think a gorilla could have made a better movie... This thing was just a complete mess from the get go. Bad acting, bad directing, bad story and horrific cinematography. How this piece of garbage was released I will never know, but it has and unfortunately I watched it. Filmed on location in Tennessee by the directing team of Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen (Harry and Lloyd), \"Five Across The Eyes\" I'm assuming is supposed to resemble a \"Blair Witch\" type film but falls short... Okay it nose dives off a cliff. I was actually embarrassed for these young women, whom I'm sure were promised Hollywood stardom, but ended up in this dung heap. The dialog is ridiculous, and actually aggravates you as you listen to it. How this is supposed to be a horror flick is another mystery, as there is nothing even remotely scary about it, except for the fact that I watched it... Try this one on for size: There is 5 of you and 1 of her, do the math and beat her ass... \"The End\". Saddly it went on (and on) for 95 more minutes of mind-numbing stupidity...

I saw it for free, and wanted my money back.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film might have weak production values, but that is also what makes it so good. The special effects are gross out and well done. My favorite part of the movie had to be Chrissy played by Janelle Brady. She is super hot and also has a good nude scene. Robert Prichard as the leader of the gang is hilarious, as are the other members. This film is actually trying to make a point, by saying that nuclear waste plants are bad. 4/10 Fair comedy, gross out film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film may seem dated today, but remember that it was made in 1974 -- before Saturday Night Live, before Howard Stern, back when George Carlin was just getting beyond the Hippie Dippie Weatherman and into heavy satiric humor. This film is the granddaddy of them all. Enjoy it for its historical significance, as well as for its strong entertainment value.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I grew up watching and loving TNG. I just recently finished watching the entire series ST Voyager on DVD, which may have heightened my sense of disgust with this episode, as the difference in style and approach between the two shows couldn't be more stark. The idea may have been good if used as an opportunity to further expand Riker's character, which is how it probably would have been treated on VOY. They could have featured memories that would be \"new\" to the audience, rather than simply regurgitating old show clips. The in and out transitions between the \"memories\" and the \"present\" in this episode start as cliché in the beginning, and very quickly become intolerable as the tired pattern wears on and on. Bar none- worst episode ever.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I had numerous problems with this film.

It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: \"Aren't you just blown away by this!\" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.

The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called \"expert\" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.

It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.

Avoid this film.

Oh yeah. At one point, one of the \"experts\" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A friend told me of John Fante last summer after we got into a conversation about Charles Bukowski. I did not know that Fante was a favorite writer of Bukowski's - an author with similar edge and humor except from one generation earlier. 'Ask the Dust' was the first Fante book I read, and it remains one of my favorite novels. The novel was a brilliant piece of writing about a sad, frightened young writer posing to himself and the outside world as an overconfident, masterfully talented author who had no idea how to write about the real world experiences he had none of. In the novel the protagonist is a virgin, with no idea how to win the graces of the women he desperately wants to write about in magazines. The story of his bizarre relationship with Camilla, how he settles for his first sexual experience with a 'wounded' admirer, and how he eventually is left with nothing but the story of his failed attempts at love is biting and real, with no touching Hollywood ending. The film adaptation stays true to the book for a while, but meanders into the cinematic trap of love persevering through racism, sickness and death. The heart of this story lies in the fact that Bandini is a jerk and Camilla is f-ing crazy, and their love never was and never would be the real thing, no matter how much either of them wanted to find it in each other. This movie tore out the real meaning of the story out and replaced it with schlock. I can't believe the man who wrote Chinatown could read this book and make a movie about it that got it so wrong.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A study in bad. Bad acting, bad music, bad screenplay, bad editing, bad direction and a bad idea. Pieces of schlock don't come any cheesier or unintentionally funnier than this... thing. By the end of the \"movie\", you are left wondering why did they bother in the first place. Poor Malcolm McDowell, was he short of cash or something? Still thinking of seeing this? *SPOILERS AHOY*: If you haven't died of laughter in the first thirty minutes, by the time you'll see the cyborg-populated town named \"Cytown\", you will. Avoid this, my movie-loving friends. Avoid.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Shall We Dance?\", a light-hearted flick from Japan, tells of an overworked accountant and family man who is attracted to a dance studio by a beautiful woman he see's from the train during his daily commute. What he finds in the studio are lessons in dancing and, most of all, himself. Funny, poignant, and utterly charming, \"SWD\" is an award winning film well worth a look by more mature viewers. (B)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to \"Ned Kelly\" as an \"Australian Western.\" For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.

Perhaps because we've encountered this \"gentleman bandit\" scenario so many times in the past, \"Ned Kelly\" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.

Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.

\"Ned Kelly\" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "After reviewing this intense martial arts movie for the first time in nearly 18 years, I must say it did not lose any of its mysticism, nor any of its eye-popping martial arts action as I had remembered from my youth. The story of a dying martial arts instructor sending his \"unfinished\" pupil out to find the 5 past members of his Poison Clan, so they do not seek out a fortune which the master's friend keeps hidden. Afraid that his last pupil did not have enough training, he instructs him to befriend one of the five \"venoms\" so as to defeat the other four.

I can't say enough about the choreography or the camera work. A fine film in its own right and quite possible one of the best martial arts movies ever made. A CLASSIC!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I heard and read many praising things about \"Midnight Meat Train\", which is based on a short story written by no less than Clive Barker and supposedly the best adaptation of his work since the original \"Hellraiser\" that he directed himself, but so far I can only express very mixed sentiments about my viewing experience. The most appropriate term to summarize the whole film in just word is: nauseating! The violence is sadistic and extreme, which undoubtedly attracts fanatic young horror enthusiasts, but it's also indescribably gratuitous and exploitative. Normally speaking, I'm very pro-violence but it has to at least serve some kind of purpose. The butchering – literally – depicted in \"Midnight Meat Train\" is exclusively meant to shock and to repulse the viewers with weak nerve systems and easily upset stomachs, and even that isn't fully effective due to the use of digital computer effects. There are more shortcomings, some even bigger than the pointless gore, but perhaps I should focus on the good elements first. The basic concept is definitely promising and multiple sequences (like the chase in the freezer room, for example) are literally oozing with nail-biting suspense and macabre atmosphere. Unfortunately the pacing is very uneven and the elaboration of the potentially fantastic plot is made unnecessarily convoluted. Presumably the processing of a short story into a long feature film scenario is responsible for the pacing irregularities, but I honestly feel they could have done more with the denouement as well as with the character played by Vinnie Jones. The plot introduces Leon, an aspiring photographer in New York whose agent advises to search for the truly menacing face of the city through sinister pictures. Leon then becomes obsessed with stalking an introvert and suspiciously behaving butcher who always awaits the midnight train. Leon's right, as the butcher turns out to be a relentless serial killer who literally crushes his victims with a big hammer, but the killer's motivations and behavior suggest there's something far more substantial going on the rails at night. \"Midnight Meat Train\" takes place in naturally unsettling locations like subway stations at night and animal abattoirs, plus the film also benefices of good acting performances and a truckload of downright disturbing images (like cadavers on meat hooks and train carriages smeared in blood), but director Ryûhei Kitamura (\"Versus\", \"Godzilla Final Wars\") doesn't take full advantage of it all. The ending leaves a whole lot questions unanswered and, even if Clive Barker meant to have like this, I still think we deserved a slightly more clarifying finale. \"Midnight Meat Train\" is a somewhat intriguing and definitely haunting film, but not without defaults. It's not intended for easily offended viewers, but maybe people looking for plot coherence and clarity should leave it alone as well.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In the opening scenes of this movie a man shot arrows through his hotel room into another man's bathroom and blew out all the lights. This must have been very hep for 1936, but rather way way out and had nothing to do with the film, Robin Hood did not make an appearance as far as I could see. However, Bette Davis(Daisey Appleby),\"The Whales of August\",'87 was very young and attractive and performed one of her best roles in a long career in Hollywood. Daisey never stopped teasing or being very sexy with her nightgowns and so called swim suit on her yacht with George Brent(Johnny Jones),\"The Spiral Staircase\",'46. Daisey even proposed marriage to Johnny in a Ferris Wheel upside down and even got a black eye. Davis and Brent made a great couple, one suppose to be very rich and the other a very poor reporter. Off stage, Davis and Brent were having a real torrid love affair, which is good reason why there was sparks when these two appeared in this film. If you liked Bette Davis and George Brent, this is the film for you!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a great film.

I agreed to watch a chick flick and some how ended up with this. I had never heard of it or anyone in it (excpet Mike from Friends).

But it is great! Eva, Lake and Paul give amazing performances. The humour is consistently dry and witty.

Paul Rudd pretty much plays the mike character from Friends (which works great). The other characters are stereotypes and the plot is formulaic (I mean we are not talking 'Apocalypse Now' here) But the characters are likable, the story is engaging, the soundtrack, production and direction all work well.

In all a great feel-good film that really deserves a lot more credit than it gets.

Everyone has their own tastes but I really don't understand the one star reviews for this.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Firstly I would like to point out that I only know of the show due to my younger sister always watching it. I find it the most annoying program on TV. There is nothing funny about any of the 'jokes' and the canned laughter is unbearable. The show would work much better if filmed in front of a live audience. That way the laughter would show just how 'unfunny' the show is. However I give credit to the acting talents of the young cast. It sickens me however to think that they'll look back on the show in the future and see how bad their first TV show was. The show links in well with the overall annoying voices and style of the CBBC presenters. Why the youth of today need to be shouted at so much is beyond me. That is all.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet.

And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.

Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes.

In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.

And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.

I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.

It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have a two year old son who suffers from the same condition as Jonny Kennedy. I never got the chance to meet him but I have never heard anybody say a bad word about him. I hope he knows how much the making of this programme has helped his fellow sufferers by raising awareness of this terrible condition. This man has touched people in a way that a million charity leaflets could not. I believe that this should be compulsory viewing in schools. I also agree with other comments - what have I got to moan about? He took everything that life could throw at him and still managed to retain a sense of humour. God Bless. I couldn't watch the part that showed his dressings being changed. I have enough trouble with my son's.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.

When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.

Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.

Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.

Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.

However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A mess of genres but it's mainly based on Stephen Chow's genre mash-ups for it's inspiration. There's magic kung-fu, college romance, sports, gangster action and some weepy melodrama for a topping. The production is excellent and the pacing is fast so it's easy to get past the many flaws in this film.

A baby is abandoned next to a basketball court. A homeless man brings him to a Shaolin monastery that's in the middle of a city along with a special kung fu manual that the homeless man somehow has but can't read. The old monk teaches the boy but expires when he tries to master the special technique in the manual. The school is taken over by a phony kung fu master who is assisted by four wacky monks. The new master gets mad at the now 20+ year old boy for not pretending to be hurt by the master's weak punches and throws him out for the night. The boy is found throwing garbage into a basket from an incredible distance by a man who bring him to a gangster's club to play darts. This leads to a big fight, the boy's expulsion from the monastery and the man's decision to turn the boy into a college basketball sensation.

Al this happens in the first 20 minutes with most of it happening in the first 10 minutes. Aside from the extreme shorthand storytelling the first problem is how little we get to know the main character until way into the movie. The man who uses the boy is more sharply defined by the time the first third is over. The plot follows no new ground except for the insane action climax of the film. I'm sure you can easily imagine how the wacky monks will show up towards the end. The effects, photography and stunt work are all top- notch and make up for the uninspired plot.

Stephen Chow has a much better command of plot and comedy writing and this film will live in his shadow but that's not a good reason to ignore it. It's quite entertaining even with a scatter-shot ending. Recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Angela Johnson (Pamela Springsteen--yes she's related to Bruce), the killer from the first film, is up to her old tricks again. She's one of the counselors at Camp Rolling Hills. As long as the girls at camp are nice and stay away from sex, drugs and swearing things are fine. But a few step over the line and Angela kills them--cracking bad jokes all the way.

The original \"Sleepaway Camp\" was a vicious and nasty splatter film but had some good points to it. This is vicious and nasty too but has NO good points to it. The plot has been done to death and this adds NOTHING new to the formula. There are plenty of gory killings in here (people are burnt alive, heads are cut off, throats slashed) but all the gore is so obviously fake it actually become comical. This also has the smallest amount of campers I've ever seen and virtually everyone is far too old for their roles (especially Higgins). As expected there's the gratuitous female nudity (here provided by the tremendously untalented Valerie Hartman) and the obligatory good girl/good boy team (Renne Estevez and Tony Higgins). With the sole exception of Springsteen and Higgins the acting is lousy--even by slasher movie standards. There's also a cruel edge to this movie in which one character is drowned in an outhouse! Boring and sick with a stupid plot, pointless nudity and bad gore. Skip it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Too bad Chuck Norris has gone to TV. He made some good movies before he hit TV. This is a typical TV movie intended to pass the time. Unfortunately it wastes Chuck's talent as an actor. I hope he returns to the big screen some day.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly \"made-for-TV\" movie? Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era … would it make for good viewing? Honestly, I don't know. I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen. From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland. Was it good? Was it bad? That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated!

This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes. Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole. I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale. I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind. The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esquire view untouched by corporate America. It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television). There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story. Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.

While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side. Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall. The two as actors have no chemistry at all. Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion. The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two \"veteran\" actors portrayed it. The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done. This is love? Was it supposed to be love? I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts. Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse \"knocks\" on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene. The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married! It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.

Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature. There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation. These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers. While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more. Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story. Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters. Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast. Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.

Grade: ** out of *****", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's a testament to Gosha's incredible film-making prowess that he was able to complete both Hitokiri and his stunning masterpiece, Goyokin, in the same year, 1969. And it's a testament to how criminally underrated he remains for the general public (compared to media darlings like the great Akira Kurosawa), that both Hitokiri and Goyokin have received less than 500 votes between the two of them.

Shintaro Katsu is Okada Izo: mad dog killer, loyal to the Tosha clan and their boss Takechi, played by another genre stalwart, Tatsuya Nakadai. The Tosha clan was part of a larger alliance that supported the Emperor against the flailing Shogunate. The historical backdrop is fairly accurate - with Japan's increasing political turmoil between imperialists and the Tokugawa and the pressure by the West to end a 300 year social and political seclusion. It helps a lot to know a thing or two about Japanese history and what eventually led to the Meiji Restoration and the abolition of the Tokugawa Shogunate, but it's not essential by any means. The movie was made primarily for a Japanese audience so certain things are taken for granted but it flows very well for the uninitiated as well.

As one would expect from a Hideo Gosha film in his golden years (the late 60's) the visual palette is breathtaking, the use of external and internal symbolism hiding behind pictorial beauty. Style however is never decorative for Gosha - it is always employed in the service of story.

And speaking of story, Hitokiri is dominated both literally and figuratively by the tortured main character Izo Okada. As most chambara protagonists, Izo finds himself in a moral double-bind, torn between giri (obligation) and ninjo (natural impulse) - although it takes a while for him to realize what exactly his giri is. In the first half of the movie Izo is trying for social self-advancement. Lofty aspirations of social rank and marriage with an aristocrat's daughter - a great progression for someone coming from a farmer's background in the rigid social caste system of 19th century Japan.

The turning point for Izo is when he realizes at what cost self-advancement comes, the loss of identity and by consequence the loss of self. It is at that point that he undergoes a very symbolic transformation from a famous swordsman of the Tosha Clan to a \"nameless\" drifter without past or future, Torazo the Vagrant. Although not technically nameless and not a genre drifter in Yojimbo's mold, it is the loss of his former self and the cast off of ego, ambition and self-dillusion that allows Izo to see things as they really are and redeem himself.

Hitokiri ends (which I won't reveal here) in the best way any story can end: both positive and negative with a deeply ironic twist that gives Izo the last laugh, a last sardonic remark in the face of death.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As if most people didn't already have a jittery outlook on the field of dentistry, this little movie will sure make you paranoid patients squirm. A successful dental hygienist witnesses his wife going down on the pool man (on their anniversary of all days!) and snaps big time into a furious breakdown. After shooting an attack dog's head off, he strolls into work and ends up taking his marital aggression out on the patients as he plans what to do about his \"slut\" of a wife. There are plenty of up-close shots of mouth-jabbing, tongue-cutting, and beauty queen fondling, as well as a marvelously deranged performance by Corbin Bernsen. The scene in which he ties up and gases his wife before mercilessly yanking her teeth out is definitely hard to watch. A dentist is absolutely the wrong kind of person to go off the deep end and this movie sure explains that in detail. \"The Dentist\" is incredibly entertaining, fast-paced, and laughably gory at times. Check it out!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this movie is just an excuse for the writer to make a film out of 2 failed scripts.

its characters are just an assembly of characters with cliché tragic or comic attributes the sum total of which is neurotic dialog like only woody Allen could write. woman love this because its like looking in the mirror so they will enjoy this film probably

this movies was not enjoyed by me however because there was no car chase and also the film didn't have any fights. there was also no drug lords or gang bangers. Not to mention a lack of snakes. This film had no snakes. Not my cup of tea and maybe not yours ether so think about what I have said before you find yourself watching this film.

Unless of course you resemble a female have weight issues man issues enjoy sex and the city and ally mcbeal then this is meaningful for you.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.

\"The Enemy\" Naming it \"Action Movie\" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I've seen a slew of \"80s rocker horrors\" over the years, from rubbish like \"Terror on Tour\" to ridiculously fun gems like \"Slumber Party Massacre 2.\" Somehow I managed to keep putting this one off, which is strange because it's probably the most popular and well received one. Well, I finally caught up with it and it's easily the best of this mostly awful (but almost always endearing!) subgenre. The plot (which was pretty much lifted in the film \"Black Roses\") concerns a mulleted misfit named Eddie, whose ridiculed by all in his high school for his taste in music. He loves 80s metal, especially his idol Sammi Curr (played by the late great Tony Fields.) After Sammi is killed, Eddie favorite radio DJ gives him Sammi's final recording. Once Eddie plays the record backwards, he discovers he's a bit tougher, and bad things start happening to those who taunt him. Is Sammi's music possessed? \"Trick or Treat\" is well-made and a total hoot. The special effects are awesome, even though it does feature the typical 80s laser beams. I grew up in the 80s, and while I wasn't a fan of heavy metal, I do remember the urban legend about playing a record backwards hearing the sounds of Satan worshipping. Haha! I also remember being told by my older siblings and neighbors that both KISS and Ozzy worshipped Satan, so it's very amusing to see them both make cameos as a harmless radio DJ and a anti-rock priest. If only I had seen this film as a kid! While the film seems to poke fun at the popular connection in the 80s between alleged devil worship and heavy metal, the viewer never really finds out why Sammi Curr is back from the dead creating havoc and killing whoever gets in his way. This is movie's weakest point, but if you can overlook that, it's loads of fun.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.

It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.

Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.

Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells \"the Shape\". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit).

Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a \"alien in the frozen waste\" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).

I couldn't get over the fact that the \"alien\" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY.

The \"bare minimum\" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.

Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This comment does contain spoilers!!

There are few actors that have an intangible to them. That innate quality which is an amalgamation of charisma, panache and swagger. It's the quality that can separate good actors from the truly great. I think George Clooney has it and so does Jack Nicholson. You can look at Clooney's subtle touches in scenes like his one word good-bye to Andy Garcia in Ocean's 11 when they just utter each other's name disdainfully. \"Terry.\" \"Danny.\" You can pick any number of Jack's performances dating as far back as Five Easy Pieces in the diner to A Few Good Men and his court room interrogation scene. These guys just have it. You can add Denzel Washington to the small and exclusive list of actors who exudes that terrific trait in everything he does. If you look at some of his explosive borderline diatribes in The Siege to his impressive tribute to Malcolm X in Spike Lee's film of the same name, you can see that there is no finer an actor working today. I don't mention all of this to insinuate that Man On Fire is perfect just because of Denzel's work, but he is definitely the cog of the production. I was literally mesmerized with some of his scenes that are raw, emotional and incendiary all at the same time.

Washington plays Creasy a former spy or CIA agent or one of those covert government operatives. He has pretty much hit rock bottom as he has become disillusioned with the life that he has led. He has killed and perhaps done things that are best left unsaid and this has made him a hardened and bitter man. His friend and perhaps mentor, played very reservedly by Christopher Walken, is living in Mexico making a very comfortable living by providing body guard services for the rich. Apparently the kidnapping business in Mexico is so vibrant that these paid former S.E.A.L.s and such can do very well while providing a needed service. Creasey needs the work and accepts a job with a well to do family who seems to be in some financial difficulty. Marc Anthony is fine as Samuel, Radha Mitchell is tantalizingly sexy as his wife Lisa and Dakota Fanning is just unbelievably and precociously brilliant as Pita. I don't know how a child of her age can have such range to play the characters that she does but her interpretation of Pita is nothing short of Oscar worthy. The film's entire first half is dependent on the relationship between Pita and Creasy and if there was a weaker actress in the role, perhaps that emotional synergy would not have come across so succinctly. But Fanning is nothing short of remarkable in the role.

It is the relationship between Pita and Creasy that drives this film to the apex of cinema. Together they are perfect and there is a real bond developed between them. Tony Scott directs with a frenetic urgency and his eye for visual flare has never been better. I am interested to see how his next film, Domino, turns out. I think Scott is one of today's under rated directors and with more films like this one, his name will surely be elevated to icon status.

The story has Creasy really taking to Pita, and vis-ca versa. There is a definite connection between the two of them and perhaps it stems from the fact that although Pita loves her dad, he is not around much. He is a philanthropist and obviously has little time to spend with his family. Soon, Creasy is taking Pita to her swimming competition. He is reading her bedtime stories and she is naming her teddy bear \"Creasy\". It's not just a friendship between them, it is more of a kinship, and a deep parental love seems to be present.

The film changes gears when Pita does get kidnapped and held for ransom and Creasy is is almost fatally injured trying to protect her. This is where the story becomes thick with innuendo and ripe with deceit as the plot pieces get unraveled like an onion. And this is where Denzel becomes a tour de force. Like I said earlier, I have seen Denzel give some outstanding performances in films like Crimson Tide and Training Day, but never have I seen him like this. He is a man possessed and with the possibility of Pita being dead, he becomes a literal man on fire. It rages in him as he hunts down and dishes out his brand of comeuppance. Denzel's anger and acerbity are ubiquitous and not easily quelled as he hunts down each person responsible for Pita's violation. This all vigilante justice as the Mexican authorities always seem to be one step behind.

Also what is paramount to this film's audacious brilliance is that there are few films that actually give the criminals their due comeuppance. I have often been frustrated to watch films where the bad guys get let off easily. They inflict all kinds of torment for the entire film and then they take a bullet and die. But not in this film. Writer Brian Helgeland sees to it that retribution here is unequivocal and it is painful. The perpetrators here feel Creasy's wrath and they experience the torment that he unleashes. There is nothing gimmicky about his brand of justice. He needs information and someone loses a finger. He wants answers and a homemade bomb is placed in places that are meant for other things. There is no punches pulled here and this is one of the true strengths of the film.

Man on Fire is one the five best films of 2004. Now that it is out on DVD, my recommendation is to get the SE. It is loaded with bonus features that include about 6 hours of documentaries and different commentary tracks. 10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A Blair Witch-War Movie that is as much of a letdown as Bwitch was! The title says it all, save your money and your time and spend it on a good movie such as \"Once Upon a Time in America\", \"The Shawshank Redemption\" or \"Enemy at the Gates\" (if you want to watch a GREAT \"war\" movie) etc.

This movie, if it were a baseball team and the Major Leagues were the pinnacle and Single A was the rookies, then this movie was High school ball. It was filmed as if it were a High school drama club filming with their daddy's old camera. Sure they went into a hostile area (to make a film) but I don't call that brave, around here we call that plain stupid! This is a pass all the way! Now go watch it and then you tell me what you think.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A bad rip-off attempt on \"Seven\", complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them \"sex offenders\", they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.

No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.

The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.

Unlike \"Seven\", which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about \"sex offenders\" -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.

There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.

Don't waste time on this one.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I watched this film a long time ago (aprox 10 years or so) and liked it then. I remembered it the other day and decided to watch it again. The second time around was not pleasant. The acting is 'so,so', the plot is illogical, unreasonable and predictable.

The acting...I'm sure it wasn't a stretch for those actresses to play those characters. The plot...there's no way in hell those women would have gotten away with the first robbery much less the 2nd. (side note: Why did TT not realise that even if she came up with a load of money for her court date they would ask where she got it and she would have no logical answer! Ding, Ding...we have a crook!). It horribly stereotyped black women in saying basically that the only way black women can 'beat the system' or obtain a large amount of money was to steal it and not use their intelligence or other resources. It plays too much on sympathy b/c all of them die in the end (bar Jada) but it's not sad (you're thinking 'They were so stupid; they deserve to die). You just don't really care about the characters unless you're a shallow person.

I can't believe this film rates over a 5.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that \"Scary Movie\" although not a great movie was very good and funny. \"Scary Movie 2\" on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.

The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.

Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.

Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.

Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.

Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in \"Scary Movie\" because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.

The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.

Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.

But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I bought this a while ago but somehow neglected to watch it until last night. I do like Juliette Lewis although I'm indifferent to Brad Pitt. After this viewing I have to admit he's a perfectly fine actor - his character was entirely believable, and I didn't think \"Brad Pitt\" at all.

Unfortunately I can't say the same for David Duchovny. I'm an X-Files fan and I had to look twice to confirm the date of this movie, as I'd thought it was made a few years later. I like Duchovny but found his character a little two-dimensional here, except where he's doing voice-overs. That part was strong, seemed in character, good intonation, etc. Otherwise I kept thinking \"Agent Mulder\", which is a pity.

Michelle Forbes was a treat. Why haven't I noticed her before? (I'll be looking up to see what other roles she's done and seeing those asap) I am slightly concerned about stereotyping re Lewis, this film, and \"Natural Born Killers\" (a firm favourite). Interesting though to see a contrast of characters - in NBK she's a willing accomplice, whereas here she abhors the violence and tries very hard not to acknowledge Early's dark side until it's thrust in her face.

I enjoyed this film almost unreservedly. Apart from Duchovny's character not seeming fully-formed (and perhaps being \"washed out\" somewhat by Pitt's), it was perfect. I was also pleased with the ending - glad that the innocent heroes did not die, yet they had to suffer first. It was realistic, tense, disturbing.

If you like NBK you may well like this movie, and vice-versa.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm sure that Operations Dames was a favorite at the drive-ins back in the day. There's absolutely nothing in the way of a plot that you might miss if you were otherwise preoccupied. And if you needed to get in the mood for other activities you did have some curvaceous cuties on screen to get you in the mood.

Otherwise there ain't a whole lot that Operations Dames has going for it. It's set in the Korean War where a platoon of GIs together with a British tommy gets a little too far forward and has to get back to the UN lines. Bad enough already, but these guys also come across a stranded bunch of USO girls and their choreographer in the same predicament.

You know what's sad about this film is that it took women generations to finally get accepted in the Army and in combat situations. These bimbos from the USO set women's liberation back light years. In fact not even the hard bitten professional soldier who is the sergeant in charge of these men can keep it in his pants.

But that was probably the better to remind some what they were at the drive-in for. This no name cast is better off with me not recognizing any of them for any individual effort.

Operations Dames is definitely a team flop.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Well I too had heard read all the breathless reviews and comments about how this movie might deserve the Best Picture Oscar so I went to see it today. What a major disappointment! 1) If you read the other reviews you will learn from members of the U.S. military who served in Iraq how unlikely the events of this movie are. They mirrored my own thoughts; as the movie played I - a complete civilian - kept thinking to myself, \"say WHAT? there's no way that would happen like that..\" 2) There's very little that actually happens in terms of plot. A new bomb disposal guy shows up to replace one who was killed (a death that isn't really clearly explained). The new guy gets an adrenaline rush from his work. His attitude puts others at risk. THAT'S IT! 3) This movie is nowhere near as suspenseful as claimed. If you want suspense try one of the Bourne movies. If you want to see a war movie that's emotionally powerful, try renting Go Tell The Spartans, which is about the Vietnam War, and stars Burt Lancaster (who told me PERSONALLY in a serendipitous supermarket encounter that it was a film he was immensely proud of and one he viewed as some of his finest work, and which he was still upset had been largely ignored in the wake of the over-hyped Apocalypse Now), or an old WWII black and white classic Sink The Bismark, which, especially for an English film, is unbelievably heart-wrenching. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON Hurt Locker.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Only Kung Fu Epic worth watching. The best training ever. The main character spending a hundred day's on his knees outside the shaolin temple show how desperate he is to learn kung fu to fight the manchu dogs who have taken over china.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Farrelly brothers, Bobby and Peter, are at it again. With \"Fever Pitch\" the creators of other films that have dealt with a lot of gross themes, abandon that tactic when they decided to bring Nick Hornby's film to the screen, something that it would have been hard to do. The novel, of the same title, dealt with a man's obsession with soccer, since it is set in England, where that sport consumes most of British sports fans. It's to the credit of the writing team of Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandell, to transform the book into a language that would appeal to most Americans, when they make their hero, a Boston Red Sox fan.

\"Fever Pitch\" is a film that presents an obsessive fan, Ben Wrightly, whose life revolves into the Red Sox season, and who is an eighth grade teacher with uncanny ways for involving his students into the subject he tries to teach them. When Ben takes four of his best pupils for a tour of a local firm, he meets, and falls hopelessly in love with the brainy Lindsey Meeks, a young woman who is going places, but at thirty, has no life of her own.

The story follows the two lovers through the ritual of attending the Red Sox, at home games, in Fenway Park. This team's fans are probably the most loyal people in the world, having stuck with a team that does marvelous things but, until 2004, never won a World Series. In fact, the ending, from what we heard, had to be changed because that was the year in which they finally won the event that had eluded them for eighty six years! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon are perfect as the couple at the center of the film. Ms. Barrymore is a natural who always surprises in her appearances in front of the camera. Jimmy Fallon, a popular television comedian, turned movie actor, has a better opportunity here than in his last appearance in \"Taxi\", in our humble opinion.

The Farrelly brothers film will satisfy their fans as well as baseball fans with this baseball tale.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen \"aleopathic\" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- \"the doctor said there was no cure,\" \"the doctor said it was cancer\" etc. Well, \"no cure\" doesn't mean \"no treatment,\" and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.

What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: \"You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu\".", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw this movie in NEW York city. I was waiting for a bus the next morning, so it was 2 or 3 in the morning. It was raining, and did not want to wait at the PORT AUTHORTY. So I went across the street and saw the worst film of my life. It was so bad, that I chose to stay and see the whole movie,I have yet to see anything else that bad since. The year was 69,so call me crazy. I stayed only because I could not belive it.........", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This would be a watchable Hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. It relies on the typical American thriller plot - \"who is going to outsmart everyone\". Acting is below average, but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. Film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. All in all, if you don't mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project, this is a film to watch. I guess that would be enough to say on this film, everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low enough.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is the first Jean Renoir Silent film I have watched and perhaps rightly so since it is generally regarded to be his best, besides being also his first major work. Overall, it is indeed a very assured and technically accomplished film which belies the fact that it was only Renoir’s sophomore effort. For fans of the director, it is full of interesting hints at future Renoir movies especially THE DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID (1946) and THE GOLDEN COACH (1952) – in its depiction of a lower class femme fatale madly desired by various aristocrats who disgrace themselves for her – but also THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939) – showing as it does in one sequence how the rowdy servants behave when their masters' backs are turned away from them – and FRENCH CANCAN (1955) – Nana is seen having a go at the scandalous dance at one point. Personally, I would say that the film makes for a respectable companion piece to G.W. Pabst’s PANDORA’S BOX (1928), Josef von Sternberg’s THE BLUE ANGEL (1930) and Max Ophuls’ LOLA MONTES (1955) in its vivid recreation of the sordid life of a courtesan.

Having said all that, the film was a resounding critical and commercial failure at the time of its release – a “mad undertaking” as Renoir himself later referred to it in his memoirs which, not only personally cost him a fortune (he eventually eased the resulting financial burden by selling off some of his late father’s paintings), but almost made him give up the cinema for good! Stylistically, NANA is quite different from Renoir’s sound work and owes a particular debt to Erich von Stroheim’s FOOLISH WIVES (1922), a film Renoir greatly admired – and, on a personal note, one which I really ought to revisit presto (having owned the Kino DVD of it and the other von Stroheims for 4 years now). Anyway, NANA is certainly not without its flaws: a deliberate pace makes itself felt during the overly generous 130 minute running time with some sequences (the horse race around the mid-point in particular) going on too long.

The overly mannered acting style on display is also hard to take at times – particularly that of Catherine Hessling’s Nana and Raymond Guerin-Catelain’s Georges Hugon (one of her various suitors)…although, technically, they are being their characters i.e. a bad actress (who takes to the courtesan lifestyle when she is booed off the stage) and an immature weakling, respectively. However, like Anna Magnani in THE GOLDEN COACH, Hessling (Renoir’s wife at the time, by the way) is just not attractive enough to be very convincing as “the epitome of elegance” (as another admirer describes her at one stage) who is able to enslave every man she meets. Other notables in the cast are “Dr. Caligari” himself, Werner Krauss (as Nana’s most fervent devotee, Count Muffat), Jean Angelo (as an initially skeptical but eventually tragic suitor of Nana’s) and future distinguished film director Claude Autant-Lara (billed as Claude Moore and also serving as art director here) as Muffat’s close friend but who is secretly enamored with the latter’s neglected wife!

The print I watched – via Lionsgate’s “Jean Renoir 3-Disc Collector’s Edition” – is, for the most part, a lovingly restored and beautifully-tinted one which had been previously available only on French DVD. Being based on a classic of French literature (by Emile Zola, no less), it cannot help but having been brought to the screen several times and the two most notable film versions are Dorothy Arzner’s in 1934 (with Anna Sten and Lionel Atwill and which I own on VHS) and Christian-Jaque’s in 1955 (with Martine Carol and Charles Boyer, which I am not familiar with).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I went to see this movie expecting a nice relaxing time in the theater with my younger sister. Instead, I had to really control myself in order to convince her that I was not scared. In many ways still a children´s story, but with a screenplay that has a lot of potential. Could have been one of the scariest movies if planned for another audience.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Watching \"Speak Easily\" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz.

Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, \"Tell me about the rabbits, George.\" (Post would have said something like, \"Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'.\") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help.

There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.

If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch \"Speak Easily\" with friends, a la \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.

At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:

1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.

2) The \"flies\" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?

3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.

4) Excessive patriotism. For example: \"They are American files after all!\" Oh, give me a break.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Sorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie was pretty bad. Sci-fi is usually my favorite channel so I watch all the original movies that play on it. I really don't know if this movie can be called original. Starting a zoo/theme park on a remote island sounds pretty familiar. What was it, oh yeah, Jurassic Park. But this has Sabertooth tigers instead.

The movie starts out with a few stereotypical college kids on an island doing some kind of treasure hunt. One of them ends up dieing a rather gruesome death with some of the worst special effects I've seen. The blood looked a lot like ketchup. Also at the beginning there is a scientist who wants to make as many saber tooth tigers as possible for people to enjoy. 3 of them have already escaped and are going around eating the tourists, or the people invited to the island to see the tigers first hand. Again, sound like Jurassic Park. Probably the coolest thing was the 1000lb saber tooth who crawled around on his front legs killing the mad scientist with a tooth statue of sorts that somehow shrinks and goes through the guys neck. Funniest death I've seen on TV.

The acting is extremely cheesy, the special effects are horrible. The CG tigers could almost pass for clay models, and even some of the sounds were off. For instance, when one of the college students is trying to escape, he uses an ax to break down a door, the ax goes into the door and about 2 seconds later you hear the sound. This movie was pretty bad. The cheesy deaths were quite funny though.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Partially from the perceived need, one feels, to include a conventional love story in the plot to make the film more marketable to a 1950's movie-going public.

The film starts with some wickedly funny characterizations of the upper-class bureaucrats running the Foreign Office --- the British are pilloried in the way that only the British can pillory themselves. But after that, the film loses its way in a conventional farcical plot. Terry-Thomas watchable as always, but the great talent in the cast (Peter Sellers, et al) is largely wasted.

A diverting, but not great film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Mind, my friends and I saw the movie based off it's title alone. It's cute, though obvious in it's plot and direction-- you know where the movie is going within the first five minutes. My main contention with the plot is that while it remains tolerably consistent, they never explain a lot of the things behind the characters. An alcoholic father, overworked mother, stressed-out sister... that's a bad family, but aside from the occasional mention from the sister, there's not any resolution. I was also confused as to the scene with the bottles... it seemed pretty random.

The writing is a secondary concern... the kids weren't bad actors, but their script left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, what could have been a cute niche movie was pushed aside for a single, blah special effect, lame scripting, and a glaringly obvious plot.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Astronaut Steve West (Alex Rebar) and his comrades undertake a space mission that sees them flying through the rings of Saturn. His comrades are killed instantly, but it would seem that they are in fact the lucky ones. Steve returns to Earth a constantly oozing mass of humanoid pulp; as he turns into a savage killer, melting every step of the way, he is tracked by his friend, Dr. Ted Nelson (Burr DeBenning).

This is often so uproariously funny - with enough absurd lines and situations to go around - that it's hard for me to believe that the laughs are all unintentional. It seems to me to be kind of a goof on low-budget genre efforts from the '50's and 60's, and as such, it's a marvelously entertaining movie. That sequence with the nurse is simply hilarious. We're even treated to a split screen sequence that doesn't really add anything, but is still a gas to watch.

Writer / director William Sachs deserves credit for coming up with this ingenious idea; his ultra-slimy character is a memorable one indeed. I think his pacing is a little off; some scenes (like the one with the elderly couple) go on a little long, but ultimately he delivers solid, schlocky, B-movie goods with a degree of panache. The climax is especially fun.

Arlon Obers' music is enjoyably shuddery (yet also amusingly silly during some moments), and Willy Curtis's cinematography creates some really great shots at times. That brings me to Rick Bakers' fantastic and convincing makeup effects, which form a highly respectable centerpiece for the movie, right down to the ultimate final melt.

Rebar is under the heavy makeup for almost the entire movie (Sachs also gets my praise for having the movie hit the ground running) and does what he has to do well enough. DeBenning makes for a rather oafish and silly hero, and Ann Sweeney isn't so hot either as his wife, but Myron Healey, Michael Alldredge, and Lisle Wilson are fine in support. It's also worth it to see folk like Cheryl \"Rainbeaux\" Smith (doing an appreciable topless shot), Janus Blythe (of Tobe Hoopers' \"Eaten Alive\" and Wes Cravens' \"The Hills Have Eyes\"), and even director Jonathan Demme in a bit part.

This is a highly entertaining midnight movie with enough gore, chills, and laughs to rate it as worth catching for lovers of low-grade sci-fi / horror everywhere.

8/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It is no wonder this movie won 4 prices, it is a movie that lingers to any soul, it isn't a wonder why it took Paul Reiser 20 years to finally give in and talk to Peter Falk about his idea. I can understand every part of it, this is a movie that will make you cry just a tear, or thousands.

Story: 10/10 When Sam kleinman gets a letter from his wife about her leaving him to find something else his son and him take out on a road trip to find her, and while they do that they find something lost, Friendship, family, and affection for each other. At the beginning you know whats going to happen, but none soever the story is not that easy to figure out from beginning to end, it is a ride between a father and his son, and a husband and his wife. It is no wonder it took Paul Reiser 20 years to write this beautiful romance/comedy.

Actors: 10/10 Well you cant say anything else that what i about to say, hey it is with Peter Falk in it, he is a legend everything he does in movies are magic, when you use Peter Falk in a romance/comedy what do you think you get? A perfect outcome, it is no wonder this movie is that perfect and won that many prices. As the son Paul Reiser does an excellent job, although he isn't a great actor always that doesn't mean that this didn't work actually Peter Falk and Paul Reiser plays the perfect Father and Son, the rest of the cast is good enough but you don't see them as much so just say they do what they shall to get this to shine even more.

Music: 10/10 It doesn't always work when using music sometimes it just doesn't fit but that is not the thing in this movie, the music is perfect in tune, it makes the movie even more compelling. This part of the movie will shine off as good as the other parts, a great soundtrack for a Romance/Comedy thats for sure.

Overall: 10/10 There are so many Romance/Comedy movies out on tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray and what not, but this movie is one of the special ones. it doesn't happen everyday that you can create a story like this, it takes years thinking about this and the fact is that actually what it took to make it, a great piece that should be bought and kept into the human soul, see it when you get old and see it with your father at a old age, i think then this movie will spark like no other ever made.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this movie is not good.the first one almost sucked,but had that unreal ending to make it worth watching.this one has nothing.there's zero scare,zero tension or suspense.this isn't really a horror movie.most of the kills don't show anything.there's no gore to speak of.this could almost be a TV,except for a bit of nudity and a bit of violence.the acting is not very good,either.and don't get me started on the dialogue.as for the surprise ending,surprise,there isn't one.i suppose it could have been worse,although i don't see how.but then again,it is less than 80 minutes long,so i guess that's a good thing.although it felt a lot longer. apparently this is the cut version of the film.i found it for a very cheap price,but it still not worth it.if you want the uncut more graphic version,check out the Anchor Bay edition.anyway,this version of Sleepaway Camp II:Unhappy Campers gets a big fat 1/10 from me. p.s.if you watch this movie,you will probably be a bored and unhappy camper.if you are a real fan,you might want to pick up Anchor Bay's Sleepaway Camp(with survival kit) three disc collection containing the first three movies uncut and with special features", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Warning: mild spoilers.

The story of Joseph Smith stands out as an amazing - even moving - episode in American history and World Religious history. This movie portrays events in the life of Joseph Smith, whom Mormons revere as the prophet of the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ on the earth. I've so far seen the movie twice in its first month of public showing.

Joseph Smith is shown first to be the youngest of a trio of brothers (Alvin, Hyrum & Joseph) who, at a very young age, needed an operation. The operation, done without our modern conveniences, was bloody and difficult. The scene helped to show the cohesiveness of the Smith family and the bonds between the brothers and between Joseph and his parents.

Joseph's religious confusion and subsequent praying which lead to what Mormons call the First Vision was interestingly portrayed. The face of Jesus is never shown, but you see the unmistakable nail marks in His hands. The rejection by religious leaders and many in his small New York community is sweetened at least slightly by Joseph's marriage to Emma.

This movie does not clearly map out the events of Mormon Church history, but merely jumps from scene to scene. This is not a critique - simply a note about the style.

The practice of tarring and feathering is shown, and it is especially dramatic and moving when Joseph delivers a sermon about the Savior's love with a scarred face from having recently been attacked.

The movie masterfully portrays simultaneously the joy and growth of Mormonism as an infant church, while at the same time the ever-deepening opposition that spread into the heights of local governments.

The film shows many scenes from Joseph's life, including a few beautiful moments portraying his relationship to Emma. An attempt is made to show the depth and complexity of Joseph's life, including his fierce love for his wife, his endless love for children, his wit, his courage in the face of filthy and dangerous opposition, his religious sentiments, and his compassion.

As Joseph and Hyrum ride to Carthage, never to return home alive, most of the characters from throughout the movie, whose lives had been touched by Joseph, are shown along the way, helping to reinforce what was already seen but setting up the final scene to be more powerful.

At the end, the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum is portrayed, and moviegoers are left to ponder the events they just witnessed.

When I first watched the movie I assumed it was made by the Church to introduce Joseph Smith to non-members. I no longer think that is the case, although I hope the movie can do just that. As an insider, I find that the film is a celebration of Joseph and excellently reinforces the good things we already know about him. I am curious to see how outsiders will view the film - whether they will simply see it as propagandic, an epic story of an American religious man, or something else.

The film is beautifully shot, family friendly, moving and, hopefully, something good for everyone. That the events portrayed actually happened in these United States of America is interesting to ponder in light of the many aspects of our culture - including freedom of religious expression and respect (generally) for the law - we moderns take for granted.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "OK, so I rented this clown-like-Chainsaw-Massacre-esquire film, not expected much, but I did like the novel approach to a serial killer film. (from the back of the box is the following synopsis) \"At first, it was just a joke - a myth around the campfire - for five friends staying at a remote cabin in the Texas woods. But when they began to disappear one-by-one, replaced by scattered, bloodied body parts and voodoo effigies, the remaining few scramble for their lives. But he's out there. And he's sick. And all he wants is blood...\" So obviously from the get-go it doesn't make sense: why is this clown in the woods to begin with? Why a clown? Why are their dolls with the word \"food\" drawn on them? Why why why? Hardly anything gets answered in this 1 hour 30 min. bore fest except where this clown lives. The characters are dumb guys, dumb girls, and a hell of a lot of bitchiness. One in particular is a girl whom they brought from a restaurant up the road, whom they thought they should help because she was getting hassled by some guy she knew. What warrants that as an excuse to bring a girl into your circle of friends or their cabin? She, of course, begins planting seeds of jealousy, having the men have sex with her by feeding their dumb minds everything they want to hear.

The music was an average affair (standard frantic keyboard music like in every horror film without differences). The actors seemed to be brought from some soap opera the way they complained and whined about everything. The idea that the main guy in the film takes this girl to the cabin as their first date makes for a horrible date, but of course, she unrealistically gives herself to him on the first night of getting to know him. There was hardly a budget spent of anything, it seems, but there was a clown outfit and plenty of cheap $1-store dolls lying around in the woods, which was a horribly bland place to shoot this whole movie (been done too many times). I was also waiting for the clown to jump into the house to kill the remaining 4 characters of the film (in through the glass maybe), but nothing exciting like that ever entered the film. I guess you were just supposed to like the clown being a killer or something.

I had to give the film a 3. It was an interesting premise (clown as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre character, essentially) and I'll give them a star for acting serious all the way through when the movie could've totally been a B-movie-style video, but they opted for the more legitimate style of video. But ultimately, I probably would've felt like renting the Killer Klowns from Mars video again before going back to check this out. Ah, but that cover art...pretty awesome drawing.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I picked up this movie in the hope it would be similar to the hilarious \"The Gamers\" by Dead Gentlemen Productions (which is highly recommendable, by the way). Boy, what a disappointment! The movie is shot in this fake documentary style made famous by the office but it fails to deliver. The reason is partly the stiff acting but mostly the writing and directing. True, it can be funny to use every singe cliché there is about role playing games, but here it is done in such a way that it becomes extremely predictable. Already at the beginning of each scene you know what the \"joke\" will be about. But maybe the biggest problem is that everything is depicted way over the top. There is no subtlety in this movie, if there would be captions \"LAUGH NOW\" or a cheap 80s-style fake-laughter track it would not make much difference. With some scenes you can't help to think \"Yea, I get why they thought this would be funny\" but the way it is executed takes all momentum out of the possible joke.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "My husband and I just got done watching this movie. I was not expecting it to be this good! I was really astonished at how great the story line was. I'm usually very good at figuring out twisty plots...but this one had me. I loved it! I'm going to have to watch it again before I take it back. I might even have to buy it. :)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie started out with some semblance of a plot, then abandoned it for an endless series of random characters and encounters that have nothing to do with moving the story forward. It was impossible to remain engaged with this film. This movie is a very cynical pile of garbage made by some people with animation skills but totally lacking in creativity or storytelling ability. It is a shockingly bad effort coming from a major studio. Clearly there are morale and motivation problems at Disney, not to mention a complete lack of oversight and quality control. That management allowed this movie to see the light of day speaks volumes about their incompetence and desperation. This movie joins my very short \"worst movies of all time\" list.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'll have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical \"Chekovian\" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the \"Blue Danube\" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking \"springtime\" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of \"Flowers of Shanghai\", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example \"In the Mood for Love\" or \"Flowers of Shanghai\", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Distortion is a movie that sort of caught me by surprise.. A sort of multi layered drama that focuses on a man writing a play about his life experiences that are happening to him right at this moment. To be more concise, he feels that his wife is cheating on him, so he hires a private eye to snoop on him. His wife has no idea that this is happening. Meanwhile, the actors in this play are also having a few whoopdedoodles up their sleeves by fooling around with each other and with, shall we say, unscrupulous people in the world of Israel. The whole thing culminates in a theater with all the actors present and the predictable (but not really) happens.

The director of the piece really keeps things moving along with the ensemble cast of characters, and edits in a way that makes you pay attention, This is a fun film actually, one which I didn't mind viewing and would recommend people check out.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "While the sparkling chemistry between Ryan and Robbins alone is reason enough to see this movie, the supporting cast (including Matthau, Fry, Shalub, Durning and the hilarious trio of Jacobi, Saks and Maher) is an additional plus. Matthau shines as Einstein, Fry is perfect as Ryan's clinical fiancé, and Shalub's line about Einstein's gonads is, as has been noted, one of the highlights of the film. The speech that Robbins delivers at his first appearance in public is sheer poetry. Kudos to the writers for handling this froth with wit and levity. I also thought that Keene Curtis was wonderful as Eisenhower. This might be considered something of a chick movie, but I think everyone will get a kick out of it. Eight very solid points.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Some thirty years ago, Author Numa Sadoul published a book length interview with the Belgian comic book artist Georges Remi (better known as Herge, the creator of Tintin). This movie catches up with Sadoul today as he recalls the interview, while we listen to the cassettes (Herge died in 1983) and see some old photos and footage of the man himself. Some parts of the interview were not published in the book at the request of Herge, and we now know these dealt with his separation from his wife, after he had an affair with one of his collaborators (who years later would become his second wife). An interesting thing the movie does not address well is the shift in the Tintin books from the early rightist and imperialist books (Tintin in the Congo, Tintin in the lands of the Soviets) to fairly anti-imperialist books just a few years later (The Blue Lotus). On the whole, I come out of this movie knowing a few more things about Herge and seeing him as a bit more unlikable than when I come in to the theater.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie has its ups and downs, but to me the good stuff in this movie very much outweighs the bads...

What's not so good about the movie are indeed sometimes the dialogue, the sounds, the lighting(am I the only one who noticed the way the sets were lighted was amateur, and the acting....

What is very good are the highly original storyline, the very intense atmosphere, the gore factor which is very high, and the effects which are done supremely.

So, definitely worth watching, or maybe even a must-see for all you horror and gore fans....", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "#1 Vampires vs. Humans

#2 Military-reject roughneck squad as first responders to dangerous, unknown Vampire incursions.

#3 Sexy female Vampire on the side of the \"good guys\".

#4 Plenty of gore and action.

There are four (4) major plot devices that may help you decide if you want to watch this movie. If you want all four, then the next plot device may not deter you...

#5 In outer space.

That last one almost got me too, but I'm glad I watched. In a pile of terrible direct-to-video horror that is the Sci-Fi channel Halloween marathon... this movie is a breath of fresh air. It will stand-up against any of the other Sci-Fi channel offerings, and even against the other Vampire movie Natassia starred in (who keeps giving Uwe Boll money?).", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film has a special place in my heart as the worst movie I have ever seen. It is about as fun as doing hard manual labor with stomach cramps. The movie starts out bad (I would rate the first few minutes of the film a 1/10) and then it get progressively worse, minute by minute. The only way to rate it at all would be some kind of abyssmal spiraling negative number that grows for ninety, long minutes. Unfunny is not a real word but it best describes the humor in this video. Somehow the video manages even to make cute, scantily clad females and sex look grotesque and distasteful. This movie is amazingly bad. I would say it would be better to be locked up with the TITANIC theme playing over and over and with Buscemi's character from ESCAPE FROM LA droning on in your ear than to watch this movie. The sequels are not nearly as bad. If you have to rent a Troma film, get Tromeo and Juliette or Combat Shock. I would rather watch 5 Tony Little infomercials back to back than to see CLASS of NUKEM HIGH again. Don't get me wrong, it took some kind of criminal genius to make a movie this terrible and if ever a movie deserved an award for being awful, this is it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "'Una Giornata Particolare' is a movie that has a title that sounds so familiar I thought I had seen it more than once. Now that I finally I have seen it, I am very glad. This is one of the better Italian movies I know, with one of the most wonderful performances by Marcello Mastroianni, who stars in other masterpieces such as 'La Dolce Vita' and '8 1/2', both from the great Federico Fellini. Directed by Ettore Scola, this is a movie that takes the time to introduce the characters and slowly develops a story on a special day, the day Adolf Hitler visited Rome.

Marcello Mastroianni plays Gabriele, the neighbor of Antonietta (Sophia Loren). She is a member of Mussolini's party, pretty fanatic in her thoughts, and he is a member no more. The reason for that I will not reveal. On the day every person from their building, including her husband and children, is out to see Hitler, they are still in the building. Antonietta's bird escapes and flies to Gabriele's apartment, and this is how the two meet. Right before Antonietta went to Gabriele he thought of killing himself, again for reasons I will not reveal. How the story develops from here I will not reveal, but it is what happens between the two that makes this such a special day, not the fact that Hitler is in Rome.

Like I said, Mastroianni has a wonderful performance. You see he is a man who desperately wants someone around him, although at first we don't know why. May be he likes Antonietta, may be he is in love with her, may be there are other reasons. Antonietta feels what we feel. What does this man want from her? She likes the attention anyway. We see how she does her hair to look attractive for the man. Loren plays the scenes very good as well. We understand her questions, although we can't be sure what her intentions are. The moments where we find out both their secrets, if that is what you can call it, is a great moment. How the story develops from there is even more interesting, but I don't want to spoil it for you. This is a movie you should see. Great performances and a beautiful cinematography, and the message it gives us still stands today.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Don't be fooled by the silly title folks, this is one sweet ride! A true successor to Tetsuo the Iron Man and Ichi the Killer, this gem starts with a bang and lays the gore on thick until the credits roll. It seems that aliens are taking over people's bodies and modifying them into war-machines, which are then used to fight each other in a twisted game for the amusement of their species. The winner of the battle eats the loser alive. That's mostly it for plot, but who cares when the gore is this good? I have no idea how many buckets of slime were used, but it's disgusting to behold. There is interesting and effective use of stop-motion when the takeovers are in progress, and loving care is lavished on all of the creature and make-up effects. The CGI is a bit limited, but that actually doesn't detract from the overall quality one bit, at least for me. This was truly a fun and stomach-turning film that deserves much praise, and has truly earned its place in the stack of Cult Classics. Find it and watch, you won't be disappointed!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United States

Just Cause

Starring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.

A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Contains *spoilers* - also, my quotes may not be exact.

Everyone always notes the satire in social commentary and economic parallels - how true. But to me, I see this movie as much more than that. I love the symbolism of this guy in a glowing white suit. There is so much confusion and filth in the world around him, but it won't stick. Alec Guiness was the perfect guy to play this - his boyish grins and eternal curiousity are so appropriate:

\"That's ingenious - can you tell me, what is the ratio of ink to petrol?\"

The only moment of defeat is when he realizes that his invention hasn't worked after all - standing there almost naked. Yet, more than shame is the simple disappointment that \"it didn't work.\" He's never really intimidated by people. Remember,

\"But Sidney, we want to stop it too.\"

Barely a moments hesitation before he's off trying to get away again. Does he show any sign of the pain such a betrayal must've caused? No.

Also notable is Dapne's role. She is sick and tired of money and power. She thinks she's finally found love, outside of her father's company. At first she doesn't really care about Sidney anymore than anyone else. But that moment when he falls off her car and she goes back to see if maybe she killed him - and yet he is still thinking only of the beauty of his invention. She's finally found something she thinks is worth living for. The funny thing is that it's not even romance. It is friendship, but of such an ephemeral nature that the title almost doesn't fit. It's more admiration, and perhaps even inspiration.

Upon her discovery that Michael has no real love for her, and that her father is completely incompetent to take care of her, she gives into cynicism and tries to temp Sidney. Fortunately she finds that there really are people in this world living for more than power, money and lust. What a refreshment:

\"Thank you Sidney. If you would've said 'yes' I think I'd have strangled you.\"

I love the very end, when all of this crazy business seems to have come to nothing. But then, the bubbly, quirky beat starts up and Sidney goes off, his stride matching the tune: dauntless. Where is Daphne? We don't really know - but they weren't really in love and she wasn't really a scientist. He got help escaping and she got \"a shot in the arm of hope.\" (Pollyanna) A cont'd relationship would've been nice, but as Billy Joel says \"it's more than I'd hoped for...\"

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Alexandre Aja's remake of The Hills Have Eyes was one of the bright spots of 2006. Not only was it a remake of a classic horror film, but it was pretty damned good too. So, nearly a year later, we are being treated to the sequel to that remake. While original scripter Wes Craven is back as producer and co scripted, this film just fails to rise to the level set by the original and the remake. A group of military trainees stop by in the desert to check in on some scientists and find themselves run afoul of the mutant family from the first film (at least those that remain plus some new ones). There's plenty of gore to be had here. What annoys me about this film is the utter lack of characterization. The viewer does not give a damn about what happens to any of these people because we haven't gotten into them. Even the mutants had some characterization last time out and this time, nothing. Gore for the sake of gore is pointless. There has to be a reason for this to happen for it to be interesting. Nothing that happens here is interesting. And what is it lately with rape scenes in films? Here we get yet another one for no real reason. Hopefully this is one set of hills that won't be visited again.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw this in a sneak two days before the official opening, and I must say I was extremely disappointed. And I have to put the majority of these problems on the decision to cast Claire Danes in the lead role. Depending on what you think about Danes, she was either horribly miscast, or is so far in over her head that she should be the early favorite for the 2007 Razzie for Worst Actress. I think we were supposed to be sympathetic to her. Instead, she is completely unlikeable. The other \"great\" actresses do an OK job, but certainly don't light up the screen. Out of all the \"great\" actresses in this movie, I'd say the one who did the best job was Natasha Richardson. Streep is barely in the picture, and only appears near the very end.

Horrible screenplay as well. It comes off more as them reading lines than truly being \"in character.\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "this by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. I gave up to watch it after an hour and regretted that hour a lot. the acting is horrible and there is almost no plot. my guess is that someone came up with a strange shape of an animal and started to make a story around of it. borrowing some ideas from movies like Resident Evil and Aliens doesn't result in a movie like them. if this going to be a top Korean movie, I'd rather won't bother to see even a Korean movie trailer...

By the way, this movies is a good reason to believe that not necessarily a high rating means the movie is promising. I think every Korean who has internet for online gaming rated this movie over the 8, even though has no clue what it is about.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Awful movie. It's a shame that a few of Flanders's top actors and actresses made such a lamentably poor film.

There is barely something changed since the first movie and the TV series: same actors, same prototype characters, same scenario (emotional complications, the team under emotional pressure but everything turn out tip-top after a predictable grand finale). Another constant fact in the work of Jan Verheyen is the exaggerated product placement (company logo's on the team's shirt and along side the pitch OK but two times a commercial (by one of the characters) about an internet provider is just over the top.

Meanwhile, rumour has it about the making of a second series for Flanders commercial TV station 'VTM' (coincidental or not, the station where Jan Verheyen is programmation manager since a few months)

To conclude ... and the golden raspberry award for worst foreign movie goes to ... Team Spirit 2", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I remember this movie from the 50s when I was in college. It is one of the funniest satires of American Westerns that I have ever seen. I'm only sorry that I have not been able to see it recently and that it is is not out on tape or DVD. It is a real treat.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If this is supposed to be the black experience, let me out at either the front or back door.

A mama's boy one day sees 2 young hoods walk by and from then on it's all down hill for him. Angela Bassett, the one shining grace in this film, plays his over protective, religious mother. Despite her anger at how his life has turned, by the middle of the picture, she really decides to accept this. She allows his friends to come in and suddenly it's all right to use the profanity as long as it's not in front of the children.

This is a sad state of affairs regarding gangster rap. You knew where this film was heading.

I literally laughed out loud when at the end, when Bassett is accompanying her son's body for burial, she states that while his life had been cut short at age 24, he had become a man. What man? He had been a convicted criminal, wrote the most atrocious rap music with constant vulgarity,and scorned society. That scene in the classroom where he tells a teacher that as a sanitation worker, he will earn more than the teacher is a perfect example of what goes on in our schools. The complete and utter lack of respect for the teacher.

The east coast, west coast gang rap rivalry is never fully explained. All we see are guns blazing.

A terrible picture doing nothing to prevent gang violence. What horrible role models are these rap singers and their foul music. The African American community should take umbrage at their very being. Who was this classless fat slob who portrayed Biggie? He made Rerun from the old television show look thin by comparison. I know it was the streets of Bedford Stuyvesant that changed this chubby little boy into the vulgar monster that he was. What a sorry state of affairs when this is called motion picture entertainment.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you would like to see a film of different kind, if you feel the Love in your heart, even if you miss the Lord, this film makes you think. Although Georges is mentally handicapped, you can see the ultimate intelligence at the end, when love gives you directions not the brain. I am not emotional, but this film makes you feel the human being. The film is as good as Forrest Gump in my belief. The foreign movies are sometimes more interesting, yet there is not enough advertisement to make them popular. \"Rang-e khoda\" (The Color of The God) by Majid Majidi is another example of such foreign movies, almost with similar taste.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

As usual, I was really looking forward to a new TV/film on a favourite subject of mine - makes a nice change from a *strangely familiar* documentary about Kursk or Stalingrad on the History Channel.

I avidly looked forward to Pearl Harbour and Enemy at the Gates - but was rudely brought down to earth with the realisation of the malevolent, stupid-ifying power of Hollywood - and its ability to spend an absolute fortune on tripe.

So yet again I got excited about 'The Rise of Evil', especially as I heard that Ian Kershaw was involved, as I've enjoyed his books. I can see why he quit.

To quote some guy responsible for this rubbish:

\"The Kershaw book was an academic piece,\" he said. \"It was

quite dry. We needed more incidents.\"

Incidents? Are they totally nuts? Hitler's life cannot be said to be without 'incident' - yes Kershaw's two volume Hitler biographies were long and detailed, but they were supposed to be.

The thesis behind 'Rise of Evil' seems to be:

Hitler was a very bad man - no he was a VERY bad man, who HATED jews, and just in case you miss this, we're going to emphasise the fact in EVERY scene in the film.

There was no effort whatsoever to try and explain the mood of the time, and why Hitler may have adopted the views and strategy he did. Needless to say - unlike the generally excellent 'Nazis - A Warning from History' - this film neglected to point out the fact that nearly all of the leaders of the Munich communist rising were Jewish, and that this may have coloured his views on the subject - and his axiomatic linking of the jews with Bolshevism - an absolutely crucial aspect to understanding much of the Nazi era.

But there was not much understanding to be done - the film-makers weren't going to go there, so we just got all the stuff we knew about anyway. We certainly don't get the fascinating fact that Kershaw alludes to, which has Hitler briefly being a socialist/communist immediately after WW1. That would of course be far too complex for the film to handle, and might even detract from the relentless 'he was very bad' mantra which bangs away incessantly.

We know he was a bad man. However, we also know that he was a mesmerising figure both as a public speaker and in more private situations. He could be polite and even sympathetic, and of course espoused some views like vegetarianism, anti-alcohol and anti-smoking that many Guardian readers could agree with. He was also famously fond of animals, hence why that wholly invented dog-flogging scene was so absurd.

He was also, from all the accounts I've seen, a brave soldier in WW1. Whilst we saw him with his Iron Cross, we never get to see how he won it (acts of bravery were not in the script, needless to say). We also get no insight whatsoever into why he was so fired up by his war experiences, whilst Sassoon, Owen, Brook, Remarque and so many others found it so repellent an experience. And again, like the point above re the jewish/bolshevik link, this is vital to anyone's understanding about the subject. Why did he love war so much? Why did he think it was always a good idea, despite massive evidence to the contrary? Why didn't he care about his colleagues who died? Or maybe he did - but still drew the wrong conclusions.

This film certainly didn't have anything of any interest to say on this either.

As all too often these days, the film is a classic example of 'making history relevant to the present' and inventing stuff or leaving awkward facts out to fit in with 'the present' - which all too often is to cater to the lowest common denominator, where you don't trust your audience an inch, so you just ram stuff down their throats, knowing (sadly correctly) that you'll always get away with it because there are so many dumb fools in the world.

History is really about making us relevant to the past and seeing how it colours our present, for better and for worse. This rubbish was a great opportunity, lost again. They spent millions on it, and the locations and large scenes were impressive, but told us nothing at all we didn't know already, and promoted no understanding of this dark period in human history.

WT", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "OK - the helicopter shots are fantastic, and the director made good use of some of Barcelona's top sights. Otherwise...production value was blown in the first few minutes and the rest of the film felt like a movie of the week. Ellen Pompeo was charming and fun to watch, Abel Folk had the most depth and was very effective, and William Baldwin was...well, William Baldwin. He got to put his martial art training to good use and be a running-jumping-earnest action figure. The rest of the cast was wooden at best, but mostly paper. So - if you're nostalgic about Spain - it's a picture postcard with an action twist, and a healthy dose of El Greco. If not, skip it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The film picks up after last years remake with the military setting up electronic surveillance equipment in the desert where the attacks in the first film happened. The crew is killed not long before a group of soldiers on a training exercise show up to find no one around. You can fill in the rest.

This is a paycheck picture all around. There seems to be no passion in anyone's performances, nor in anyone behind the camera. This is a movie that was made for the money and nothing else. On some level this should have worked, it could have been a more horrific Southern Comfort (where National Guardsmen run afoul of some people in the swamps), but instead its not much of anything. In large part you can blame the script, written unbelievably in part by Wes Craven, which hits the same old targets again and again. Add to the mess the fact that the direction is dull and the set up of sequences is so lack luster as to remove any inherent tension in any scene.

Its not bad as such, but badly made and dull. Let me put my feelings into conThe reason I saw this film was because a local multiplex screwed up and ran this film instead of the kids flick the Last Mimzy and I wanted to see what caused the out cry(I mean the films have so much in common-he says sarcastically). I'm convinced that this film will only scare those who like the last Mimzy.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I grew up (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played \"Thunderbirds\" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Poor Whoopi Goldberg. Imagine her at a friend's dinner party, and she adds a comment to the in-depth political discussion going on. People just look at her and say, \"Oh what would YOU know, you were the star of 'Theodore Rex'\". How could anyone take her seriously after she lowered herself to be the star of this appalling piece of crap? Even little kids would be cringing in horror at this Thing. It reminded me of a particularly bad episode of 'Sigmund And The Sea Monsters'. Actually, come to think of it, 'Sigmund' was vastly superior to this.

And however did it get made? By plying the producer with an illegal substance before telling him about it? Watch this hideous abomination at your own peril.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I signed in just to comment on how awfully stupid this movie is. Besides being a rip-off of Executive Decision or Air Force One or any other kind of terrorist story, this is the kind of movie that makes you appreciate seeing a movie that can take the same basic ideas and do it well. It's hard to blame the actors when they are given such a stupid, cliché-ridden script to work with. It's bad enough if you groan once in a movie when you encounter an insult to your intelligence, but when you find yourself groaning over and over again, you have to conclude that the director also isn't the brightest bulb in the movie business, nor are the producers for deciding to bring this story to the screen in the first place. The mostly low-rent actors you can excuse for taking on this assignment, because they most likely showed up to get the money and exposure, not that being a part of this joke-of-a-movie is going to earn them any awards or recognition. It may end up embarrassing them for having such poor judgment as to get involved in such a loser. I see no point in summarizing the plot or even in giving any examples to prove my case, for, to do so, would be cruel and unusual punishment that no one involved in this debacle could withstand. Just as studying well-made movies can inspire you how to make a good, skillfully put-together work of art and beauty, the only thing that you can learn from watching this monstrosity is what NOT to do and what does NOT work! Be warned.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Midnight Cowboy opens with a run down Drive In theater with the voice-over of the main character Joe Buck (Jon Voight) singing in the shower. He is singing a cowboy song, the very thing he strives to be. Joe picks up his humdrum life living in Texas and moves it to New York City with the dream of lots of women, and even more money. He dresses as the epitome of the cowboy, but in a cartoonish fashion, not even his friends take him seriously. He begins his journey on the bus to NYC and we can quickly see how diluted Joe is through his interactions with the other passengers. This is primarily a story of Joe's realization of the harsh realities of the real world.

He starts off as a very naïve southerner thinking he can make it in NYC just on his good looks. He has no other reason to think otherwise, as they proved helpful in the past; we learn this from the many flashbacks he has. In the beginning the flashbacks are filmed in a way that portrays them as being somewhat whimsical. They are hazy and the voices sound as if they are coming from a great distance, as they are, they are coming out of his past. However, as Joe delves deeper and deeper into the reality of the harsh atmosphere of NYC we see more of his past, which is no longer whimsical but gritty, filmed in black and white with rapid editing to portray the cruel nature of the past events. This is especially seen in the flashback of him and his girlfriend being assaulted, and her being raped. In one of these flashbacks we see a building being torn down brick by brick. This mirrors the way in which Joe himself is falling apart; the naiveté that he once carried is falling off of him. He and Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) are living in squalor, and barely able to get food to eat; Joe is realizing he cannot live off of his looks, that there is a gritty underbelly of New York that he didn't envision. His subconscious mirrors the way in which his real life is panning out.

Ratso is also serves as a kind of mirror to Joe, but in an opposite way; Ratso is Joe's foil. Joe is a handsome, strong man who, for the most part, has a good outward appearance. Ratso, on the other hand, from the very first time we see him sitting next to Joe in the bar we can tell he is the opposite. He is short, dark, and always coated with a sheen of sweat. He understands how the world works, that it is unforgiving, and sometimes no matter how hard you try you will fail; just as his father did. They are living in the same world, the same apartment even, but they understand things on a completely different level.

The theme of alienation, one that is common of this era, is very apparent in this film. Neither Joe nor Ratso fit into the culture surrounding them. Joe feels trapped in Texas and moves to NYC where he is still very much an outsider. Ratso, living in the cold of NYC, wishes to move to sunny Florida where he thinks he will be able to find a good life. Even though this is his ideal, in the fantasy we get from Ratso's perspective, it is apparent that he knows he will never really fit into society. In said fantasy he is turned on by the people living around him, he is yet again an outsider, alienated from society.

It is not until the end that the gap between Joe and Ratso begins to narrow. Joe resorts to violence; he takes on the mentality of this city in order to get money to fund a means of escape for Florida for himself and Ratso. On the journey we see Joe coming out of a store not wearing the cowboy clothes that he is never without in the rest of the film. He is dressed as someone who looks like they are headed to Florida for vacation. He dresses Ratso the same way; he tires to make them fit into the new society they are entering, but it is to no avail. Upon Ratso's death on the bus, their fellow passengers once again look them upon as outsiders. Even in this new culture they have entered, they cannot escape the alienation they have met at every turn in this film. Despite the Ratso's death, and Joe's continued alienation, the film ends with the hope that Joe can take his new knowledge of how the world works and create a better life than he would have had as a hustler in NYC. Midnight Cowboy is an excellent film portraying the harsh reality of society, and alienation, with stellar performances by both Voight and Hoffman.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.

Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.

One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.

More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.

This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.

Hollow!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Eternal Jew (Der Ewige Jude) does not have what we today would call the markings of a scholarly document: rather than naming experts or sources to support what it says, it simply says, without opposition, what it wants us to believe (one will concede that American newsreels of that period were also much less regulated than would seem ethical to a modern audience, often inserting dramatized scenes and passing them off as actual news footage). Add to this directed propaganda the fact that filmmaker Hippler was \"preaching to the converted,\" not so much asking gentile Europeans to hate the Jews as validating the feelings so many of them must have held already, in order to have allowed the holocaust that followed. The weakest link in the film's logic shows in its \"rat\" analogy, wherein it goes on to explain the behavior of rats, and then adds something to the effect of \"Well, Jewish people are like that too.\" Similarly it characterizes Jewish people as ugly by showing ugly Jewish people in comparison to attractive gentiles; the accompanying leap of faith is that ugly is bad. The film appears to contradict itself a few times, for example by attacking Western painters who portrayed Old Testament characters as light-skinned Europeans; thereby the text admits that so-called \"Hebrew\" ethnicity is in fact an ingrained aspect of Christian culture. It also shows ghetto Jews willingly living in roach-infested filth, despite the supposed treasure they've hoarded, and then flip-flops by saying that these same undesirables live in wealth and luxury as soon as they leave the ghetto. Incidentally, who wouldn't? The use of scenes from a well-known American film, House of Rothschild, shows an equally blurry deployment of logic. First the film is denounced as having been made by Jews; then it is apparently used by Hippler to verify the deceptiveness of Jews (the aforementioned pretense of poverty by ghetto Jews, shown as a means of avoiding taxation, although the Rothschild character's \"spin\" is that Jews are taxed excessively); finally the Rothschild film is once again execrated for implying that the famed banking family invented the checking account. This apparent indecisiveness in whether the American footage is shown positively or negatively might become clearer with repeated viewings, but at first sight it makes for some murky moviewatching. For all of Eternal Jew's imperfections, I was at first surprised that the IMDb viewer rating for this film is as high as it is, just shy of a \"5\" to date. I'd say the reason is that EJ's documentary value has exceeded its original purpose, offering us, unintentionally, a look into the lives of European Jews as they would not be seen a few years hence. Needless to say the film's very badness also provides an historical insight into bad, or simply evil, filmmaking as a propagandist's tool. About this time I should expect director Hippler to flip-flop once again, springing forward to say \"That's what I meant to do all along!\" The scenes depicting animal slaughter are particularly gruesome, and show same as decidedly inhumane, contrary to the intent of Kosher law to prevent animal suffering. I would like for someone who has seen the film, and has some knowledge of these procedures, to comment on whether the portrayal is accurate.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!

We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?

This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.

And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.

Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.

3/10 for the fine editing.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Vampires Vs. Zombies wasn't the original title. It was actually...

Nasty Lesbian Semi-Vampires and Two Zombies Getting Hit by Cars: Special Guest appearances by Bob the Lesbian Gypsie-Witch and her dog, Random Woman with special powers and the Catholic School Girl Short Skirt Zombie Choir.

Also on the Box: Warning: No Plot- only the writer and director will understand the end, or anything else in this movie.

Seriously though, I love bad movies. I love Vampires. I love Zombies. Hell, I even enjoy the lesbians. This movie combined all three with a vague and confusing (or non-existent) plot, horrendous (I mean REALLY BAD) dialogue, and random STUFF and PEOPLE that have nothing to do with anything (or do they... I didn't know what in the world was going on). Oh, and I can't forget the green oatmeal 'Zombies' in latex gloves (yes, the film makers were so cheap they couldn't even cover their Zombies hands in oatmeal and paint). Any way, the result was this excruciatingly BAD film, if you could even call it that.

Was the end supposed to not make sense? The Vampire was really Nurse and the other girl was really a mental patient? Where were the Vampires Vs. Zombies? Hell, where were the Vampires at all... you really couldn't call any of the girls vampires. Whatever.

Don't ever rent or buy this movie. If you are REALLY curious... okay, I'll understand. Seriously, even lovers of BAD movies won't be able to stand this one. It should be number 1 on the bottom 100.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The only words you need fear more than Joe Don Baker if your thinking of watching a film are Greydon Clark , and if they are both there , run for your life . However this is a very funny film because they actually take themselves seriously ! It starts out bad and goes downhill from there , repeated scenes , the Good The Bad and The Ugly like shootout will have you rolling on the floor with laughter .Yes , he's the best deputy sheriff in Texas , tracking a mafia hit-man to Malta as only he can . He makes his own rules , does things his own way , all the while wearing cowboy boots and sidearms cowboy style . You want to see a bad but funny film ? Go ahead on , its your move !", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "David and Bathsheba is a lavish Hollywood Biblical picture produced out of 20th Century Fox by Darryl F. Zanuck, directed by Henry King and starring Gregory Peck {King David}, Susan Hayward (Bathsheba), Raymond Massey (Nathan), Kieron Moore (Uriah) and Jayne Meadows (Michal).

The film is based around the second Old Testament book of Samuel from the Holy Bible. It follows King David, who as a child had slain the giant Goliath, and now we find him in adulthood as the second King of Israel. A tough and assured King, David however has affairs of the heart causing great problems. For once he spies Bathsheba taking a shower {re;bath}, it 's the start of a journey encompassing adultery and betrayal; a journey that will end in the judgement of God being called upon.

Typically for the genre, David & Bathsheba is a large, grandiose production. From its excellent set designs to it's positively gorgeous Technicolor photography {Leon Shamroy}, it has enough quality to warrant sitting along side the best the genre has to offer as regards production values. Untypically, tho, the film is sedately paced and relies on 99% of its worth being driven purely by dialogue. This is not one for action fans or anyone who needs some swash to go with their buckle. This is a very humanist picture, in fact lets not beat around the burning bush here, it's a Biblical love story flecked with sins of the heart. But that is no bad thing at all, because breaking it down we find it's very well acted {Peck has a stoic yet vulnerable thing going on real well & Hayward is pushing it to the max}, and it be a fine story directed with knowing skill by the often forgotten Henry King. And although some of the dialogue is admittedly cringe inducing, the character flow is never interrupted as Phillip Dunne's (The Ghost and Mrs. Muir) Oscar nominated screenplay holds the attention throughout.

Sometimes a forgotten picture in terms of the Biblical/Swords & Sandals genres (most likely because it is a talky piece that has heart as its main selling point), but really it's well worth the time of anyone interested in the most lavish of genres. 7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I rented this one on DVD without any prior knowledge. I was suspicious seeing Michael Madsen appearing in a movie I have never heard of, but it was a freebie, so why not check it out.

Well my guess is that Mr. Blonde would very much like to forget he's ever taken part in such a shame of a film.

Apparently, if your script and dialogs are terrible, even good actors cannot save the day. Not to mention the amateur actors that flood this film. Too many non-native-English-speakers play parts of native-English-speakers, reading out lines from a script that should have been thrown away and not having been made into a movie. It's unbelievable how unbelievable all the lines in the movie sound. The music is awful and totally out of place, and the whole thing looks and sounds like a poor school play.

I recommend you watch it just so you would appreciate other, better, movies. This is why I gave it a 3 instead of the 1 it deserves.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "My brother is in love with this show, let's get this straight. I completely agree with the people who said it was copying off of Dexter's Lab and Fairly Odd Parents.

I've never really liked fairly odd parents, I mean, some things did make me laugh, but most of the time it's downright annoying and not cute at all. This is almost the same way I feel about Johnny Test. Except, NOTHING makes me laugh on that show. The gags are so stupid and pointless, and to tell you the truth, maybe it's just me, but kids don't DRESS like that! Yes, I do think Johnny's hair is awesome, but c'Mon!

And Dexter's Lab, that used to be one of my favorite shows and I still don't mind watching it. Which makes me disgusted and ashamed of Johnny Test making an absolute JOKE out of that wonderful show!

One more thing. The. Dog. Is. So. Annoying. He is more loud and obnoxious than Johnny! And the gay accent? What the fudge! I hate the dog to death and I hope he dies, because that would be better for kids to see than listening and watching the obnoxious crap that goes on in that show, and picking up a gay accent.

Unless you want you eyeballs to burn into miraculous flames and your brain fried from this show, don't watch it!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "New York has never looked so good! And neither has anyone in this movie. While the script is a bit lightweight you can't help but like this movie or any of the characters in it. You almost wish people like this really existed. The appeal of the actors are what really put it over(John Ritter, Colleen Camp and the late Dorothy Stratten are particularly good.) Go ahead and rent or buy this movie you'll be glad you did.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Based on Ray Russell's dark bestseller, this John (WATCHER IN THE WOODS) Hough-directed bust has little going for it.

Though it does not lack gory violence, it lack narrative sensibility and \"characters\".

The \"Incubus\" of the title is a demon endowed with a mammoth penis that shoots red sperm into vaginas during intercourse -- or, to be more precise, rape.

John Cassavetes, moonlighting from his successful directing career, is convincing as a doctor who questions the circumstances of the bizarre attacks on young women.

Horrific possibilities of the victims spawning demonic offspring are not considered -- and neither is the audience's tolerance for slow moving garbage.

The script's reluctance to explore the dramatic repercussions of a fertile premise exemplifies the major problems with this vapid Big-Schlong-On-The-Loose exercise.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "La Chute de la Maison Usher, or The Fall of the House of Usher as it's know amongst English audiences, starts with Allan (Charles Lamy) heading for the Castle of his good friend Sir Roderick Usher (Jean Debucourt) who sent him a letter saying that his wife Madeleine is ill. Once there Allan finds Madeleine very sick & her husband Roderick determined & almost obsessed to paint her portrait. As Roderick paints Madeleine becomes weaker & weaker almost as if the picture is draining the life out of her, Allan tries to help his friend but tragedy soon strikes...

This French production was co-written, produced & directed by Jean Epstein & was the second of two filmed The Fall of the House of Usher adaptations during 1928, honestly I don't know the original novel was published in 1839, I mean you wait 89 years for a filmed adaptation & two come along at the same time! Anyway, I feel that I have a bit of a problem here as I have read plenty of positive comments about La Chute de la Maison Usher & maybe I'm not the right sort of person to write a comment on it but I have to say that it simply didn't do anything for me. I didn't like it, obviously the first thing to say is that this is a silent film & therefore it relies on imagery but even so I thought the story was weak, I thought as a whole the film was boring & dull even though it only lasts for about an hour & it really didn't do anything for me at all. La Chute de la Maison Usher was made almost 80 years ago & that is literally a lifetime, the world, cinema & tastes have moved on a lot since then & I found no enjoyment in this film. I feel this film has dated badly & probably wasn't that good to start with anyway. I never felt for any of the character's, I never cared about anything that was happening & I found it all rather tedious to sit through, I'm sorry if I've offended any silent film fans out there but that's the way I felt.

Director Epstein does an OK job, a lot of people ramble on about the imagery in La Chute de la Maison Usher & I will freely admit it definitely has it's moments but I thought they were few & far between. Shots of people's mouths moving & not actually hearing what they say just seemed weird to me, I didn't like the music & the version I saw kept the original French language insert cards which were narrated by guy with the most awful sounding thick French accent which was also off putting. Based on the story by Edgar Allen Poe I doubt this has much resemblance to it apart from one or two basic elements, stick with the fantastic Roger Corman House of Usher starring Vincent Price.

Technically the film was OK considering when it was made. You simply cannot tell about the acting as no one ever speaks although the film is full of unnatural exaggerated movements to try & suggest emotions or reflect what's happening which works to an extent but after a while just looks a bit daft.

La Chute de la Maison Usher will appeal to those who crave a bygone era, who live in caves or who are stuck in the past, for me I like my films to have a story, not to bore me & to have sound & I'm sorry if that last statement makes me sound like an uneducated idiot but that's how I feel. The world has moved on since 1928 & for the better.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There is an old saying that relates to the rousing new film by Joe Johnston that goes something like this: \"The man who thinks he can and the man who thinks he can't are both right.\" That is a highly presumptuous statement referring to self motivating and belief in an individual, which, in this movie, stand true even after road blocks and family trouble stand in the way.

\"October Sky\" is about a young man who believes in himself named Homer Hickam, growing up in a strict, traditional family in the 1950's. Homer loves in a small coal mining town where nearly every man grows up to be a miner. All of his friends, Quentin, Roy, and O'Dell all think that their life after high school will be like everyone else's. Homer is not exited about that future.

One night, while everyone stares at the sky, a Russian space craft called Sputnik passes overhead. This is something new for Homer, and he finds it spectacular and overwhelming. From this point on, his look at life will never be the same.

First, he tells everyone that he wants to work in the rocket scientist area for an occupation. Flabbergasted at what he says, his family passes that idea over their heads and continues with life as usual His friends, however, think that this idea may have some potential. After all, Quentin is a very smart individual when it comes to this kind of thing.

When the four friends start to test model rockets, and blow a white picket fence to smithereens, then what seems to be a forest fire is scared by them, they're forced to end their progresses.

The performances in this movie are absolutely riveting from start to finish. All of the actors give performances as if this is the real mumbo jumbo here. Standing out in all of the glory: Laura Dern as Miss Riley. This very well may be Academy award material if the judges can remember back to the beginning of the year when this film is released.

The characters are also extremely well developed. Not only to the filmmakers give clear, apparent reason why Homer is interested in the subject, but they also explain to the audience how they are succeeding in their studding of rocketry. We clearly understand all of the characters' motives and beliefs, especially the father, who is bent over on everlasting tradition.

The film, unfortunately, loses some of its momentum at mid-point because of a silly, recycled romantic sub-plot involving Homer's love interest and how his brother stole her from him. This type of this is becoming so awfully common in high-school movies, not that this film is aimed at high-schoolers. The actors stare at each other mindlessly, like the are in a trance. I put up with it without complaining in 1997's \"Inventing the Abbots,\" but I have had just about enough this.

But that is just a minor complaint. With an authentic looking time period, cinematography worth an Oscar and clips of the real life Homer and friends at the end, whom all hit it big with their dreams, especially Homer, this is the first great film of 1999.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Wow. This movie bored the pants off me when I saw it. Bland, pointless and unmoving.

Apparently, Ash and co. can travel through time with the help of \"The Spirit of the Forest\" ('Princess Mononoke' much??) There, they meet a dorky kid named Sam, and the \"plot\" begins.

So Tom (Ash) and Huck (Sam) get high with nature, become hippies and try to free Celebi (the \"Spirit\") from some weirdo hunter guy. I don't even know what else went on. It all went by in a blur. Ash's friends were hardly in it, and all the fight scenes were boring.

After saving the day, Ash and his infamous friends, must return to their time, while watching Sam float away with Celebi (that scene was just creepy. O-O;) Then, after returning to their time, Ash learns that his new friend is actually his rival's grandpa. And I think that's it. Pretty retarded isn't it? If you love your children, you won't expose them to this. (1 out of 10.)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have read over 100 of the Nancy Drew books, and if you are not bright enough to catch on yet, Nancy Drew the movie was of a YOUNGER Nancy Drew, not the 18-year-old that doesn't go to school that all of the books are about. This was when she was sixteen. So naturally, she would of not as been as smart as the one in the book considering she is only in the 10th grade. Other than that, I thought the movie was very cute. It was clean and appropriate for everyone. It was funny at times. I thought Emma Roberts did a great job. She was articulate, in character, and cute. I liked the awkwardness that Nancy and Ned had around each other because they obviously were not old enough to be in a serious relationship like they have in the books. It was a cute, PG movie that I throughly enjoyed because I, unlike most people my age, enjoy movies without sex, drugs, or profanity.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "/The first episode I saw of Lost made me think, i thought what is this some people who crashed and get chased by a giant monster. But it's not like that, it's far more than that,because their is no monster at all and every episode that you see of Lost , well it's getting better every time. a deserted island with an underground bunker and especially the connection between the people who crossed paths with each other before they crashed. That's the real secret.

This series rules and I can't wait to know what's really going on there I hope that they don't air the last 2 episodes in the theaters,this series deserves a 9 out of 10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have to say the worst part of the movie was the first half hour. I was really confused about who was who. For example, Bill Paxson's character had long hair and was wearing a jacket. Then, when all the males arrived at camp, it turned out there was a character who looked like Bill Paxson, but wasn't. I said where's Bill Paxson? Then, there was a guy with his girlfriend. He said she was 21. This was supposed to be a 20-year reunion of the camp director's (Alan Arkin) most memorable. Later on, this same girl was interacting and talking about her camp experiences. That made no sense. She would have been one years old. That said, the movie turned out to be pretty good. Kevin Pollak was the nice guy who was always being teased. One guy was a complete narcissist, and ended up losing his beautiful girlfriend. Alan Arkin was interesting as an old-style camp director, who admits that he has grown out of touch with modern youth. The best part was that none of the grown-up campers were successes in life. None of them had very great careers. This seemed very real life. The movie was compared to The Big Chill. In some ways it wasn't as exciting as the Big Chill, but it was a lot more realistic. So, even though the beginning is not promising, the movie ended up turning into a pretty good one.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I first saw \"Breaking Glass\" in 1980, and thought that it would be one of the \"Movie Classics\". This film is a great look into the music industry with a great cast of performers. This is one film that should be in the collection of everyone and any one that wants to get into the music industry. I can't wait for it to be available on DVD.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Allison Dean's performance is what stands out in my mind watching this film. She balances out the melancholy tone of the film with an iridescent energy. I would like to see more of her.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.

Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.

Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for \"musical concepts\" and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.

Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, \"Norman Maine\" sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer \"Vicky Lester\" achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.

Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.

But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from \"Esther Blodgett\" so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.

The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning \"Evergreen\" by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw and liked the first two a lot, really. Especially because the second is not just a try to make another one as good as the first. And it's a story standing alone. You don't have to know the first movie. I liked that in the \"Free Willy\" movies, too.

But... the third, here is absolutely useless! I tried it with a friend of mine, because we both liked the first two. We decided to stop after a good half an hour. The movie is okay, there are funny parts in it alright. But what for? Timon and Pumba were funny creatures in the first two movies. What Lion King 1 1/2 is for me is: a hard attempt to get even more fun of the first movie than it had already, plus telling the story from their point of view. But what for? I'd really like to know. You know, the idea of the two of them sitting in the cinema watching the first one, is really nice. But what comes after is mostly unnecessary. I guess many people liked Timon and Pumba, and so do I really. Yet, for me many parts were very constructed with a try to be funny. No chance, most of it wasn't funny at all, at least for me. Btw. what was the movie about anyway? Was it a) about Timon and Pumba or b) an attempt to get more fun out of the first movie? I tend to choose option b and I'm very disappointed about it.

If you like to see stories like: \"the story behind xy\", you should see \"Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead\" by Tom Stoppard with Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. That's really funny and no try to get more out of \"Hamlet\" then it has.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have just recently read the novel \"mother night\", I've owned the dvd for some time now, and watch it every so often. Few movies I own and have seen have made me think and question as much as Mother Night has, I am amazed at the brilliance not only of Vonnegut, but of the translation of his text to screen.

Do not rent or watch this movie on VHS, it must be done on dvd, and it must be accompanied by the director's commentary on the film. To see how they took a fairly simple story, yet complex in its substance and dialogue, and made it work so well, I think any viewer will be amazed.

The omissions in the movie are few from the text, and do not detract from it much, the movie might as well be the book, and is the best adaptation I have ever seen. I so highly recommend both the book and movie together that it does a disservice to merely say go watch it.

It will change you if you do.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.

I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful \"Showgirls,\" which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.

The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).

The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.

Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the \"Law and Order\" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on \"Lifetime.\"

Finally, I found a kind of \"story within a story\" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the \"victim\" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from \"F\" to \"F-minus.\"

This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera.

But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally \"resolved\" and \"righted,\" this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any \"real world\" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.

This one's a 2* presentation; the second \"*\" because it does have some mild \"fascination.\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Running Man is one of those films that if overwatched, would become boring and depressing even.

My advice is to watch it maybe once or twice a year with a couple of mates and a few drinks.

In todays climate of TV Media domination and the capitalist mode in society it really does work as a revisionist social commentary, post 1980s-boom. Forget that though! There are other brilliant and better reasons to watch this film.

Schwarzenegger is on top form as Ben \"The Butcher of Bakersfield\" Richards, and the inclusion of Bond-belting one liners was completely inspired-thety are truly leg-end-dary (with his rant to Killian over a camera the main highlight).

The design of the stalkers is authentically American, and mirrors the characterizations seen in the PC 'Gladiators' TV show, and the WWE as well. Buzz-saw's grisly end will chill any viewer to the core (as a foot note, why does his death stand out as particularly disturbing in what is ostensibly an upbeat actioner with a bitter sense of humour?)

Jesse Venturer and Sven Ole Thorssen are great as backing muscle (and are Arnies buds in real life), and its even got Mick Fleetwood in it too! What more could you ask for?

I highly recommend the Running Man if you're looking for a great piece of entertaining action, with a glossty finish and some great characters. Just don't expect an education from it (at least on surface value).

Quality, I bloody love it actually. You will too unless you're a thesp. 7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Master Blackmailer, based off of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story, \"the Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton,\" is the first feature length Sherlock Holmes story with Jeremy Brett that I have seen. The story is interesting and dark. The film has a somewhat dreary, sad feel to it, but it is quite entertaining (with some especially funny scenes).

*Spoilers* Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson attempt to uncover the identity of an illusive blackmailer who has been ruining some of the most prominent families of England by publishing private letters that will, in one way or another, destroy their lives. They eventually find out that he is Charles Augustus Milverton, an \"art dealer,\" after the few tragic consequences for victims that could not pay up. Our heroes must next help Lady Eva Blackwell, who must pay a sum that is beyond her means or else her upcoming marriage will most definitely be called off. The scene in which Holmes and Watson burglarize Milverton's house are intense. Although the film has an essentially happy ending, the tone is sad and regretful.

Outstanding performances by Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke (as usual), and Robert Hardy as the notorious villain (most audiences probably recognize him today as Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter), Serena Gordon as Lady Eva Blackwell, Norma West as Lady Swinstead and Sophie Thomson as Agatha (the scenes involving her and Holmes are a riot). I give it a ***1/2 out *****. My only complaint is that there wasn't enough Inspector Lestrade. (I wish they would have added in the scene at the end of the short story where he gives the description of the two burglars, one of which matches Watson.)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I noticed that A NEW HOPE and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK are in the TOP 10, but that this one isn't even in the TOP 100.

This movie has a bad reputation because of Ewoks, but there are so many reasons to love this movie:

-The Rescue of Han Solo from Jabba: This official wraps up the Han Solo in debt sub-plot that was established when we first met the character in A NEW HOPE.

-The Emperor was Finally Revealled: Well alright this might not work as well now that the prequels are out but this was the first time we saw The Emperor as kids.

-The Speeder Bike Chase: Alright, so this was a special effects moment. But it was definitely one of the most memorable and exciting moments in all the films!

-The 3 Part Climax: 1) The Battle of Endor (Led by Han and Leia) 2) Luke Confronts his Father & The Fall of the Emperor 3) The Destruction of the Second Death Star (Lando's Moment)

-The Final Celebration with Our Heroes: Like I said, this movie gets a lot of crap because of the Ewoks but I think it's kind of cool that while the entire galaxy celebrates the FALL OF THE EMPIRE, our heroes are having their own private party in the woods with each other.

All in all this was a great final chapter for our heroes and a fitting end to the STAR WARS story.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Probably one of the most boriest slasher movies ever, badly acted and badly written.

THE PLOT Five students staying behind during the holidays closing down a dorm, but somebody has designs on them and starts killing them off one by one, the main suspect is the creepy groundskeeper John Hemmitt played by Woody Roll, or could it be one of the five characters.

ACTING Not that bad not that great either apart from Daphne Zungia who dies way too quickly and should have been the main heroine, and the rest well quite dull although Laura Lapinski the main heroine sometimes has her charm and you do feel sorry for her in the end.

THE KILLS Can't really see why they banned this, the kills look fake mostly, one guy has his hand sliced in half in the beginning which looks really fake, but the others are quite nasty like one girl gets her head run over by a car, one girl gets boiled alive and another gets burned alive.

OVERALL Not really a great slasher could have been a lot better", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.

Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.

Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.

The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I found the storyline in this movie to be very interesting. Best of all it left out the usual sex and violence (they're getting old) inserted in many movies. The movie was well done in its flashbacks to days gone by in that area of the Southwest. The acting was also superb.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It was a doubly interesting experience. For some reason the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century had never been the central figure in a movie*. The closest I can think of as films with Einstein in them are CHAMPAIGN FOR CAESAR, where (like a \"deus ex ma-china\") the great man is heard clarifying a point on a radio quiz show, so that Ronald Colman is proved to have given the correct answer after all, and in BULLSHOT where the great Albert is one of a dozen leading physicists and scientists who are drugged with cannabis by the villain, intent on stealing some machines of theirs. It is notable that in those two cases, and in IQ, we are dealing with comedies. So far nobody has tried to do a serious film about the life of Einstein, like John Huston's attempt to do one on FREUD with Montgomery Cliff. I guess it is just too hard to get the world of mathematical equations or the secrets of electro-magnetic field theory into exciting dialog. But then, only three years ago Russell Crowe and Christopher Plummer did A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Maybe nobody really has tried.

(*Subsequently, after writing this, I remembered the successful comedy YOUNG EINSTEIN with Yahoo Serious about ten years ago. But that is an exception and it was a spoof.)

The other surprise was the actor playing the great Albert. It was Walter Matthau, here taking time away from the series of films he did with Jack Lemmon in that last decade of their careers. Matthau was a highly capable and gifted character actor, in both comedy and drama, but normally his comic personas were variants of his \"Whiplash Willie\" Gingrich from THE FORTUNE COOKIE. They were connivers and gonifs. Later they would shed their criminal propensities because we had grown to like them, but they remained grumpy types. But his Albert Einstein happens to be genuinely sweet. More like his Kotch than like Willie Clarke.

He plays Albert as good old uncle Albert. It seems that Matthau's Einstein is living in Princeton with his niece Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan), and she is seeing a stuffy professor named James Morland (Stephen Fry). But Fry's car needs repairs, and they take it to the auto shop where Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) works. Robbins falls for Ryan, who is attracted to him - but finds that he lacks the mental equipment that she admires. Good old uncle Albert, aided by his three friends (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, and Gene Saks) decide to give their assistance to Robbins and make him an apparently unrecognized physics genius. This will open the doors of romance between him and Ryan, provided Ryan is impressed and Fry does not spoil things (as he hopes to do).

The atmosphere is sweet, as when Matthau and his chums rig up a super physics quiz that they help Robbins cheat on (by switching the positions of their bodies). The plot eventually leads to the outright lie that the brilliant Robbins has constructed an atomic powered rocket ship - which brings in the interests of the nation in the figure of President Eisenhower (Keene Curtis).

It was a charming comedy, and an interesting stretch for Matthau in that he was not as hyper as normal, but far more subdued.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm afraid that you'll find that the huge majority of people who rate this movie as a 10 are highly Christian. I am not. If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film. If you are looking for a good general movie, I'm afraid you'll need to go elsewhere.

I was annoyed by the characters, and their illogical behaviour. The premise of the movie is that the teaching of morality without teaching that it was Jesus who is the basis of morality is itself wrong. One scene shows the main character telling a boy that it is wrong to steal, and then the character goes on to say that it was Jesus who taught us this. I find that offensive: are we to believe that \"thou shalt not steal\" came from Jesus? I suppose he wrote the Ten Commandments? And stealing was acceptable before that? I rented the movie from Netflix. I should have realized the nature of the movie from the comments. Oh well.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What a fun b-movie! Shepis is absolutely beautiful and the Scarecrow is a distinct and original. He really brought me back to the monsters of the 80's. The budget is obviously low and not everybody is Pacino behind the lens but it doesn't matter because it never once takes itself seriously. From the trailer trash redneck to the high flying martial arts moves of the Scarecrow, this is truly a b-movie gem. Grab some refreshments, snacks and a couple friends and kick back and relax. I enjoyed this film so much I went out a purchased all 3 Scarecrow films. Sure, they're not for everybody but to each his own. Sometimes you just have to set the thinking cap down and smile.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Four prisoners share a single cell: the domineering transvestite, Marcus (Clovis Cornillac); Marcus's idiot savant buddy, Paquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who will eat anything in sight including pocket watches, cockroaches, and his little sister; Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach), the intelligent librarian who murdered his wife; and Carrère (Gérald Laroche), the new guy who was caught up in corporate fraud and is now focused on escaping. After a brick falls from the wall of the cell, the men discover the hidden journal written by a 'Fountain of Youth'-obsessed serial killer who occupied the cell in the 1920s. Is this journal the secret to their escape? Or is there something much more sinister behind it?

I was a little weary about getting into this film because the only other experience I have with Eric Valette was the dreadful One Missed Call (2008), which I consider to be the worst theatrically released film I've ever seen. However, much of what was wrong with One Missed Call could probably be attributed to Klavan's awful script, because (as I remember) Valette's direction wasn't the worst part about the film (unless he chose to include the baby). Anyway, Maléfique was a good way to get my respect back. . . it's a French film (obviously something I like) and it takes place in prison (which is my second favourite horror setting after asylums). So that's two points for him before the film even starts. Luckily, Valette had me once the film ended as well. Maléfique is a rather deep, rather complex, rather compelling story of obsession and desperation. . . the desire and need to bring fantasies to reality. While it's not a terrifying film in the traditional sense, the oddity of its power makes it pretty damn frightening. The period between the climax and conclusion was some of the best film I've seen in quite some time and I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a decent psychological thriller with some pretty cool gore.

Final verdict: 8.5/10. Quite a bit of respect earned back by Valette.

Note: Paramount picked up the rights to make an American remake (surprise surprise). It's due out in 2009. I'm not sure why, to be honest, as this doesn't seem like something that would be a big moneymaker here in the states. But, I've been surprised before.

Vive La France!

-AP3-", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Basic meaning of the story is a reality. Cruel true reality. Situations are very funny. You have to laugh when you see, how people can be stupid, obstinate and crazy. The best description will be, if you watch it on your own.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A young couple Mandy Pullman (Mitch Martin) and Roy Seeley (Matt Birman) are relaxing on a beach in the small town of Galen. They decide to start playing practical jokes on each other. Mandy hides in an old run down cabin, she is attacked and raped by an unknown assailant. Roy tries to help her after hearing her screams but is killed. Dr. Sam Cordell (John Cassavetes) and his daughter Jenny (Erin Flannery) are both new to Galen after the death of Sam's wife. Sam is called into action by Police Chief Hank Walden (John Ireland) when Mandy and Roy are found. He performs the autopsy on Roy and treats Mandy for her horrific injuries. Soon after a curator at the local museum named Carolyn Davis (Denise Furgusson) is also attacked and raped. A local journalist named Laura Kincaid (Kerrie Keane) reports the events and suggests to Sam that a similar string of rapes and murders occurred in the town 30 years earlier. More rapes and murders occur. Meanwhile Jenny's boyfriend Tim Galen (Duncan MacIntosh) has been having strange dreams and nightmares and is convinced that he has something to do with the horrific acts. Tim's story and digging into the towns past makes Sam become convinced of the existence of a creature known as an Incubus - a shape-shifting demonic entity that exists only to reproduce! Directed by John Hough this is one seriously dull horror film. The script by George Franklin based on the novel by Ray Russell is slow to say the least. Nothing interesting or exciting happens and it finishes with one of the most boring none event of a twist ending I've ever seen and frustratingly it just finishes suddenly. As the story plods along at a snails pace there are a few rapes, but none are shown on screen. There is only one gore scene in the entire film too. The monster itself is only shown at the very end and has all of three short scenes. Everything about this film production-wise is very static and flat, the film has no energy or pace. The acting is dull and you don't feel or care for anyone. Check out the scene in the autopsy room where you can clearly see the boom mike at the top of the screen on several occasions. The type of rubbish horror film making that you'll forget within a day. A real waste of time, don't bother.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.

The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason.

The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.

My ratings:

funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "WOW, this movie was so horrible. I'm so glad i didn't have to pay money to see this horrible movie. it was like a history nut went on a coke binge! the previews of it made it look decent but it was REALLY bad. i will say the idea sounded decent but come on. it was really really bad. If u sat down and thought about it you would also realize it was UNREALISTIC. come on back in the day u think they had all that stuff to work with. It wasn't like ben franklin sat down one day and made a damn riddle. it was completely ridiculous, and it you want to see a bad movie then by all means go see this one. All and ALL HORRIBLE movie it might actually be on my top 10 WORST films I've ever seen.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Four Eyed Monsters follows the relationship of a shy, reclusive videographer and an equally estranged struggling artist, who, both living in the Big Apple, develop an unlikely romance with the help of an internet dating site. This in itself is not so unusual, but what is, is their method of communication. Foregoing the verbal, they take to writing notes and later communicating through video.

The film is based upon the creator's (Arin Crumley & Susan Buice) own relationship, who besides writing and directing, take to acting as the lead characters as well. With elements of avant-garde, anti-plot, and docudrama, the film scatters itself to the wind with an undecided structure nestled neatly between narcissism and self-indulgence.

As the movie wears on, a brief separation and deterioration of their once intriguing form of communication grow old as the couple face the hardship of reality. Focusing solely on inner conflict, or the woes of relationship, the film struggles through a stagnant narrative that is neither original, nor poignant. This could have been easily circumvented with the addition of subplot and external conflict, and a third act, to which there is none - just a montage of melodrama that leads nowhere.

What is even more aggravating is the film's descent from story into reality that abruptly concludes with an open ended and unsatisfying finish. This would have been all fine and dandy, but there is no question asked and no meaning to be discovered or pondered.

(On a side note, the film contains beautiful animation and a vivid and moving soundtrack, one of the more interesting aspects of the production.)

But as always, watch the film and decide for yourself.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Lillian Hellman's play, adapted by Dashiell Hammett with help from Hellman, becomes a curious project to come out of gritty Warner Bros. Paul Lukas, reprising his Broadway role and winning the Best Actor Oscar, plays an anti-Nazi German underground leader fighting the Fascists, dragging his American wife and three children all over Europe before finding refuge in the States (via the Mexico border). They settle in Washington with the wife's wealthy mother and brother, though a boarder residing in the manor is immediately suspicious of the newcomers and spends an awful lot of time down at the German Embassy playing poker. It seems to take forever for this drama to find its focus, and when we realize what the heart of the material is (the wise, honest, direct refugees teaching the clueless, head-in-the-sand Americans how the world has suddenly changed), it seems a little patronizing--the viewer is quite literally put in the relatives' place, being lectured to. Lukas has several speeches in the third-act which undoubtedly won him the Academy Award, yet for the much of the picture he seems to do little but enter and exit, enter and exit. As his spouse, Bette Davis enunciates like nobody else and works her wide eyes to good advantage, but the role doesn't allow her much color. Their children (all with divergent accents!) are alternately humorous and annoying, and Geraldine Fitzgerald has a nothing role as a put-upon wife (and the disgruntled texture she brings to the part seems entirely wrong). The intent here was to tastefully, tactfully show us just because a (WWII-era) man may be German, that doesn't make him a Nazi sympathizer. We get that in the first few minutes; the rest of this tasteful, tactful movie is made up of exposition, defensive confrontation and, ultimately, compassion. It should be a heady mix, but instead it's rather dry-eyed and inert. ** from ****", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Such a long awaited movie.. But it has disappointed me and my friends who had gone to see the movie on the first day.. From the trailers it looked like a action movie, but it turned out to be a out & out comedy(a bad comedy). But one thing that deserves appreciation is the acting by these professional actors, they've done their part of the movie very well. Good acting, but i don't think that can save the movie.. India has been shot beautifully. Kerala, Rajasthan, (Ladakh?) were all saturated with color, alright. Nevertheless the way the intrinsic beauty of these places was shot made me want to find out exactly where those places were and when I could go there ;-)

Action sequences were shot very shabbily, no one could make out head & tail of the stunts, they've used Akki(akshay kumar) very well but could've been done much much better..

Animation is the worst i've seen in recent movies(90's movies had better animation scenes i guess(initial scene where the car is falling off 'flying should be better word' the road into lake).

And the movies name has been mentioned nearly every 20 to 30 mins, just to make sure audiences don't forget the movie name i guess..", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "......in a horror movie that is. Alright first off , lets start with Kate. Her main goals include getting laid by George Clooney, looking good and last but not least screwing everyone over. Gotta love her. She had about 3 amazingly good chances to finish off this sicko but ..... instead she ran. I mean she didn't wanna bring Guy out for 10 minutes and when she did it was too late. I mean the guy tried to rape her. I cant get into these movies where the main character is a sad idiot. I mean who honestly would have any sympathy for a guy who finishes off everyone she has meet in a night. The movie kept going on. And as a result lost all its credibility.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is the second Animatrix short, and the first of them to be what one could call 'artistic'. It contains a lot of references, metaphors and symbols in the dense amount of material, especially with a running time of 9 minutes. I've heard some complaints that this is \"anti-human\", or tries to direct hate towards man, for their \"sins against machine\". I don't think that's true; it merely uses the robots to show us, that as humans, we aren't particularly accepting or open-minded towards anyone different from ourselves. I'd say it does a great job of that. The plot is good... it plays as a historical document, recounting what led to one of the main conflicts in the trilogy. Thus it holds clips from fictional news reports and the like. The voice acting is very good, if there is not a lot of it. The animation is nice, and the use of color, in spite of the usually realistic drawing style, makes it more open to do the smooth transitions and other surreal imagery. This has several bits of strong violence and disturbing visuals, as well as a little nudity. The disc holds a commentary, not in English but subtitled, and worth a listen/read. There is also a well-done and informative making of, based on both parts, so I would advise watching it after seeing the next one, as well. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys the Matrix universe, and/or science fiction in general. 8/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What is it with Americans and their hang-up with religious gobbledy-gook? To think this was a best-selling novel is incredible, but to pull it off as a movie you really need good acting and a script that delivers. In this case, all the good actors have gone to heaven and we're left with Kirk Cameron as a CNN-type journalist(!) trying to discover why a lot of people have simply disappeared. Oh yeah, there's a subplot about an evil world conspiracy and famine, or something. The good news is that this is done so cheaply, and with such inane dialogue, that it has sheer entertainment value in all of its unintended laughs. Not recommended for anyone with a 3-digit IQ.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am Puerto Rican and this is one of the worst documentary of I've ever seen of any type. You can see that the people on it are clueless. They don't know much about Puerto Rico and its culture. They claim to be Puerto Rican because they are from Puerto Rican descendants, but they probably know less than others who are not from there. You can see while they are talking that they are contradicting themselves. If you would like to see a real, and I mean a real, genuine documentary from Puerto Rico, then you must see \"Mi Puerto Rico\". That's a serious, real documentary. Not like this piece of junk. Rosie Perez based this documentary on herself. I thought it was suppose to be about Puerto Ricans. They keep repeating I didn't know. Well, that's about the only thing they got right on this so called documentary. I hate to see such a piece of garbage being done using the name of the Island. It brings down the standards.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "THE WATERDANCE (1991) The main character of The Waterdance, played by Eric Stoltz, finds himself in a rehab center with some others similarly injured. And there he must face an harsh new life, confined to a wheelchair. It's an interesting, and promising premise, but unfortunately, it fails to deploy. What ensues instead is largely Hollywood schmaltz, with some interesting moments. Certainly the cast (Eric Stoltz, William Forsythe, Wesley Snipes, et al) is brilliant, and perform well here as one would expect, but their talents are wasted. The characters are mainly stereotypes of one kind or another, and most of them are thoroughly unlikeable (the Snipes character being the exception). I suppose this is some kind of attempt to break through people's ideas about the handicapped being \"crippled\" or \"weak\", by depicting them, for the most part, as in-your-face pricks, but it makes for an entirely annoying experience. Admittedly it will show you something of what those with permanent disabilities go through, in a way that is not softened or romanticized, which is useful, and a good idea, but while the process being depicted can make one a difficult person to get along with, and that's worth dealing with, it is not part and parcel to that that these characters must be, to varying degrees, despicable. They wouldn't have to be Disneyfied, either; surely there's a middle ground somewhere. By the film's conclusion, the Eric Stoltz character has come to accept his status as a handicapped person, but since he is such a flaming narcissistic monster from the beginning of the film to the end, we couldn't care less.

In addition to its character problems, the film suffers from that weird syndrome that so many Hollywood movies suffer from; the syndrome doesn't really have an official name, but you might call it \"Inexplicable Forgiveness Syndrome\". It goes something like this: characters abuse the crap out of each other, and then without so much as an apology, all is forgiven (an especially obnoxious example of this is in the movie The Breakfast Club, in which one character spends most of the film verbally bullying everybody within earshot; as a result…they love him. In one of the the latest examples, Spiderman 3, supervillain The Sandman lays waste to a chunk of Manhattan, then wails on Spiderman for what seems like about 15 monotonous minutes before being waved off with what amounts to \"bye, now\"). The most egregious example of IFS in The Waterdance is a sequence in which, after being called the n-word by William Forsythe's racist biker character and his friends in the previous scene, the Wesley Snipes character whoops it up with the same Forsythe character in the next scene, as if nothing had just happened just a short time hence. Again, without so much as an \"Oh yeah, sorry about that business back there where I, you know, called you the n-word\". It makes me wonder, do these people actually watch these movies before they release them, or do they just film them with their eyes closed, kind of slap them together in the editing room according to scene number, and call it a day's work?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Carla is a secretary who is essentially deaf without her hearing aids. When she finds herself overloaded at work, she is able to hire Paul to help her out. Paul is just out of jail, and his past is not entirely behind him. To say too much more about the story, which has many twists, would be a mistake.

The most interesting thing about this film for me is how sound is used to indicate when Carla can hear and when she can't -- a sort of \"point of hear\" (like point of view). The early scenes that set this up, as well as the early character development of Carla and Paul, was more interesting to me than the twists and turns later on, some of which were hard to follow and/or stretched credibility a bit. There is also some unpleasant violence. Back to the positive side, the cinematography was very good.

The film is worth seeing, but perhaps not seeking out. Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on 4/28/2002.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sarah Silverman is like a totally manic Zooey Deschanel and I think I'm in love already. Yeah, if you loved Jesus is Magic, you'll love this. If you didn't, what the heck is wrong with you? Kudos to the Comedy Channel for shoving this in my face. My life finally has meaning, and \"Your car smells like farts\" is my kind of humor. I'm a happy guy. The first episode had me laughing hysterically and I'm hungrily looking forward to next week. This is like Grease meets South Park. Completely outrageous. Sarah Silverman is someone I could watch reading the phone book. Her delivery is precise and oh so funny. She never skips a beat. Come to think of it, it's not so much her choice of material. which is some really good stuff by the way, as it is the way she chooses to deliver it. Thank you, Sarah Silverman! Thank you, Comedy Channel!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Home Room\" came as a total surprise. Not having a clue as to what it was all about, it paid off big time because it doesn't hold any punches and what we see is how lives are changed by the act of a disgruntled young man who decided to victimize his class mates, who are the innocent victims of his rash actions.

Paul Ryan, the director, who is working and editing his own material, is a talented man who is rewarded by some amazing acting all around by his cast.

Alicia Browning is an older girl who is trying to graduate high school. She has been away a couple of years and doesn't seem to be in the same wave length of the other students. For one, she is a rebel with a punk look, lots of makeup and a mouth that will cut anyone who dares to come near her orbit. Alicia was among the students in the home room where nine students have died, supposedly killed by her boyfriend. Alicia, we realize, is a wounded girl who has gone through a terrible ordeal in her life, but we are not given any clues to that effect.

What follows is the aftermath of the tragedy, as it concentrates on a young woman who has survived it. Deanna Cartwright is a wealthy teen ager who shouldn't have been at the school, at all. When a ricochet bullet hit her, she is hospitalized with more than a wound. She is trying to get over this dark period in her mind but the nightmares don't let her forget.

Alicia is made to go to the hospital by the school principal. Since she doesn't cooperate with the police, the head of the school wants her to see Deanna in her terrible state and perhaps she will soften up and will tell the authorities what she knows. Alicia dislikes Deanna, but in a matter of days, both girls will make peace. We don't realize until the last sequence what really happened that horrible day in school.

Busy Phillips makes an excellent Alicia and Erika Christiansen is equally good as Deanna. Victor Garber, James Pinkins, Taylor Holland, and the rest of the cast play as an ensemble.

The film has an intensity because it's not explicit in showing how the shootings occurred, which helps the tone that Mr. Ryan wanted to give this movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: \"What does that have to do with this movie?\" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.

The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.

But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).

If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say \"Ha ha, you had sex with your mom,\" which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.

I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is the most compelling and excellent performance that Robert Taylor ever gave. It even surpasses his wonderful performance as \"Johnny Eager\" coming a full 14 years after that film. His looks are still a wonder to see, but he has a maturity now that gives him the edge in this gritty, violent role. Charlie Gilson (Taylor) is the last of his breed, a buffalo hunter who kills not for the money but for the pleasure. His wild eyed killing of not only buffalo but human beings, is stunning to watch. He is basically a lonely man, needing the people around him, but they dislike him because of his sociopath behavior. His partner is Sandy McKenzie (Stewart Granger) who is sick of the hunt, and only goes along, because he is a failure at anything else. Along the way Charlie kills a family of Indians and captures the beautiful Debra Pagent. Charlie tries to seduce her to no avail, but sees that Sandy is interested in her also. Granger is kind of sad to watch, so fed up with the hunt, longing to go away with the girl and her baby. Lloyd Nolan as the drunken skinner is wonderful with his wise cracks and accordian playing. Russ Tamblyn plays the half breed trying to fit in a white world. The group is an odd mix of good and evil, young and old. In the end Taylor gets spooked by the buffalo, as many hunters before him had, and runs off leaving Sandy with the girl. Upon his return, that night Sandy leaves with the woman, setting Charlie off on a rampage of killing in a quest to get Sandy and have the girl for himself. The final confrontation comes in a snow storm and the last scene is so shocking that you will never forget it. It is Taylor's film all the way and he was truly a much underrated actor of the era.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie has some fatal flaws in it, how someone could walk through an open back door of a highly secure medical facility is unbelievable. Then this same person just walks around the facility and enters the Dr.'s office, is just bad writing or bad editing.

Very very very predictable movie.

I am not sure how this film got made, except it is was filmed in Canada, and probably received a government grant.

I must say the person playing Aaron, Cory Monteith, did a good job.

Unless you are really bored and there is nothing else to watch on television then I would say it will kill some time, but otherwise, it is a movie no actor would want on their resume.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "My all-time favorite movie. Oscar-caliber work by everyone involved, both in front of and behind the camera. The screenplay is perfect, and works out the relationship between Lady Caroline and George Briggs in a completely satisfying way, unlike the novel. The care with which the other leading characters have been drawn is a tribute to screen writer Peter Barnes, and the intense visual beauty should have won Oscars for director Mike Newell and cinematographer Rex Maidment. It is Josie Lawrence's best work by far, and transformed my opinion of Joan Plowright. Having watched this movie at least 50 times, I can find no fault in it. The music, by famed composer Richard Rodney Bennet is a marvel.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The week before I saw Iowa, I saw Art School Confidential, in which a pretentious student makes a film and can't decide whether he wants it to be art or violent exploitation. Iowa could be the film that he made. I can see elements of much better movies in Iowa - Spun and Natural Born Killers. However, in addition to artiness, both those movies had good character development and coherent story lines. Iowa. This movie stumbles to a preposterous end. I have to admit that it had consistency. This movie is bad from beginning to end and not particularly worse or better in any part. The actors all did what they could. Roseanna Arquette deserves better. She demonstrates that she is very talented, very funny, and very sexy. But why does she have to demonstrate it in this turd ball.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A truly, truly dire Canadian-German co-production, the ever-wonderful Rosanna Arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term \"problem child\" - a few uears prior to the \"action\" the child murdered her father, and mum took the fall for the offspring. Now she's moved up to the Northwest US to start over, but her child still has a problem in that she's devoted to her mother. So devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond.

Unfortunately Mandy Schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people - she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie, though the incoherent script, useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini-clad bod) don't help any; we're supposed to find her sexy and scary, but she fails on both counts. Almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that Arquette and Schaeffer don't really convince as mother and daughter), all condolences to Miss Arquette and Jurgen Prochnow, both of whom are worthy of far more than this, and both of whom (particularly Rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago.

One of the production companies is called Quality International Films - not since the three-hour \"Love, Lies And Murder\" (from Two Short Productions) has there been such a \"You must be joking\" credit.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Castle of Blood is a good example of the quality work in the horror genre being turned out in Italy in the 60s. The film has all of the right elements - old dark house, atmosphere, a decent story, and Barbara Steele. Steele makes most any film worth seeing.

The story concerns a haunted castle. People have visited, but none have returned. Our hero makes a wager that he can spend the night in the castle and return to collect his winnings. But, the night he visits is a special night. It's the night each year when the dead return to relive their deaths.

The only flaw I see in the movie is the running time. It almost feels padded. There is a large portion of the first act where literally nothing happens. Our hero stumbles around in the dark finding nothing of interest. But once he does find something, the movie picks up and become quite enjoyable.

Castle of Blood is a definite must for Steele fans and fans of Italian Gothic horror in general.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie sucked ! They took something from my childhood ,and raped it in an outhouse! This movie was so bad I wanted to go home and hold my \"Dukes\" dvds and cry in a corner. The cast was terrible ! It wasn't \"The Dukes\", it was Stiffler and Jackass driving a car. When was Boss Hogg evil? When was Rosco a tough guy? They never were ! Boss Hogg was greedy and Rosco was an idiot. When did Jesse smoke pot? He never did ! Now don't get me wrong,I'm very liberal and there's nothing wrong with a little chiba, but it had no place in this movie! The only thing good about this movie was the trailers before the movie and the end credits. It was a waste of money time and air. Avoid at all costs!!!!!!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I liked it... just that... i liked it, not like the animated series... i love it!!!. The fact that this make less appealing is that we all try to compare and not to appreciate, but this cartoon was awesome, but it really didn't like it that much. There's too much people talking about Bruce being so cold, but if this is around 5 years later, anybody in a crime-fighting gang would get this angry and darker attitude, so to me it isn't a flaw. Batgirl was awesome she really fit there, as there isn't more Dick Grayson as a robin, batman needed a good teammate, not like the new robin, he is just a child and you cant rely that much on a child. But heres what didn't work: The new artwork... it isn't horrible but... to me it does'nt work in a series like batman. This is a dark character, with a maniac killer like the joker, so you cant put this kind of artwork in this cartoon, The joker isn't a bad design but i still like the past joker (but to me the BEST joker ever was the one who appeared in batman beyond:return of the joker) , so this joker isn't near as good. The good thing about the joker is that it still mark Hamil voice. My favorite character: Harley Quinn (im in love for her) They put an awesome episode for her: Mad love (to me the best episode of this series). Here we finally know how she turned Harley Quinn, and how the joker twisted her mind, and it feel that atmosphere that you feel in the animated series, darker, no happy ending, brutal fight with the joker (but too short), this is how it was to be ALL the series. BUT in general i didn't like how she made Harley in this series... in almost every episode they put funny but in a ridiculous way, she get punched, she say nonsenses, she make flaws... c'mon she is funny in a way you can laugh with her, not from her... and here they put ridiculous (like i said the only episode where i don't think that its in mad love and beware of the creeper) So in general its a good series, it has it upsides and downs, the drawn could be better ( MY GOOD!!! KILL THAT CATWOMAN!!!!) nice sound effects, nice music, nice voices and nice episodes: my favorites, Mad love, Jokers millions, Old Wounds, Sins of the father, and Cold comfort. If you enjoyed Batman:TAS you can watch this but don't spec too much, in the other hand if you didn't watched TAS, watch this first and then watch TAS in that way you're really gonna love TAS :D", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Nice, pleasant, and funny, but not earth-shattering. It does a good job of showing the \"behind the scenes\" world of theater groups and the lives of the actors. The three witches are great- both on- and off-stage. I would assume the movie works wonderfully (lots of apparent inside jokes) if one was involved in theater (which I'm not).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Nicole Kidman is a wonderful actress and here she's great. I really liked Ben Chaplin in The Thin Red Line and he is very good here too. This is not Great Cinema but I was most entertained. Given most films these days this is High Praise indeed.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.

Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.

Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.

The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.

(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.

The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Inept, boring, and incoherent supernatural \"thriller\" in which college student Cassie (Melissa Sagemiller) is the constant victim of hallucinations and nightmares after a car accident claims the life of her boyfriend Sean (Casey Affleck).

I can't begin to tell you how bad this is...nothing of any importance ever happens nor is there ever any sort of actual entertainment value. I did not like this cast in this particular film - they are all sadly unconvincing (then again, their roles are no good). To promote this as a horror film is a joke. Where are the scares? There's no sense or suspense - there are a few good songs but that's about it.

How on Earth did this project get the green light? Writer-director Steve Carpenter has no discernible vision or talent that I can sense. Worst of all, the conclusion really makes the whole movie pointless.

The alleged \"killer cut\" that I watched is 86 minutes of pure tedium.

1/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The movie was awful. The theater was dead with silence 'cause everyone was embarrassed to be in there watching such trash. I think someone gave Jet Li a lobotomy and made him perform a script with dialogue written by a five year old. The martial arts are 'ok', but when put next to the Jackie Chan movies and \"The Matrix\" you're better off seeing one of those.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "...On stage, TV or in a book, 'The Woman in Black' is an outstanding ghost story. Other reviewers have already said just about all there is to say about this film, but I thought I would add my belated little review too. The made-for-TV movie has a deliberately slow first act, which chronicles the main character Arthur as he goes about his business as a solicitor in 1920s London. I can understand why this might not appeal to all palates. Nevertheless, for me, I love this British-style of storytelling similar to any of the BBC's \"Ghost Story for Christmas\" adaptations of the great M.R. James' work. In the second act, the ghost story kicks in as Arthur is sent to the provinces by his boss, to tidy up the affairs of a deceased client. The third act relentlessly builds up to a spine-tingling conclusion... As a Londoner, I have seen the play. I own the book, DVD-R and have the unabridged audio book on my iPod, too. What is sure for me, 'The Women in Black' on any medium is a ghost story with few equals. It is about time that we had a legitimate region 2 DVD release.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but it is nothing new.

Everyone here is grouping it with other war movies, this movie has been miscategorized! Its not a war movie any more than \"One flew over the cuckoos nest\" is a asylum movie or \"Cool Hand Luke\" is a prison movie. This is a movie about individuality, nonconformity, self-confidence and the costs of that personality type.

The plot is the same as \"One flew over the Cuckoos nest\" and \"Cool Hand Luke\", its in GOOD company, and it holds its own. Its these movies it should be held up against and compared, not \"Apocalypse Now\" or \"Platoon\".

Eric", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Lee Chang-dong's exceptional \"Secret Sunshine\" is the single most emotionally ravaging experience of the year. It is an instantly sobering, brutally honest character piece on the reverberations of loss and a graceful memento mori that resonates with a striking density of thought, yet remains as inscrutable as the emotions it observes. Through its layered naturalism and stunningly trenchant view of small-town dynamics, Lee implicitly deconstructs the traditional Korean melodrama by pulling apart the cinematics of excess and ripping to shreds the arcs that shape its characters and grounds the proceedings into a crushing grind of stoic realism.

\"Secret Sunshine\" remains an immensely compelling, fluid work throughout its 142-minute runtime. Its bravura first hour is filled to the brim with subtextual insinuations, remarkable foreshadowing and adroit reversals of tone brought about by humanistic capriciousness. Adapted from a short story, Lee infuses the film with his sensitivity for the sublime paradoxes of life, last seen in his transgressively comic and irreverent \"Oasis\". Understanding how personal revolutions are forged when views of our universe are changed, Lee not only sees the emotional cataclysm of a widow's sorrow through an inquiring scope but also feels the tumultuous existential currents that underpin the film when religion becomes a narrative scapegoat in comprehending the heinousness of the human experience.

Do-yeon Jeon's (\"You Are My Sunshine\") Best Actress accolade at Cannes in 2007 is well deserved. Her performance as the widow Shin-ae remains an unrelenting enigma. As a character pulled apart by forces beyond her control, the sheer magnificence of this performance is central to the film's turbulent nature. With Jeon essaying one cyclonic upheaval after another, there's a tremulous sense of collapse that the film, to its credit, never approaches. Instead it finds a delicate balance that saps the charged theatricality and subsequent banality from ordinary tragedies and its fallouts. She becomes the centre of the film's universe as well as ours. Filmed in glorious hand-held CinemaScope, the film demolishes the cinematicism of frames and compositions by becoming visually acute just as it is quietly harrowing when the camera never relinquishes its gaze from Shin-ae through times of happiness, guilt and remorse.

Lee captures the details of life in the small, suspicious town of Miryang – the awkwardness of communal situations, its uncomfortable silences and its devastations spun out of personal dramas. Shin-ae's interactions with the townsfolk rarely inspires dividends, especially when they are merely done out of obligation to fit in for the sake of her son, Jun (Seon Jung-yeop). The one recurring acquaintance is Jong-chan (Song Kang-ho), a bachelor mechanic of uncertain intentions who helps her en route to Miryang in the film's enchanting open sequence set to a captivating stream of sunlight. Song has situated himself as a comedic anti-hero in South Korea's biggest films but his nuanced, low-key delivery here purports the director's thought process of never having to reveal more than plainly necessary.

If pain is ephemeral, then grief can never truly dissipate. And Lee finds complexity in subsistence. When Shin-ae attempts to head down the path of reconciliation only to be faced again with unimaginable heartbreak, she unsuccessfully employs the fellowship of evangelical Christianity as a foil to her sorrow. But Lee knows better than that when he understands that religion, in the context of the human canvas of strife and misery, is never a simple solution. But Lee never rebukes the essence of religion as he realises the value of salvation for some through a higher power even if it serves a form of denial in others. The scenes in its latter half which deal with religion doesn't allow itself to become aggressively scornful, which is a feat in itself considering how many filmmakers let the momentum of the material take over from what they need to say to be true to its story and characters.

Lee's first film since his call to office as his country's Minister of Culture and Tourism is an uncompromising dissertation on human suffering. In a film so artless and genuine, it arduously reveals that there's nothing as simple as emotional catharsis, just the suppression and abatement of agony. \"Secret Sunshine\" leaves us with tender mercies pulled out of evanescence, and points towards a profound understanding of despair and faith.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As with a bunch of guys at school we must give this a thumbs up. Even the Grim Ripper made us smile. Those two alien things made me laugh, Bill and Ted were the stupidest yet the funnest in the entire movie. This is a lot better than the first one. And yet for some reason I feel that it misses something. Something big. Something important. Made a better house and girlfriends. No, I'd say better villains. Use clones instead of robots.I gave this a 7 out of 10 because of those two robotic doinks.

The Grim Ripper, don't be scared he's not the deathy kind, is funny. When he fell from the sky I split a gut. Splat, I'm not sure about those aliens. What where they? Scientists? No way.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was a wonderful film. How these women tried to save their husbands. I thought that the performances of the actors were great. I had to think about the film for a very long time. I think that every student should see this film so that they can think about war, relationships, friendship and love. I liked the film because it told and showed me how strong love can be. I wish I could be so strong as a woman. I really liked it because it told me something about relationships and that is what I like to see in a movie. I think you can compare the film with Der Untergang, The pianist. If you put these three films together, you have a great sight of what happened during the war. We should remember something like the war forever.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If it were possible to distill the heart and soul of the sport--no, the pure lifestyle--of surfing to its perfect form, this documentary has done it. This documentary shows the life isn't just about the waves, but it's more about the people, the pioneers, and the modern day vanguard that are pushing the envelope of big wave further than it's ever been.

Stacy Peralta--a virtual legend from my early '80s skateboarding days as a SoCal teen--has edited reams of amazing stock and interview footage down to their essence and created what is not just a documentary, but a masterpiece of the genre. When his heart and soul is in the subject matter--and clearly it is here--his genius is fraught with a pure vision that doesn't glamorize, hype, or sentimentalize his subject. He reveres surfers and the surfing/beach lifestyle, but doesn't whitewash it either. There is a gritty reality to the sport as well.

There is so much that could be said about this documentary, about the surfers, the early history of the sport, and the wild big wave surfers it profiles. Greg Noll, the first big wave personality who arguably pioneered the sport; Jeff Carter, an amazing guy who rode virtually alone for 15 years on Northern California's extremely dangerous Maverick's big surf; and, the centerpiece of the documentary, Laird Hamliton, big wave surfing's present day messiah.

There is tremendous heart and warmth among all these guys--and a few girls who show up on camera--and a deep and powerful love for surfing and the ocean that comes through in every word. I found the story of how Hamilton's adopted father met him and how Hamilton as a small 4- or 5-year old boy practically forced him to be his dad especially heartwarming (and, again, stripped of syrupy sentimentality).

If you like surfing--or even if you don't--this is a wonderful documentary that must be watched, if only because you're a student of the form or someone who simply appreciates incredibly well-done works of art.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The film adaptation of James Joyce's Ulysses is excellent. The actors, the voice overs, the direction, it all captures the feel of the novel without sacrificing its own merits. The Milo O'Shea does an excellent job as Leopold Bloom, the cuckolded man married to the sassy Molly. I absolutely love this picture.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you're as huge of a fan of an author as I am of Jim Thompson, it can be pretty dodgy when their works are converted to film. This is not the case with Scott Foley's rendition of AFTER DARK MY SWEET. A suspenseful, sexually charged noir classic that closely follows and does great justice to the original text. Jason Patrick and Rachel Ward give possibly the best performances of their careers. And the always phenomenal Bruce Dern might have even toped him self with this one. Like Thompson's book this movie creates a dark and surreal world where passion overcomes logic and the double cross is never far at hand. A must see for all fans of great noir film. ****!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I would just like to say, that no matter how low budget the film is, it needs to be shown throughout this world the point to these movies. We don't read that much anymore, instead people want to see movies. Having this series out on DVD, has made me want to read the whole series, and want more. PLEASE MAKE ALL 8 MOVIES. Please don't change any of the characters either, it ruins the effect. Because I have grown to love the actors who have played the characters. PLEASE MAKE ALL 8 MOVIES. I want to see the message, and watch the message that these books and now movies are here to portray. We don't get that enough anymore. AWESOME JOB!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc\". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.

And yes... \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR\" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette\" and the downright tacky \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape\", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is an amusing and utterly sarcastic view of pop culture and the producers thereof. I was impressed with the photography that consisted of vivid colors and spin doctored settings, especially when you think that this is Zukovic's first large scale attempt.

One warning, do not take the movie's message that seriously. It is not for mass consumption ( and that is not a compliment). The message is a somewhat stylized post-college, neophyte view of society.

I did enjoy the basic plot line of a fictitious 'zine editor verbally whipping the mobocracy of the 90's.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Nacho Vigalondo is very famous in Spain. He is a kind of bad showman who can make you feel sick... Very embarrassing. Nacho had made some commercials in TV, I remember one in which Nacho was looking for Paul Mc Carney around Madrid (the commercial was about a Mc Carney CD collection).

This little movie is like a Nacho's commercial: bad storyline, bad directing, and awful performances. I can't believe that a disgusting movie like this was in The Kodak Theater. Poor Oscar...

Nacho could made this movie because of his wife, the producer of this 7:35, a woman very well connected with Spanish TV business men.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I really liked this version of 'Vanishing Point' as opposed to the 1971 version. I found the 1971 version quite boring. If I can get up in the middle of a movie a few times(as I did with the 1971 version) than to me, it is not all that great. Of course, this could be due to the fact that I was only nine at the time the 1971 version was brought out. However, I have seen many remakes, where I have liked the original and older one better. I found that the plot of the 1997 version was more understandable and had basically kept true to the original without undermining the meaning of the 1971 version. In my opinion, I felt the 1997 version had more excitement and wasn't so \"blase\".(Boring)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If it were not for the \"Oh So Gourgous,\" Natassia Malthe, this B- movie would not have been worth one sector of my Tivo disk space! In what low rent, back lot warehouse was the supposed space port filmed in? \"Continuity People!\" It's a basic principle in real movie making! By night an alleged space port and by day (night and day on a space station?) a warehouse!??!? People Please! The only thing I will commend this movie for, is the wardrobe dept. for continuously, keeping Natassia in those tight shape revealing outfits! Even the women who saw this bomb had to appreciate the outfits that she obviously spent some time getting into, each day of filming! The Sci-fi channel would have been better off showing SpaceBalls! At least there would have been some real humor in watching something so unbelievable.

P.S. Michael Ironside, please Fire Your Agent ASAP! You are so much better of an actor, to be even associated with this level of movie making.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I only gave this ridiculously titled comedy horror flick a 2 because several famous porn stars of the past appear in it. A group of tourists, supposedly on vacation in Ireland but actually in Canada, run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other, and the plot is more or less right out of THE HILL HAVE EYES ands WRONG TURN. Only problem is, unless I miscounted, there's only one mutant on display, and he isn't all that impressive. Sort of like the potbellied mummy in that homemade film from about five years ago. Some gory but silly deaths help, but the film is strictly amateur night and boring beyond belief. The ending is predictable and has been done to death. No pun intended.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I've found the movie offensive for Americans which lost somebody in the towers, for American people in general. Pretending to be an homage to horrible facts happened last years, each director takes the opportunity to polemize with old facts (which have none to do with a terrorist attack), or criticize American's political behaviour, or compare different political situation as they have in own country having this nothing to do or to share with the atrocity of September 11. Shame on them.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "An absolutely brilliant film! Jiri Trnka, the master of puppet animation, confronts totalitarianism in this, his final, film. It would be banned by the Communist Czechoslovakian government (at the time), despite taking the country's highest animation award.

In this dark and entertaining short film, an artist attempts to create a new pot for his favourite plant. He happily makes his creations while dreaming that his plant will grow to be a beautiful rose. All of a sudden, he here's a knock at the door, and in comes this giant omnipotent hand, that tries to force the artist to make statues in it's likeness. The artist resists as best he can, but he eventually becomes overwhelmed by the constant attempts, by the hand, to force him to conform. He becomes brainwashed; an intellectual zombie. At this point the hand attaches strings to the artist, puts him in a cage, and uses him to make hand statues. All the while glorifying the artist's work and awarding him with medals and honours.

The artist's inner lust to be able to express himself freely is what helps him prevail over his indoctrination, and enables him escape his prison, whether it be literal or in his mind, and return to his home where he now must live in constant fear of the wrath of the omnipotent hand. He shuts himself in, thinking he is out of the reach of the almighty hand, but in the process he puts his plant and pot up high, hoping it is out of the reach of the hand, and it ends up falling on his head, killing him. The artist is inevitabally destroyed by his own creation. All because of the constant fear he had to live with once he escaped the hand's strings. Once dead, the hand paints the artist as a great person, a national hero. Unfortunately not in the circumstances or for the reasons that the artist would like to be remembered.

Trnka's condemnation of Totalitarian society, and their lack of right for free expression is dark, damning and an amazingly animated. It is no wonder the government banned it as this is the sort of media that people admire, and would perhaps even listen to. That was obviously not acceptable. An amazing example of an artists civil disobedience and the impact it can have. And still quite relevant today for many parts of the world, from the US to the middle east. A must see and definite 10 out of 10! Talk about going out with a bang!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was literally preparing to hate this movie, so believe me when I say this film is worth seeing. Overall, the story and gags are contrived, but the film has the charm and finesse to pull them off. That gag where Jason Lee thinks he has crabs, and tries not to let his boss/future father-in-law and co-workers see him scratching himself isn't terribly intelligent, but it sent me into a frenzy of laughter. Very few of the film's gags are high-brow, but they made me laugh. As I said, the film has charm and charm can go a long way.

The characters are likable, too. I must say I wish I got to see more of James Brolin's character, since he was a hoot in the very few scenes he was in. Plus, I admire any romantic comedy that has the guts to not make the character of the wife (who serves as the obstacle in the plot) a total witch. The Selma Blair character is hardly unlikable, and there's never a scene where I thought to myself, \"Why did he want to marry her in the first place?\" The ending is Hollywood-ish, but it could've been much more schmaltzy.

The cast is talented. I haven't had a favorable view of most of Jason Lee's mainstream work. I just loved him so much in Kevin Smith's films that I couldn't help but feel disappointed at seeing him in these dopey roles. And he never looks comfortable in these dopey roles. Even in this movie, he doesn't look perfectly comfortable, but he contributes his own two cents and effectively handles each scene. But I still miss his work in independent films. Julia Stiles proves again why she's so damn likable. Of course, she's a very beautiful girl with a radiant smile that makes me want to faint, but she also possesses a unique charm and seems to have good personality. In other words, her beauty shows inside and out. I don't know the actresses' name, but the woman who plays the drunk granny is hilarious. Julie Hagerty also has a small part, and she's always enjoyable to watch, which makes me wish she received better roles. I loved her so much in \"Airplane\" and \"Lost in America\" that it's a shame she doesn't get the same opportunities to flaunt her skills.

Don't be put off by the horrible trailers and even more horrible box office records. This is a funny, charming film. Romantic comedies are getting so predictable nowadays that it feels like the genre itself is ready to be flushed down the toilet, so it's always to see a good one among all these bad apples.

My score: 7 (out of 10)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The story line has been rehashed a number of times; \"a breath of life in the retirement home\". Several plays, movies, novels, short stories, poems and news articles have beat the subject to no end, but it's still an excellent platform for character studies.

If 'Gideon' was crafted more enthusiastically it could be brilliant, but the dialogue is painfully boring and the story is absolutely flooded with cliches (even the subtitle and summary of Gideon's \"simple wisdom\" almost made me laugh in its ineffectiveness). Mostly indifferent acting is the final straw for this weak film, but the rest of it is bland enough to make the actors' lack of focus almost irrelevant.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I read the book in 5th grade and now a few years later I saw the movie. There are a few differences:

1.Billy was oringinally suppose to eat 15 worms in 15 days, not 10 worms in one day by 7:00pm.

2.Billy is suppose to get 30 dollars after he's eaten all the worms. In the movie after Billy eats all the worms, Joe has to go to school with worms in his pants.

3. Joe is suppose to fake some of the worms but in the movie, he doesn't at all.

Even though there are changes,this movie is still one that kids will enjoy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. Assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie, \"The Christmas Box\" based on the book by Richard Paul Evans. I sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show, hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my \"new\" life. After seeing this movie I was so disappointed. As a mother who lost her only child in November 2003 and REALLY knowing the pain, I had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who \"think\" they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. This movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of Diane Keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. It was VERY unrealistic from start to stop. I had a few calls after the movie, each call the same, \"That was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back\" What a bunch of bull! It is clear that the director and Keaton have never lost a child because neither would have EVER made the movie to be so off the mark. I guess that's Hollywood.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "No wonder this movie never saw the light of day. The timing was of the release was awful. The Gong Show had already \"jumped the shark\" by the time the movie came out, so who would pay money just to see a few of the censored clips from the original run of the show? And the show clips are just a tiny bit of this pathetic, 90-minute whine by Chuck Barris about how hard his life was as host of the show. Did he really expect we would feel sorry for him and his messed-up millionaire life? Did he really think we even wanted to KNOW about his life? (Obviously so, since he later wrote his weird autobiography about his career as a CIA operative.) Did he think the gag of having everyone, everywhere audition for him would stay fresh for 90 minutes? Or the network executive hounding him at every turn? This might have worked as the plot for a 30-minute sitcom episode, but not as a full-length movie. However, it was nice to see Rip Taylor, Gene Gene, and the Unknown Comic again (although, to make the movie \"spicy,\" they included only his most vulgar routines). And as someone else has pointed out, this is Phil Hartman's first significant movie part (even though it lasts only a minute). Note his name is spelled HARTMANN in the credits, which is the name he was born with. You can't miss his voice and facial expressions, even though he's much thinner and younger than in the SNL days. Ed Molinaro (Hill Street Blues) also has a tiny part; one of his first after leaving the soap world.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Probably the first Portuguese film I have seen in my life, and I enjoyed it. The plot is related of how the young army officers took the power in Portugal in 1974, to finally defeat the fascist government of Caetano and to also finalize the wars in the colonies, i.e. Mozambique, Angola, and Guinea (Bissau)- Cape Vert. Most of the events shown in the film reflect with exactitude the behavior of the army officers and soldiers to conduct the coup, of the oppressed people, who were very happy with this new development and the liberty, the resistance of Caetano's men, and also in a subtle way of most conservative officials, including Spinola, who took over as the new president. The Portuguese revolution can be remembered because of the action of several young officers, but for me the most interesting part of the film was when the young captain expressed that Portugal should develop itself democratically, and this is what the country achieved some years after this coup or revolution. The film also shows that the army officers and soldiers never wanted to kill anyone; even the most serious enemies were respected at the end.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My ten-year old liked it. For me it was hard to get through it. Christopher Lloyd played it way over the top and the suit was tedious and unfunny. Sorry to see Jeff Daniels in this.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When I saw the Exterminators of year 3000 at first time, I had no expectations for that movie. Although, it wasn't so bad as I was thought. It's kind of Italian version of Roadwarrior, with cast, that is almost famous in Italy, including Venantino Venantini. Behind the story is Elisa Briganti and Dardano Sacchetti, who are also responsible for story of Zombie flesh-eaters. You can also see other links to Italian horror movies: Luca Venantini plays the role of Tommy, and you can see that kid in Paura nella citta dei morti viventi (City of the living dead AKA Gates of hell) as John Robbins and in Cannibal apocalypse as the role of Mary's brother. Quite entertaining movie, with some dull parts.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In the 1930s studios would use short films like this one sort of as testing grounds for new actors, given their relative ease of production in comparison with full length feature films, so it's interesting that this one should star Shirley Temple, who had long since established herself as The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. Then again, she probably wasn't the one being tested, I would imagine that would have been Frank Coghlan Jr., who played Shirley's brother Sonny in the movie and delivered a comparatively less impressive performance. Then again, a 9-year-old Shirley Temple was probably not an easy act to accompany.

The film opens with an unimpressive sight gag involving a leaky ceiling, which I suppose was designed to have Shirley Temple give a scornful look at the ceiling, illustrate the working class status of the family in the movie, and provide a clean transition into the next scene, which features Shirley gleefully stomping in the rain.

It's Sonny'y birthday, and his father makes occasional and horrendously botched efforts to hide the fact that he wants to give Sonny a dog that he really wants for himself, but Sonny is afraid of dogs because he was bitten by one once and has been creeped out ever since. It's curious that, when his father insists on getting a dog, Sonny decides to run away from home rather than have a dog in the house, and as he is running away with no destination in sight, it's also curious that the movie illustrates what seems to be an indifference to homeless people that surpasses even the astounding indifference that exists today.

Sonny passes a man cooking bacon in an iron skillet at the side of the train tracks (right after a train flew by which, given how close to the tracks he was, you would think would have blown the guy right off the tracks, but no matter). After Sonny gives up on sharing breakfast due to the sour stare that his gleeful smile receives from the guy, he continues on and the homeless guy disappears from the movie. It's interesting to consider what a longer film would have done, because this one leaves this poor guy as a loose end.

Not that that matters, Sonny soon hears a dog whining underneath a trestle as he passes over it, and jumps down to find a dog covered in burrs. It might seem trite that he immediately takes the dog up and adopts it since he just left home because of his fear of dogs, but it seemed to me that he just needed to be reminded not of his power over dogs, but of their lack of power over him. As soon as he saw a dog in need he overcame his fear.

Hey, if that's all it takes, all I have to do is find a helpless spider and I'm set!

It's a very convenient movie in which everything works out exactly as it is supposed to, but it's cute enough and enjoyable enough (and short enough, as it were) to still be a fun movie. We already don't expect an epic plot in a 19-minute film, but Pardon My Pups still packs in a substantial amount of story and character development in its short running time. And it also features a fight scene at the end of the movie that must have made Charlie Chaplin proud. I am hardly an expert of Shirley Temple's films, but it's not hard to see how she became The Most Famous Child Star of All Time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this movie had more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Ben Affleck was seriously NOT trying to act in any way, shape, or form. He outright sucked. Nothing about the movie was believable. The first problems were in the intro- where the man gives everything of value to the Salvation Army Santa Claus but it doesn't show why. And then the granny sticks her head in the oven- really beautiful, and has absolutely nothing to do with the movie- it's not even in the same tone as the movie. There was no explanation of the motivation for Ben Affleck to choose the house he chose; there was not any believable reactions by the family he chose; and people are swayed here and there without any cause to be swayed (Example: Christina Applegate and Ben Affleck's characters go tobogganing down a steep slope- this is the incident that makes her suddenly fall in love with him. Riiiight...) Anyway, there was a funny moment or two- but they were a rarity in the movie. It seriously needed another rewrite (or 4). Hope you enjoy!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I searched out this one after seeing the hilarious and linguistically challenging \"Clueless\" (1995), perhaps Alicia Silverstone's best known effort from early in her film career. \"True Crime\" has Kevin Dillon, which should be helpful in improving most film projects. In fact everyone in the cast does a good job . The only disappointment I think the movie has for me is an awkward \"feel\" to some of the scenes, coming from the need to run a quite uncompromising, grown up theme as part of what in tone starts out as a schoolgirl adventure.

Alicia Silverstone is pretty good in this one. She carries off well the naive enthusiasm and growing unease that affects Mary Giordano as she manoeuvres towards the truth behind the serial murders. I reckon her characterization of MG has some mileage in it too. The inference of the story line is that she goes on to a career in law enforcement. It could be really interesting for an older Silverstone to revisit Giordano at a time of crisis later in the officer's life. Just a thought!

\"True Crime\" shows its director in a good light. Pat Verducci also has the writing credit. I don't know of any other film work PV has done. I can only wonder what happened after such a promising start.

Like most productions, this one has a largely unknown supporting cast, although Bill Nunn (Detective Jerry Guinn) is hardly that. Over the past decade he seems to have been able to secure an impressive number of screen appearances. I recall seeing him recently in \"Carriers\" (1998), a made for TV presentation with a military theme. Bill Nunn played \"Captain Arends\". Fans of the classic US TV comedy show \"Who's the Boss\" may also have an interest in \"Carriers\" because the leading player is Judith Light, remembered with affection by many because of her lengthy involvement with the show.

\"True Crime\" could easily not have worked, but it does OK. I think it is an entertaining story worth seeing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I recall seeing this film on TV some years ago and not paying full attention, maybe even missing the first half, so I came to the conclusion that it was dull and over rated. I decided to revisit it last night to see if I had missed anything the first time. I certainly did. This is one of the most disturbing and amazing films of all time and it has clearly had much influence on films today and probably will forever. I can't believe I thought this film was boring!

A young Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds give the performances of their careers and are supported by Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox. This story will leave you with a sense of disgust and dread long after you watch it, it is truly horrifying. Oh, and did I mention that the theme song is great, as well? Well it is, and this movie should be seen by movie fans everywhere.

Everyone should see this movie for the experience. Just don't expect a picnic.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I want to add to the praise for the production of this film, especially the luminous cinematography. Firelight glistening off of smooth and muscled skin creates stunningly beautiful imagery. The film was nominated for (and won) a single Oscar - the first given for editing. Mala's performance is moody, penetrating and powerful.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "First off I want to say that this film is worthy of more than the four stars I rated it. I gave it four stars because for me this 86 minute movie always seems like 2 and a half hours and is not engaging enough to sit through it all. However, \"The Big Alligator River\" (the title my DVD calls it) is better than your average nature strikes back movie.

A tourist resort in the jungles of Southeast Asia is just opening and employs the natives while trying to manipulate the wildlife around. Mother Nature seeking revenge comes in the form of the god Kroona, a giant Alligator. But the creature isn't the only thing the tourists and the main characters (a photographer and the resort staff) have to worry about, the natives are getting rubbed the wrong way too.

This movie is a pretty well-done adventure/horror story with a good musical score and direction. But the alligator itself, the main attraction of the movie, is obviously fake looking. Some of the close-ups of its jaws are good but that should be all we need to see. Some of the underwater far-away shots make it painfully obvious that what we are really dealing with is an alligator squeaky-toy you can probably get at a zoo souvenir shop. But the natives are believable, if not authentic.

Probably not the movie that will give you non-stop thrills, if any, but shot and produced well enough to be given good mention. And like a lot of creature movies, this one ends with an extremely high body count. It also has lots of good jungle scenery. Acting is below par though, but who was expecting it to be better, eh?

Much, much better than its recent American counterpart \"Primeival\" but nothing to be compared with \"Jaws\". But remember it may not be engaging at a few points.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Many King fans hate this because it departed from the book, but film is a different medium and books should change when they make the jump. That notwithstanding, the movie does fail completely, but it fails entirely on film terms. I'd like to smack the people who tell me it's the scariest movie ever made. I always follow up with the question \"Really... exactly what scene scared you?\" Every fan I've asked, goes silent. Occasionally someone, at a loss for a decent scare (There are none...), names the \"Grape-juice-shooting-out-of-elevators\" shtick. If you're afraid of that, I don't know what to tell you, except maybe that you're easily scared. I just rolled my eyes watching these z-grade horror ideas play out in this schlocky, incoherent movie.

One place it diverts from the book and really is insipid is the tedious work the movie does to get Mr Halloran up to the Overlook only to kill him; with the dumbest member of the audience knowing that Jack is waiting behind one of the columns in the corridor that it takes Halloran FOREVER to walk down. Really one of the stupidest sequences ever put on film.

Oh, and nice choice for Mr. Halloran's artwork Stanley! Black light afro-nymphomaniacs really add to the mood and character development of a horror movie. Has there ever been a more \"off,\" out-of-place shot in any movie ever made?

I consider it a miracle that I was eventually able to bypass this turd, and agree that Kubricks 2001 is a truly important film, given the immense 'bad will' generated by both this stupid, stupid movie, and the cult of fawning but inarticulate Kubrick fan-boys, who couldn't describe an idea at work in it with every film resource in the Library of Congress in front of them.

Toss in the grotesque overacting of Jack Nicholson, the introduction of dumb one-liners at tense moments, and the Razzie nominated performance of Shelly Duvall and you have a very crappy movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Orson Welles manages to knock me on my ass with every picture of his I see. Lady of Shanghai is on the same level as his other masterpieces, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight. The plot can tend to be confusing sometimes, and sometimes it seems to be moving maybe a tiny bit too fast (about an hour of it was edited out when test screenings went poorly). It doesn't matter, however. You can't watch Welles' films and manage to concentrate too much on the plot. His direction defines what great direction is. Almost any scene from this film can hold up with any other scene he directed. Check out the courtroom scene. Usually they are such stock scenes that I can't stand them. Case in point, try to sit through Welles' own speech near the end of Compulsion. In Lady from Shanghai, just pay attention to the level of detail in that courtroom scene. Watch that juror who is always sneezing and interrupting the proceedings. Or just take a look at the lighting in that scene. I know, it is just a simple Venetian blind, and that it was used constantly in film noirs and crime films of the era, but Welles gives it a beauty all its own. The dialogue is also remarkable. Welles had the skill, a skill that no one else seemed to have, to make a crime film containing examples of the grandest poetry. Whether he was speaking Shakespeare or spitting out hard-boiled lines, it had the power to stir the soul. 10/10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The world of the 1973 sci-fi drama SOYLENT GREEN is what we could be seeing if we aren't careful. It is a world in which New York City's population has topped the 40 million mark in the year 2022. Overpopulation, air pollution, year-long heat waves, and food shortages are the rule. The only hope comes from a food product called Soylent Green. But what is this particular food stuff really made of? That question is at the heart of this admittedly somewhat dated but still intriguing film, based on Harry Harrison's 1966 novel \"Make Room! Make Room!\" Charlton Heston stars as Thorne, an NYPD detective who comes across the murder of a top corporate executive (Joseph Cotten). As it turns out, Cotten was on the board of directors of the Soylent Corporation, the people responsible for all those food stuffs that the people have to consume in lieu of the real thing. Heston believes that this wasn't just a garden-variety murder, that Cotten was bumped off for a reason. He gets a lot of help from his slightly cantankerous but very astute \"book\" (Edward G. Robinson, in his 101st and final cinematic appearance), and a few timely reminders of what the world used to be like. What Robinson finds out about Soylent Green shocks him beyond all imagination; but before he can tell Heston all of what he knows, he has himself euthanized. And when Heston does indeed find out the secret of Soylent Green...well, that part has become immortalized into cinematic history.

Under the very professional guiding hand of director Richard Fleischer (THE BOSTON STRANGLER; FANTASTIC VOYAGE), SOYLENT GREEN is a fairly grim but thought-provoking look at a Dystopian future that humanity might be living if we don't curb our tendency to strip our planet of its natural resources. Indeed, this was a project that Heston himself had had in mind for filming as far back as 1968, after he had struck gold in the sci-fi genre with PLANET OF THE APES--a fact that probably gets lost whenever his ultra-conservative political philosophy comes up in conversation (after all, SOYLENT GREEN is hardly a tract for unrestrained capitalism). Robinson, as always, is the consummate professional in his last role; the sequence where he is euthanized (as he looks at video of the world from a better era, set to the music of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Grieg) is quite simply heartbreaking. The film also benefits from solid supporting help from Chuck Connors (as a very convincing heavy), Brock Peters (as Heston's superior), and Leigh Taylor-Young as the woman who tries to help Heston in his inquiries.

It must seem easy these days to dismiss SOYLENT GREEN for being dated. But those who do it ought to think twice; for this film's world may end up becoming ours in actuality if we don't watch what we do with what we have today.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This series was a cut above the rest of the TV detective series of the day but somehow didn't find an audience.

The idea of a blind detective may not be totally new but added so much to the story. And who could forget Pax, the beautiful guide dog in the series!

Whilst the stories themselves may have been no better than the average series, the settings , in New Orleans, the acting and the music (I note the comment about the music score in other comments ...I remember that clearly) all work to make a good television series even better!

Well you never know ...one day Paramount might just dig into its archives and release it on DVD!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am stunned at the negative comments that I have read and can only assume that the people making such comments were less than honest. This is the most moving and real portrayal of Joseph Smith that I have ever seen. It was well acted to the point that at times I forgot that I was watching a movie. It brought Joseph's life of hardship, good-natured optimism, enduring faith in people and God, and ultimate sacrifice to life such in a way that frankly left me speechless and silent in awe. If anyone, of ANY Christian religion can watch this movie without being touched in some positive way--I would have to say it is a reflection of the individual and NOT the movie. I give the movie a \"10\" and encourage honest souls to view it. At the very LEAST it is an extremely heart felt portrayal of man who gave everything he had for what he believed...In a world where values and beliefs are ridiculed, this movie stands as a enduring reminder of the kind of people we are supposed to be- no matter what religious beliefs we hold.- Ann Pruitt-", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Two qualifiers right up front: I actually think Joe Don Baker can be good or even great with the right material and the right director (the \"Cape Fear\" remake, a small role in \"Goldeneye\", \"Walking Tall\"). And I even liked Baker in \"Mitchell\", because he was playing an anti-hero who was SUPPOSED to be unlikeable. Yes, MST3K's coverage was hilarious, but they took a lot of cheap shots at Baker - that he didn't deserve - to keep things lively and entertaining - he was appropriate to the level and tone of the movie, and he was the best part of the movie.

\"Final Justice\" seems to be more of the same, but in spite of the exotic locations and the \"cowboy frontier justice\" theme, it is quite a bit weaker than \"Mitchell\". And the main reason is that Baker's character, as written, is an idiot. The movie has the conceit that because Baker embodies old style frontier machismo, he challenges his opponents to old style mano-a-mano quick-draw contests. And because he's so tough and macho, he always wins, even when he's hurt, wounded, outnumbered, etc.

That's a conceit with a lot of potential (it worked for Gary Cooper), even if it condemns the film to \"B\" movie status. But Baker is so frigging stupid and obsessive that he needlessly challenges three of the bad guy's henchman to a showdown in a public market, with civilians all over the place. He COULD have simply shadowed them to the chief bad guy's headquarters (which was why he was following them in the first place) and they never would have noticed. Or he could have gotten the drop on them and forced them to surrender, and gotten one of the henchmen to take him to headquarters at gun point. But no, he has to be a bush league hot dog and a macho blockhead, and so he gets a child taken as a hostage in the ensuing shootout!

This is a guy we are supposed to admire?

The whole movie is basically like this. Most of the supporting actors are somewhere between OK (the henchmen) to pretty good (the chief bad guy and his father, who are two well known European actors - they just go through the motions, but they are pros and even hamming it up they are decent). But through it all, Baker's character pulls silly , unproductive stunts and mistakes that get at least two relatively innocent people killed, plus a couple of bad guys who might have been taken alive without the use of deadly force.

On the positive side, since 90% of the movie is set on Malta or in the Mediterranean, you get to see lots of pretty scenery and lots of nice and exotic looking extras. And really, Baker himself may be on the heavy side and slightly dyspeptic, but he isn't that bad...certainly not the tub o' lard that this films critics (including Mike and the Bots in their hilarious coverage) seem to think.

In short, this movie is good for video wallpaper, but the viewer should not pay any attention to it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie was charming. An accountant wants more from life than the approved conventional success. What makes it work so well, and makes it so different from the standard dance movie is that it really isn't about becoming \"Great\" it is simply about finding a way to express one's self. The big triumph at the end is not the winning of a contest, not the discovery of a whole new life style, but the simple joy of doing what you want to fulfill the other parts of your life. No one is discovering their passion, they are finding their quiet soul.

The Japanese background makes the subtle oppression and \"secret life\" of ballroom dancing both understandable and personal. We can all see ourselves in the everyman.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.

The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Just finished watching American Pie: Beta House and I gotta say, this was such a garbage pile of crap. The first 3 American Pies were hilarious, the last 3 were a joke and should not have been called American Pie.

As you figured out from the title of the movie, Beta House, is about a fraternity, freshmen, girls and, the most original part of them all, falling in love. Of course, the guy that has his way with the chicks is Stifler, who, along with his mates, tries to complete another apparently impossible task. It was unrealistic and super fake. Its just really predictable and the plot is so weak. Both sides of the college battle to see who gets the whole thing (something like that) To sum it up: awful acting + dull script + wrong use of the American Pie franchise = total waste of time! This movie is unbearable. I give it a two out of ten, although most of it sucked there were lots of nudity and pretty girls, like 2 funny scenes :)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Poor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.

Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.

Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. \"Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind,\" she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.

Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.

The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.

Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.

Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.

Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When I saw this as a child, it answered all of my questions and dispelled any fears or misconceptions that I had. It is easy to watch because it is animated, which makes it unthreatening. It has no moral bias or \"preachy\" aspects, so nobody should have any objections to it. It is a pleasant film that simply gives the facts of menstruation in a reassuring, \"matter-of-fact\" way. I hope to show it to my daughter.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I personally liked \"The Prophecy\" of 1995 a lot. Christopher Walken was, as always, great, and even though the film wasn't flawless, it was a creepy and highly original Horror/Fantasy film that entertained immensely. This inferior 1998 sequel is still worth watching, but mainly due to Walken. Walken is one of the greatest actors around, in my opinion, and he is once again outstanding in the role of the fallen Archangel Gabriel, whom he plays for the second time here. Once again, the war between fallen and loyal Angels is brought to earth. Gabriel returns in order to prevent the birth of a child, namely the child of the angel Danyael (Russel Wong) and the human woman Valerie (Jennifer Beals). This child could once be the determining factor of the celestial war... As I said above, Christopher Walken is once again excellent as Gabriel. Besides Gabriel, however, \"The Prophecy II\" sadly also includes a bunch of terribly annoying characters. The character of Valerie was annoying enough, and Danayel annoyed me even more. The biggest pain in the ass, however was the character of Izzy (played by Brittany Murphy), a suicidal girl who wouldn't shut up. Still, Walken's performance isn't the only redeeming quality of the film. The entire film is quite dreary, and well-shot in dark colors, which contributes a lot to the atmosphere. Gabriel's resurrection scene in the beginning is furthermore quite impressive, and one of the coolest moments in any of the \"Prophecy\" films. \"The Prophecy II\" is nevertheless the weakest of the three \"Prophecy\" films with Walken. Definitely a Christopher Walken one-man-show, entertaining, but nothing beyond that.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The \"Wrinkle in Time\" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.

If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.

I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: \"In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'\"

I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Curly Sue is a 6 year old with an abundance of hair and a life as a drifter. She and her father, Bill (Jim Belushi), try to survive on the streets by being small time con artists. In Chicago, Bill decides to jump in front of a car in a pricey parking garage while Curly will scream about lawsuits and traction to the intended victim. It happens to be a very upscale lawyer named Grey (Kelly Lynch) who is appropriately appalled at what she has done. Not only do the scammers make some cash, they get to spend the night at Grey's plush apartment. Even then, Grey feels she owes them more so the three of them hang together for a spell. Grey only knows the lucrative law business and nothing about life. Who better to teach her than Bill and Curly, those savvy experts on life's realities? But, all good things must come to an end and there is no life for a legal expert and a couple of con men. Or is there? This is a sweet and funny movie about the unexpected. Curly is certainly as entertaining as Shirley Temple but much edgier, of course. Belushi gives a rare touching performance as the down on his luck con and Lynch is luminous as the snooty but soft touch lawyer. John Hughes, as writer and director, shows us his magic touch once again, as the script is lively and unpredictable. Just watch Curly and Bill take Grey out for a night, with no money, and see the humorous results. Do you long for happy endings, long promised and finally delivered, with a few uncertain moments in between? This is your made-to-order movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.

Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.

There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show.

Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Whatever rating I give BOOM is only because of the superb location photography of Sardinia and Rome. Otherwise, this is only for hardcore addicts of ELIZABETH TAYLOR (her downward phase), and RICHARD BURTON (his miscasting phase). Tennessee Williams wrote \"The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore\" and is supposed to be very fond of this adaptation of his play--but apparently, he was the only one. Taylor reportedly hated it and Burton needed the money.

Whatever, it amounts to a hill of beans with Taylor posturing and fuming in her shrill manner, exploding at the servants and exchanging bad baby-talk with no less than NOEL COWARD who seems to be a visitor from another film when he finally appears.

It's so campy that among Taylor fans it's probably considered a \"must see\" kind of thing. But if you can sit through this one without a drink in your hand, you're way ahead of me. Sadly, this is the film that signified the end of Taylor being taken seriously as a film actress, even after winning two Oscars. For Burton, it was equally disastrous and the critics called it a BOMB. Judge for yourself if you dare.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Steve McQueen has certainly a lot of loyal fans out there. He certainly was a charismatic fellow, one of the most charismatic the big screen ever knew. But even McQueen can't save this turkey of a film, shot with what looks like a brownie camera in the actual locations in St. Louis.

McQueen's a new kid with no criminal record brought into the planning of a bank heist by one of the other gang. There's more than a broad hint that there's a gay relationship going on between young Steve and David Clarke. He's not liked at all by the other heist members, mainly because of his lack of criminal resume.

Steve also has a girl friend in Molly McCarthy and she suspects something afoot, especially when he starts hanging around with Crahan Denton and James Dukas as well as Clarke, all pretty rough characters. That would certainly get my suspicions aroused.

The Great St. Louis Bank Robbery had two directors Charles Guggenheim and John Stix. Guggenheim did mostly documentaries and Stix didn't do much of anything. One of those two jokers decided Steve's performance was best served by doing a bad Marlon Brando imitation.

This film may go down as the worst ever done by Steve McQueen. I'm willing to bet that Dick Powell and Four Star Productions had already signed him for Wanted Dead or Alive because I can't believe they would have if they saw this.

Or they would have seen something the public would have overlooked except for the dressing for this turkey.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Story goes like this, Netflix was late sending me my dvds so I went on down to the the analog rental place known as \"Blockbuster Video\" They suck you know. Real bad, They have 150 copies of the latest lame movies for your viewing pleasure yet I never want to see any of those. So I saw BTK Killer there on the shelf, all by its lonesome self. I like seeing films based on serial killers. Its just a part of humanity that I will never understand, therefore I wanna see that kind of stuff. Anyways I put this DVD in and all the sudden from the very first second, it sucks. I'm sitting there with my b.f. and we are like, \"what is this kind of crap?\" Unsteady camera operation, horrible acting,- the first scene in which a woman gets killed you wonder if she would rather just calmly gab instead, Then a rat gets stuffed down her throat. I really wonder if the director has a hard-on for this crap. There is nothing decent about this \"film\". All I have to say to the director is \"do you own a freakin' tripod?\" Every shot was brutally unstable. The music was awful. It was like they just decided one day to make a movie. They were probably gathering people from WalMart to show up and \"act\" for them. Just plain awful. If you make a movie like this then directing is your hobby-NOT what you should be doing for a living- SHould not make it to the DVD renal outlets for movie buffs like myself. Better left at home for your friends when you are having a party and run out of interesting things to entertain them with.... Then you break out your BTK KIller film and say, \"Wanna see this crappy movie I did once?\"", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I loved it, having been a fan of the original series, I have always wondered what the back story would be - it didn't fail to delight me. I also love the fact that apart from Eric Stoltz I didn't recognise one person - this is refreshing, much like BSG. It has introduced me to a whole wealth of new talent - can't wait for the series to start airing. Well done to Ronald D. Moore and team - excellent job. The special effects, dialogue and acting were all spot on, and I felt emotionally tied up in the storyline. I know there are purists out there that will probably disagree with my assessment, but I felt that Caprica was far superior to most of the Sci-Fi stuff produced in the last decade.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In one of her first movies, Romy Schneider shines as young queen Victoria of Britain, as she is suddenly put into the throne at the age of 18, learns to govern despite the machinations of the politicians, and eventually romances and marries Prince Albert of Saxony. Kitschy and campy (though surprisingly faithful to the real events), this romantic piece is irresistible. Seeing this movie about British royals spoken in German adds to its quaint charm. On that front, one wonders why an Austrian movie was made about an English queen; but then one remembers that in 1954, Austria was still under occupation by allied troops, including British ones. Maybe this was one of the reasons for the existence of this film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I will give it a 3 just because it showed history that we need to know about, to prevent it from happening again. I agree with the comments from the gentleman from UK. The movie was pretty terrible. All cliché, no real plot. Historical and technical inaccuracies abound. Look up the technical specs on DE 529, or any Everts class Destroyer Escort, and you will see what I mean. I now its black history month in the US, and Im going to be called a racist just for saying this, but the history of this ship is not that great. They did some escort work, chased a \"submarine\" that turned out to be a hulk that they rammed. Sorry, but black people did a lot more in WWII then this silly movie gives them credit for. This movie makes them look like whiners. Let the name calling commence, I can handle it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw this movie on the Hallmark Channel and thought it was wonderful, especially since it was based on a true man. Pierce Brosnan was very good as the loner English man who took on the persona of the half breed Grey Owl. The photography was beautiful.

This movie made me do more research into this character Archie Belaney known simple as Grey Owl. I want to read as much as I can about him. At the time I did not know Richard Attenborough had directed it. But I am not surprised. I like all his movies whether he is acting or directing. I gave it the highest rating. However, I would have liked to have seen more in the movie about WHY he took on this persona as it only showed the two aunts who raised him and his room in their house.

You can't go wrong with this movie if you are like me and enjoy a beautiful story without hearing foul language and contrived special effects every few minutes.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you as I have a very close and long relationship with the world of Tintin....do yourself a favor and watch this beautiful documentary about Hergé and his life creating Tintin. I'ts so brilliant and a very cool production. The whole background story about Hergé and the people and also very much the many different situations he was influenced by, for good and worse is amazing. There is a very fine and obvious connection between the comic books and just this. I will for sure be in my basement digging up the Tintin albums again. Also, the movie itself are very well told and has a great ambient sound to it. I really do hope people will find this as intriguing as I did!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "

What an absolutely crappy film this is. How or why this movie was made and what the hell Billy Bob Thornton and Charlize Theron were doing signing up for this mediocre waste of time is beyond me. Strong advise for anyone sitting down to catch a flick: DO NOT waste your time on this 'film'.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Starring: Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Anniston I was really quite skeptical the first time I watched this movie. I mean, what a conceptual NIGHTMARE. Jim Carrey playing God? Nothing is sacred anymore.

Well, this movie is hardly sacred, but it also is not sacrilegious, at least not to any great extent. Yes, Jim Carrey has the powers of God for a while, but he is not God. Confused? I'll give you the low down.

Jim Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a reporter who is down on his luck and feeling very unsuccessful with his life. He lives with his beautiful girlfriend, Grace (Anniston), and you can tell right off the bat that they love each other, but the relationship is on fairly shaky ground.

Then Bruce gets a shot at anchorman, only to have it underhandedly stolen by Evan Baxter. Obviously not please, Bruce shares his thoughts with the world through the television in a way which is comical and definitely worthy of getting him fired.

Much complaining and griping about God later, Bruce gets a page. After a while he gets tired of it calling, so he responds and goes to the Omni Presents building (heh). There he meets God (Freeman), who is the Boss, Electrician, and Janitor of the building. I found this highly amusing. God is the Boss, the Holy Spirit is the Electrician, and Jesus Christ is the Janitor. Think about it. Boss, obvious. Electrician, the guy who keeps everything running. Janitor, the guy who cleans up the mess that the world has left. BRILLIANT.

Anyway, Bruce is a little skeptical about having actually met God, but when God gives Bruce his powers and gives him a shot at playing God, he starts to believe a bit. Wonder why. Enter the flagrant abuse of powers for personal gain and to abuse the enemies.

Since this is Hollywood, Bruce obviously eventually smartens up, learns his lesson, and starts using his powers for the good of the world. In the end he cries out for God to take it away and prays that His will be done, not Bruce's.

Since it is Jim Carrey, the movie is quite amusing, and there are definitely some highly entertaining moments in it. The movie is not perfect theology, but for Hollywood, it is definitely a good attempt. Many statements in the film can be quite thought provoking and even challenging, and I applaud Tom Shadyac for his effort in this movie.

So, while far from perfect, definitely an amusing popcorn movie with a little bit of thought behind it.

Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 4 (worth a view or two)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm surprised about the many female voters who even give this film better marks. My thought about this film was that the target audience is adult and male. Whipped and tortured women, merciless revenge and a high body count are typical ingredients, introduced into film history by the spaghetti subgenre. The opening and the hand-smashing are DJANGO rip-offs. THE SHOOTER however lacks the style of e.g. DJANGO. Score, acting and cinematography are mediocre at best but if you look for the above mentioned ingredients you are in the right place here. And the actors don't have an Italian accent.

4 / 10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers has got to be the worst television show ever made. There is no plot, just a bunch of silly costumed kids using martial arts while dressed up in second class spandex outfits.

The special effects look like they are from the '70's, the costumes look like something out of a bad comedy, and the show is just plain awful.

The only thing worse than the television show are the toys, just second rate plastic garbage fed to our kids.

There are far better shows for your kids to watch!

Try giving your kids something like Nickelodean, those shows actually have some intelligence behind them, unlike power rangers.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "From the beginning this movie did have a few flaws. The main character played by Hayden Christensen is a the rich young mogul who has inherited his father's considerable wealth and power, and he is struggling to both fill his father's shoes and cut the apron strings mother (and co-executive) keeps too tight. He also has the problem of having a heart condition and waiting in the limbo that is the organ donor registry. There are also minor back stories which your first instinct is to mostly ignore that become important later, such as his friendship with his surgeon (Terrence Howard) and his romance with a middle class girl (Jessica Alba). Uncreative story lines, but not bad enough to ruin the movie. The only real \"oy vey!\" moment was the name of Lena Olin's character. Overbearing woman named Lilith...subtle!

The surgical scenes are not at all censored. I appreciated that, people who find surgery scenes scary might not. The horror of being awake during anesthesia was done well at first. You watch in emotional agony as Christensen screams inwardly through the chest incision and the rib spreader. The moment of irony from the trailers then comes where while he is one of the unlucky few to be awake during anesthesia, he is also luck in that it helps him learn that his surgical team is planning to murder him.

The big twist, however, is very predictable and sends the film delving into the conspiracy and his memories of the little signs which were there but he, like us, initially missed.

There are two more twists at the end involving his relationship with his mother. One is an impressive gesture by Olin, which comes of as unimpressive due to poor writing. The other is a secret about the family's past which seemed very tacked on and pointless.

The initially well done anesthesia awareness drama gets lost in the poorly written conspiracy drama. There is a one final attempt to bring it back which falls flat, taking the entire movie with it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Having developed a critical eye for film, and a love for good cinema, I went to see Antwone Fisher with my breath symbolically held. While I am an unabashed fan of Denzel Washington - both of his skill as an actor and of his public persona; I am an honest enough fan to admit the (very few) times when he hasn't quite hit the mark in a film or two. And I could be wrong about those - after all, I am not an actor. But this was different - Denzel would pour his career's experience into, and guide, a film handling one of the most sensitive topics known to man - the abuse of a child. As his directorial debut, no less. And develop the film to point that it would successfully present the triumph of a man. I didn't want to be disappointed.

And I wasn't.

What I did see is a film full of promise that connected diverse audiences, and gave the inexperienced viewer a brief, but truthful eye into the life of a young man whose childhood was a living hell, but who triumphed despite it all. This film did it - and nary a dry eye of any color in the theatre proved it. It takes someone to know the topics in this film to know when truth is presented. It takes a talented filmmaker to tell you the story convincingly when you haven't experienced it. And if he can further draw an audience in, and cause an audience to emotionally respond, without pity, the filmmaker has done his job. In any film. Black, white, purple or polka dotted. That is what makes good cinema. Bravo, Denzel Washington, Derek Luke, Joy Bryant and most of all, Antwone Fisher - you have indeed won.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "even though this movie is quite old, no matter how many times i watch it, it still makes me laugh.

one particular quote in the movie stands out.

when Danny( Joe Piscopo) pulls up to the d.a's office & parks in a disabled spot, Danny's partner says

\" can't park here, it's for the handicapped\".

Danny replies \" i am handicapped,i'm psychotic\".

that is one of the many lines in the movie that no matter how many times you watch, it'll make you chuckle.

Johnny Dangerously stands in my top 5 comedy/spoof movies of all time.

As an added bonus it also includes the legendary actor Peter Boyle in the cast. So watch this movie & like myself & many others who have watched it, you'll be hooked.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Man's Castle is set in one of those jerry built settlements on vacant land and parks that during these times were called 'Hoovervilles' named after our unfortunate 31st president who got stuck with The Great Depression occurring in his administration. The proposition of this film is that a man's home is still his castle even when it's just a shack in a Hooverville.

Spencer Tracy has such a shack and truth be told this guy even in good times would not be working all that much. But in a part very typical for Tracy before he was cast as a priest in San Francisco, the start of a slew of classic roles, he's playing a tough good natured mug who takes in Loretta Young.

One of the things about Man's Castle is that it shows the effects of the Depression on women as well as men. Women had some additional strains put on them, if men had trouble finding work, women had it twice as hard. And they were sexually harassed and some resorted to prostitution just for a square meal. Spence takes Loretta Young in who's facing those kind of problems and makes no demands on her in his castle. Pretty soon though they're in love, though Tracy is not the kind to settle down.

The love scenes had some extra zing to them because Tracy and Young were having a torrid affair during the shooting of Man's Castle. And both were Catholic and married and in those days that was an insuperable barrier to marriage. Both Tracy and Young took the Catholic faith quite seriously.

Also in the cast are Walter Connolly as a kind of father figure for the whole camp, Marjorie Rambeau who's been through all the pitfalls Young might encounter and tries to steer her clear and Arthur Hohl, a really loathsome creep who has his eye on Young as well. Hohl brings the plot of Man's Castle to its climax through his scheming.

Man's Castle is grim look at the Great Depression, not the usual movie escapist fare for those trying to avoid that kind of reality in their entertainment.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "i just saw this film, i first saw it when i was 7 and could just about remember the end. so i watched it like, 10 minutes ago, and (i may seem like a baby as i am 12 ha-ha) i started to cry at the ending, i forgotten how sad it was. i think i was mainly sad for Anne-Marie because she said: 'i love you Charlie' and also: 'i'll miss you Charlie', just made me really cry ha-ha. it has to be one of me favourite movies of all time, it is just a film well worth watching. WATCH IT ha-ha, thats all i can say XD

but, i love this film, its a true classic.

xx Maverick xx 10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There are numerous films relating to WW2, but Mother Night is quite distinctive among them: In this film, we are introduced to Howard Campbell (Nolte), an American living in Berlin and married to a German, Helga Noth (Lee), who decides to accept the role of a spy: More specifically, a CIA agent Major Wirtanen (Goodman) recruits Campbell who becomes a Nazi propagandist in order to enter the highest echelons of the Hitler regime. However, the deal is that the US Government will never acknowledge Campbell's role in the war for national security reasons, and so Campbell becomes a hated figure across the US. After the war, he tries to conceal his identity, but the past comes back and haunts him. His only \"friend\" is Wirtanen, but even he cannot do much for the avalanche of events that fall upon poor Campbell...

The story is deeply touching, as we watch the tragedy of Campbell who although a great patriot, is treated by disdain by everybody who surrounds him. Not only that, but he also gradually realizes that even the persons who are most close to him, have many secrets of their own. Vonnegut provides us with a moving atmosphere, with Campbell's despair building up and almost choking the viewer.

Nolte plays the role of his life, in my opinion; he is even better than in \"Affliction\", although in both roles he plays tragic figures who are destined to self-destruction. Sheryl Lee is also excellent, and the same can be said for the whole cast in general.

I haven't read the book, so I cannot appraise how the film compares to it. In any case, this is something of no importance here: My critique is upon the film per se, and the film wholeheartedly deserves a 9/10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Take 4 couples whose relationships were already on the rocks and put them on an island paradise where they'll be tempted by 26 singles. This was the premise of the show, simple yet outrageous & funny. Leave it to Fox to throw morality out the window & let the debauchery flow. It was like a real-life version of Melrose Place. The good thing about the show is that it wasn't about people conniving & manipulating each other for a cash prize. It was about lust & temptation, pure and simple & the ultimate test for a relationship.

People either loved the show or hated it. It was kind of like slowing down to look at a horrific traffic accident. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help but look. Drama aside, there was a lot of eye candy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The second in the Vacation series is easily the least enjoyable one, as Clark Griswold wins a trip for the whole family to Europe.

The tasteless, below the belt humor that worked so well the first time around is practically nonexistent here. That fault surely lies with director Hackerling, who's obviously nowhere near as good a director as Harold Ramis and a very uninspiring script that has only a handful of decent lines scattered around.

The cast does what they can; Chevy Chase injects some form of life into the proceedings but it's simply not enough and the very funny Eric Idle is completely wasted in a small role as a very unlucky Englishman. Some potentially hilarious moments aren't played out to their full potential and leave the viewer mostly aggravated. All depictions of Europeans are one-dimensional and almost universally not funny at all (like how the English are SOOO polite).

Apart from a few scenes, there's hardly a laugh in sight and the ending turn this one into complete slapstick. But if you're a Chevy Chase fan (like myself) the film is watchable, but no more than that.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Depending entirely on your own personal state of mind when watching this, \"Christmas Evil\" can either turn out to become an ambitious and innovative psychological thriller OR one of the most pathetic and infuriatingly lame holiday-themed slashers ever made. Me, personally, I'm tempted to opt for the latter because I didn't bother to do any research at all and simply anticipated a cheesy and undemanding early 80's slasher with a nutcase in a Santa Clause costume butchering people. Wrong! The movie actually handles about a bloke named Harry Stadling; who's obsessed with Christmas, works in a rubbish toy factory and considers it to be his responsibility to determine on Christmas Eve who deserves presents and who deserves punishment. Harry's issues all started when he witnessed Santa – his daddy in a costume obviously – caress his mommy's naked legs at a tenderly young age. After that he just developed into a social outcast, much to the irritation of his younger brother, who's bound to snap one (holi)day. I fully understand why certain fans appreciate this slightly eccentric horror movie, but did it really have to be so boring? There are several overlong and seemingly endless parts of the film in which absolutely nothing happens. I can forgive the shortness of gore and outrageous bloodshed, but this movie doesn't even benefice from an unsettling atmosphere or unexpectedly demented plot twists (with the notable exception of the finale, I must admit). Also, I would have taken the concept more seriously if the crazed protagonist would focus himself on lethally punishing the naughty children! He doesn't and exclusively kills misbehaving adults. How are you supposed to take wannabe controversial and original Christmas thriller serious when Santa doesn't even commit one miserable child murder? THAT would have made \"Christmas Evil\" a classic, whereas now it's just a forgettable and pitiable piece of junk.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike \"Ray\" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.

The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.

That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.

And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The basic hook here is: Lincoln Is Slow. It is his slowness that represents his thoughtfulness and deliberation, making him a Great Leader who is here engaged in single-handedly civilizing the American frontier through the grand instrument of Law. All that John Ford hooey and more, including one lurking slave and extraneous Death By Injun. However! The 'slow' conceit is also at the center of one brilliant piece of movie-making, funny and moving at extremes. The history may be bunk, but the telling of it suggests a view of history as process that inspires some excitingly true-seeming moments. Check out Henry Fonda's big introductory stroll across the deck, his shockingly beautiful second visit with his girl by the river, his dalliance with Mary Todd on the porch, and the priceless business that follows 'Ma'am, we've got to hurry!' Things do thin out once we settle into the big courtroom drama; but Fonda is priceless throughout.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was a marvelously funny comedy with a great cast. John Ritter and Katey Sagal were perfectly cast as the parents, and the kids were great too. Kaley Cuoco was a good choice to play Bridget, who was sort of a toned-down version of Kelly Bundy from Married with Children. The writing and performances were both first-rate.

Sadly, John Ritter died during the series, and it put a damper on things. They had to scramble to change the show and bring in more cast members, and it was obviously an uncomfortable situation, but they handled it well. James Garner was a good addition. It could have lasted longer had Ritter lived.

I especially loved it when they brought in Ed O'Neill in a guest spot. That was great.

*** out of ****", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I really wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. That's because I love wacky foreign comedies--particularly the strange ones that catch you completely by surprise. However, although this one frequently caught me by surprise, these were almost never pleasant surprises. It reminded me of South Park in that nearly EVERY social norm was violated until the only ones left to broach were too sick to be funny. For example, after exploring adultery, drug abuse (of nearly every sort--ranging from pot, heroin, speed to glue sniffing), prostitution, S&M, suicide, murder, etc., the movie got to the hilarious(?) topic of pedophilia. Mom encouraged her one son (who looked about 12 years-old) to sleep with neighboring men. In fact, at one point in the movie she gives this boy to the dentist in lieu of payment for dental work! Funny?! You've got to be kidding. This movie just goes too far and delves into the \"black hole of comedy\". What should they make fun of next, cancer or rectal tumors?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was adopted at birth and certainly did NOT have the problems Antwone fisher had in the movie, but I still share some of the emotions and this movie really helped to bring them out and force me to deal with them. It even caused me to realize that I do have a \"missing piece\" and I am going to seek out my birthparents now.

I cried for almost a day after I saw this the first time. Antwone's confrontation with his birthmother juxtaposed with his father's family's reaction to his sudden appearance are powerful for those of us who don't know what will happen if we find our birth parents. And his self-confidence and self affirmations to his mother and against the abusers of his past were so powerful. I could really identify with this and my need to tell people \"yeah, I was put aside by my parents when I was born. BUT another set of parents picked me up and loved me. And now I am a success!\"

It also helped my wife understand me and our adopted children, who did go through tragic experiences before they came to our home. And it helped me to realize just how messed up our social system is. If you remember reading the story last year about the foster kid in Florida who was \"lost\" AND then the \"Miranda & Ashley\" story in Oregon City where SCF ignored multiple sexual abuse complaints about the man who ultimately killed them AND the week this movie was released, yet another story in New Jersey of three kids who were ignored by the system. One died. The state apparently thought the home they were in was ok because the guardian was employed (as a stripper) and \"only occasionally\" used heroin!

There are just so many issues that are brought out in this movie - and they are dealt with so well by the script and by the acting that Antwone Fisher should be a \"Best Picture\" nominee for sure. No matter if you are adopted or not, it is a heart-tugger that can't be ignored by anyone concerned about children in our society.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a typical 70's soft core sex romp in the Russ Meyer genre, though perhaps less outlandish than some of Meyer's work. This film has higher 'production values' than many of it's contemporaries, suggesting a larger budget. It's plot, writing and acting are straight out the B zone, though. Of late, this film has become a mainstay of B movie channels (such as \"Drive In Classics\") in the 500 channel universe. If soft core is what you are in the mood for, this is as \"good\" as anything else in the B range. Don't expect Polanski though, Sarno is just Sarno. Nothing more, nothing less. Jennifer Welles performance as the \"mother\" is perhaps the best of the cast. None of the actors in the film went on to greater fame, unsurprisingly. Confessions of a Young American Housewife is far from the worst example of it's kind. It is watchable, if this is your type of film. 30 years ago, this would have been an avant garde and riske film. You can see more or less the same kind of thing on Showtime/HBO series these days, and in prime time.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Lack of content in this movie amazed me the most. First i though that people was going to compare this to Rock On! but i'm really surprised myself to say that this was worst than Rock On! So-so story Horrible cast Ajay Devgan Jamming with Salman Khan and Asin you gotta be kidding me. The music was Okay Khanabadosh was the track of the movie the rest was bad! Vipul Shah hasn't still learn from Singh is King's critically bashed comedy. Now Asin.. where do she come from sorry for Asin's fan out there but she suck*d big time in this movie seriously bad acting she didn't look good at all overdose of make-up! My final verdict go watch Aladin with your family instead wasting your time here.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Othello, the classic Shakespearen story of love, betrayal, lies, and tragedy. I remember studying this story in high school, actually I found Othello to be probably my favorite Shakespeare story due to the fact of how fascinating it was, the fact that Shakespeare captured the feeling of friendship, love, and racism perfectly. I mean, when you really do study this story, you could go into so many philosophies on why Othello went insane with jealousy in the blink of an eye. But later on for my report I also watched this version of Othello and I have to say that it was absolutely brilliant. Lawerance and Kenneth just capture the story so well and understood it's darkness.

Othello is the big time soldier in his city, he is loved by everyone, including the king. But when the king finds out that Othello snuck off with his daughter, Desdemona, the king is infuriated, but excepts it. Othello is welcome in the city and makes his best friend, Cassio, his side man instead of Iago, who has stood by Othello. Due to his insane jealousy, he's out for revenge. Still pretending to be Othello's best friend, he just mearly hints at Othello that Desdemona is cheating on him with Cassio, never says that they are, just makes Othello think that it's happening. Othello is driven insane and doesn't have pleasant plans for Desdemona or Cassio and Iago is more than happy to help him out.

Othello is an incredible story, I highly recommend that you read it. It's an incredible story that keeps you thinking after you've read it. Othello the movie is also great and once again I recommend it, it captured the story perfectly and has a big tearjerker type of feel, or you could just be in utter shock of what happens between Othello and Desdemona, how quickly he believes that his true love would betray him. This is a terrific movie, great acting, good sets, and good direction, this is what Shakespeare meant when he wrote the story.

10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Why can't more directors these days create horror movies like \"The Shining\"? There's an easy answer to that: modern day directors are not Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick proved once-and-for-all with this movie that he is truly one of the greatest directors and auteurs of all time.

So, the plot is fairly simple. A man named Jack Torrance (played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson)and his family move into a large, secluded hotel to watch over it for the off-season. The kicker is that the previous caretaker of the hotel savagely murdered his wife and two girls. What follows can most readily be summed by the title of the movie, but you have to watch it to see what I mean.

This is the first movie in a very long time to strike me as \"scary\". It's some seriously messed up stuff, but in a good way. One of the things that adds to the scare factor is the amazing music. Music has been a major part of Kubrick's movies (2001: A Space Oddysey and A Clockwork Orange, just to name a couple) and he definitely doesn't disappoint with this one. The score completely sets the tone and this film would not be the same without it.

Finally, I must comment on Nicholson's legendary performance. Jack is terrifyingly convincing as a crazy killer. In fact, just his stare steals a few scenes of this movie. This is top-notch acting that must be seen to believe.

There will never be a horror movie that quite matches this one. R.I.P. Stanley.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Director Raoul Walsh was like the Michael Bay of the '40's and years before that. And I mean that in a positive way, since I'm definitely ain't no Bay-hater. His movies are just simple high quality entertainment, just like the Raoul Walsh movies were in his days.

\"Gentleman Jim\" is fine quality entertainment. Besides a first class director, it also features a first grade cast, with Raoul Walsh's regular leading man Errol Flynn in the main part.

What surprised me was how well the boxing matches were brought to the screen. They used some very dynamic camera-work, which also really made the boxing matches uplifting and exciting to watch, with the end championship fight against John L. Sullivan as the ultimate highlight.

Biopics of the '40's and earlier on were obviously still very much different from biographies being made this present day. Modern biographies often glorify its main subject and show his/her life from basically birth till death and everything, mostly emotional aspects, in between. 'Old' biopics were just made the same as movies that weren't based on actual real life persons, which also means that the film-makers would often use a use amount of creative liberty with the main character's personality and events that happened in his/her life. This movie is also not just a biography about a boxing legend but also forms a nice portrayal from the period when illegal bare knuckle fighting entered the modern era of boxing.

Errol Flynn does a great job portraying the real life famous boxer James J. Corbett aka Gentleman Jim. Not too many people known it but Flynn did some real good acting jobs in the '40's, of which this movie is one. Fysicaly he also looks in top-shape. He also looks quite different by the way without his trademark small mustache in this movie. The movie also features some fine supporting actors and some fine acting throughout.

A great and entertaining movie that also still truly holds up real well today.

8/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Cybil Richards directs another Full Moon/Surrender Cinema masterpiece of erotica. This time Jacqualine Lovell (dressed in rather fetching silver outfit) is tasked with destroying all evidence of sexual activity. However she can't resist watching the tapes and she kinda likes them. The sex scenes are well filmed and set to a superb soundtrack (at least for this sort of film). The cast are largely awful and mainly very average looking too. Jacqueline Lovell is her exceptionally attractive self and between viewing the sex files she manages to expose her chest and fumble a little down below. She also fits in a little lesbian activity. To be honest Lovell deserves so much better than this kind of fare. Here she looks great naked but actually is much more appealing in her silver attire narrating the 'drama'. Utterly rubbish movie with Lovell and soundtrack the only real redeeming features. Mediocre even for Surrender's output and clearly a new budget low for them also.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Although Lang's version is more famous,Borzage's work is not devoid of interest ,far from it:its \"celestial\" sequences are even better.The metaphor of the train (perhaps borrowed from the ending of Abel Gance's \"la roue\" ) is eventually more convincing than the \"up above\" heavenly world.

Borzage's tenderness for his characters shows in Marie's character and love beyond the grave is one of his favorite subjects (the ending of \"three comrades\" ).The amusement park seems to be everywhere: we see it even when we are in Marie's poor house.I do not think that the sets are that much cheesy,they are stylized to a fault.The fair from a distance almost gives a sci-fi feel to the movie.

Borzage never forgets his social concerns: in the heavenly train going up,the Rich cannot stand to be mixed up with the riffraff but as \"chief magistrate\" tells :\"here there's no more difference\" .

Not a major work for Borzage (neither is Lang's version),but to seek out if you are interested in the great director's career.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Jeremy Northam struggles against a \"Total Recall\" clone script and disposable romantic by-play to bring life to a confused character. Lucy Liu graduates her acting from a wooden start to a workman-like finish. You can't fail to laugh when viewing her interviews on the DVD when she uses the term \"Femme fatal\" and \"Romance\". French film-noir actress she is not and they lack chemistry together.

This movie fails, not in the plot or the action sequences but in the lack of attention to detail in the films photography and ham-fisted portrayal of the world of technology surrounding the main protagonists. Little attempt is made to dress the scenery to represent any contiguous filmic landscape or period. Automobiles are very 1990's and the architecture barely modern with open plans that hint at a restricted budget rather than conscious set dressing techniques.

The technology is positively hilarious. Massive \"2001: A Space Odyssey\" mainframes fed by man-portable CD-ROM's with data collected for some unexplained reason, in spite of the proliferating communications network that even the most un-savvy technologist today would obviously be aware. There is an obvious lack of research done here and given the open-source nature of the cyber-community, research would have cost little more than a bulletin board and personal time.

DVD interviews also reveal the original movie name was \"Company Man\" but this likely ditched in order to cash in on Matrix hype. The \"Cypher\" title has only the slightest link with the movie. Terry Gilliam would have done wonders with this concept; and completely re-written the Decalogue.

This is Tele-movie quality and extremely disappointing for a movie length production. It might have made a good sub-plot for \"Alias\".", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.

Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...

To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.

That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I just recently watched this on the Sundance channel. The idea for the film was to bring many filmmakers, illustrious in their own country, to make short films, eleven of them, all in one film, concentrating on just one subject: September 11.

From wacthing this movie I could tell why these filmmakers were great in their country because it had all elements of a great film.

The movie starts off with a film from Iran in which a teacher struggles to teach the students about what had happened with September 11 which they fail to realize until later.

The Second Film from France involves a deaf women who writes a letter to her lover angrily while she is unaware of what is going as the T.V plays.

The next film from Egypt involves the filmmaker himself talking with a dead soldier about recent events not only about terrorists of 9/11 but bombings in other places.

The next comes from Bolivia in which a girl learns about the events of September 11 and believes they must march for them.

The next from a country in Africa in which a group of boys follow a man whom they believe to be Bin Ladin.

The next comes from Mexico in which nothing is shown but the sounds of that day.

The next from Israel involving a reporter at the scene of a bomb trying to get a report but is frequently told about the attacks.

There are other films that I can't remember at the moment but all of them are powerful. It will bring back your emotions from that day.

10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Well here I go with another B industry movie. It's sad enough to see some badly made films but I don't care if a B industry or C industry produces the film. Show some effort in your work. The characters are really bad. The acting isn't in question in this one (surprise), but plot is. How can a tight-knit squad witness two of their fellow soldiers butchered, and then go on as if nothing happened. What sickened me was how the writer even threw in the remaining members a scene where they joke about how nice the doctor's ass was. Give me a break.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I remember stumbling upon this special while channel-surfing in 1965. I had never heard of Barbra before. When the show was over, I thought \"This is probably the best thing on TV I will ever see in my life.\" 42 years later, that has held true. There is still nothing so amazing, so honestly astonishing as the talent that was displayed here. You can talk about all the super-stars you want to, this is the most superlative of them all!

You name it, she can do it. Comedy, pathos, sultry seduction, ballads, Barbra is truly a story-teller. Her ability to pull off anything she attempts is legendary. But this special was made in the beginning, and helped to create the legend that she quickly became. In spite of rising so far in such a short time, she has fulfilled the promise, revealing more of her talents as she went along. But they are all here from the very beginning. You will not be disappointed in viewing this.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Saw this at the Hawaii Film Festival where the director and his wife (who produced it) took a Q&A afterwards.

I found it hard to believe this is a first time director and all kudos to Harvey Keitel for once again taking a risk and going out on a limb for a script he liked.

Certainly reminiscent of Cinema Paradiso, it tells the story of the young director on the turning of the revolution in Cuba. However, don't expect this to be a movie about the revolution, it's political stance is wonderfully ambiguous. Many references to the directors obvious love of film history (a great \"Bicycle Thief\" homage\") and some whimsical scenes which work with out being pretentious.

Enjoy!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Though not a fan of Sam Rockwell, I was surprised when I saw his name in the credits in the opening of 'Joshua.' Heck, I wasn't even aware he was in 'Joshua' until I started the movie. So it goes without saying, I was watching the movie on the basis of the movie, not the leads. A sort of 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'The Omen' or any other demonic kid movie 'Joshua' was billed. Unfortunately, it fell flat. Slow, incredibly slow, and flat. Yet, I continued on to see how this would all resolve, hoping beyond belief, the ending climax would shed some light on the subject. Okay, I admit, it did (a wee bit) but what a stale closing. And what a low-low budget movie, or at least that's how they designed it. A person falls – you don't see the drop, you see someone lying down in what appears to be blood. A person gets hit by a cab – you don't see it, you see someone complaining, holding a bike up. I'm not sure if this is called \"style\" or laziness or simply, lack of funds for special effects. We have a \"rich\" family with a crazy mom, a workaholic father attempting to balance everything, a kid – Joshua, who may/may not be the antichrist and a new born baby girl who cries a lot. She cries as much as we see how many days she's alive – and what was that about? Are there rats above or is it Joshua? Is his mother nuts? Is Joshua crazy? Is he merely jealous of the newcomer to the family? Is he going to grow up to be Michael Myers? Or does he drive his family to the brink? I don't think so. They were nuts prior, and no \"so-called\" acting could make me believe otherwise. Unfortunately, barely any questions were answered, barely any open doors shut. I'm sure that might have been the idea, but for Pete's sake, give me something. Anything. There are plenty better kid-gone-wild movies to explore. Joshua's more like the Mini-Me of the antichrist.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "this was a favorite Christmas Special that I wish that they would release on vhs or dvd , since my 33 RPM got lost,and any cassettes I made are also long gone.

I am not even a big John Denver fan but was very impressed with the music , which was mostly traditional favorites with a muppet spin ( esp Little St. Nick ! ) It also contained a few little known songs ( original ? ).

Even though it was done at the end of the '70's this show had a timeless feel to it. Hoping to find a copy soon !!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: \"I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book.\" True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The title of this movie doesn't make a lot of sense, until you see it in operation, because it's the sound that a retarded young man makes while he's operating his imaginary trolley, which is what he does all day. And he is just one of many odd characters in this surreal & at times, tragic tale of a group of slum-dwellers in Japan.

There are two drunks who trade wives, there's a man with aspirations to be a architect, and his young son who he sends out to beg for food. There's a wise old man who seems to be the pillar of sanity within all that goes on around him, and there's a businessman with some severe nervous tics that has a wife that treats him (and everyone else) like dirt.

There's no particular plot to this, really, it's a bunch of stories that drift back & forth between each other, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. All in all I thought it worked pretty well, & I had been dying to see this for a long time just based on its description. I was not in the least disappointed, and I'd definitely recommend this. 9 out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "i don't care if you'd like my comment or no but i think that you who write that the movie isn't good..you're so obsessed by the films of Hollywood that you can't see how good is this movie i'm not a fan of Jay Chou but i like his play and not only his... and may be you think that there is not a big sense in the idea and may be you think it's not so interesting but look deeply there is more than action in the movies more than love and passion and tears there is more than USA in the world and it's good :) really good. And it cost a lot to do it so please don't criticize the actors the directors cause you don't know how hard they work for you to be happy in this hour and a half watching them thank you :)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have seen this film numerous times and for the life of me, I cannot understand why some people compare this to BABE. This film is not about the secret life of ALL animals who secretly can talk. Instead, it is about a Parrot who learns to talk to help his owner, a little girl with a serious stammer, overcome her speech impediment only to be separated from her in a heart-wrenching scene early on. Then the great journey begins. Paulie the Parrot sets out to try and find his one great friend, Marie.

Along the way, he meets several wonderful people and numerous nasty people. He falls in love with a girl parrot and loses her. He gets conned into a life of crime and then captured by a bad scientist who wants to exploit him.

He recounts his tale to a sympathetic Janitor in the Lab who agrees to help him escape and find his beloved Marie.

Tony Shaloub shines as the kindly Janitor who has an open mind and big heart and who determines to help little Paulie despite the risks. Jay Mohr plays the voice of the Parrot AND one of the seedy characters he comes across.

There is a little suggestive language but this film is appropriate for most kids and even more so if the parents join in on the fun and watch too. It is a witty, clever, epic animal-adventure story and ultimately a great love story about a Bird and his little girl. He search for Marie ends with a quite an unexpected surprise for most people who don;t know much about Parrots.

Kids who have seen the wild Green Parrot Tribes in Los Angeles and Pasadena will especially benefit from seeing this film and understanding that Birds, especially Parrots are not disposable pets. All children everywhere, will see that Pets form deep attachments themselves and that the love and loyalty of a dog or parrot is a gift to be treasured.

so no BABE here, more of an incredible journey with a twist.

Enjoy and try no to tear up during the sad parts.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they \"claimed\" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.

It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!

And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.

If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!

Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Like the gentle giants that make up the latter half of this film's title, Michael Oblowitz's latest production has grace, but it's also slow and ponderous. The producer's last outing, \"Mosquitoman-3D\" had the same problem. It's hard to imagine a boring shark movie, but they somehow managed it. The only draw for Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy was it's passable animatronix, which is always fun when dealing with wondrous worlds beneath the ocean's surface. But even that was only passable. Poor focus in some scenes made the production seems amateurish. With Dolphins and Whales, the technology is all but wasted. Cloudy scenes and too many close-ups of the film's giant subjects do nothing to take advantage of IMAX's stunning 3D capabilities. There are far too few scenes of any depth or variety. Close-ups of these awesome creatures just look flat and there is often only one creature in the cameras field, so there is no contrast of depth. Michael Oblowitz is trying to follow in his father's footsteps, but when you've got Shark-Week on cable, his introspective and dull treatment of his subjects is a constant disappointment.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I can't believe I waste my time watching this garbage! I did because Leonard Maltin gave it an \"AA\" rating, and for TV movies this is usually a reliable indicator of some quality entertainment.

The acting was OK, but whoever wrote it should be forever denied access to any medium of communication. The plot is ludicrous, the motivations of the \"bad guys\" totally absent, and the various family interactions silly and shallow. For example, Dad preaches that violent reaction to aggression is BAD, but he turns out to be an \"admirable\" person NOT because of his \"ignore the idiots\" philosophy, but because he's pretty good with his fists...

The ONLY message I was able to glean from this pap was that the nuclear family is Good and alternate living arrangements are Bad. Oh, and Bad people happen to Good people.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What a movie! I never imagined Richard Attenborough could have such a movie in him. Gandhi has always left me indifferent, apart from Ben Kingsley's performance, and I never considered Attenborough a particularly good filmmaker. But Cry Freedom held my interest like few movies have in recent times. It's an exciting, mesmerizing political movie with great performances by Kevin Kline and a young Denzel Washington.

Kline plays Donald Woods, a South Africa newspaper editor who befriends the civil rights activist Steve Biko. It starts as a difficult friendship, for Woods sees Biko as a black supremacist preaching hatred against whites. But Biko, with his kind words, upbeat attitude and complete transparency, wins over Woods and introduces him to a reality about Apartheid that Woods knew nothing about.

Biko is a decent, law-abiding citizen who altruistically stands up against all prejudice and the system that keeps down his people. One night, coming from an illegal meeting, he's arrested and beaten to death. The authorities try to hush up the matter because Biko has become a huge personality in South Africa. But through the efforts of Woods the truth comes out. But what should be a triumph only becomes a nightmare as Woods and his family become targets for the secret police.

This movie has an interesting structure. It has in fact two narratives: first it narrates the life and death of Biko. It's an amazing first half, completely dominated by the charisma of Washington in what may be his greatest performance yet.

The second half, no less interesting, narrates Woods attempt to escape from South Africa to publish a book about Biko. Woods has become an enemy of state, a banned person, which means he can't meet people or leave his country. Plus he's constantly spied by the police. Kevin Kline gives a great performance in this second half too.

Although the first half is quite straightforward, the second does interesting things with editing, by giving flashbacks of Biko and of events that show the repression against the black South Africans. Some may argue this is to make it more interesting, but for me the second half just as captivating, as Woods and his family devise a bold plan to escape South Africa.

The last minutes were so heartbreaking I was in tears. George Fenton and Jonas Gwangwa's score certainly had something to do with it. Although I've never been much of a fan of Fenton (cannot stand his Gandhi score), I do think the score for Cry Freedom is one of the most beautiful ever composed for cinema. The movie, thanks to the music married to the powerful images, at times reached incredible peaks of emotion.

Cry Freedom is definitely not a movie just to watch because of Denzel Washington. This is a movie to be cherished in its entirety. Acting, writing, music, editing, cinematography come together in a perfect synthesis to create an ode to the power of the human spirit. This movie deserve a place alongside movies like The Pianist, Life Is beautiful and The Shawshank Redemption.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Just watched this after hearing about how bad it was and wanted to see for myself. Seriously, even if you read all the negative comments on here you will be nowhere near able to comprehend how awful this film actually is, although it has to be one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen! Never bothered to post a comment on here before, but this piece of crap really warrants it.

Firstly the entire plot is ridiculous and nonsensical. Brother of the lead character (either Ben or Arthur, I forget which is which, and frankly it's never very clear) wants to stop some kind of gay marriage by killing everyone in sight - because homosexuality is abhorrent to Christians, but apparently mass murder isn't. Then there's some other crap thrown in about one of the gay couple's ex-wife trying to force him to remarry her at gunpoint. This leads to nothing, but provides us with one of the funniest lines of dialogue in the whole \"film\" - \"I don't make sense? You don't make sense! That's who makes sense!\". Brilliant.

Then there's the acting, which is just atrocious. It must be seen to be believed. My personal favourite is the apparently stoned civil rights lawyer woman, who is clearly reading her lines off of something, yet still managing to mess them up. Enough said. The gay couple couldn't be less convincing. There's the vaguely attractive and completely gormless guy, and his boyfriend who looks like that little cartoon dough man of the bisto adverts. Only fatter. And less talented.

The \"film\" has also been filmed by someone who is incapable of holding a camera even remotely still, and the number of mistakes throughout is amazing. The whole thing kicks off with the fat main guy in bed with a pair of boots on. Yep.

But anyways, we all know how terrible this thing is, so I'd like to highlight some of the most priceless comedy moments that the \"film\" provides.

- When the fat guy sets the church on fire and then prances like a six year old girl across the car park to make his escape. Hilarious.

- Mildread! No idea what relation she is to the main characters - sometimes they know her, sometimes they don't, but she pops up in a couple of scenes nonetheless. Hilarious.

- The stoned lawyer. Already mentioned her, but she's so funny she's worth another mention.

- The evil brothers dinner of crackers that he lays on for his guests.

- The evil brother's anti-gay potion.

- The evil brother's cats.

- The ending, which I won't give away because it MUST be seen to be believed. I warn you though, make sure you're not eating at the time!!!! The tub of lard main character/director/producer gets naked. It's foul.

Basically, Ben and Arthur is indescribably bad, but unintentionally the most comical thing you'll see for a long time. Literally, nothing is good about this excuse for a film, the goon of a director even manages to make the opening credits into a joke by writing his own name about 15 times.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, \"That's it, that's the end?\" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A series of random, seemingly insignificant thefts at her sister's boarding house has Miss Lemon quite agitated. A ring, light bulbs, a rucksack, a lighter, a stethoscope, a shoe – there seems to be no rhyme or reason to any of it. Miss Lemon asks her employer, the great Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, to look into the matter. But what Poirot sees is something far more sinister than Miss Lemon could have imagined. And Poirot's fears are confirmed when one of the students living in the boarding house if found murdered. It's up to Poirot to bring a killer to justice.

Hickory Dickory Dock is a solid, but not spectacular, entry in the long running Poirot series. I appreciate how faithful the script is to Agatha Christie's original story. I realize that certain liberties had to be taken, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless. The major points of the mystery are all there – the petty thefts, the boarding house, the students, the ripped rucksack, and, of course, Poirot's ability to see something sinister going on before it actually happens. With a few exceptions, the cast of students is almost as I pictured them. Damian Lewis and Jessica Lloyd standout among the group. As mush as I always enjoy David Suchet's Poirot, I get a real kick out of the episodes with Phillip Jackson's Inspector Japp and Pauline Moran's Miss Lemon. This episode is a real treat as Miss Lemon gets more screen time than usual. Finally, I enjoyed the use of the ever present mouse as an observer of the activities in the hostel. It's a fun little play on the Hickory Dickory Dock title.

I realized while re-watching Hickory Dickory Dock just what a tremendous influence Agatha Christie's work was on the highly stylized Italian mystery films, or Gialli, of the 60s and 70s. Take the murder of Mrs. Nicoletis as an example. If you were to bump up the graphic nature of the scene, you would have something straight out of an early 70s Giallo. In fact, the entire plot of Hickory Dickory Dock could have been used in a Giallo. It's just convoluted and interesting enough to have worked.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It's interesting at first. A naive park ranger (Colin Firth) marries a pretty, mysterious woman (Lisa Zane) he's only known for a short time. They seem to be happy, then she disappears without warning. He searches for her and, after a few dead ends, stumbles upon some of her abused childhood and sleazy recent past, which may include criminal activity. And then, it seems the filmmakers didn't know what to do with the story. The beginning, while not as suspenseful as it sounds, is at least watchable. Then it ceases to be interesting or even make much sense. And the ending is so lame, so dull, and so devoid of any excitement or intelligence, you'll think the screenwriters didn't know what to do with it and got bored trying. What a sorry waste of a good idea!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A surprisingly interesting meditation on the nature of regret in terms of the way it relates to paranoia. There's a lot going on in this for having a run time of only 74 minutes, but it works. The scares are very subtle, not the jump-cut scares that seem to populate most recent Asian horror films. The way the \"scares\" are set up is similar to the disturbing moments in \"The Uninvited\" (aka 4 Inyong shiktak, directed by Su-Leon Lee), but this isn't nearly to the same caliber. The film does a nice job of balancing a classic ghost story with something more unusual and psychological. It's not perfect, but it does what it's supposed to do. I would recommend checking it out if you get a chance.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I used to love Sabrina The Teenage Witch and have seen every single episode. I remember when I used to sit at 6pm every night and wait for it to come on Nickelodeon, however when Sabrina left high school the show began to go downhill. The best series has to be when she was friends with Valerie (I'm not sure which one that is). From there the next series (friends with Dreama) was still really good, but when she left high school it just didn't seem right. All the main characters seemed to have left, which meant that it didn't have as much of the old \"sparkle\", however the first series where Sabrina is in college is still relatively good and watchable, however when her aunt's leave and Sabrina moves into their house it just isn't right. She is no longer a teenager, so therefore the name of the show isn't right and without Hilda and Zelda and Josh the show just doesn't seem right, especially when Sabrina nearly marries someone that isn't Harvey. Thank goodness he came through in the last five minutes of the last episode to take her away. All in all I still love to watch the old episodes of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, but I think the writers took it too far and should have left it with Sabrina leaving high school. Because after that the show definitely lost some of it's magic", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In the days before gore and sex took over, real horror films were made. Castle of Blood is, in my estimation, one of the finest, although other reviewers have given it mixed ratings. In an odd sort of way it reminds of the more recent The Others, which was in the theaters a couple of years ago.

Director Antonio Margheriti remade his own picture in 1970 titling it this time Web of the Spider (AKA Nella Stretta Morsa del Ragno). Why he did this I do not understand, although the remake starred Anthony Franciosa and Klaus Kinski and was very good in its own right. Perhaps he saw a good story and wished to tailor it more to American audiences. I do not really know. It is interesting that he did the original in black and white and the remake in color.

Castle of Blood is excellent Italian Gothic. La Danza Macabra is said to be an unpublished work of Edgar Allen Poe, who \"appears\" in this film. Poe and Lord Blackwood, owner of a haunted castle, bet American writer Alan Foster (George Riviere) that he cannot spend All Souls Night in said castle and survive. Foster eagerly accepts the bet but soon regrets it, for he is witness to a series of murders committed by ghosts. It seems that the ghosts come back to life once every few years but are doomed to re-enact the crimes they committed in life. Lord Blackwood conveniently forgot to tell Foster that his blood is needed for them to resurrect themselves on the next All Souls Night!

It does not take Foster and the beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (portrayed by the incomparable Barbara Steele) long to fall in love, even though their romance is doomed, because Elisabeth is one of the ghosts. I will not give the ending away, but will just say that Castle of Blood is every bit a romantic tragedy as it is a horror story.

Comments. This film is greatly atmospheric, even by the excellent standards of the Italians. My personal opinion is they do true horror better than anybody, and the somewhat dim black and white filming only enhances this. In fairness, Web of the Spider was fine in its own right, even with color and greater brightness. I loved the lingering shots, something most modern day directors do not have the patience for. Indeed, when Alan first enters the doomed castle, we are treated to several minutes of him doing nothing but roaming around from room to room, the dread ands unease building in his face and mannerisms. By the time the first ghost appears, the audience is thoroughly primed and ready. There is wonderful dialogue between Alan and the ghosts, something else not often done in standard ghost stories. There are also memorable scenes, very visual for this type of film. Elisabeth's \"murder\" and the dance scene (reminds somewhat of the similar dance of the ghouls in 1962's Carnival of Souls) were particularly good.

Sadly, few general interest viewers will ever hear of, much less see, this film. That is a shame, for this one is a cut above the rest. I got my copy from Sinister Cinema and am not certain if it can be purchased anywhere else. For persons interested in this genre, it is a must see.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Right at this moment I am watching this movie for the second time (on television) and for the second time I fell into it when it was running for an hour already (I think I saw 2 minutes more this time) This movie is really impressing, the way Goldsworthy looks at nature, changes nature in a way that you yourself would never think of, really is amazing. This whole movie gives you a warm feeling, seeing him play with the world around him with such love. Or only seeing his hands, covered in dirt and with broken fingernails, it just touches you.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.

Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. (\"Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben\") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just \"do their thing\". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.

Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.

My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)

Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Sigh… I sincerely wonder why all the acclaimed and supposedly profound movie critics hold such a grudge against director Michael Winner? Surely he isn't the avatar of subtlety, as his films are practically always hard-handed and confronting, but so what? They're awesomely entertaining. His most famous action movies, like the first three entries in the \"Death Wish\"-series for example, are easy targets to clobber down because they allegedly glorify violence and the personal use of shotguns, but even when Winner takes on far more mature cinema genres – like the religious horrors of \"The Sentinel\" for example – he doesn't stand a chance with any of the critics. \"The Sentinel\" generated some controversy and infuriated several people upon its release, when it leaked that Michael Winner cast genuinely malformed and handicapped people to portray the creatures attempting to cross the gateways between hell and earth. Pretty much the exact same controversy caused Todd's Browning's masterpiece and landmark in horror cinema \"Freaks\" to remain banned and unseen for over thirty years! And why? Just because certain prudish and easily offended people, who shouldn't watch the movie in the first place, claim it's an unethical thing to do? I don't suppose Michael Winner or Todd Browning held these people at gunpoint or forced them to appear in their films, so what gives us the right to feel embarrassed in their place? Another major reason why critics didn't warmly welcome \"The Sentinel\" is because Jeffrey Konvitz' novel – and thus Michael Winner's screenplay – is hugely derivative of other contemporary but far more successful religiously themed horror stories and thus, according to the merciless pens of horror critics, little more than pure plagiarism. Admittedly \"The Sentinel\" borrows multiple substantial elements from \"Rosemary's Baby\", \"The Omen\" and \"The Exorcist\", but let's face it, 70's cinema largely thrives on stolen formulas and imitating success stories. If you overlook the slightly unoriginal concept and, in all fairness, a handful of thoroughly confusing and unnecessary sub plots, \"The Sentinel\" honestly still remains a uniquely atmospheric and often downright petrifying 70's horror-highlight with an impressive ensemble cast and nightmarish imagery you're not likely to forget easy.

Alison Parker, a ravishing model with some unprocessed mental traumas, moves into a stunning brownstone apartment in Brooklyn, deeply against the will of her boyfriend Michael who proposed to wed her several times already. Alison's physical existence and especially her mental condition drastically alter shortly after, and the ominous apartment appears to be the root of all misery. She meets eccentric neighbors and attends birthday parties for their cats, even though the landlady claims she and a blind priest are the only tenants. She frequently faints during her work assignments and has truly creepy visions of her bastard father and the night she attempted to commit suicide. It slowly becomes clear that Alison got chosen to serve a higher supernatural purpose inside this apartment building, but simultaneously malignant forces try and prevent this. It's truly regrettable how the promotional taglines and even brief synopsis on the back of the DVD immediately reveal that Alison's brownstone apartment is the earth's gateway to hell itself and she's the chosen one to guard it, because the film's script only slowly builds up towards this shocking revelation. For nearly 75 minutes (and throughout some sadly tedious and overlong sequences) Michael Winner successfully maintains the impression that Alison's own mind is playing tricks with her and that the involvement of the Catholic Church and her fiancée's odd behavior are strictly red herrings. Multiple of the horrific scenes come pretty close to being genius, like Alison's flashback or her first acquaintance with the priest upstairs. The whole climax, with the controversial guest appearances mentioned here above, is a literally perplexing showcase of pure terror and easily one of the most unforgettable and nail-biting denouements I ever witnessed.

The cast Michael Winner managed to gather is deeply impressive, especially considering \"The Sentinel\" still remains a legitimate horror movie and this genre isn't the most popular among prominent actors, but of course you also have to put the cast listing a little into perspective. With such an extended cast, obviously several of the roles in the film are little more than cameos. Martin Balsam and John Carradine, for example, only appear on screen for a couple of minutes all together. Several others (like Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Beverly D'Angelo and Tom Berenger) perhaps add a lot of fame to the movie nowadays, but back when it was released they were still too unknown in order to attract curious viewers. My personal pick for best performances go to Burgess Meredith as the uncanny neighbor and Eli Wallach as the satirical police inspector. The relatively unknown Cristina Raines does an admirable job carrying the film and Chris Sarandon neatly back her up, even though he sports a ridiculous mustache. In my humble opinion \"The Sentinel\" is a marvelously entertaining and frightening horror movie, and most definitely a must-see for TRUE genre fanatics.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Across the country and especially in the political landscape, people with any kind of political ambition, should take time out to see this film. The movie is called \" City Hall \" and with little imagination, its synopsis can take place anywhere in America. It just so happens to open in New York. Here we have the story of a popular politician named Mayor John Pappas (Al Pacino) with enough savvy to run a major metropolitan city with very little effort. His right-hand man is none other than Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun (John Cusack) an equally bright individual who's ambitions are tied to his mentor and both seemed destined for higher office. Everything points in that direction, until a police shooting ignites an investigation spearheaded by Marybeth Cogan (Bridget Fonda) who believes the guilt points towards city hall and the mayor. A six year old boy and a police officer's death are blamed on a career criminal who's questionable freedom leads to an apparent cover-up by political pay-offs and city corruption involving union leaders like Danny Aiello played by Frank Anselmo, corrupt judicial officials like Judge Walter Stern. (Martin Landau) and mafia bosses like Paul Zapatti (Anthony Franciosa) who are deeply involved. Also implicated, are party officials like Larry Schwartz (Richard Schiff) who works for the probation office of New York. But it is the bond between the mayor and his deputy which is taken to task by the accidental shooting. A great vehicle for Cusack and a sure bet nominee to become a classic. ****", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "it was the worst ending i have ever seen if some one can please tell me how and why the last chick goes crazy and eats the old women in the end. why dose the movie have all those cheap crappy scares in it in the beginning but yet when the first person dies they kill them all off in 5 minutes! most of the people could act but i do give so credit to the porn stars they did their best. also it had a couple funny parts and kills like when the care taker gets his organs riped out of his ass and then gets choked with it. if this movie had an ending that could make any since i would have given it a 8 out of 10 but the ending made no since. the ending sucked but the rest was great", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The thing that makes this movie so scary is the way that it portrays Andre and Calvin as (relatively) normal guys. These are definitely not people who want to become professional filmmakers since they goof around in front of the camera, forget scripted lines, etc. They are only making the video as a diary to show 'the survivors' how normal their lives were. Their parents just think the guys are filming for a family home video. By researching other kids attacks on their schools, Andre and Calvin learn what not to do and they inform (usually in a silly 'This Old House' kind of way) any potential 'Andres and Calvins' who might be watching this video how to make bombs, get weapons, and not get caught before Zero Day (the day of the attack).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...

This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.

Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.

Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.

666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Having ran across this film on the Fox movie channel on a lazy Friday afternoon, I can think of no better way to spend a lazy Friday evening then putting in my two cents worth. Especially when you consider the lack of user comments on it. Doesn't every movie, good or bad deserve more than four comments? And this movie isn't bad at all.

The first thing to keep in mind when watching a film like April Love is to remember the era from which it came, in this case the late fifties. Films were pretty much a happy medium back then. The cinemas were devoid of tragedy while the screens were filled with wide screen Technicolor films in order to pry people away from the gray glare of the evil medium in a box called television. I don't know how many people were pried away from the boob tube to see this one, but it managed to capture my attention for 97 minutes.

Teen Idol Pat Boone plays Nick Conover, a young teen sent to live with his Aunt Henrietta (Jeanette Nolan) and Uncle Jed (Arthur O'Connell) out in the country after being put on probation for stealing a car. It seems that his Aunt and Uncle have lost their own son (Jed Jr.)so Uncle Jed seems has lost his zest for living. Aunt Henrietta is hoping that Nick being on the farm will somehow bring Jed out of his doldrums. Story lines like this being what they are, Jed and Nick don't really care for each other too much of course. Jed then proceeds to meet up with the neighbors, Fran (Dolores Michaels)and Liz (Shirley Jones)Templeton. Immediately Jed develops a crush on Fran, and of course I don't have to tell you that Liz develops a crush on Jed. Then there's the matter of Uncle Jed's horse, a trotter who has turned wild and won't let anyone handle him since the death of Jed Jr. You could probably fill in everything that happens from that point on your own, seeing as how there are no real surprises. Doesn't matter though, you'll enjoy yourself anyway.

Once you get over the image of squeaky clean Pat Boone, as a supposedly bad boy, you'll have no trouble with the rest of the film. Considering that, Boone does turn in a surprisingly good performance as Nick. Certainly the role doesn't require much depth, but still it's a nicely done job when you would least expect it. As Jed, Arthur O'Connell is the perfect choice for the role. In the early going, he is unreachable and cold, but as he slowly warms up to Nick, we see that he's really a pretty good guy. Jeannette Nolan is a lot of fun as Henrietta, who is constantly playing the part of mediator between Jed and Nick. Shirley Jones takes a break from Rodgers And Hammerstein and gets a few opportunities to grace us with her singing talents. As Liz, she's gorgeous to look at, great to listen to, and quite funny at times. Dolores Michaels as Fran, who is a bit more on the wild side, is equally entertaining.

The best thing about April Love, is that there is not a true mean conniving character of any sort on the screen. Not one true villain in the whole thing. Everybody is so darn likable you can't help but enjoy the film. I truthfully find it quite refreshing, sort of like putting your troubles behind you and enjoying a summer picnic with friends. Think of it as the old Andy Griffith show with musical numbers, a little more plot, and wide screen Technicolor. The songs are a mixed bag, with the title song April Love being the best of them. Another thing I really liked is that they didn't fall back on using blue screen backdrops during the horse racing sequences, and they quite a bit more entertaining and exciting because of it. As a matter of fact, you'll find the whole film beautifully photographed and it was nice to see they didn't skimp in that department. The chemistry between Jones and Boone is good. Best of all is how the dislike between Nick and Jed is portrayed as each try in some way to gain the others respect.

This movie will never be confused with great cinema. Yet, sometimes instead of going to Disneyland, one just needs a nice outing in the park, and that's what April Love is.

My Grade: B+

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I went to the movie theater this afternoon expecting to be underwhelmed by Scoop. Happily, the film exceeded expectations, at least a little bit. It's nothing heavy, nothing deep -- and not anywhere as good as any number of real Allen masterpieces -- but it's also completely enjoyable as a light, bantering comedy. There's something kind of simple and sweet about it. \"Cute\" was the word I heard from people in the audience as they were walking out after the show. It doesn't feel like Allen set out to create a masterpiece here, it feels like he wanted to make a little comedy and have fun doing it. Compared to just about everything Hollywood is producing, Allen's stuff has a tendency to charm. Even the fluffy stuff. These days it's just refreshing to go to a movie made by an actual human being.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Watching Fire and Ice for the first time reminded me of my experience seeing 300 last year. It wasn't at all a bad movie, certainly not average, but its plotting and dialog stuck out as being at best conventional and at worst kind of confusing and one-dimensional (which, perhaps as based on Frank Miller's comic book, was the right decision to go with). But its primary strengths drew from the intense action and bloody battles and having that jolt of a 14 year old feeling watching beefcake men fighting in bloody sword-led combat, with the occasional freaky creature or super-hot female to go with the painterly surroundings. While I would probably re-watch Fire and Ice before 300 again, they both aroused that similar feeling - the exception this time being, naturally, that it's Frank Frazetta, the infamous artist and designer of countless paperback books and comics, collaborating with director Ralph Bakshi, in what isn't typical Hollywood fare but something for the die-hard fans.

What this means for audiences today going back to check out the film for the first time (it may now be coveted nostalgia for those who were young and watched it along with their Masters of the Universe VHS tapes back in the day) is the possible cons mentioned before and, maybe, that you will see something somewhat unique. Fire and Ice isn't even the only Bakshi rotoscoped feature, but it's possibly the most fluid- if not quite my personal favorite- of the few he made, and he and his team create a whole striking world that's part pre-historic, part out-of-this-world fantastic, and part medieval, and all touched up with a painters hand with respect to the backgrounds, the skies and grounds. There's a slight drawback for Bakshi fans in this facet of character design; Bakshi went as far as to say it's more Frazetta than him. This may be true, but it doesn't make it any more absorbing to the eye or curious in those moments where we don't see people killed or gutted in quick or slow motion (my favorite was the momentary skeleton-guide- how they rotoscoped that amazes me).

I neglect describing the plot as it would defeat the purpose of really recommending it. If you're already a die-hard into this kind of style and approach of animation the plot will matter depending on what degree two warring factions or a 'damsel' or princess is in danger or a hero has to prove himself or yada yada, so suffice to say it's about, well, Fire against Ice, with characters named Nekron and Darkwolf (the coolest male of the lot and most comic-book in appearance) and Teegra (the typical hottie who's almost *too* perfect for the adolescent male fantasy figure). What the plot does do, as an asset, is allow a series of cliffhangers and suspense bits around the action, the progression of the danger in the oncoming big battle, like when the ogres are hunting after Teegra and have to contend with sudden crazy monsters and creatures popping out of tree trunks and lakes. And per usual for Bakshi, he conjures up some craziness (if not quite his usual inspired lunacy) in the midst of all of this straightforward fantasy material. If you've seen Wizards, you'll understand what I mean to a lesser extent.

So, if you're an animation buff, seek this out right away for some 'old-school' (i.e. 1980s) action and incredible design. For everyone else, it's... good, not great, as I would say without fault about its logical 21st century extension, with some alterations, 300.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Almost in the same league as Yonfan's rather atrocious Color Blossoms, Spider Lillies drives the point home that you can make cutting edge cinema without the edge, or much in the way of cutting. It's a Taiwanese film, which in this day and age is becoming a novelty at an alarming pace, but more than that tidbit, we can find very little in the way of the noteworthy here.

You should know that ostensibly Spider Lillies is also a lesbian-themed story, but in every aspect this is nothing but a plastic ploy to lure in the easily seduced and gullible. In several ways we have here a repeat of fellow recent Taiwan release Eternal Summer. Then it was gay men getting the shortchange treatment, now we have the same thing with women. Zero Chou presents, for your non-existent edification, a tale likely to titillate at most a fifteen year old. They managed some of the art house stance, but in the end this results in a most inane, simply uninteresting foray.

The Hong Kong angle comes in the form of Isabella Leung (Bug Me Not, Isabella, Diary), here sporting her most butch look yet. Although somewhat likable in her previous jobs, Isabella in Spider Lillies is listless and lacking in most departments. Either her heart wasn't into it or the whole lesbian drama pitch didn't quite appeal to her sensibilities.

She does a Taipei tattoo artist who's shy, reclusive and in charge of a mentally challenged younger brother, played by John Shen, who thankfully grants the movie its only thespian-related redeeming feature. Isabella's character, oddly named Takeko but supposedly hailing from Hong Kong, soon hooks up with disaffected youth Jade (Rainie Yang from fondly-recalled Meteor Garden). The latter lives with her grandmother and has a whole list of grievances due to being left behind by her parents and life in general. Sure, the grandmother component works well and is touching, but otherwise Jade as a protagonist is just as unmoving as her counterpart Takeko.

The two women share a past and lots of inadequately covered angst, with Jade working as a webcam girl while Takeko keeps her father's legacy alive with a unique tattoo of a spider lilly emblazoned on her arm. Jade also wants to acquire this very design, which leads to Takeko exploring internal feelings of the issue via flashbacks and rather minimal discourse with the spunky Jade.

Well, if there's little discourse to write the homebase about, is at least the intercourse memorable? In a word, no. They kiss and feign doing the nasty close to the end, but just as Eternal Summer reminded us not long ago, there's a gulf measured in lightyears between showing sexual content and making ticket buyers think they're about to see sexual content.

This cynical expectation-building seals Spider Lillies' fate. With a weak story, ho-hum acting and an overall dearth of relics to take away from the theater with you, this one kind of makes Color Blossoms look good, come to think of it. At least there we got a bit of Teresa Cheung's mammaries. No, Spider Lillies is no AV masterpiece and should be stricken from the playlist of even the most mundane and timid GLB movie festival.

Amazingly for a pseudo-indie release, not even the soundtrack and cinematography produce moments of inspiration. That's just as well, since it makes passing on Spider Lillies much easier. Believe you us, avoid it and you won't be missing out on anything good.

Rating: * *", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.

I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Perhaps because I was so young, innocent and BRAINWASHED when I saw it, this movie was the cause of many sleepless nights for me. I haven't seen it since I was in seventh grade at a Presbyterian school, so I am not sure what effect it would have on me now. However, I will say that it left an impression on me... and most of my friends. It did serve its purpose, at least until we were old enough and knowledgeable enough to analyze and create our own opinions. I was particularly terrified of what the newly-converted post-rapture Christians had to endure when not receiving the mark of the beast. I don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it so I will not mention details of the scenes, but I can still picture them in my head... and it's been 19 years.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It takes a Serbian or at least a Balkan familiarity to understand and enjoy many of the situations, characters and jokes of 'Zavet' as well as of many other films of Kusturica. See for example the opening scenes, with the remote village in the Serbian mountains, with the low-tech devices that defend the integrity and way of life of the inhabitants, the nostalgia for the good days of the Communist rule, and the awakening of the young brat watching his nude teacher at the sounds of the Soviet hymn. Kusturica not only tries to depart from the tragic history of Serbia described in his previous movies, but creates a whole world of himself in the process.

This is not a political film or not an explicit political film in any case. It's a fun film before all. Kusturica creates a set of characters that we care about. Music plays an active role in this film same as in all his other movies. His style is direct and grotesque, we now what he feels about his characters and we know that he wants us to feel the same. The space he develops melds present, history and magic, and the colours seem to be of a Douanier Rousseau of modern cinema.

This is not a perfect film either. The principal flaw is the length, some editing and shortening would have been useful, as at some point in time the director seems to have run out of ideas and repetitions show up. It is yet one of the most catching, amusing, moving films that I have seen lately.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In the old commercial for blank audio cassettes, the tag line was \"is it real or is it Memorex?\" The same might be said for the events in this episode - a compilation and remix of \"The Cage,\" the first pilot of Star Trek. Mr. Spock has cleverly commandeered the ship to take it to the forbidden planet Talos IV in order to allow Capt. Christopher Pike, his first captain who has been burned and paralyzed, to return there. Why the finagling? Because to have any contact at all with Talos IV invites a death sentence. Why this is so is never explained - that bothered me tremendously - but, if nothing else, it adds to the story. After he has gotten the ship to travel to Talos IV, Mr. Spock turns himself in to Dr. McCoy (the senior-most officer present; Capt. Kirk was off the ship) for arrest and says, \"The charge is mutiny, Dr.; I never received orders to take over the ship.\" What follows is a court martial in which - thanks to the Talosians - we learn why it was so important (besides the obvious paralysis) for Capt. Pike to get to Talos IV even at risk of Mr. Spock's death. The illusions the Talosians create, the background music and the entire storyline are fantastic. And Meg Wyllie as The Keeper (the head Talosian) is wonderful. Call me sexist but it never occurred to me to have a woman in that role but she was perfect! The Talosians, having given up almost all physical activity and becoming almost completely reliant upon the power of illusion, are also unisex; you can't really tell if they're male or female and it really doesn't matter. This episode, more than almost any other in the series, makes me hope and pray there are other worlds out there and that there are civilizations that are so far advanced! What a neat thing if this were so! This is one of my favorite episodes and, no matter how many times I've seen it (I even have it on video), it never fails to fascinate me. Meg Wyllie LOOKS like an alien and I do NOT mean that unkindly.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is one of the best animated family films of all time. Moreover, virtually all of the serious rivals for this title came from the same creative mind of Hiyao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli. Specifically, other great films include \"My Neighbor Totoro\" and \"Kikki's Delivery Service.\" Spirited Away is quite good, but a bit too creepy for typical family fare - better for teenagers and adult. The one thing that sets \"Laputa: Castle in the Sky\" apart from other films by Miyazaki is that it is far more of a tension-filled adventure ride.

Why is this film so good? Because it's a complete package: the animation is very well done, and the story is truly engaging and compelling.

Most Japanese anime is imaginative, but decidedly dark or cynical or violent; and the animation itself is often jerky, stylized, and juvenile. None of these problems plague Castle in the Sky. It has imagination to burn, and the characters are well drawn, if slightly exaggerated versions of realistic people. (None of those trench-coat wearing posers) There is plenty of adventure, but not blood and gore. The animation is smooth, detailed, and cinematic ally composed - not a lot of flat shots. The backgrounds are wonderful.

The voice acting in the dubbed English version is first rate, particularly the two leads, Pazo (James Van der Beek) and Sheeta (Anna Paquin). The sound engineering is great, too. Use your studio sound, if you've got it.

One aspect that I particularly enjoyed is that much of the back story is left unexplained. Laputa was once inhabited, and is now abandoned. Why? We never know. We know as much as we need to know, and then we just have to accept the rest, which is easy to do because the invented world is so fully realized. Indeed, it is fair to say that the world is more fully realized than most of the minor characters, who are for the most part one-dimensional stock characters (e.g., gruff general, silly sidekick, kooky old miner, etc.) Highly recommended for people aged 6 to 60!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Shall We Dance is an excellent film because it shows how something, like dancing, can rejuvenate the life flow in the human spirit.

Dance is seen as the expression of existence, and the birth of individuality. The is certainly the case with Aoki. At work he is a humble office denizen, but place him on the dance floor and all his bottled up intensity is released. Surprisingly, this release is frowned upon in Japan, due to the rigid culture of conformity. At the start of the film, all the characters are ashamed or frightened of their desire to dance. They will be scorned, or deemed perverted, for expressing their passion through dance.

This film is well worth watching to witness the rebirth of human emotions and passions. It will leave a smile on your face for days.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Winchester '73 is a great story, and that's what I like about it. It's not your everyday western--it uses a rifle, which passes hands from various characters--as a mechanism for telling the story about these people. Rock Hudson plays an indian chief, Jimmy Stewart plays a great leading man with heart and strength, and Shelly Winters plays a gal who has to cope with the realities of her husband and the wild west. It's important to note for those politically correct types--they kill a lot of indians in this movie without remorse. By today's standards, it's still pretty violent. But it's a great story and worth watching. Enjoy!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I think this movie would be more enjoyable if everyone thought of it as a picture of colonial Africa in the 50's and 60's rather than as a story. Because there is no real story here. Just one vignette on top of another like little points of light that don't mean much until you have enough to paint a picture. The first time I saw Chocolat I didn't really \"get it\" until having thought about it for a few days. Then I realized there were lots of things to \"get\", including the end of colonialism which was but around the corner, just no plot. Anyway, it's one of my all-time favorite movies. The scene at the airport with the brief shower and beautiful music was sheer poetry. If you like \"exciting\" movies, don't watch this--you'll be bored to tears. But, for some of you..., you can thank me later for recommending it to you.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Carlo Verdone once managed to combine superb comedy with smart and subtle social analysis and criticism.

Then something happened, and he turned into just another dull \"holier-than-thou\" director.

Il Mio Miglior Nemico can more or less be summarized in one line \"working class = kind and warm, while upper-class = snob and devious. But love wins in the end\".

Such a trite clichè for such a smart director.

There isn't really too much to talk about in the movie. Every character is a walking stereotype: the self-made-man who forgets his roots but who'll become \"good\" again, the scorned wife, the rebellious rich girl who falls for the honest-but-poor guy... Acting is barely average.

Severely disappointing under every aspect.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Wow. I don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.

The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.

There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the \"daughter\" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her \"dad\".

That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.

Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent \"PokeMon; the First Movie\".", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "At the beginning of the movie, the beautiful photography and the scenes of the fox were amazing. However, the story was so very slow and boring. And then the little girl begins to domesticate the fox, which leads to tragic events. We live in the forest, and frequently see foxes. One thing anyone should know is that you leave wild animals to be wild, and enjoy them from afar. This movie sets a terrible example to the children who will be watching it, in trying to make a wild creature into a pet. I do not know what the point of the story was supposed to be. Even after the terrible events with the main fox, the little girl was still wanting to play with the kits. Does she never learn her lesson? And there are other scenes featuring predator animals to the fox, which only adds to the trauma inflicted on children watching this movie. What a disappointment this movie was. And what a horrible story it tells. The final narrated dialog was so stupid, by which time my wife and I were screaming at the TV! I absolutely hated this movie, and would never recommend it to anyone!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I think Jason Lee has huge potential, but this was the WRONG vehicle in which to attempt to break out as a star. The plot is awful, the comedy is awful. I laughed twice, I think for relief, because in retrospect, they were fairly lame jokes. I found myself scared for the future of Fletch, and had to console myself that it was the film that was flawed, not Lee.

Julia Stiles and Selma Blair are hot, but I recommend looking at the still photos on this website to figure that out, instead of this film. Save your time. 1 star.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Full House was and still is a great show. It's a good show for people of all ages and is also a good family show. There really aren't any shows like it anymore. The kids are very cute and even though it's a bit cheesy, it's still good, especially for anyone who watched it when they were a kid. I would love to see the cast interviewed now. Anyone that would like to see interviews of the cast, kind of like a where are they now type thing for the special features of the DVD, should go to the Petition spot website and sign a petition titled Full House Reunion on DVD as there is a petition for this in hopes that the cast may want to do it. Yay for Full House!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Skip Mission: Galactica and watch the original Living Legend episodes instead. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful Fire In Space episode. Although Galactica suffered from network-controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production, Living Legend is the best of the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the worst episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the difference in quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the \"guy who knows the truth but never told anyone\". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "For Columbo fans, such as myself, this is the episode of episodes that made a case for why Columbo was so popular, and just how good it really was. Ruth Gordon has a field day (as ever) playing the wittily intelligent crime novelist Abigail Mitchell. Seems Abigail calls her nephew-in-law to sign some papers making him her heir. She never got over her niece's death, and is convinced her dead niece's husband (Charles Frank) did the dirty deed. To tell more would be unthinkable. Mariette Hartley has a sly role as Abigail's personal assistant. This episode of Columbo is in a class by itself. It's a truly well made television movie. I recommend it most highly.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Wealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.

*** out of ****", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "During 1933 this film had many cuts taken from it because it was very over the top for the story content and the fact that Lily Powers,(Barbara Stanwyck) would do anything to obtain great wealth and power. Lily's father had forced his daughter into prostitution at the age of 14 and she grew up in a steel mill of a town with very poor people and her father ran a speakeasy which brought into his home all kinds of male characters who had their eye on Lily. As the story progresses, Lily meets up with man after man and eventually finds a guy who has everything and is a playboy bank president It is great to see a very young John Wayne, (Jimmy McCoy Jr.) who was only 25 when this picture was produced and Jimmy did not even get to first base with Lily, not even for lunch. A very young George Brent, (Coutland Trenholm) stars along with Barbara Stanwyck and both gave outstanding performances. This is a great film from 1933 which was produced by Darryl F. Zanuck and was locked up in a fault for many years and just recently is being shown on the silver screen. This film is rather mild compared to what we view on the Hollywood screens today, but in 1933 it was very naughty to watch this type of film. Enjoy", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "my friend bought the movie for 5€ (its is not even 1 cent worth), because they wrote it was like American pie. but we would soon find out that there is a long way from American pie to that piece of crap. it is not even a comedy, its more like a really really really bad documentary. not only the story is bad, the picture and sound also sucks to. they put in some alcohol, chicks, dwarfs and drunken teens. and the result is a disaster. if you see this movie don't buy it, rather spend your money on something else, and better. if you are gonna torture yourself, then don't invite your friend/s, unless you hate really much and you want to get rid of them.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "haha! you have to just smile and smile if you actually made it all the way through this movie. it like says something about myself i guess. the movie itself was created i think as some sort of psychological test, or like some sort of drug, to take you to a place you have never been before. When Wittgenstein wrote his famous first philosophical piece the tractacus (sp?) he said it was meaningless and useless, but if you read it, after you were done, it would take you to a new level, like a ladder, and then you could throw away the work and see things with clarity and true understanding. this movie is the same i think.

As a movie it is without a doubt, the worst movie i have seen in a long long time in such a unique way. first of all, this is snipes. i loved watching this guy kick ass in various movies. and i have suffered through a few weak ones. however, although you know the movie might suck, you would never suspect that it could be as bad as it actually was. which is the fun of it. i mean this is snipes. you know it might be good, but it will be alright, right? smile.

so this thing on every level is pure boredom, pure unoriginality. the reference to the professional is both dead on and obvious, yet so poorly done as to be comical. there is not one character in this movie that is interesting, in the least. and to make the whole thing more surreal, they have a soundtrack that sort of sounds like parts to various Bourne identity type movies, only isn't quite right. in fact, although it seems close to action movie background music, it just so happens it is done in a manner that will grate on you fantastically.

then all the scenes in the total pitch black, where honestly since the characters are so flat, you don't really care whats going to happen, but regardless, after it happens and someone is killed, you just say to yourself, was i supposed to see that? what else? how about scenes with blinding, obnoxious flashing at a strobe lights pace, for a period of time that is too long to bear. sure let's throw that in. how bout this though. when you are straining and your eyes cant handle it any longer, do some more of these in the dark kills where you really don't see what happened. and on top of that, lets face it you don't care. you were past bored way from the beginning.

so i drifted in and out a couple times, but i caught almost all of this movie. and it becomes something you can watch, without something that engages your mind on any level, therefore, it becomes something you can effectively zone out with, and begin to think about your life, where its going, where its been, what we are as people.

and that... that is the true magic of this film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's a shame that Deliverance is mainly known as the redneck rape movie and for Dueling Banjos. Even people that have seen the film can't get their mind off of that rape scene. It's not as bad as the rape scene in Pulp Fiction. It's certainly not as bad as any female rape scene in just about any movie. People tend to miss the power of the film that contains the infamous buggery scene.

The acting, plot, cinematography, and soundtrack of Deliverance all lend a hand to it's brooding charisma. The backcountry it was shot in is beautiful and is quite in contrast to the dark subject matter. The actors both major and minor make you feel like you are rafting down that river right along with them.

The thing that separates this film from others is the tangible sense of dread that it inspires. Not many films can make you feel this creeped out. Bottom Line: This movie is a classic. I can't really say much more than that.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Stephen J. Cannell apparently decided a few years ago that he would broaden his horizons and dabble in horror. The result, \"Dead Above Ground\", is an abysmal piece of junk. Now, had I noticed his name in association with THIS particular film I'd have put it back but no, I didn't have my glasses on and therefore I missed it, damn, I really do need to bring those with me while video shopping. First question would be, who the heck is the target audience for this? It's almost like a \"scary\" kids movie, but then again there's topless babes and some gore and some bad words spouted here and there. The main characters are so cute that you want to see someone, anyone, go after them with farm implements of SOME kind. Seems that a guy opens a bed and breakfast that has a checkered past, a child-murdering witch that collected children's teeth lived there. Probably something the real estate agent failed to mention. Of course now in the modern day there's a little girls ghost around to warn the real-live little girl that now lives there that something bad is going to happen. It does, and there's also two Bubbas that were squatting on that property when the new owner took over so they're out for revenge too. This whole thing has the feel of some made-for-cable junk that's for the kids at Halloween except for, of course, the things that aren't suitable for little kids, so not only is this mediocre, it's confused, too. A big boo and hiss to Anchor Bay for putting this out too, considering their usual track record with fine releases this is a new low. The UK gets a Phantasm Box Set, we get \"The Tooth Fairy\". Hardly seems fair. 1 out of 10, absolute garbage.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Extremely interesting and intriguing movie. The similarities to David Lynch (who is even quoted literally by the presence of red curtains in the film) and the novels of Franz Kafka (the house keeper in this film is called Mrs. Grubach, as is the one in Der Prozess...) are clearly present but in this case are accompanied by clear references to the colonial past of Belgium in Africa. The exact content of the movie I can not clearly describe: this colonialism is an important part, as is the inability to cope with such a past, but the personal memories of the main character are a central issue as well, and his quest for social contact and love. These are the symbolic themes I deduced from the movie, but in fact they're no more than impressions.

But even if you just try to follow the linear story without these symbolic backgrounds, you still will discover an extremely fascinating movie filled with splendid imagery (beautiful close ups of beatles, larvas and other nasty insects are alternated with great dream sequences and also the dark atmosphere lends the film extra style). Maybe you can say that I didn't quite 'get' the film, but I have been watching like hypnothised for 1.5 hour, deeply impressed by the visual quality and the fascinating mysteriosity.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Second-feature concerns a young woman in London desperate for a job, happy to accept live-in secretarial position with an elderly woman and her son. Thrillers about people being held in a house against their will always make me a little uneasy--I end up feeling like a prisoner too--but this rather classy B-film is neither lurid nor claustrophobic. It's far-fetched and unlikely, but not uninteresting, and our heroine (Nina Foch) is quick on her feet. Rehashing this in 1986 (as \"Dead Of Winter\") proved not to be wise, as the plot-elements are not of the modern-day. \"Julia Ross\" is extremely compact (too short at 65 minutes!) but it stays the course nicely until a too-rushed climax, which feels a little sloppy. *** from ****", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I will admit that I did not give this movie much of a chance. I decided pretty early on that this just wasn't my kind of movie.

For the most part, it has an excellent look in terms of its cinematography. The scenes of early 70's Manhattan look very good, as does the lead actress. It is a very crisp black and white, which could almost make the movie feel undated and fresh. However, some of the other techniques the filmmakers employ shoot that prospect all to hell. The disjointed editing is VERY late-60's, somewhere between surrealism and new wave. The story also feels like it came from a very specific time, somewhere between free love idealism and artsy experimentation.

The film follows a young girl around the city as she looks for a man who she had anonymous phone sex with. As she meets other odd characters, she reveals her quirks and they reveal theirs. The movie seems to be meant as an off-the-wall, irreverent comedy, but adds an avant-garde feel. I would expect that if you like Andy Warhol movies, you would be very excited to discover The Telephone Book.

Some problems I had: Near the end of the movie, one character tells a rambling anecdote that lasts over twelve minutes—-brutal to sit through. Also, there is a very explicit animation sequence that I found gross and juvenile that serves as the film's climax. I did laugh out loud four or five times, and I liked the ending (minus the flat-out disgusting animation). And when the film switched to color for the final phone-booth-at-night sequence, I actually liked the way it looked even better. It ended up being one of those experiences where I felt like I could have really liked it if it been a little different. But this is what the filmmakers gave us. It is obscure, artsy, and way left of the dial, but none of those are reasons to recommend it on their own. I didn't find it to be unique or creative so much as forced and pretentious.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Yet another venture into the realm of the teen-gross-out-comedy, set on a college campus featuring a nerd's quest to coolness, and how he decides to blackmail a trio of popular jocks into making him get the girl. It's all been done before, and it's all been done in a far more satisfying manner. The gross-out humor that has made teen flicks like \"American Pie\" and \"Dude! Where's my Car\" so popular is taken completely out of context in this installment, appearing so completely at random that the viewer can only frown and disapprove. The film is badly written, and the actors never succeed in making any of it even slightly bearable. I won't even dignify this terrible picture by divulging, as it's a waste of my time and yours. At best, Slackers never manages to entertain or induce laughter, and at worst it is excruciatingly bad and at times completely unwatchable.

Jason Schwarzman, who impressed in his debut Rushmore, humiliates himself by appearing in this picture and one wonders how a career can end up in the toilet so fast. Please avoid, please avoid. Save your money.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "'De Grot' is a terrific Dutch thriller, based on the book written by Tim Krabbé. Another of his books, 'Het Gouden Ei' was made into the great Dutch mystery thriller called 'Spoorloos' ('The Vanishing') in 1988. This one is not as good as that thriller (although much better than the American remake also called 'The Vanishing') but there are times it comes close.

Especially the opening moments are terrific. We see a man, later we learn his name is Egon Wagter (Fedja van Huêt), coming from a plane in Thailand. When he picks up his bags it is pretty clear that he is smuggling something across the border. These scenes are perfectly directed, photographed and acted. A kind of suspense is created that you would normally not have in an opening scene like this. Later we see how Egon makes his deal in Thailand with a woman, both stating that they have never done anything like this.

From this point the movie is constantly flashback and flash-forward. We see how Egon, still as a child (here played by Erik van der Horst), befriends a guy named Axel (as a kid played by Benja Bruijning). We learn how they grew up as friends, sort of, and how Axel (as an adult played by Marcel Hensema) became a criminal. Egon in the meanwhile goes to college and settles with a woman. Around this time he sometimes meets Axel but does not really want anything to do with him.

The movie is chronological in a way. It shows Egon and Axel as kids, than as students, young adults, and in their mid-thirties. But from time to time, like I said, the movie goes back to when they were kids and jumps forward again. Every time we see them as kids it explains something that happens when they are adults.

Minor spoilers herein.

The title means 'The Cave', and it is the cave that gives the movie its happy ending, although it is in fact not that happy. Like the beginning, the ending is terrific. The middle part of the movie is entertaining and in a way it distracts our attention of the first scenes, only to come back at that point in the end. It is the editing that gives the movie its happy ending, although we can say the dramatic ending is happy in a way as well.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Simply put, this is the worst movie since \"Police Academy: Mission to Moscow\" (if you liked that movie you will probably like this one).

What were they thinking ? Some ideas should stay just that, an idea. The fact that this idea could itself to film should be a criminal offense.

What was so bad about it I hear you ask. One word ... EVERYTHING.

Cost to Hire: $4.50 Cost in Time to Watch: 89 Minutes

I want a refund on both!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As a big-time Prince fan of the last three to four years, I really can't believe I've only just got round to watching \"Purple Rain\". The brand new 2-disc anniversary Special Edition led me to buy it. Wow, I was really looking forward to watching it, but I wasn't prepared for just how electric it actually is. Prince's musical performances throughout the movie are nothing short of astounding - he REALLY has the moves in this one. I am very familiar (from repeated listens) with the classic \"Purple Rain\" album and all its songs, but to see them in the context of the movie completely alters your perception of the tunes and lyrics - like COMPUTER BLUE, THE BEAUTIFUL ONES, WHEN DOVES CRY and PURPLE RAIN itself. There is something indescribably hypnotising about the scenes where Prince and The Revolution perform. The closing songs BABY I'M A STAR and I WOULD DIE FOR U show how much energy and sheer talent Prince was brimming with in his mid-20s (he's overflowing!), it blew me away. It even makes Michael Jackson seem inanimate even in his peak years.

Prince shows you how to win the girl of your dreams - drive her to a lake, make her jump in, then drive off - absolutely hilarious stuff in hindsight.

Some of the scenes are very 1980s and unintentionally hilarious but this adds to the film's overall charm. Morris Day is the coolest cat on the block (and hilarious), and when his group The Time perform THE BIRD you get to see Morris Day and Jerome Benton light up the stage Minneapolis funk style - I love their dancing in this bit, and how Benton provides Morris with a mirror mid-performance.

I already can't wait to watch it again, I really can't! Extras are terrific - particularly seeing a young Eddie Murphy pre-Beverly Hills Cop admit he is a \"Prince groupie\".", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Well, finally got to see the remake last night in London, unintentionally hilarious, sexless and devoid of any real humour. I don't really know where to start, whilst I was entertained by this strange homage, it didn't really move me. The acting is screamingly hammy, there is no original music, the costumes are far too 'Disney' there is a ridiculous 'six months later' insert after the burning of Nic Cage (which didn't come soon enough for my liking) The bit with Cage in the bear suit had the audience suppressing mirth as did the comedy punching out of various 'baddies' on the island. It's such a weird remake that I cant quite believe I saw it, it reminded me of something that The Comic Strip presents would have done in the eighties, a bit like their Hollywood interpretation of the Miner's Strike, very strange!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "If you hit your teens in the 70s, as I did, you probably remember the stories about Studio 54 whether or not you liked disco. An exclusive club, it was the perfect symbol of 70s cultural overindulgence and self-absorption; there's even an excellent VH1 documentary about the club that could tell you everything you wanted to know about its heyday, and the stories are easily interesting enough to spawn a very captivating film.

Sadly, this isn't it. 54 follows the lives of a few of its employees, a bartender named Shane (Ryan Phillippe), a busboy named Greg (Breckin Meyer), his wife, a coat-check girl, Anita (Selma Hayek), and of course the master of ceremonies himself, Steve Rubell (Mike Meyers). While the goings-on at the club are well represented, this film concerns itself more with the personal lives of the workers, following Shane's story the closest.

The movie works in spurts. Sometimes it captures perfectly the shallowness of the nightlife culture (such as when Shane is taken to a dinner party and doesn't know who 'Errol Flynt' is), and other times it waxes into hokey melodrama. Some of that is inherent in the premise – following the underlings as they mingle in the world of the rich and fabulous – but a lot of it is due to the kid-gloved treatment with which both the club and Rubell are given throughout the movie. While Rubell certainly electrified the scene in New York with his penchant for over-the-top spectacle and his exclusive hand-picking of the crowds each night, the rampant drugs and sexuality are only briefly touched on; and Rubell himself, while his excesses are mentioned, come off oddly positive for a guy who was in life a liar, a cheat, a drug abuser, and promiscuous as all hell. Not that I was looking for the man to be pilloried here, but his ego directly contributed to the fall of his club and the diminishing of the nightlife culture he helped to elevate. A final scene where he gazes down at the regulars paternally is so emotionally false as to be patently absurd.

Meyers does his best to capture Rubell, but he's given so little to work with here it's surprising his performance is effective; but he's good, and he helps to anchor the film. Philippe, whom I find generally to be a good actor, is hamstrung here by the shallowness and stupidity of his character; he's limited to a deer-in-the-headlights smile or a sullen uncomprehending frown, and even he can't translate that into a strong performance. Hayek and Meyer are both okay, again, undercut by the writing, and Neve Campbell – prominently featured on the DVD cover – appears so briefly she really has an extended cameo.

For some reason I still find myself interested, even fascinated, by the popular culture of the second half of the seventies. But even given that, this is not a film that particularly engaged me, despite a predisposition to like it. I'd say if that era, or that club, has any interest for you, track down the VH1 special rather than this middle-of-the-road melodrama.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I kind of consider myself as the #1 fan of Hidden Frontier, seeing as I am among a somewhat small group of fans who have actually met most of these guys - well, not counting conventions, of course. I have been watching Hidden Frontier since 2001, and I must say I continue to be impressed by what these guys have come up with.

Hidden Frontier is the brainchild of Rob Caves and his self-made studio, Areakt Pictures, which operates out of the back room of his house. While not as \"fancy\" as, say, the TOS-based series New Voyages (which sometimes gets some of the actors/writers from the original series, like Walter Koenig, aka Mr. Chekov), Rob and the cast and crew of HF manage to create a series worthy of replacing that ghastly experiment we called \"Enterprise\". The most controversial and successful story arc has been the introduction of Star Trek's first openly gay character, Corey Aster (who was introduced in the second season), and his search to find a soul mate. Somewhere later in the series, he meets Jorian Zen, the Excelsior's Trill helm officer. In the recent story lines with these two characters (WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER! Do not read if you have not watched the series up to this point!), Zen is joined to an exiled symbiont, causing a great deal of change and some conflict in his relationship with Aster. Though the future is uncertain - seeing as the most recent episode, \"Beachhead\", was just shown to HF fans in the chat room last night - I think that this relationship will endure, but only time will tell.

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek with the intention that the story be more about his characters rather than flashy space battles. Rob Caves created Hidden Frontier for that same reason - and this is what has made this series as popular as it is. As the previous comment stated, I wish I could give it a rating higher than 10, but it will have to suffice. Although next season will be the last - keeping in the tradition of seven season shows started by Star Trek: The Next Generation - I am willing to bet that we will hear much about Hidden Frontier after that final episode.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Despite having known people who are either great fans of Noam Chomsky, or think he's a tired relic from the 1960s, I really had no opinion of the man, save that I knew he gained fame as a linguist, although I could not elucidate any of his theories, and that he was a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings. So, stumbling across the DVD of the 2003 documentary Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause, in a used video store, a film which followed him on a 2002 book tour for his book 9-11, I decided to get it, just so I could have a little bit of knowledge about the man the next time a person, pro or con, spoke of him. While glad I got the film, my initial reaction to this dull and ill edited hagiography was, so what's all the fuss about?

For a man with so many degrees, lauded as 'the most important intellectual alive', by the New York Times, according to the DVD's case, there sure was not a lot there, intellectually speaking. I know I would chew him up and spit him out in a debate, and I wouldn't even want to watch what a William F. Buckley could do to him. Granted, the whole film was seemingly about Chomsky seeing conspiracies everywhere, and having glazed eyed coeds nod in bewildering approval of the most inane and outrageous things he'd say, rather than being on linguistics, so maybe that's the reason he came off so badly. But, again, if he is a linguist, and tops in his field, why in the world would anyone care what he has to say on anything outside his field of expertise?…. Even worse are his acolytes, who seem to further insulate the man from reality, by fostering delusions that Chomsky is a target for Zionist assassins. What little I knew of Chomsky before watching this film, this much I knew: he was generally considered a has been, and pretty much irrelevant intellectually, since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The film is so poorly structured, and without a narrative thread, that it's difficult to separate all of the jumble. His wife, Carol, as example, apparently gave one interview, which was chopped up and dropped wherever in the film. She seems a nice enough woman, but wholly out of her element answering anything but the most basic questions about their life. The lone interesting thing she says is that 9/11 was a great thing for the Chomskys, for he has reaped a great deal of money in speaking fees since then.

Not surprisingly, this sort of film gives almost no biographical background. It's assumed that all viewers must know all the plaudits this 'great man' bears. Chomsky is rarely interviewed one on one. Stylistically, there are no camera movements, no interesting edits, nor any signature touches, and most of the film is disjunct rambles by Chomsky, videotaped huzzahs of Chomsky declaiming on this or that, and slack-jawed and awed students looking at him as if he were immaterial, that is when dimwitted coeds are not asking barely audible and ridiculously simplistic questions to him. This is really poor film-making by director and editor Will Pascoe, who in the DVD's Filmmaker Statement, shows he's yet another uncritical acolyte of Chomsky's. Other than that, one of the surest signs that this is not an objective documentary, but mere agitprop, and a vanity piece of agitprop, at that, is that not a single time is Chomsky shown struggling with an answer. He seems to be a font of knowledge that has no bounds.

Given that much of this dreck was filmed during Chomsky's lectures at McMaster University, in Ontario, Canada, prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of what Chomsky says seems as remote as things from the Vietnam War era. Yes, he makes some good points, here and there, on American media complicity before the war, but he follows them up with sheer lunacy, for he seems to not realize that most conspiracies are ad hoc, and not fully plotted out cabals. As example, he claims that the advertising industry is a cabal that mercilessly controls the populace, but says not a word about the zombied populace that lets itself be so controlled. Similarly, he claims Trilateralists run the world and that people's fear of crime is yet another cabal's result. Of course, that claim so fully explains away rape crisis centers, and all that wasted time and money district attorneys' offices consume. He also makes the absurd claim that Cuba has been the victim of terrorism for decades, when Castro and company were great sponsors of it, in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, until the Soviet Union fell. I can only guess that the UFO conspiracists are just waiting for Chomsky to proclaim that gray aliens have set up species-mixing impregnation centers up in Idaho.

In his simpleminded world without grays, Chomsky is frighteningly as dense as the members of Bushco, whom he reviles, are; even more so since they lay no claim to being intellectuals. In short, Chomsky is a man living in the past, in over his head on most issues, and out of his depth intellectually. Near this film's end he warns, 'Be cautious when you hear about intellectuals being fighters for justice,' yet one can only laugh, as the man seemingly has never met a revolutionary person nor idea that he didn't like, no matter how barbarous their crimes, and anti-intellectual their posit. Please, pause before you waste your time and money on this silly, and already irrelevant, DVD.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I had high hopes for Troy and I am so bitterly disappointed. The film was directed so badly it made my stomach ache. The pacing was so slow, the dialogue laughable and the film - well apart from a nice fight scene between Achilles (Pitt) and Hector (Bana) - the rest was shallow.

And why, oh why does Hollywood always insist on rewriting stories to fit 'consumer approval'. Agamemnon didn't die in Troy, the war lasted 10 years and Achilles was killed by Paris OUTSIDE the walls of Troy with an arrow to the ankle! It annoys me that such a classic story as this is turned into a soap.

And don't even start me on the 'lack' of chemistry between Helen and Paris. She was the woman the war was fought over and it didn't even look as if the two of them cared a great deal about the other. No sparks, no emotion, no hope.

I have to say in the films defence Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and Peter O' Toole acted very well with a bad script but that isn't enough to save this awful movie.

Can anybody tell me where the £200 million budget went? Maybe in all the trees they used for the funeral pyres - where did they get all those trees?

I am so disappointed it hurts.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "normally i'm not the sort to be scared by horror movies, but this movie is the exception. some how this movie got into my mind!!! it is a very simple movie but at the same time extremelly effective, it has great atmosphere and this leads to some shocking moments, the girls father coming down the hill is a real standout. Another seen was the family photo i wasn't expecting that and i jumped out my seat!!! i would recommend everyone to see this movie, with the lights out it will stay with you for a long time!!!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one of the worse cases of film drivel I have seen in a long while. It is so awful, that I am not sure where to begin, or even if it is worth it. The plot is the real problem, and I feel sorry for 'Sly' as he puts in a decent performance for his part. But that plot ... Oh dear oh dear. I particularly love the way near the end he manages to pop from the foot of a mountain to the top, whilst the helicopter is on the way. A climb of a day or two takes him all of five minutes! I could go on: but it isn't worth it. Apart from the grim opening (which even a five year old would be able to predict the outcome of) the rest is drivel. Sorry folks, but this is about as bad as film making gets.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Camp with a capital C. Think of Mask and the Ace Ventura movies -- then multiply by 100. This laugh-a-minute entertainer takes schlock to the level of high art. David Dhawan is a genius and Govinda is beyond description. See it over and over again. I insist.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As you may or may not have heard, there is no actual fighting between vampires or zombies in this film. One may then ask why the title suggested such a thing, but really it's kind of appropriate because nothing else about this film made any sense either. There was absolutely no story or plot, just things happening. The acting was incredibly bad, worse than safeauto commercials bad.

Not only were there no fighting between vampires and zombies but I think there was only one scene with zombies even in it. Their make up looked as if it were applied by an 8 year old girl. The scene was totally random and out of place and featured one of the characters fighting the zombies off with a hedge trimmer (I'm not kidding) but they used chainsaw sound effects.

This was undoubtedly the poorest movie I've ever seen in my life. The only circumstance that I wouldn't totally ridicule every person responsible for production of this film is if I learned that it was produced entirely by 11 year old's.

Really though, even with all of the criticism I offer here, I'd suggest watching this movie solely based on the fact that it may very well be the worst movie ever, and because of this is quite comical. Even just counting the flaws in it should keep you entertained.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Way back in 1955, the British made a comedy called Simon and Laura, with Peter Finch and the brilliant Kay Kendall. To this day, it stands as one of the finest examples of British comedy and, more particularly, about how television sitcoms become so popular. It was, and is, an excellent example also of self-referential cinema.

So also Soapdish, a film I'd never heard about until a few nights ago when I caught it on late TV. I was a bit dubious at first simply because comedy is so difficult to do well, as you know.

However, I was pleasantly surprised and delighted to watch a very clever satire about daytime American TV. In fact, it's been a while since I laughed so heartily. So, if you like satire, I'd recommend you see it.

The main actors – Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty – quite simply do an excellent job, revealing just how bitchy and shallow the business of acting is. As I watched it, I kept thinking to myself: just how much of this bitchiness carries over into real life? That is, if actors ever do have a real life? As you probably know, Peter Sellers, for example, was notorious for hiding his true persona behind a multitude of characters, so that nobody really knew the real person. So, as I watched Sally Field playing Celeste Talbot playing Maggie, I thought again about that earlier British film with Kay Kendall playing Laura playing a character in a TV sitcom opposite Peter Finch...

Is it any wonder that some actors have nervous breakdowns? And that feeling was crystallized when Celeste finally confronts her daughter (Lori, played by Elizabeth Shue) and, in an emotional moment, repeats the fictional lines she'd used, on a prior episode of her daytime soap, when confronting her fictional daughter in that show! Are you confused? Well, it's not all like that, but the dialog is stunning for originality, comedy, bitchiness, anger, depravity, duplicity, and even...love.

The story? Well, there are many stories in this film, all interwoven, and which all come together at the end (of course – but not like a Robert Altman film, okay!), and not all of them are resolved finally. Life's not like that anyway, right? The pace is almost frenetic, and you really do have to watch and listen carefully to catch all the sight gags and subtle jokes. Spend the 97 minutes from your life and watch it; you won't regret the time usage.

The rest of the cast all perform well, although I've never taken much to Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps the funniest exchanges are between Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty and, for my money, the latter steals so many scenes from others, she gets my vote as the outstanding player. I kid you not, she gives the term bitch an entirely new face...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What a wonderful, fanciful movie \"Stardust\" is.

I could easily end it with that one statement and suffice to say, one could take it as a very strong recommendation to go see it.

At a time when Hollywood seems bent on forcing remakes and sequels down our throats, \"Stardust\" makes us remember why we go to the movies in the first place - to escape reality for a couple of hours and explore other lives, other times, or other planets. Ironically, \"Stardust\" takes us to all three places effortlessly and with a childlike glee we all long for.

\"Stardust\" is full of all the characters we remember as children: princes, witches, pirates, ghosts and scoundrels. It has the damsel in distress, the hero, the rogues, the obstacles, spells, antidotes, charms, and even a touch of light-speed to make it quasi modern.

\"Stardust\" is about a man from the town of Wall, which is conveniently situated next to a wall that separates their town from a magical kingdom. The only way past the wall is through a breech that is diligently guarded by a scruffy old codger (played wonderfully by David Kelly). One day a young man from Wall named Ben Barnes out maneuvers the old guard and escapes through the breech. He happens upon an enchanted kingdom called Stormhold where he meets a chained (and very sexy) young lady named Una. She is held captive by a witch and leashed by an unbreakable chain. While the witch is away, Una seduces Ben and sends him on his way. Ben returns to Wall without incident and continues his life. But nine months later he is summoned to the wall breech where the old guard hands him what you might expect - a baby boy.

The boy, named Tristan grows up to be a rather hapless young man (Charlie Cox) who is smitten with a girl way out of his league and also betrothed to another. Nevertheless, the young lady (named Victoria and played Sienna Miller) goes out once with Tristain and he confesses his love to her. After they espy a falling star, she tells him he can have her if he retrieves the star and brings it back to her. He agrees and sets out on his quest, which will take him to the other side of the wall.

Meanwhile in the kingdom of Stormhold, the old king (perfectly played by Peter O'Toole) is dying. He calls his remaining living sons to tell them who shall succeed him to the throne. His sons' names are Primus, Secondus, Sextmus, and Septimus. The other sons where killed by the other brothers in a humorous competition to see who lives to get the throne.

Anyway, he tosses his ruby charm to the sky and Voila, that what brings the star to earth.

The star crashes in the form of a beautiful woman named Yvaine (Clare Danes) and she, of course, is wearing the charm. But little does she know she is now being persuaded by Tristain, the Princes, and also an aging witch named Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants to cut out the stars heart to regain her own youth.

Complicated? Yes. But it all comes together as the adventure unfolds.

Tristain is the first to find Yvaine but is so blinded by his devotion to Victoria he doesn't recognize the growing bond between he and Yvaine. His initial interest lie only in returning Yvaine to Victoria as proof of his love. But he must get past the princes and Lamia first. The princes aren't that big an issue as they are constantly trying to kill each other - and just as in \"Pirates of the Caribbean\" - never has death been so funny.

But Tristain also encounters the witch who enslaved his mother (though he doesn't know it's his mother) and a band of flying pirates led by Robert DeNiro.

His is the most important character in the movie and DeNiro plays it to a tee. He steals the movie with his toughness and soon we learn an undercover secret that will leave audiences on the floor with laughter. Though his role is small in length, DeNiro is extraordinary!

Michelle Pfeiffer is wonderful as Lamia - a sexy evil witch. Claire Danes is most appropriate as the confused and distressed Yvaine. She makes a perfect damsel. Jason Flemyng, Adam Buston, Rupert Everett, and Mark Strong add the perfect dose of levity as the fighting princes whom, as they die return as ghosts ala \"Blithe Spirit\" and \"High Spirits\".

Moreover director Matthew Vaughn, whose only other directing experience was \"Layer Cake\", weaves an enchanting tale that everyone will enjoy.

\"Stardust\" may be too complex for young children, but anyone over the age of 13 will want to see this movie multiple times. It's that good. \"Stardust\" is what movies are supposed to be. Perfectly written, perfectly cast, perfectly directed, and perfectly acted. In other words...perfect.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The plot of GOODNIGHT MR TOM on paper makes it seem we are in for a large dose of maudlin,sickly sentiment.But,talented director Jack Gold is an expert on touching the emotions in the right manner,and it emerges instead as a compelling,deeply moving wartime drama with excellent production and lead performances.One of the best,if not the best TV movies of the 1990's which possibly would've had even greater success if it had been released in the cinemas.

The evacuation of children to countryside towns and villages in World War II was of course a common practice,but in the case of the young boy here was doubly important because of a wretched home life in the UK's capital.The horrors of war on the home front are not drifted over though,and the construction of the film until it's throat-lumping,misty-eyed ending leaves us with a sense of optimism despite what has happened before.It is almost(but not quite)worthy of comparison with the finale to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE(1946).All in all,a modern classic.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Priyadarshan's HERA PHERI was a nice situational comedy This film however actually lacks a story but is quite funny but illogical

In fact they is no proper story yet it somehow manages a nice flow though it isn't anything great

The first half has 2 funny scenes like the one where Akshay and John invite Neha for a lunch and another when Paresh enters

The first half gets boring slowly but the second half is funnier though they is no script

The jokes are funny though one does wonder how they never hear each person's voices from inside the rooms?

The climax confusion is treated like a stage play but it's quite funny But the film ends abruptly

Direction is okay Music is good

Akshay Kumar excels in his part which is now become his second skin, but this is his film completely and he overshadows everyone else

John stumbles throughout and fails in comedy Paresh Rawal is hilarious Rajpal is okay The girls are loud at times and awkward too Nargis, Daisy and Neetu(only Neetu is seen now) are good in parts but shriek too often Manoj Joshi is okay", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I did not think this movie was worth anything bad script, bad acting except for Janine Turner, no fantasy, stupid plot, dumb-ass husband and unfair divorce settings. If you have never seen this movie before don't even bother it's not worth it at all. The only thing that was good about it was that Janine Turner, did a good job acting. Terry's husband is a stuck up smart-ass defense attorney who has won a lot of cases and even gotten guility murderers off. He think he is so smart but he is really just a nut. Her best friend has an affair with her husband and betrays her. Nice girl huh. Yeah she's a real peach, not. She's no day at the beach either.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have wanted to see this for the longest time, James Merendino is a great director. SLC Punk is one of my favorite movies, and in the first ten minutes of this film I thought that it was a great follow up after that though, it begins to drag. The acting and direction were terrific. In fact everything in the film seemed to flow except for the script. At times, the only thing keeping my attention was the fact that in the cast was the most beautiful woman in the world, Claire Forlani. This film was good, but I expected more.

P.S. Look for great cameos by Chi McBride, and Chris McDonald.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.

Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book \"Star Trek Memories,\" this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in \"Plato's Stepchildren,\" play music with Hippies in \"the Way to Eden\" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story.

Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best \"unusual and high quality shows\" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, \"All Our Yesterdays\" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.'", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The only good thing about this movie was the shot of Goldie Hawn standing in her little french cut bikini panties and struggling to keep a dozen other depraved women from removing her skimpy little cotton top while she giggled and cooed. Ooooof! Her loins rival those of Nina Hartley. This movie came out when I was fourteen and that shot nearly killed me. I'd forgotten about it all tucked away in the naughty Roladex of my mind until seeing it the other day on TV, where they actually blurred her midsection in that scene, good grief, reminding me what a smokin' hottie of a woman Goldie Hawn was in the '80s. Kurt Russell must have had a fun life.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the \"Passion\" (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of \"The Passion of the Christ\" will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, \"just doing my job\" look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to \"authenticity\", but the settings and costuming invariably feel more \"right\" than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, \"The Death\"--not the Life--\"of Christ\"), ultimately a very rewarding one.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "According to the director this movie was popular in Asia. It is somewhat difficult to take these Mats Helge movies seriously since most of his films are shot on a very tight budget. Almost no USD at all. But it is fascinating to establish that Mats Helge eventually completes something which can be called an action movie. The Ninja Mission is - I think - the best one among all movies directed by him. Some special effects are quite enjoyable. This is not a \"B\" or \"C\" movie. It is a \"Z\" movie - but an enjoyable and fun \"Z\" movie!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is the most cliche ridden and worst romantic comedy I have ever seen. Every scene is cringe worthy and the two lead actors - Corey and Danny are soo annoying. Corey is very dumb and naive and should have never listened to Danny's false promises.

Neve Campbell and the killer from Urban Legend are the only redeeming qualities in this poor attempt of a film. Danny (Dean Paras) looks in his late thirties and the girl he's trying to bed - Corey looks as if she's still in college.

Here in Australia, this film is called Too Smooth; there is nothing smooth about this film at all. 1/10 Avoid", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The ENTIRE MOVIE is flashbacks from the first Boogeyman movie as well as, inexplicably, footage from another Uli Lommel / Suzanna Love film Brainwaves. It is framed with some more current (from the early 90's anyway) footage that is boring, poorly acted and cheaply shot. Not only is the film almost completely flashbacks, they REPEAT the same flashbacks throughout the film. So you see the recycled footage over and over again, as if you hadn't seen it already. As if the originals weren't bad enough. I've never seen a movie so padded.... Someone was milking the last dollar out of these films. Total ripoff. And talk about padding... why do I have to write 10 lines about this trash? If I can convey that it's garbage in 2 lines, that should be enough.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "i LOVED IT and was SO shattered that there not making another season!!! i wish they would! it was the best show ever!!!!!! there's probably not any chance of them deciding to not cancel the show is there! ha ha i wish there was though! i would be so so excited!! i really would! I miss it! and was especially shattered not to know what happens to Jason!! i think they should make another one.... it i also think its silly that u have to writr ten lines to post a comment.. it makes your comment drag on..and no one will read it!! i really want to know what would have happened between jason and nicole... maybe they could make a spin off!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.

3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The creativeness of this movie was lost from the beginning when the writers and directors left out a good story line, only to substitute with horrible special affects. This movie seemed to be focused on amusing children, but couldn't even accomplish that. Many small low budget films have the potential to become great movies, but this movie is no where near that. Fortunately this will be another film easily made, and easily forgotten. This movie was probably a chance for the actors to make a little money on the side until their chance came along for a real role in a good movie. Anyone who has a shred of respect for films, should avoid seeing this movie at all costs.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is about a young scientist who creates a serum that re-animates the dead. He first uses it on his brother when he is shot dead in a drive by. His brother then infects the other gang members.In some scenes the zombies are seen walking very slowly and in other scenes they run pretty fast which makes little sense. The acting is mediocre but the story doesn't help the film. The makeup consists of blood on the face of the zombies. The budget for this film I'm sure was very limited. I believe the film could have been better made had the story been more original and with a better budget. If you wan't to see a good zombie flick don't see this one.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is the best horror movie, bar-none.I love how Stanley just dumps the women into the lake.I have been a fan of Judd Nelson's work for many years, and he blew me away. Its a blend of horror, and drama ,and romance, not so much comedy. His evil, yet charming look captured me right then and there. That look in his eyes, I will never forget. There's something about him, I cant describe.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The story of \"A Woman From Nowhere\" is rather simple and pretty much adapted right out of a Eastwood Spaghetti Western: A mysterious stranger comes into a lawless town run by a kingpin and starts shooting up the place. Even the opening credits and music have that spaghetti feel: Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone would be proud. The really interesting twists are that the stranger is a beautiful (!) woman, Saki (Ryoko Yonekura) on a Harley, and the location is in a town somewhere in Japan.

In this actioner, there's a considerable amount of gunplay, some of it good, some predictable, and other spots somewhat hokey, but it's a whole lot of fun. Ryoko handles her guns with believability and aplomb and gives the thugs their due. It wasn't much of an acting challenge for her as it was a physical challenge, but she handled things very well. She shows her acting skills much more as Otsu in the NHK drama, \"Musashi.\"

I'd highly recommend film if you're a Ryoko Yonekura fan (which I adoringly am) and/or a \"girls with guns\" movie fan and it does hold up to repeated viewings. To me, there's something eminently and inexplicably appealing about \"girls with guns\" movies like \"La Femme Nikita\" and \"The Long Kiss Goodnight.\" And to have a gorgeous gal like Ryoko starring in it as well is just gobs of icing on the cake.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.

(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is \"spoiled?\") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition.

It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.

A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, \"I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara.\" Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, \"Hey, I'm the Next Victim!\" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire.

In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.

As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis.

For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Weak, fast and multicolor,this is the Valvoline's movie in fact you can see always this brand of oil in a lot of scene. The real protagonist are the cars,weak performances of Cage and Duvall. A intresting Angelina Jolie is a unlikely mechanic. For the lovers of dream car(LAMBORGHINI and FERRARI over all).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.

There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been \"The Vanishing Bride\" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.

I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Shame on Yash Raj films and Aditya Chopra who seems to have lost their intelligence over the years and providing steady fare of tripe in this piece of cinematic crap thats not even worth You Tube standards. I was gritting my teeth throughout the whole flick start to finish with the schizophrenic direction, plot line that never quite materialized and on the last scene I just felt ashamed that my country and its crorepati film makers can \"THROW AWAY\" crores on such stupidity. Shame on the actors for taking this work and even commenting on it as some piece of work they can own up to. Saif Ali Khan -completely disappointed in your choice of film. Kareen shows enough skin for the puberty stricken and Akshay comes up as the dim-wit. Anil another retard with a pubescent fascination for English. His cronies were commendable in their acting and with the bizarre cinematography scattered in the last 15 minutes, it was enough to pop a blood vessel. DON'T WASTe any brain cells, energy or your money to go see this- Go SEE / Rent AMU -with Konkana Sensharma instead- a beautiful piece of independent film thats ever come out of India.Intelligent, poignant and a wonderful story-tale that will touch everyone with intelligent actors and gave me hope that all is not lost in Indian cinema making.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The main aspect about the Superstar's movies at his later stages were the frequency, the lacuna between one movie and the next. Being a well established star of the south Indian cinema, the feedbacks he was receiving before Baba was great.

Since Nattukku Oru Nallavan (1991), the number of movies he acted in Tamil as a mass Hero in 11 years were only 11 exactly at the rate of 1 per year. All of these were a great hit. He was having a image that many thought could not be easily brought down.

But after Padayappa (1999), he went into a state of Hibernation. His fans all over the world, especially in South India were ready to see movie of any kind with their superstar in action. So, the Tamil cinema industry decided to come with Baba.

The movie makers thought that the fans will take whatever they show with Superstar in it. But this clearly did not work out in this movie. As usual, the hype from the media and the expectation from the fans were way beyond limit.

Rajinikanth's image was totally damaged. The fans went nuts. The movie's collection did not meet the expected level. Reputation of great people went down.

The only positive aspect about this movie was the songs by A.R.Rehman. Rehman is known to have composed good music for some worst movies like Tajmahal, Kadal Virus, Alli Arjuna, Paarthale Paravasam, Star, En Swasa Katre, Vandicholai Chinnarasu etc. Well, i never thought that this movie would join that league.

You'l feel very much depressed not because the movie was bad, it'l be because of the superstar's image going down. It took him five full years to regain it fully back with two movies Chandramukhi and Sivaji and give fans back what they really look for in a superstar film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I first saw this film when it was transmitted around 1988 by the BBC when I was working on UK's 2000AD. My pal Steve Parkhouse recorded it on VHS and sent it to me. Up till this point, I'd really only seen the Shaw Bros kung fu movies, with their harsh lighting (so audience could see the moves clearly), so it was a revelation to me to see something that looked like it had been lit by Ridley Scott coming out of Hong Kong. This was also my first exposure to the movies of Tsui Hark (pronounced, apparently, \"Choy Huk\").

Yet for all the smoky, back-lit exteriors and ambitious special effects (Stop-motion? In a Hong Kong Movie?) at the heart of Chinese GHOST STORY lies a simple and moving love story, made all the more real by the outstanding acting talent of Leslie Cheung (what a tragic, tragic waste of a life!) and the beauty and elegance of Joey Wong. Granted Joey is gorgeous, but it's her balletic hand gestures that give her character an unattainable eroticism that's hard to analyse. And though Joey is now almost 20 years older (gawd, which of us isn't?) this will always be the enduring image of that actress.

Some reviewers here have said that the film is simplistic and lacks any surprises, but they're missing the fact that this movie was based on a famous Chinese story written by Pu Songling around 1700! That's a bit like complaining that Romeo and Juliet has a predictable ending and just copies WEST SIDE STORY. (Just wanted to get that off my chest!)

For me, Chinese GHOST STORY is the quintessential romantic tale. It has high tragedy, because we know that Chio Sin and Sin Seen can never be together. It's about becoming mature, for none of us can mature until we've experienced great loss. It's about sacrifice, for sacrifice is an essential component of True Love. And the comedy stylings of Wu Ma don't hurt a bit, either.

Enjoy Chinese GHOST STORY by trying not to view it through a filter of Western culture and you'll get on with it just fine.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is, without a doubt, the single worst movie ever created. There's no arguing here. This is it. End of story. The story is juvenile and sub-moronic, looking like it was created by a three-year-old fascinated with dinosaurs. The entire concept is just plain dumb. It's inconceivable how someone could possibly come up with something so stupid and think it was entertaining. The jokes are also completely lame. If you haven't seen this movie yet, consider yourself lucky. If your morbidly curious as to how bad this movie is, please don't make me describe it. Words can't express how completely awful this movie is. This isn't just bad as in being a bad movie. Even those have cohesion, if not entertainment value. This. . . This is. . . Ugh! Think of the worst story ever told and multiply its badness level by 5,000, and you still haven't come close to how awful this movie is. After giving Pokemon the Movie one point, giving this movie one point seems like nothing short of charity. That's how bad it is. Did the producers and directors even take film classes? Because this is a perfect example of how not to make a film. It looks like some amateur high on paint thinner made this film. If you rented this, please take it back and ask for a refund. And don't even think about renting it again.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The plot is plausible but banal, i.e., beautiful and neglected wife of wealthy and powerful man has a fling with a psychotic hunk, then tries to cover it up as the psycho stalks and blackmails her. But, what develops from there is stupefyingly illogical. Despite the resources that are available to the usual couple who has money and influence, our privileged hero and heroine appear to have only one domestic, their attorney and local police (who say they can do nothing) at their disposal while they grapple with suspense and terror. They have no private security staff (only a fancy security system that they mishandle), household or grounds staff, chauffeurs, etc. Not even, apparently, the funds to hire private round-the-clock nurses to care for the hero when he suffers life-threatening injuries, leaving man and wife alone and vulnerable in their mansion. Our heroine is portrayed as having the brains of a doorknob and our hero, a tycoon, behaves in the most unlikely and irrational manner. The production is an insult to viewers who wasted their time with this drivel and a crime for having wasted the talents of veteran actors Oliva Hussey and Don Murray (what were they thinking?). And, shame on Lifetime TV for insulting the intelligence of its audience for this insipid offering.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I loved this movie. First, because it is a family movie. Second, because it offers a refreshing take on dealing with the news of HIV in a family, with far less hysteria than what I have normally seen in the movies. The brothers are very close, yet are not judgmental. Their desire to protect the youngest brother is noble, but not needed in the end. I understand that Leo's choice on how to deal with his treatment may not have been the most popular one with people, but I believed it was the right choice for him. I can't believe that this was a french television programme. It had great production values. I gave this movie a ten, and I think you will too, once you have seen it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Look, although we don't like to admit it, we've all have to suppress our fears concerning the extreme likelihood of experiencing the events that take place in this movie. You know: you get into your car and you immediately start thinking,\"Gosh, I hope today isn't the day that my accelerator sticks at a comfortable cruising speed of 55 mph, all four door latches break in the locked position, both my main and emergency brake fail, my ignition switch can't be turned off, and I've got a full tank of gas; all simultaneously.\" Fortunately, for most of us, our Thorazine kicks-in before we actually decide that it's a bad idea to be driving a car. Not so for the makers of the harrowing, white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat (if only in preparation to leave the room) action juggernaut, \"Runaway Car\" But they go ahead and drive anyway!

I am endlessly pleased to have found (thanks to the imdb) that this movie is real, and that I didn't merely dream it.

This movie is, at the very least, one of the fantastic sights you will see on your journey to find the El Dorado of Very Bad Cinema.

I highly recommend it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus \"Hamlet\" loses its impact as it loses its grip.

From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.

To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. \"Neither a lender nor a borrower be\" or \"Be true to thyself\". And of course: \"To be or not to be\".

The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.

Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw this series when I was a kid and loved the detail it went into and never forgot it. I finally purchased the DVD collection and its just how I remembered. This is just how a doco should be, unbiased and factual. The film footage is unbelievable and the interviews are fantastic. The only other series that I have found equal to this is 'Die Deutschen Panzer'.

I only wish Hollywood would sit down and watch this series, then they might make some great war movies.

Note. Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers and When Trumpets Fade are some I'd recommend", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The entire thing is very beautiful to look at..the European location shooting was a good idea. The lead actors are attractive. The score is servicable.

BUT THEN THEY SPOKE! And the non-plot developed! And it was all downhill from there. Pacino is sleepwalking and Keller keeps talking about how bored she is..hello, dear, you're not alone. When he does a Mae West imitation, you might have to hide your face, its that painful to watch.

I can't imagine how either actor or director Sydney Pollack got involved with this, or a better question, why it ended up stinking so bad?

Since death is represented in almost every scene, one way or another, maybe you're supposed to have low enjoyment here. Maybe its supposed to feel as empty and cold as death. But I still can't recommend it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I can't believe that they took this off the air. Especially, when they only had a few more episodes left. My daughter, sister and a few of my friends loved watching this show. We were so upset when they stopped showing this because of so called ratings. It is not fair to the people who were watching this show since the beginning. We had a right to see the end. I wish they would take an overall vote from all people with a 3 times a year voting system. They could send out papers in the mail and we as viewers could give an overall vote on all programs that we watch or have heard about. This could also help promote a new show. People would see it and wonder what it is. Not only could you see what the viewers are watching, you could also use this as a tool for free advertisement for TV and cable channels. We want to see the other episodes. Bring it back!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Paulie is a fantasy of a littler girl or perhaps her recollection of what her youth was like growing up.

Tony Shaloub executes a flawless performance as an Russian Scientist (PhD) who cannot find decent work in America. He befriends an isolated parrot while performing meanial duties of a janitor at a behavioral science lab.

The chief Doctor is a bitter man, as Paulie, who can speak and fully comprehend language and learn, embarasses the Doctor, who later banishses him to the lower levels of the building, where Mikail (Tony S.) finds him.

Paulie recants his life with Marie and how they lost each other. The quest begins to reunite Paulie with Marie, only more than 20 years has passed.

The movie ends, some will say predictably, with Mikail reuniting Paulie with Marie. The story closes with the three entering Marie's home, where you can make the final your own choice.

Great family film!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"A trio of treasure hunters is searching the West Indies for a hidden fortune. The lure of gold makes for a rise in tension as the men come closer to the treasure's location. The deep-sea divers hope to track down the gold, but find that greed and hatred leads to murder,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. \"Manfish\" is the name of their boat, not a monster. The skeleton who gives muscular Captain John Bromfield (as Brannigan) his half of the treasure map is very good. Old salt Victor Jory (as Professor) provides the other half of the map. First mate Lon Chaney Jr. (as Swede) plays dumb, and sexy Tessa Prendergast (as Alita) guards the rum (not very well, obviously). Serious editing and continuity problems mar the picture, which otherwise might have amounted to something.

*** Manfish (2/56) W. Lee Wilder ~ John Bromfield, Victor Jory, Lon Chaney Jr.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"May Contain Spoilers*

\"All Dogs Go to Heaven\" is a great movie. I saw it in 1989 when I was two years old. I didn't understand it that well but as I saw it more and more times I started to love it. I love the songs in this movie. My favorite songs are \"Let Me Be Surprised\" and \"Soon You'll Come Home\". Those are beautiful songs. The only thing that bothers me about the movie is Charlie dieing. When I was little my sister couldn't even watch that part. Other than that this movie is wonderful.

My favorite part of the movie is when Annabelle and Charlie are flying around heaven. Heaven is beautiful in the movie and the \"clocks\" are very clever. I also love Itchy, in fact I have 3 dachshunds of my own. They are so cute.

Overall I love this movie and suggest everyone should see it. I give this movie 10/10 stars.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Tobe Hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. Like any other horror fan, I loved the Texas Chainsaw, but I think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title, you should have at least more than one hit movie. I can't really think of any other movie Hooper has done (on his own, don't count Poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. And this movie, Night Terrors, just backs up my point.

Poor Robert Englund, I give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. He did what he could. As for the movie itself? Pure drudge. Unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes, a story that must have been penned in an our, and really just awful scenery, music, and cinematography. Nothing in this film is redeemable. Don't waste your time.

Overall, 1 out of 10. I feel sorry for Hooper, his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. I hope that he's able to pump out at least one more good flick, that way he can do his cult status some justice.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "While this was a better movie than 101 Dalmations (live action, not animated version), I think it still fell a little short of what Disney could do. It was well-filmed, the music was more suited to the action, and the effects were better done (compared to 101). The acting was perhaps better, but then the human characters were given far more appropriate roles in this sequel, and Glenn Close is really not to be missed, as in the first movie. She makes it shine. Her poor lackey and the overzealous furrier sidekicks are wonderful characters to play off of, and they add to the spectacle Disney has given us. This is a great family film, with little or no objectionable material, and yet it remains fun and interesting for adults and children alike. It's bound to be a classic, as so many Disney films are. Here's to hoping the third will be even better still- because you know they probably want to make one. ;)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Cowboys could leave you a little sore in the saddle. Definitely not one of Johns best movies. Don't get me wrong, with any John Wayne move there is always some good spots. And this one has it's fair share. But over all the picture moves slow and just doesn't live up to the aspirations it could have been. Bruce Dern again does an outstanding job as the villain. Roscoe Lee Brown is another bright spot in the movie. The kids in the movie were average but could have been cast better. This would be a good movie for the eight to fifteen year old movie goers.

This would be a good family move to watch with your children. Just be aware, there is a couple of scenes that you may want to take a look at before you let the young ones see it. But most kids that I know who have seen the movie like it. Maybe it's because they get to see kids their age do all the grown up work.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.

This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.

Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.

Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.

The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.

I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Starts really well, nice intro and build up for the main characters but after about 5 minutes, the charm is lost.

The character is in the same mould as the main protagonist from American Pie and Loser without the supporting cast or innovative storyline that made the Pie movies more of a commercial success.

Let's be honest - Heder's acting was pretty poor. Keaton, Daniels and Faris did their best but had no substantial plot or script to get their teeth into The movie just plods on without any pace or clear logical storyline justifying its length.

The ending is about as predictable as they come - so predictable I've ticked the spoilers box for this one line.

My advice: avoid at all costs unless you really really have nothing else to do/listen to or watch and even then you'll feel the producers just cheated you out of an hour and a half of your life.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I like the time period, I like the attempt, but watching a movie that looks like I'm looking at it through a coke bottle gives me a headache. If I played computer games that were this blurry and out of focus, I would upgrade my computer. Could be that this was the look the director was after, but not so it hurts the eyes and you want to leave after 10 minutes. If I hadn't taken someone with me to this film, I was out of there. Even though it was a series and not a movie per say, Band of Brothers accomplished this. They made it look like WWII footage, with just a touch of graininess, but it was still a pleasure to watch. Movies need real people, with real sets, and real locations; Use CGI when it is appropriate, not for an entire film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "While many unfortunately passed on, the ballroom scene is still very much alive and carrying on their legacy. Some are still very much alive and quite well, Octavia is more radiant and beautiful than ever, Willi Ninja is very accomplished and gives a great deal of support to the gay community as a whole, Pepper Labeija just passed on last year of natural cause, may she rest in peace. After Anji's passing Carmen became the mother of the house of Xtravaganza (she was in the beach scene) and she is looking more and more lovely as well. Some balls have categories dedicated to those who have passed, may they all rest in peace. There is currently another project underway known as \"How Do I Look?\", you can check out the website at www.howdoilooknyc.org.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Before I begin, you need to know that I am a huge fan of many of Sonny Chiba's films. His biographical series of the life of his master, Mas Oyama, were amazing and among the best martial arts films ever made, as were most of his Street Fighter films. The action was practically non-stop and with the possible exception of Bruce Lee (depending on who you ask), he was the greatest martial arts practitioner on film during the 1970s. Because they are so good, I've seen at least 15 of his films and recently bought some more (which I am in the process of watching).

Unfortunately, despite my love of these films, I am NOT a mind-numbed zombie who worships the man to such a degree that I rate EVERY film a 10. There are a few reviews like this here on IMDb and I truly think that anyone giving this film a 10 should be ignored because this is such a bad film from a technical standpoint and isn't even close to the being Chiba's best work. A score of 10 isn't a real rating--it's some zombie fan trying to make a statement about Chiba, not this film! As I said, technically this film is awful. Some of this was the result of my seeing the American dubbed version, with its irrelevant prologue and bad dubbing. But most of the problem would still exist with the original Japanese print. The camera-work is simply atrocious--like it was done by chimps (smart chimps, but still chimps nonetheless). Often, much of the fast martial arts action is missed because the camera is so slow or the tops of the actors heads are clipped off due to the shoddiness of production. And, again and again, the camera pans in and out like it is a new toy being used by an idiot plus the editing is beyond wretched--with cuts being done haphazardly and confusingly.

I don't know whether the musical score is original or not--but it was also very, very bad. Sort of like acid rock of 1970 blended poorly with Ennio Morricone's \"Spaghetti Western\" music--it was annoying, distracting and just plain silly.

As for the martial arts action, I think that having chimps do the choreography would have improved things a bit. Instead of the great fight scenes you'd look forward to in a Chiba film, the fights are too brief and often missed by the camera!! So what you are left with is the story...and this MIGHT just be the worst part of the film! It's supposed to be an anti-drug film starring Sonny Chiba as....Sonny Chiba! And when the film begins, he vows to destroy the drug trade in Japan. But, the Mafia (complete with not a single member who looks Italian, but who are ALL Japanese) vows to stop Chiba. And, when a lady comes to Chiba with promises to give him information about how to destroy the drug trade, he agrees to help her and risk his life with no conditions--even though she's NEVER forthright about telling him what she knows! In fact, later it turns out she is just trying to use Chiba to protect her while she herself sells a huge briefcase full of cocaine--and he CONTINUES trying to protect her!! This makes no sense at all and throughout much of the film it looks as if they just shot the film without a script--such as when they went into the bars and brothels and had Chiba walking about as if he was drunk.

So if it was THAT bad, why still does it merit a 3? Well, first, there are many more horrid marital arts films (such as many of those from Hong Kong in the 1970s)--including one with guys dressed up in gorilla suits doing kung fu and their handlers with 3 foot long tongues they used for fighting (now THAT'S bad). Second, while the action is very bad compared to other Sonny Chiba films, compared to its contemporaries, it's not that bad. Still, you could easily do a lot better than this horrid little film.

By the way, if you are wondering if this is the worst Sonny Chiba film, it certainly is not! In one of his first films, INVASION OF THE NEPTUNE MEN, Chiba plays a leotard-wearing super-hero who battles pointy-headed invaders from the planet Neptune. It's so bad that it rivals PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN for awfulness.

A final note to parents--Like most of Sonny Chiba's films, this one is very violent and has its share of boobies. DON'T let little kids watch this no matter how much they beg! Make them wait until they are older before you let them watch wretched rated-R martial arts films!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is a brilliant sci-fi movie that is very strange in how men and women both view the same film. I have talked to many people about the film and almost every guy loved it and said it was brilliant--while most women thought it was just disgusting and stupid! This is the only movie I know of that has such polarized views based on gender. Perhaps many women just have a lower tolerance for disgusting or depressing plots--but whatever the cause, I have always found this difference fascinating.

The film begins with a murder and a subsequent investigation headed by Charlton Heston. This is set in the near future and the head of the huge international Soylent Corporation has been assassinated. As the film unfolds, you quickly realize this is a terrible and highly inequitable future American society. The rich live in gorgeous apartments with security and all the pleasures money can buy(including \"furniture\"--a euphemism for paid mistresses that come along with the apartment). At the same time, the masses are dirt poor, unemployed and in many cases living in abandoned cars or apartment hallways. Overpopulation and smog have taken a severe toll and the future looks awful indeed!

Why the rich man died and the awful truth he could not live with I really should NOT discuss--it could ruin the film for you. However, the film has a great plot and acting and is super-exciting to watch. Plus, it features Edward G. Robinson in his final screen performance as the crusty sidekick to Heston. Though not for the easily depressed or squeamish, this is a great sci-fi film that is allegorical and profound.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie should have never been made.

What a shame of the budget.

Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie....

Definitely not worth watching.

They keep replaying the same \"shots\" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.

It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.

His movies are getting worser every time.

Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film plays in the 60s and is about an Italian family: Romano, his wife Rosa and their two children Gigi and Giancarlo emigrate from Solino in Italy to Duisburg in the Ruhr area. I like this film, because I think it is quite realistic: it shows problems which many foreign families have when they come to another country: they have to get used to a new culture, a new environment and this can be difficult: especially if you don't know the language.... It is difficult for the family but they find a way: they open a restaurant which offers typical Italian food, and it is named \"Solino\", like their hometown. The film also shows different conflicts - Gigi and Giancarlo fall in love with the same girl, and although Rosa has to work very hard, Romano refuses to pay money to engage more workers, etc. etc. But stop, I don't want to tell you how it goes on. You should watch the film yourself, it's a nice one - I have also made a Referat about it and examined scenes which show different cultural attitudes. And there are a few...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie should be required viewing for all librarians or would-be librarians. All of the best lines are directly related to librarianship. The public library vs. academic library argument is a classic argument waged among librarians and library school students. It also breaks many librarian stereotypes. Librarians might even be capable of having fun -- even if they don't *usually* have sex in the romance languages section! (The best movie about librarians? Desk Set, with Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, of course.)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The 3rd and in my view the best of the Blackadder series.

The only downside is that there is no Lord Percy who was the funniest character from the previous series but Hugh Laurie's Prince Regent is suitably madcap laugh a line.

As a package it's quality through and through with convincing regency sets, superb cutting sarcasm and little bits of the wacky, the 'macbeth' actors standing out and Prince Georges 'lucky us' chicken impression, and the missing words from Dr Johnson's dictionary.

Few comedies have been quite as both clever as they are funny, okay the odd lame observation or line gets in but mostly it's a scream.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Dont let the MPAA fool you with their \"Rated R for extreme violence\" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "First and foremost, Zorie Barber (Zeke), might be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. As a character that's supposed to be a hip, Village writer into the martial arts and proud of being mysterious, why is he so hyper, over-dramatic, and plain horrible? Did he know anything about his character before they started filming? Did the director? Don't the martial arts teach discipline? Aside from that, this film misses the target with its lame jokes and seen-it-already gross-out humor. Hand in toilet? Trainspotting. Masturbation? Hmm. Fast Times at Ridgemont High, American Pie, the list goes on.. .Bad dialogue: In one sequence, Eric says \"it's none of my business but . ...\" and 30 seconds later Mia says \"why is this any of your business?\" Bad editing: At least five minutes worth of film are wasted on NYC traffic shots.
It's also impossible to believe that the four main male characters would be a tight-knit group of friends in any world. I can't comment on what makes everyone laugh, but if you enjoy low-brow, basic bathroom humor and insults, by all means, enjoy. If you want something a little smarter but on the same lines, see Boomerang. If you want a solid what-goes-around romantic comedy, go for The Tao Of Steve. But anyone who thinks Whipped is witty and an accurate portrayal dating, well, I cannot agree at all.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Firstly let me say that I didn't like the fact that The Rock won the title that is so gay. Next I feel Regal should have got back his European title, Jeff Hardy is a crappy champ. Rob Van Dam had the Intercontinental title too long already Brock should have won it. I am pleased with Storm and Christian being tag champs, best match was the Booker T and Big Show match in my opinion.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Gunga Din (1939) is based on Rudyard Kipling's poem.The movie is directed by George Stevens.It's set in India during the 19th century where three British soldiers have to stop an evil guru and his murderous cult.Gunga Din is a marvelous adventure war comedy with plenty of thrilling moments.The three leading men are brilliant.Cary Grant is Sgt.Archibald Cutter, Victor McLaglen is Sgt.'Mac' MacChesney and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.(the son of the legendary you know who) is Sgt.Thomas Ballantine.Let's not forget the other fine players who include Sam Jaffe playing Gunga Din himself in a brilliant way.The beautiful and gifted Joan Fontaine is Emaline Stebbins.It's awfully fun to watch the difficulties of Tommy's and Emmy's wedding plans.Gunga Din is awfully lot of fun.It can be funny, it can be thrilling.It can be everything a good movie requires.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.

The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.

As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.

But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.

Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.

But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "She is such an extraordinary singer, who cares about anything else!!!! That final scene is one of the best moments in all of show biz - bar none!! I'm glad she kept the camera on herself for ten minutes - she deserves that iconic status - such is the power of the voice.

I first saw this film when I was five and it had a huge impact on me. I see it today, and yes, I can see some of the flaws (like Esther wanting to leave the Grammy's right as her award is being announced).

But some of the other user comments are just plain false - I mean, where is the gratuitous nudity - maybe we saw different films???

Streisand's singing ability is monumental, and if she has a big ego - fine!

She's earned it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Normally I would have given this movie a 6. It tackles a very important topic and it does it relatively well - despite Katie Wright which is an accomplishment in and of itself.

I have no idea if she was actually instructed to play the character like this or is naturally irritating, but she did an awesome job at making it impossible for me to care for Lexi. There's no dimension to her other than how confused, helpless and clueless she is, and how good she is at whimpering. I can understand how a young girl who blames herself for the loss of her friend and whose eating disorder has spiraled out of control would be distraught, scared and in pain. However, Wright's entire performance is based on incessant wailing and sniveling, the rest being whining. I couldn't help but feel this particular girl's problem was caused not by the demon that is Bulimia, but by her not having a backbone. I very much doubt that's the point the movie meant to make.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "John Water's (\"Pink Flamingos\"...) \"Pecker\" is the best movie I've seen in a while. It gives the viewer a surreal image of life in Baltimore (I live in nearby Washington, DC), with a Warhol-like use of color, exaggerated motions and emotions. Pecker becomes larger than his town can handle, and he is separated from his loved-ones (including a sexy Ricci) by his man-loving art manager. The picture left a refreshing taste in my mouth--kind of like a fresh strawberry ice cream on a hot summer day--and though this taste was rather flat and simplistic, it only made the whole thing more profound and critical. It is a celebration of life, liberty, and the right to bear arms...and everything else this country stands for. -Juan Pieczanski (jpieczanski@sidwell.edu)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I may very well be one of the few who really stuck to this film. I also saw this movie when it came out, and I agree with the last post that Up The Acedemy was way ahead of its' time. The humor in the film itself is pure MAD magazine. I don't see why MAD stand behind this feature. It was also one of the few films of the early 80's to have a killer accompanying soundtrack with the punk and new wave bands that were emerging from L.A. at the time. I own the soundtrack and I play it constantly to this day. What can I say? There are definitely worst movies out there. I don't consider Porky's to be as funny as Up The Academy, there are some really good laughs throughout the film, and the jokes fall on either stereotypes or getting laid. Hey, nobody said this was going to be The Maltese Falcon.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.

So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.

It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.

This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.

I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As with all the other reviewers, this movie has been a constant in my mind after 30 years. I recall going to the library researching all that I could on this story. I even wrote to the PBS station for more information. Despite all this, all I was able to find out was that it was a story printed in a newspaper in the early part of the 1900s.

Fastward to 2002, after years of searching ebay for on a weekly basis and there it was, a VHS copy of the movie. There was one other bidder but I was determined to win this movie. The losing bidder wrote me asking for a copy which I gave her. Despite owning a copy, I still searched and searched finally finding a site that sold a DVD copy of the movie. You can find it at: http://www.johntopping.com/Harvey%20Perr/War%20Widow/war_widow.html", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This so-called \"documentary\" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.

All those who have actually studied the case knows different.

First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.

Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called \"documentary\").

A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.

The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.

I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson (\"They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...\") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the \"joke\" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!

I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "for all the subtle charms this student film may contain, was anyone else bored to death waiting WENDINGO to show his paper macho face??

the anti-climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop.

don't get me wrong, i'm all into exploring America's dark underbelly, but this is a turd-a-flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p.clarkson looks hot taking it.

sadly, from a guy from wings.

the best 2 minutes the film has to offer.

if you felt like ripping off DELIVERANCE, you could do better.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.

But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.

It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The latest film by the Spanish director Agusti Villaronga is a study on how children that experience violence and isolation within their remote community, develop into troubled young adults that need certain psychic tools to deal with their hidden mental frailty. Whether these tools are religion followed to a fanatical level, caring for others or simply putting on a macho image whilst engaging as a male-prostitute, Villaronga creates a successful examination of how these vices affect three teenagers living in Spain under Franco. The three witness the disturbing double death or their friends before they are teenagers and subsequently bury the emotions they feel with their peers frail corpses until they meet again once more at a hospital for those suffering form tuberculosis.

The cinematic style of the text is typically visually opulent as you would expect from the Spanish auteur and is extremely reminiscent of fellow Spaniard Pedro Almodovar's work with themes dealing with sexual desire, both heterosexual and homosexual. An element that is different between the two directors is that Villaronga favours a supernatural undertone spliced with claustrophobic, gritty realism opposed to Almodovar's use of surrealism, although both styles are similar.

The piece gives an insight into troubled young psyche and contains disturbing violence and scenes of a sexual nature. I highly recommend watching this film as it contains elements that will remain with the audience for a considerable period after viewing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Wow, I can't believe I waited so long to see this film. I just never got around to watching it. The plot has nothing that interests me. I know nothing about soccer (football.) I am one of those American fools that has no clue. I had never even seen David Beckham before this film. I chose to ignore the buzz surrounding this film at the time it was released in America. Enough about me.

Truth be told, it was a mistake to ignore this little piece of movie-making heaven. What a fun film. It's full of color and exuberance. I had a goofy grin on my face through the whole movie. Parminder Nagra is so sweet and lovable, you can't help but root for her. No wonder why the American television show E.R. has snatched her up. I have a new appreciation for Indian culture. Those people know how to have a good time. The wedding scenes are dazzlingly beautiful.

The only problem I had was deciphering some of the British slang and dialogue through the accents. I turned on the English subtitles to make sure I didn't miss anything. (This is not a criticism of the film!) I'm sure audiences worldwide have trouble understanding the constantly changing slang in American films as well.

This is a perfect date film. It has a great sports plot like Rocky, and a strong sense of feminism that is empowering for women. I watched it with my wife, and sixteen year old niece, and we all loved it. I highly recommend it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Although the actors were good, specially Fritzi Haberland as the blind Lilly, the film script is obsessively pretentious and completely arbitrary. A famous theatre director (Hilmir Snær Guðnason), becoming blind after a car accident, is on the run for himself and his destiny. Lilly, being sightless since her birth, is teacher for blind persons, and wants to make him \"seeing\" again. (Blind persons are seeing with their fingers, nose and ears.) Here this movie is becoming a roadmovie; and the longer the road becomes, the closer their relation develops, which was predictable since the beginning of the film. The theatre director is on the road to his mother (Jenny Gröllmann). His mother is living somewhere in Russia on the sea and making artistic installations - of course, what should she do other! - and she is still living, because she is waiting his son, to die. My God! This are destinies!

Finally the son arrived! Mum is celebrating a big party! At the beach. Wind is blowing and a pianist is playing on a real piano in the middle of a dune. Yes, they are celebrating her farewell. The son arrives just in time. Mother can finally swallow the pills administered by a pretty nurse. Now a great artist can die in the arms of her great artist son, speaking sad contemplations about live in perfect German, while the son is answering with a rough accent. Because the son is unable to see, he is not falling in love to the nurse, - the film script would have become also too complicate! - but is looking for Lilly on the way back to home.

Parallel to this roadmovie the sister of Lilly, staying at home is asking a gawky schoolmate to deflower her, who has first to booze himself to courage. The occasion is favourable. Because Mum (Tina Engel) is on journey together with the lover of Lilly, Paul (Harald Schrott). They are after Lilly, to bring her back. Paul and the mother of Lilly are not falling in love, because the film script would have become too complicate. The film script missed to make out of Paul something exceptional too. I would suggest an architect or a Pianist, or course a famous one! When they finally find Lilly, they want to convince her, to come back to Paul, because he has two eyes to see and is able to care for her. But Lilly felt in love to his pupil, the theatre director; did I mention, that he was even a famous theatre director?

This is German film art! As you may see in this pretentious production, that the German film subsidy fund is not always producing good films, because they subsidy just such kind of pseudo intellectual films. This film is really embarrassing. I have the impression, that the film script has been cobbled together from some highbrows in coffee shops and restaurants. Everybody is entitled to contribute with an idea. Probably also Til Schweiger has contributed with some intellectual flash of wit, being a co-producer. I was reminded by this film script to an other German film of absolute painfulness: \"Barfuss\" - already the spelling of the title is not right! \"Barfuss\" DVD cover writes proudly: \"A Til Schweiger Film\". This film got also subsidies of Filmstiftung NRW, Filmförderung Hamburg and the FFA.

Please don't spoil your time with this film! There are really good films in Germany. Watch out for film directors like Marcus H. Rosenmüller, Joseph Vilsmaier, Hans Steinbichler, Hans-Christian Schmid, Faith Akin ...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I watched 'Speak Easily' one night and thought it was o.k., but missing something. Maybe Buster Keaton strangely speaking threw me off, or the labored line delivery of a leading lady. The next day I kept thinking about the movie, though. I couldn't get Durante's song out of my head, I kept trying to better remember Thelma Todd's first scene, I considered that maybe Keaton did do some funny falls and physical comedy. The next night I watched a scene with Thelma Todd as a conniving chorus girl trying to impress Buster and Jimmy with her sex appeal. A very funny scene, the actors excellent, their faces, their eyes, their silly expressions. So I watched another scene, their show is opening on Broadway. Buster in his blissful innocence botches every act. Again, I was laughing out loud, appreciating Keaton's clowning and tumbling. So the next night I watched the whole movie again, and this time I see it for the first time: It's Stupendous! It's Sensational! It's Sublime! Three great comedians! Todd dances! Durante sings! Keaton speaks! Sure it ain't poifect...but there's a lot of laughs in this picture.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The cat and mouse are involved in the usual chases when Jerry dives into a bottle of invisible ink and discovers that it makes him vanish. Instead of seizing the opportunity to go spy on a girl mouse changing room or something, he uses his new-found invisibility to torment Tom. And it's pretty funny and quite inventive despite being a somewhat one-joke cartoon. And the action never leaves the interior of the house, which is usually the trait of below average T&J shorts. Still worth a 7/10.

However, I'm not sure how an invisible mouse can cast a shadow on the wall, it defies physics and the very nature of being invisible itself.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say \"Hey my watch has stopped\"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in \"Celebrity.\" It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.

This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.

The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.

The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.

The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.

In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something... It's not as easy as it's always made to look.

It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is a great example of how even some very funny jokes can go terribly wrong. i really expected at least something from this movie after seeing the add which was funny as hell but the movie wasn't half as good.

The weird part is that the jokes are actually funny, the spoofs of the smoking ban, Jo Bole... etc. are genuinely good jokes but i don't know whom to blame this movie flop on.

The prime candidates may be:- 1) The hammers ( actors) and hammeresses (actresses) and not even the funny kind 2) The director 3)The guy who cast the actors and/or the director Anyway if you are really really bored and i mean really see this movie, or else get a copy of each and every ad or teaser of this movie and laugh your butt of because those will be far funnier than the film.

p.s the only saving grace of this film is mahesh manjrekar and the funny chappu bhai", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I had no expectations other than to be entertained for 90 minutes, and that is exactly what I was.

Of course it is campy, of course some of the dialog wasn't perfect, of course the \"special effects\" were a bit hokey. That is exactly why I enjoyed the movie so much. It is a perfect fit for this genre of a 70's Horror classic.

The talent needs to start some where, that goes for the actors and the crew, and what better piece of material to sharpen your skills on than this.

I for one look forward to another film from these producers and directors.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Put quite simply, this film is terrifying.

It starts off simply, looking like a study of a rebellious young girl and goes on to become a beautifully crafted horror film.

Don't expect gore, or zombies. This is psychological, and just as he would also do in Candyman, Bernard Rose manages to convey the horror that is not being believed.

Each time you watch this film, you realise more about what's happening, and about how the two worlds in this film interconnect.

Drawings have never been scarier.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film has, over the past ten years, become one of my favorite pseudo noir experiences. The three storyline threads given us by Kazan each have their unique and separate pleasures. The domestic chitchat between Bel Geddes and Widmark, the movement between rooms, the small gestures such as the phone book Barbara places on the chair under her son so he can reach the table, those small intimate exchanges between husband and wife, all are well crafted and natural. More than anything else, I love their porch, that second living room where it is clear they spend much of their summer time. The second thread is the professional relationship between many in the film but especially between Widmark and Douglas' characters. It may not be totally original and does get a bit blustery but all in all, it comes across as real, respectful and efficient. The third thread,the grungy tale of Blackie and his tattered little gang, gets us closest to a dark and frightening noir world.Palance's Blackie is as cold as a block of ice. This self-proclaimed business man, this self made man clearly has a complexity we only briefly tap in to. For me, this film continues to be a completely satisfying experience.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Child 'Sexploitation' is one of the most serious issues facing our world today and I feared that any film on the topic would jump straight to scenes of an explicitly sexual nature in order to shock and disturb the audience. After having seen both 'Trade' and 'Holly', one film moved me to want to actually see a change in international laws. The other felt like a poor attempt at making me cry for five minutes with emotive music and the odd suicide.

I do not believe that turning this issue into a Hollywood tear jerker is a useful or necessary strategy to adopt and I must commend the makes of 'Holly' for engaging subtly but powerfully with the terrible conditions these children are sadly forced to endure. 'Trade' wavered between serious and stupid with scenes involving the death of a cat coming after images that represented children being forced to commit some horrendous acts. I found this unengaging and at times offensive to the cause. If I had wanted a cheap laugh I would not have signed up for a film on child trafficking.

For anyone who would like to watch a powerful film that actually means something I would suggest saving the money on the cinema ticket for the release of 'Holly'.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Simply put, this is the best movie to come out of Michigan since... well, ever! Evil Dead eat your heart out, Hatred of A Minute was some of the oddest, and best cinema to be seen by this reviewer in a long time. I recommend this movie to anyone who is in need of a head trip, or a good case of the willies!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.

the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.

but again, that's the point ;)

If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.

It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!

But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.

The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay.

Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me.

The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.

For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here.

Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life.

Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money.

I even regret renting the movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Having endured this inaccurate movie I will admit that it is a more modern telling of the story than previous versions. Yet, it is so inaccurate and has has been made so politically correct that it made me mad after watching it. Davy Crockett was very poorly represented by Billy Bob, who I thought would have probably been better cast as Sam Houston given both men's love of oratory. I think self-absorbed Dennis Quaid(an actual Texan) would have been a perfect Crockett and it would have definitely fed into his starved sense of self-worship. As a Texan and a true believer in the Texas mindset I feel Davy Crockett was the quintessential Texan even though not born here. Our unofficial motto is \"It ain't braggin' if it is a fact\" was made for Crockett. And that last scene at the Alamo where Crockett is the last survivor has to be the biggest insult to Davy Crockett ever made. To even suggest that this giant of a man and seasoned fighter would allow himself to be taken alive is ridiculous. Three different eye witness accounts place him dead amid the bodies of a dozen or more dead Mexican soldiers after undoubtedly fierce hand to hand combat. Finally, that lame ending to the movie supposedly depicting the battle of San Jacinto as a mutual battle of 600 Texicans vs 700 Mexican Soldiers when there was actually closer to 1,500 well trained Mexican regulars. Every Texas school kid who pays attention in their first Texas history class knows the battle took the Mexican Army by surprise during siesta time and the Mexican army was so confused they could not form ranks and fled as they were not trained to fight frontier style hand to hand.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "So we compromised. This was a fairly charming film, I liked the art direction (it felt far more \"real\" than most kids movies), and the costumes weren't too cutesy. The child actors were not bad to watch (the adult performances trended toward cheesy). It was great that they showed how a bullied kid bullies others as well as kids standing up to bullying.

I don't know how many grown ups would want to see this for themselves, but it's a great film to take a kid to. And since \"Barnyard\" was apparently attended by 100+ kids at the same time, I'm REALLY glad we picked the sparsely attended showing of \"worms\" instead.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film never received the attention it deserved, although this is one of the finest pieces of ensemble acting, and one of the most realistic stories I have seen on screen. Clearly filmed on a small budget in a real V.A. Hospital, the center of the story is Joel, very well-played by Eric Stoltz. Joel has been paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, and comes to the hospital to a ward with other men who have spinal injuries. Joel is in love with Anna, his married lover, played by Helen Hunt, who shows early signs of her later Academy-Award winning work.

Although the Joel-Anna relationship is the basic focus, there are many other well-developed characters in the ward. Wesley Snipes does a tremendous job as the angry Raymond. Even more impressive is William Forsythe as the bitter and racist Bloss. I think Forsythe's two best scenes are when he becomes frustrated and angry at the square dancers, and, later, when he feels empathy for a young Korean man who has been shot in a liquor store hold up. My favorite scene with Snipes is the in the roundtable discussion of post-injury sexual options.

The chemistry between Stoltz and Hunt is very strong, and they have two very intimate, but not gratuitous, sex scenes. The orgasm in the ward is both sexy and amusing. There is also another memorable scene where Joel and Bloss and the Korean boy take the specially-equipped van to the strip bar. It's truly a comedy of errors as they make their feeble attempts to get the van going to see the \"naked ladies.\"

The story is made even more poignant by the fact that the director, Neal Jimenez, is paralyzed in real life. This is basically his story. This film is real, not glossy or flashy. To have the amount of talent in a film of such a small budget is amazing. I recommend this film to everyone I see, because it is one of those films that even improves on a second look. It's a shame that such a great piece of work gets overlooked, but through video, perhaps it can get the attention it so richly deserves.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw a special advance screening of this today. I have to let you know, I'm not a huge fan of either Dane Cook or Steve Carell, so I really had no expectations going into this. I ended up enjoying it quite a bit.

Dan in Real Life is the story of a widower with 3 daughters who goes to spend a weekend with his family. While at a bookstore, he meets the woman of his dreams, only to find out that she happens to be his brother's girlfriend.

This movie is pretty well made- the soundtrack, cinematography, and acting are all top-notch, especially Steve Carell. My problem with it was mostly that there seemed to be a lack of character development, mostly with Dane Cook's character. We never really get a close look at the relationship between Dane and Steve's characters, and I felt that it could have helped a bit in showing what Dan's inner conflict about being in love with Dane's girlfriend was like. Other than this though, Dan in Real Life is definitely a solid, sweet film- definitely a nice break from all the horror and action movies we've been getting this year.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.

Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is not my favorite WIP (\"Women in Prison\"), but it is one of the most famous films in the sub-genre. It is was produced by Roger Corman, who at this point had already produced a few WIPs. It is obvious that the film tries to play with the established formula. The movie takes place in an USA prison, not in a \"banana republic\" like most WIP films. I'm not sure if that was a wise move, but it is an acceptable change of pace. Writer-director Demme really gets into his job, always digging for new ways to present a familiar scenario. In fact, he is a little too ambitious for his own good. The filmmaker creates a few surreal dream sequences that are borderline pretentious but it is fun to see how hard he tries to put this film above your average chicks-in-chains flick. But do not worry, Demme still operates within the parameters of the sub-genre. There is plenty of nudity and violence, something that will satisfy hardcore fans. The film is a little slow, but it is very entertaining. The cast is good. Roberta Collins is a WIP veteran, so she does not need an introduction, and Barbara Steel is a hoot as the wheelchair-bound crazy warden. Pam Grier is sorely missed, though.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Barbara Streisand directs and stars in this very Jewish story.

To have a chance at obtaining an education, Babs enthusiastically disguises herself as a boy which isn't the most difficult thing to do since she already looks like a boy, anyway. At her new school she meets many male classmates who have no trouble at all in believing she's a guy.

Don't miss the best of many moments of unintentional humor when Babs' male friend thinks she's a man, but pins 'him' to the ground, sits on top of 'him', and looks affectionately into 'his' eyes.... *snicker*.

Mediocre film; splashy story about nothing particularly interesting.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is possibly the cheapest, cheesiest, and poorest sequel ever made.

Yet, it is the funniest and most idiotic movie by Disney, and will guarantee laughs at the sappy stories and lame plots from start to finish.

It's a group of short stories that seem like bad fanfictions.

*SPOILER ALERT* The first one's all about Beast and Belle being petty over a pathetic argument. Then, three loser new characters decide to patch things up by forging a letter of forgiveness to give to Belle. Part way through this little episode, Belle has wall eyes, which made my siblings and I laugh so hard. Then, she and the Beast fight more over the letter... and later learn the meaning of forgiveness. How old are they??? Certainly old enough to know the meaning of forgiveness.

Then, the next one's all about Lumiere being the world's biggest dope when it comes to romance. This coming from the man who could woo anything female. And they make FiFi a psychotic villainess who tries to kill Belle, and winds up getting off scotch-free by the end of it. What a message to send the kids!

Then, the next one's all about Mrs. Potts being angsty. And the next one after that's all about Beast becoming overly possessive of a bird, to the point where he just seems downright silly.

The animation's so ugly, it kills. There are at least 100 mistakes you can plainly see... and the coloring is awful.

Belle's a simpering sap who blubbers whenever something goes wrong. Plus, she's petty and very different from the usual Belle.

And the side characters are annoying... (I mean, Cogsworth and Lumiere fight almost all the time. I know they did that in the movie, but it was overdone in this.)

But the worst character is Mrs. Potts. She's ruined in this. I can't even describe it. Just buy it and see for yourself.

I give it a 1/10 for the sap, but I give it a 10/10 for comedy.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Grey Gardens was enthralling and crazy and you just couldn't really look away. It was so strange, and funny and sad and sick and ……….. really no words can describe. The move Grey Gardens is beyond bizarre. I found out about this film reading my Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader, by the Bathroom Reader's Institute and it was well worth the rental and bump to the top of my movie watching queue. This movie is about the nuttiest most eccentric people that may have ever been filmed. One should watch it for their favorite Edie outfits, which I am sure include curtains. When I get old I almost wish to be just like Big Edie, thumbing my nose at normalcy and society.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Once I watched The Tenant and interpreted it as a horror movie. It uses many of the tropes of the genre: the sinister apartment, suspicious neighbors, apparitions, mysteries, hallucinations. The life of the hero, Trelkovsky, seemed surrounded by evil, secret forces trying to drive him mad.

Last time I watched it I challenged this initial interpretation. If this movie is a horror movie, it's only horror in the sense that a Kafka novel is horror. In fact this movie can be understood on a literal level as a lonely man slowly becoming crazy without any external influence.

Polanski made in his career three movies dealing with madness: Repulsion, which I don't particularly like because the development of madness in the heroine never convinced me; Rosemary's Baby, in which the heroine is driven mad by evil forces; and The Tenant, which might be the best study of paranoia ever made in cinema.

Trelkovsky is a young man who rents an apartment in which a woman killed herself. He becomes obsessed with her and slowly starts becoming her: he wears her clothes, puts on makeup, talks like her. But is he being possessed by a spirit, or is he just letting his wild imagination get the best of him? It's this hesitation between what is real and imaginary, and which Polanski never resolves, that makes this such a fascinating movie. Many events in the movie can be attributed to the supernatural as easily as they can be to normal causes, and it's up to the viewer to decide what to believe in.

Although this is not my favorite Polanski movie, it is nevertheless a good example of his ability to create suspense and portray madness in very convincing terms. And technically speaking, it's a marvel too. Suffice to say he collaborates with film composer Philippe Sarde and legendary director of photography Sven Nykvist (Bergman's DP) in the making of this movie. A slow pacing and sometimes uninteresting segments may make this movie difficult to enjoy, but it's an experience nevertheless.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "For some reason, this film has never turned up in its original language in my neck of the woods (despite owning the TCM UK Cable channel, which broadcasts scores of MGM titles week in week out). More disappointingly, it's still M.I.A. on DVD – even from Warners' recently-announced \"Western Classics Collection\" Box Set (which does include 3 other Robert Taylor genre efforts); maybe, they're saving it for an eventual \"Signature Collection\" devoted to this stalwart of MGM, which may be coming next year in time for the 40th anniversary of his passing…

I say this because the film allows him a rare villainous role as a selfish Westerner with a fanatical hatred of Indians and who opts to exploit his expert marksmanship by making some easy money hunting buffaloes; an opening statement offers the alarming statistic that the population of this species was reduced from 60,000,000 to 3,000 in the space of just 30 years! As an associate, Taylor picks on former professional of the trade Stewart Granger – who rallies alcoholic, peg-legged Lloyd Nolan (who continually taunts the irascible and vindictive Taylor) and teenage half-breed Russ Tamblyn to this end. As expected, the company's relationship is a shaky one – reminiscent of that at the centre of Anthony Mann's THE NAKED SPUR (1953), another bleak open-air MGM Western. The film, in fact, ably approximates the flavor and toughness of Mann's work in this field (despite being writer/director Brooks' first of just a handful of such outings but which, cumulatively, exhibited a remarkable diversity); here, too, the narrative throws in a female presence (Debra Paget, also a half-breed) to be contended between the two rugged leads – and Granger, like the James Stewart of THE NAKED SPUR, returns to his job only grudgingly (his remorse at having to kill buffaloes for mere sport and profit is effectively realized).

The latter also suffers in seeing Taylor take Paget for himself – she bravely but coldly endures his approaches, while secretly craving for Granger – and lets out his frustration on the locals at a bar while drunk! Taylor, himself, doesn't come out unscathed from the deal: like the protagonist of THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948), he becomes diffident and jealous of his associates, especially with respect to a rare – and, therefore, precious – hide of a white buffalo they've caught; he even goes buffalo-crazy at one point (as Nolan had predicted), becoming deluded into taking the rumble of thunder for the hooves of an approaching mass of the species! The hunting scenes themselves are impressive – buffaloes stampeding, tumbling to the ground when hit, the endless line-up of the day's catch, and the carcasses which subsequently infest the meadows. The film's atypical but memorable denouement, then, is justly famous: with Winter in full swing, a now-paranoid Taylor out for Granger's blood lies in wait outside a cave (in which the latter and Paget have taken refuge) to shoot him; when Granger emerges the next morning, he discovers Taylor in a hunched position – frozen to death!

Incidentally, my father owns a copy of the hefty source novel of this (by Milton Lott) from the time of the film's original release: actually, he has collected a vast number of such editions – it is, after all, a practice still in vogue – where a book is re-issued to promote its cinematic adaptation. Likewise for the record, Taylor and Granger – who work very well off each other here – had already been teamed (as sibling whale hunters!) in the seafaring adventure ALL THE BROTHERS WERE VALIANT (1953)…which, curiously enough, is just as difficult to see (in fact, even more so, considering that it's not even been shown on Italian TV for what seems like ages)!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why \"What's New Scooby Doo\" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in \"A Pup Named Scooby Doo\" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original \"Scooby Doo Where Are You\".

The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think \"Scooby Doo\" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of \"Mystery Inc\" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.

This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as \"danger prone\". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.

Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic \"Scooby Doo\" formula that should never be messed with.

As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!

Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.

Yech!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The plot of 'House of Games' is the strongest thing about it: a successful author and psychologist is conned by a gang of grifters, but in discovering the wicked part of herself that enjoys the thrill of what they do, she finally gets her revenge. That's about the pitch: but someone has to take responsibility for it coming across as being acted by puppets. It has to be the director Mamet: Lindsay Crouse has had a varied and pretty steady TV and film career, so she can't perform this badly all the time. She's supposed to go from uptight, cool, controlled professional to calculating, wicked fast lady having fun, as shown by the change from beige trouser suit (which she seems to wear for three days straight, including underwear) to floppy floral sundress. But everyone seems to be speaking their lines the same clipped, precise way; I imagine Mamet wanting to make sure not a syllable of his scintillating script got missed. The effect is unsettling and spoils the atmosphere of mystery and suspense he is presumably trying to create. At times 'House of Games' loses any connection to how human beings actually behave or talk, and becomes just a mechanism to spin out the plot. The clunky vibes'n'oboe faux-jazz soundtrack doesn't help either. The ultimate result is that the only entertainment to be had is in guessing the outcome, and the sooner you do that the sooner you will get bored with the robotic, two-dimensional performances. And they smoke too much!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I found the DVD version of this movie at a rummage sale. The basic premise is an affair between a teacher/coach a student. The acting is weak and the plot razor thin.

This movie had all the depth and plot development of an adult film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Director Douglas Sirk scores again with this, the grandaddy of all dysfunctional family films. This lush, trashy saga is a masterpiece, beautifully combining all of the elements of Sirk's soapers and strategically placing them all into one movie. \"Written on the Wind\" very obviously influenced the 1980s TV series \"Dallas\" and \"Dynasty\", as this is basically a feature-length version of those later nighttime soaps.

Lauren Bacall, wonderfully and subtly, plays Lucy Moore, a New York City secretary who marries oil baron, Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). Unbeknownst to both of them, Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) is also in love with the quiet, but sexy secretary. They all go back to Kyle's family's mansion in Texas where we meet his white trash slut-of-a-sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone in an Oscar-winning turn). Yipee! The sparks begin to fly - from the romances to the catfights, this is a campy trip. Not only does Mitch have to fight the feelings he has for his best friend's wife, but Marylee tries to sleep with everybody since she can't have her one true love who is Mitch. Topping it all off, Kyle learns he's impotent, but somehow Lucy ends up pregnant.

This is pure soap and pure melodramatic entertainment. How can you not love it? This film signals one of Universal's most popular films and one of director Sirk's best works. Some of the dialogue is absolutely sizzling and visual metaphors are thrown in every which way - the theme of wind throughout is great. The cast is great, although Bacall is completely underused despite receiving top-billing behind Hudson. Stack's Oscar loss reportedly devastated him. He considered this his finest performance and apparently was none too pleased to lose out. And he did turn out a fabulous performance as the whimpering alcoholic. What a stunning movie! This film proves what I've been thinking for ages - Sirk is the master of classic melodrama. Where's his Oscar?

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Hmm, Hip Hop music to a period western. Modern phrases like \"cool\" and too many others to keep track of. \"The sistahs are in tha house\"!?French manicured nails on hard riding girls. Microphone packs CLEARLY visible on Li'l Kim's back. I just can't go on with the litany of errors made by the director and editors.

The acting isn't as bad as I've ever seen. The women did well enough with a poor script.

It was weird hearing Louis Mandylor speaking in his native accent.

The girls are beautiful. The costumes fabulous albeit completely incorrect. I just can't believe they would dumb down what could have been a great story. I would feel offended to believe that this movie was loaded with such trappings that it would play well in the inner city.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Star Wars: Episode 4 .

the best Star Wars ever. its the first movie i ever Sean were the bad guys win and its a very good ending. it really had me wait hing for the next star wars because so match stuff comes along in this movie that you just got to find out more in the last one. whit Al lot of movies i always get the feeling that it could be don bedder but not whit this one. and i Will never ever forget the part were wader tels Luke he is his father.way too cool. also love the Bob feat figure a do hes a back ground player. if you never ever Saw a star wars movie you go to she this one.its the best.

thanks Lucas", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.

The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.

Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.

Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.

The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.

The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Fever Pitch is a fun enough movie. It has a lot of funny moments (including a hilariously disturbing shower scene). Like most romantic comedies, it has a \"dead zone\" in the middle where all the heavy, \"she's breaking up with me\" stuff happens, but other than that it continues to be funny until the end.

Even though the plot revolves around fanaticism towards the Red Sox, it's not overloaded with sports. You don't have to be a fan to enjoy this film.

Of course that's easy for me to say: I've been a Red Sox fan since I was a boy, too.

7 out of 10.

Barky", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.

It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.

This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Whipped\" is one of the most awful films of all time. It is a mean, hateful piece of garbage that had me forcing myself to stay in the theater more than any other movie of 2000, besides maybe \"The Grinch.\" It is not, as people have called it, an insightful portrait of modern relationships. That would be a little film called \"High Fidelity.\" Whereas that movie was honest and sympathetic, \"Whipped\" is hostile, cynical, misanthropic cinematic poison. Avoid this like so many plagues, unless you want to see how truly bad a \"comedy\" can get.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "With Harry Callahan getting up in years, the inevitable `old man with a chip on his shoulder' story had to come into play eventually. Callahan, looking fragile sometimes and out of place, his demeanor still was unwavering. Thankfully, this film took some time off to develop a different type of story, one that might reinvent the Dirty Harry and the whole genre. While the film fell short in doing so, it was still an excellent addition to the series, even if it was getting a little out of place during a time of silly fashion trends and New Wave music.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I really cant think of anything good to say about this film...not a single thing. The script is a nightmare.. the writer blurs the line between chemical and biological traits and doesnt seem to understand the difference. You'd think they would at least get a technical advisor. The performances were bad by most of the cast... although I dont really blame them.. the material really stinks. The editing was equally bad.. I'll just stop now.. its all bad 2/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Adrianne, should really get a life-without Mr. \"Brady\". She nauseates me, and has been one of the main reasons why I know longer tune in to the show. It's pretty brainless show, and every little argument or disagreement seems to be put under the scope and analyzed to death. This makes them look/sound they are anything but ready for marriage, and yet, I know these disagreements are all part of life. I guess to some people this is entertainment. If this happens to fall into next season I will feel sorry for anyone who has nothing better to do with their life but watch this trash. Though I would not be terribly surprised. can't even stand the commercials for this show anymore! I hope they're getting enough money to constantly embarrass themselves in front of a camera week after week. However, the \"A\" girl has one heck of great butt!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Faithful adaptation of witty and interesting French novel about a cynical and depressed middle-aged software engineer (or something), relying heavily on first-person narration but none the worse for that. Downbeat (in a petit-bourgeois sort of way), philosophical and blackly humorous, the best way I could describe both the film and the novel is that it is something like a more intellectual Charles Bukowski (no disrespect to CB intended). Mordantly funny, but also a bleak analysis of social and sexual relations, the film's great achievement is that it reflects real life in such a recognisable way as to make you ask: why aren't other films like this? One of the rare examples of a good book making an equally good film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing \"Wednesday\". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Saw this Saturday night at the Provincetown Film Festival, and it's a stick-to-your-bones movie -- it's really stayed with me. Adapted very smartly from what is probably an excellent novel, it's a back-and-forth-in-time drama with fully rounded characters, thoughtful rumination on life choices, and, I'm not exaggerating. one of the greatest casts ever assembled in 100+ years of movie-making. Wonderful work from everyone, led by a luminous Vanessa Redgrave as a dying, deluded Newport matron, and Claire Danes as her much younger self. Meryl Streep's daughter Mamie Gummer is, like Mama, the real deal; Patrick Wilson looks like Paul Newman circa 1958 and doesn't overplay the charm; and what a pleasure to see such excellent stage actors as Barry Bostwick and Eileen Atkins contributing sharp, detailed cameos. Hugh Dancy, also from the stage, doesn't bring much edge to the somewhat clichéd role of an unhappy rich wastrel, and the family issues are resolved perhaps more neatly than real life would allow. But it's a deliberately paced, visually gorgeous meditation on real life issues, and you can cry at it and not feel like you're being recklessly manipulated. Also, what a sumptuous parade of 1940s/50s automobiles.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What a great film it is. The notion of nations sending people fighting each other with giant robots is tacky. The ending is not just a fitting one, it's more inspirational.

But I am intrigued by the characters. It is a pity we never see the relationship of Achilles and Athena more developed beyond just a couple of kisses and Athena's fear for Achilles's safety. Their romance is very enjoyable.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I expected a comedy like the \"Big Mama\" movies. Instead, the movie was a bizarre mix of comedy, drama and a love story.

This movie has three plots: The first involves Madea and her taking in a foster child. The second involves a woman who is engaged to a rich man who is abusing her. The third involves a relationship between a single mother with 2 children and a single father.

There is actually very little comedy in the movie. There are also a number of very twisted messages in the movie. For example, Madea beats the foster child with a belt (in a comedic manner), to convince the child to straighten out. The child does, in fact, turn herself around. Apparently, it pays to beat children.

There are plots dealing with child rape (with the consent of the mother). There are scenes with old men ogling young girls who are related to them. (The ogling takes place at a family reunion.) The movie jumps from plot to plot such that you are always off-balance. Is this a comedy, a love story, or a drama? It is, in fact, nothing ... except a waste of time and money.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm a huge fan of Ivan Reitman-I loved Evolution and who didn't like Ghostbusters? From the trailer you already know that Uma's character will get dumped by Luke's.So the build-up is obviously towards the moment when she unleashes her superpowers on him.But the pay-off is just not there.The shark tossing did manage to get a (slight) giggle but once again, it was all in the trailer.

No one does breathless quite like Uma and Luke is diet Owen on his good days.If not for Riann Wilson you would sit there with a constipated smile until your cheeks start to cramp.This is a comedy,right?

It's not awful-it just sits there like a stale cracker behind the fridge.This could have been such a brilliant send-up of Superhero movies and Feminism but fails on both counts.Let's see if Jason Reitman can salvage the family name.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "First of all that I would like to say is that Edison Chen is extremely hot and that Sam Lee is looking much better than before XD! This is probably one of the most original movies I have seen so far; shows a poverty lifestyle background of a Cambodian. The Cambodian(Edison aka Pang) goes around killing people to survive himself; has done it throughout his entire life. Sam Lee's(Wai) duty is to capture the Cambodian for good. There are tons of violent actions but has a good story to it. The movie shows the struggles between those two characters; they both beat each other like angry dogs. GO AND WATCH PPL...STRONGLY SUGGESSTED!!! (GO HK FILMS)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Basing a television series on a popular author's works is no guarantee of success. Yorkshire Television learnt this the hard way when in 1979 they bought the rights to the books credited to Dick Francis, three of which were broadcast under the collective title 'The Racing Game'. Mike Gwilym was Sid Halley, a former jockey turned private eye following an accident in which he lost his right hand, only to have it replaced by an artificial one. Gwilym suffered from an acute lack of charisma ( and looked like one of the bad guys ) while Mick Ford ( who played the irritating Chico Barnes ) made me think of a horse's arse whenever he was on screen. For six weeks, this less-than dynamic duo charged about the countryside, foiling nefarious plots to fix races, usually by the same methods - blackmail, kidnapping riders or doping horses. Yorkshire Television threw money at the show, but to no avail. Violent, sexist, far-fetched and repetitious, it was quickly carted off to the knackers yard.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Any Way the Wind Blows is Tom Barmans (who is also know as front man of the rock formation 'dEUS') debut movie. Entirely shot in Antwerp (Belgium), the movie starts on a sunny friday morning and skips rather superficially between the events that fill the day of a dozen of main characters. When the movie ends, you have a lot of stuff to think about, because most of the different story-lines are left wide open.

The movie has a (purely instrumental) sound track that will rock your socks off. In most scenes, the music truly enhances the general atmosphere and feel, really making the movie hallucinating to watch at certain points of time. The main scene in the film, the party, is very well shot.

The director didn't hesitate to use video clip techniques, having his main characters dancing on one of the best sound tracks I've heard lately.

The screenplay is great stuff. Camera angles and colors are very well chosen. The 'costumes' are very hot and very 'seventies' too. And I loved (most of the) acting.

The thing I liked most about the movie, are the subtle touches of absurd, surreal, very dry or even cynical humor that interleave.

Without claiming to be a comedy (this movie certainly is not a comedy but rather an alternative piece of art), it still manages to have its audience giggling and even burst into laughter at some times.

This is one more directors' debut that shouldn't be an ending. I hope to see more Tom Barman movies in the future because I had a good time. Cheers.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I haven't actually finished the film. You may say that in this case I have no right to review it, especially so negatively. But I do, only because I stopped it on account of I couldn't watch anymore...I got over halfway, and I only got there by promising myself something good was just around the corner. This film is so tiresome, so lackluster that I was actually insulted. I haven't read many of the other reviews, so I'm not sure if there are other homosexual teens who have suffered through it, but I am homosexual, and I did go through \"similar\" revelations, day dreams, issues etc etc. There were maybe two moments where I actually felt this film could go somewhere, where I felt it may have some inkling of meaning, or relativity, but these hopes were dashed the moment the next set of cliché-ridden narration came on. I mean, just look at the quotes on the IMDb page. Unfortunately you're not able to hear the scratchy play back, nor the echo-ey fades if you're just read the quotes, because they are just too painful/ridiculous/stupid to miss. I did give the film three stars, and all three of those stars go to the films cinematographer who did a fantastic job attempting to transform Archer's tired \"concepts\" into something watchable. Mind you, I pray he wasn't the one who decided to include all the long shots of TV closeups...another unnecessary cliché already over done in films such as Korine's Gummo... I think it is extremely fitting that this film premiered at Sundance (only because Archer had connections in the festival via volunteer work he did, by the way...) because Sundance seems to be the one festival where cliché heavy drivel like this is still accepted as \"arthouse\". No, it's not art house, I'm afraid it's just plain s**t-house. Do not watch.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Winchester '73\" marked the first of a series of westerns involving James Stewart and director Anthony Mann. As in most of them Stewart's hero has an violent edge that threatens to explode at any time.

The title refers to a \"one in a thousand\" rifle that is up for competition at a rifle shoot held in Dodge City on July 4, 1876. Into town comes Lin McAdam (Stewart) and his sidekick High Spade (Millard Mitchell) who are on the trail of Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) for a past dastardly deed. They arrive just in time to see Marshal Wyatt Earp (Will Geer) running saloon girl Lola (Shelley Winters) out of town. It turns out that Dutch Henry is also in town for the rifle shoot. Lin and Dutch Henry shoot it out for the coveted prize with Lin winning but Dutch Henry robs Lin of the gun and escapes.

Lin and High Spade trail Dutch Henry across country where they encounter Lola with her cowardly beau Steve Miller (Charles Drake) hold up in a U.S. Cavalry camp awaiting attack by the Indians led by Young Bull (Rock Hudson) who has acquired the prized rifle by murdering wily gun runner John McIntyre. He had got the weapon by cheating Dutch Henry at poker. Young Bull is killed during the attack and the gun passes to Steve.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Lola and Steve meet up with notorious gunman Waco Johnny Dean (Dan Duryea) who kills Steve and takes the valued rifle and Lola for himself. When Dean meets up with Dutch Henry, he allows him to take back \"his gun\" planning to murder him later. In the town of Tuscosa, Lin kills Dean as Dutch Henry's plans of holding up the bank go bad and he escapes into the hills with Lin in pursuit. In one of the best final shoot outs ever, the two meet in the final showdown.

I believe that this movie was the only one of the Stewart/Mann collaborations that was shot in B&W. It is beautifully photographed, especially the scenes in the \"wide open spaces\" and in particular, the final showdown. Stewart playing against type, plays the hero with a violent revenge motive edge, an emotion that he would carry into future films with Mann.

As in most Universal westerns, this one boasts a cast of seasoned veterans and contract players of the day. In addition to those mentioned above, J.C. Flippen appears as the cavalry sergeant, Steve Brodie, James Millican, John Doucette and Chuck Roberson as various henchmen, Ray Teal as the sheriff pursuing Duryea, Tony Curtis and James Best as rookie soldiers and Edmund Cobb, Chief Yowlachie and John War Eagle in various roles in the Dodge City sequence.

A classic western in every sense of the word. It was responsible for re-generating Stewart's career as an action star.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "At a panel discussion that I attended after viewing this film, the filmmakers stated that one should look at this not as a movie but a provoker of thought. Well, the only thoughts that were provoked from me were of the time wasted watching the movie. The gimmicks of the film (documentary style, futuristic setting) served as distractions of what was supposed to be a thoughtful examination of the abortion debate. This film illustrates the problem when people try to use film as a platform for their political views - usually a very boring movie that preaches to the choir.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one of the movies of Dev Anand who gave great yet distinct movies to Hindi movie industries such as Jewel thief and guide. The story is short (if you ask me what is the story), plot is simple- a brother seeks for his lost sister. Sister has joined the hippies who smoke from pot and chant Hare Rama hare Krishna. Yet the movie portrays few of the significant events that the world experienced in 70's.Hippie culture, their submission to drugs, freedom ,escaping duty, family, and adopting anything new such as eastern (which was new for whites) religion. They have been handled perfectly. Zeenat gave her best and Dev as usual was remarkable. Songs are the best used (unlike they are abused for the sake of having songs) in this movie. They have not been spoiled.One perfect example is 'Dekho o deewano...Ram ka naam badnam na karo'. Each word in the song is very philosophical and meaningful. The end is tragic but that is not the essence of the movie. Overall Devji who does believe in making different movies has been successful in showing what he wanted to show here. A must see to experience hippie culture and beautiful Nepal of 70's.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Well, what can i say about this movie. I'm speechless. I could go on about how stupid this movie is forever though the one thing that REALLY pi*sed me off was the music. And to top it all off someone commented on how much they LIKED it. To them all I have to say is that it was ripped off from one of the best martial arts movies of all time Fistsof fury starring Bruce Lee. IF he was still alive and ever came across this movie he'd be horrified. the rest of the movie is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of tape. I say tape because a movie like that couldn't possibly have been shot on film.I now feel more stupid for wasting 30 minutes of my life watching it. The only reason why i even saw it was because my roommate downloaded it out of morbid curiosity. What is this world coming to.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It breaks my heart that this movie is not appreciated as it should be. its very underrated. people forgot what movies are really about, nowadays they only think about bum bum movies, which can be quite fun watching with popcorn and friends, like transformers, movies which are oriented, with hyper mega high budget like 300mln or even higher, on special effects only and which are dumb movies without storyline. Its the kind of a movie what i despite most. Of course it is fun watching greatly made CGIs, but we do not gain anything essential from that kind of movies.

I honestly think that performance was excellent. Especially Busy Philipps, alongside with Erika Christensen and Victor Garber(whom i respect) made this movie an Oscar worth. Emotional performance by Busy Philipps was astonishing, its such a shame we wont see Oscar in her hands, which she deserves.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "First of all, the actor they have to play Jesus has blue eyes... half the actors they have playing Jews have blue eyes. Aren't there enough brown-eyed actors out there? Jesus being depicted as having blue eyes is one of my pet peeves. He was a full-blooded Jew! Second of all, what is it with old English-language movies that are supposed to take place in non-English-speaking countries, and everybody has English accents? (Another example is David Lean's \"Dr. Zhivago\".) Aren't there enough either Jewish actors or actors who can do a Israeli accent? The movie often is not true to the Scriptures, and so seems to doubt the legitimacy of Jesus's claim to be the Messiah. In the bible, when Jesus is baptized by John, a voice comes from heaven saying \"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased\" (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22). In the movie, John the Baptist says this! The screenwriter seems to be trying to portray the believers as crazy, as well. For example, in the bible, the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will become pregnant with the Son of God (Luke 1:26-38), but in the movie, we do not see or hear any angel - Mary appears to be talking to a moonbeam, and when Mary's mother hears her talking to someone and peeks in on her, she doesn't hear or see anyone either. Also, in the movie, when Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in the Temple in Jerusalem, he says, \"You shall not see me here again, not until you learn to cry, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord', for I and my father are one and the same.\" The correct line (Matthew 23:39 and Luke 13:35)is \"You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'\" Period. Jesus never claimed to be God. The movie cuts out a lot of important parts (the Sermon on the Mount is very expurgated), but then spends a lot of time on stuff that isn't even in the bible (a whole scene with Mary Magdalene talking with a john). It seems like the screenwriter, instead of wanting to do a movie version of the Scriptures, wanted to make a movie about what he thinks might have really happened behind (and between) the scenes. The movie has one gem though - during the scene where Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, at Matthew the tax collector's house, I had tears streaming down my face. It is the best movie I've seen about Jesus's ministry (but that isn't saying much, because the others are just terrible). \"Jesus Christ Superstar\" is my favourite movie about Jesus's last days (\"The Passion of the Christ\" is way too graphic), though I like how \"Jesus of Nazareth\", instead of just ending with Jesus's death, continues on and shows his resurrection.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm not sure quite why I clicked \"contains spoiler\", because quite honestly there is not enough explanation ever given in the movie to know enough of what is supposed to be going on to spoil it.

Visually it mostly delivers. Well, apart from some 80's throwback rubber-mask monsters. I'll say now that before watching this I had never seen the band Lordi, nor knew anything about them bar that they won Eurovision. Apparently the monsters in this are members of the band, pretty much in their stage personas. Whatever. Anyway, I didn't know this while watching. I just thought the monsters/demons were mostly passable. Just about.

I'm almost sure there is a semi-coherent explanation behind what we see on-screen, but it may actually be better not to know it. It probably would actually have been incredibly lame come to think on it. The action keeps it rolling along pretty much well enough to keep the viewer mostly entertained, even if half the entertainment factor is joking about wtf is supposed to be happening in this movie exactly.

I gave it a four mainly because I got a good laugh out of it, especially out of how it explains pretty much nothing. Must have been the mood I was in, but I found that hella funny for some reason. Then I look up the movie on the internet and find out that NOBODY knows what the hell it's supposed to be about. That amused me further, and raised my score an extra half point to a 4/10.

It's not scary, or particularly coherent, but it's pretty nice visually and sonically. Overall, far from essential, but watchable. Don't expect too much and don't expect it to make any sense and it might entertain you if you are in the right mood.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Twelve years ago, production stopped on the slasher flick \"Hot Blooded\" since almost everyone on the set started dying. Now, a couple of film students have decided to finish the film, despite the fact that there's a rumor that the film is cursed. Well, they're about to find out that some curses are real.

When Scream was released, every country seemed to want to cash in on its success, even Australia. The concept, which today has been done to death (a slasher film within a slasher film) was at the time relatively cool and original. This movie was released right before Urban Legends: Final Cut and Scream 3 (well not in the US but in Australia) so it felt like the first movie with this concept. When Urban Legends 2 was released, most of us had all ready grown sick of the concept and since the movie wasn't even good, the movie flopped disastrously. Now, Cut is not the best slasher flick ever, and nor does it try to be. It knows that it's a rip-off, and they even cast a girl who looks like a blonde version of Neve Campbell in the starring role. But instead of trying to add some new and original twists to the story, they've decided to rip-off some 80s slasher flicks like \"Nightmare on Elm Street\" as well and surprisingly enough, this actually works. The killer is very creepy and that mask is just killer! And instead of trying to scare the audience to death, they've created a very good and creepy atmosphere which keeps us in suspense through most of the movie. There are a couple of plot holes in the movie though that I wasn't able to fully ignore, the ending being the biggest plot hole in the movie. Spoiler ahead; I mean, they burnt the only copy of the movie so where the hell did they find the print that they show in the final scene? It makes no sense I tell you. End of spoilers. All in all, Cut is a pretty creepy slasher flick with a silly story but I consider this to be one of the better Scream rip-offs that never made it big. I'm surprised that this one never got a sequel, but I guess it simply came out too late.

Suspenseful Australian slasher flick with very few scares. Cut is still a pretty neat slasher movie and I will have to recommend this one even though I consider the story to be quite silly since it's completely ludicrous.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Sadly, more downs than ups. The plot was pretty decent. I mean, nothing out of the ordinary, but it had a story, unlike the other modern horror flicks. The other good thing was the cast. I'm not saying that the acting was good, because it wasn't, but every actor/actress was hot and attractive.

One of the downs are that the movie only become exciting after the first 40 minutes or so. The rest was quite boring. Another down (or you could consider it an up if you want) is the excessive nudity. All 4 girls were topless for a few minutes, and all the guys showed their butts for a long time. It's not that I'm against nudity, but this was a horror movie, not 'The Dreamers'.

Unless you're very desperate to watch some guy take off his swimsuit and run around naked for a few minutes, or watch a girl get naked for no reason, or you're a die-hard fan of Debbie Rochon, than this is the movie for you. But if you're looking for a good horror movie, stay away.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There is no possible reason I can fathom why this movie was ever made.

Why must Hollywood continue to crank out one horrible update of a classic after another? ( Cases in point: Mister Magoo, The Avengers - awful! )

Christopher Lloyd, whom I normally enjoy, was so miserably miscast in this role. His manic portrayal of our beloved \"Uncle Martin\" is so unspeakably unenjoyable to be almost criminal. His ranting, groaning, grimacing and histrionics provide us with no reason to care for his character except as some 1 dimensional cartoon character.

The director must have thought that fast movements, screaming dialogue and \"one-take\" slapstick had some similarity to comedy. Apparently he told EVERY ACTOR to act as if they had red ants in their pants.

Fault must lie with the irresponsibly wrought script. I think the writer used \"It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World\" as an example of a fine comedy script. As manic as that 1963 classic is, it is far superior to this claptrap - in fact - suddenly it looks pretty good in comparison.

What is most sad about this movie is that it must have apparently been written to appeal to young children. I just am not sure whose children it was made for. Certainly no self-respecting, card-carrying child I know!

If they HAD to remake \"My Favorite Martian\", why didn't they add some of the timeless charm of the original classic?

Unfortunately, IMDB.com cannot factor in \"zero\" as a rating for its readers, that is the only rating that comes to mind in describing this travesty.

One good thing did come from this movie, the actors and crew were paid - I think.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Lexi befriends Jennifer, a thin, intelligent girl at her new school. Lexi's parents have just split up. Soon, Jen tells Lexi of her eating disorder, and the two begin dieting and exercising together. They both are in the school's volley ball team. Lexi's mum becomes aware of her daughter's illness, as she is losing lots of weight. Lexi is admitted to hospital. She is diagnosed with Anorexia nervosa, and is made to gain weight. Her father visits her in hospital, and orders a feeding tube. She is better and is allowed out of hospital and she tells her mum that Jen has bulimia. This leads to the two falling out, as Lexi's mum tells Jen's mum her suspicions.

At a party Jen is hit by a car, and because her heart is weak it kills her. Lexi's condition worsens, as she blames herself for her best friend's death...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I usually come on this website prior to going to the movies, as I like to see what other people think of the movie. I read many reviews which said 'thriller not a horror movie'. This prompted me to give this film a try. I really must take issue with these 'thriller/horror' statements, as it was neither! I almost went and asked for my money back, and if you lot of reviewers enjoyed this rubbish....well you must be easily pleased! At the end of the movie, the people behind me said out loud \"what a waste of time\" and I turned to them and replied \" I couldn't have summed it up better\". I kept waiting for something to happen...but it didn't. There was the potential for a lot of good scares (or thrills if you like) but none happened. Williams acted the part quite well but I felt he was short changed by a poor script which dithered around and went nowhere. Save your money folks, this is a turkey which will be featuring at a DVD store 'bargain box' near you in the very foreseeable future!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Although the film is the adaptation of the French play (forgot the name - sorry), it is a wonderful portrayal of the cheerful side of Georgian character. This film will make you to burst into laughter and will fill your heart with warm sadness. It will display the overwhelming love of life along with human eccentricities.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It should be against the law not to experience this extremely funny stand up show with Eddie Murphy. I have never seen anything like it.

Murphy goes on for almost 70 minutes about dicks, pussy, tits and insaults so many famous people including his own \"family\". Among the people who gets it by murphy are: Elvis, Mr.T, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Mick Jagger, Luther Vandross and James Brown. I have seriously never laughed so hard of anything my entire life. I mean, when a person doesn't know who Mr. T is, but still laughs so hard of Murphy as Mr. T, there's something about it. At the time I saw the show I couldn't remember who Mr T. was but still laughed. Now I know who he is and that just makes it so much more funny. Because that's what Eddie do - he can make those impressions so good that it don't matter who the hell he's trying to do, it's still hilarious. And on top of that, we learn that Murphy actually is a very good singer. Please watch it..", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Hahahaha!!!!!!Funny-that sums this movie up in one word.What the crap was this \"thing\",since It might kill me to use the word movie!?!?!I hope the director,writer,and producer didn't mean for this to turn out good,because it sure didn't!!!A scientist turning his son into a hammerhead shark,and the shark killing a bunch of people the scientist invited to the island!!!Oh my Gooooooodddd!!!!I hate this film so much that when I was watching it I laughed at all the serious parts,because they were so corny and unprofessional....and they couldn't have made the shark look more unrealistic,even though this \"thing\" had a bit larger budget than most low-budget movies.All I have to say is watch this movie expecting to laugh at all the bad acting,and stupid corny dialogue,because if you are expecting a good movie you'll be highly disappointed.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Jameson Parker And Marilyn Hassett are the screen's most unbelievable couple since John Travolta and Lily Tomlin. Larry Peerce's direction wavers uncontrollably between black farce and Roman tragedy. Robert Klein certainly think it's the former and his self-centered performance in a minor role underscores the total lack of balance and chemistry between the players in the film. Normally, I don't like to let myself get so ascerbic, but The Bell Jar is one of my all-time favorite books, and to watch what they did with it makes me literally crazy.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly \"must see\" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.

Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to \"fine-tune\" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.

The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!

azjazz", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Acting is horrible. This film makes Fast and Furious look like an academy award winning film. They throw a few boobs and butts in there to try and keep you interested despite the EXTREMELY weak and far fetched story. There is a reason why people on the internet aren't even downloading this movie. This movie sunk like an iron turd. DO NOT waste your time renting or even downloading it. This film is and always will be a PERMA-TURD. I am now dumber for having watched it. In fact this title should be referred to as a \"PERMA-TURD\" from now on. Calling it a film is a travesty and insult. abhorrent, abominable, appalling, awful, beastly, cruel, detestable, disagreeable, disgusting, dreadful, eerie, execrable, fairy, fearful, frightful, ghastly, grim, grisly, gruesome, heinous, hideous, horrendous, horrid, loathsome, lousy, lurid, mean, nasty, obnoxious, offensive, repellent, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, scary, shameful, shocking, sickie, terrible, terrifying, ungodly, unholy, unkind", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "My favorite movie genre is the western, it's really the only movie genre that is of American origin. And despite Sergio Leone, no one does them quite like Americans.

Right at the top of my list of ten favorites westerns is Winchester 73. It was the first pairing and only black and white film of the partnership of director Anthony Mann and actor James Stewart. It was also a landmark film in which Stewart opted for a percentage of the profits instead of a straight salary from Universal. Many such deals followed for players, making them as rich as the moguls who employed them.

Anthony Mann up to this point had done mostly B pictures, noir type stuff with no real budgets. Just before Winchester 73 Mann had done a fine western with Robert Taylor, Devil's Doorway, that never gets enough praise. I'm sure James Stewart must have seen it and decided Mann was the person he decided to partner with.

In this film Mann also developed a mini stock company the way John Ford was legendary for. Besides Stewart others in the cast like Millard Mitchell, Steve Brodie, Dan Duryea, John McIntire, Jay C. Flippen and Rock Hudson would appear in future Mann films.

It's a simple plot, James Stewart is obsessed with finding a man named Dutch Henry Brown and killing him. Why I won't say, but up to this point we had never seen such cold fury out of James Stewart on screen. Anthony Mann reached into Jimmy Stewart's soul and dragged out some demons all of us are afraid we have.

The hate is aptly demonstrated in a great moment towards the beginning of the film. After Stewart and sidekick Millard Mitchell are disarmed by Wyatt Earp played by Will Geer because guns aren't carried in Earp's Dodge City. There's a shooting contest for a Winchester rifle in Dodge City and the betting favorite is Dutch Henry Brown, played with menace by Stephen McNally. Stewart, Mitchell and Geer go into the saloon and Stewart and McNally spot each other at the same instant and reach to draw for weapons that aren't there. Look at the closeups of Stewart and McNally, they say more than 10 pages of dialog.

Another character Stewart runs into in the film is Waco Johnny Dean played by Dan Duryea who almost steals the film. This may have been Duryea's finest moment on screen. He's a psychopathic outlaw killer who's deadly as a left handed draw even though he sports two six guns.

Another person Stewart meets is Shelley Winters who's fiancé is goaded into a showdown by Duryea and killed. Her best scenes are with Duryea who's taken a fancy to her. She plays for time until she can safely get away from him. Guess who she ultimately winds up with?

There are some wonderful performances in some small roles, there ain't a sour note in the cast. John McIntire as a shifty Indian trader, Jay C. Flippen as the grizzled army sergeant and Rock Hudson got his first real notice as a young Indian chief. Even John Alexander, best known as 'Theodore Roosevelt' in Arsenic and Old Lace has a brief, but impressive role as the owner of a trading post where both McNally and Stewart stop at different times.

Mann and Stewart did eight films together, five of them westerns, and were ready to do a sixth western, Night Passage when they quarreled and Mann walked off the set. The end of a beautiful partnership that produced some quality films.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is one of the worst-written movies I've ever had to sit through.

The story's nothing new -- but it's a cartoon, so who cares, as long as it's pretty and fun?

I'm not going to go as deep as the characterisations, or I'll be here all day (except to say that there aren't any; the characters change personality whenever it's convenient to the plot), but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. Thumbs down? I'd vote to cut their thumbs off.

\"Narrow in on an object/prop. Cut back to character close-up. Character gives a knowing look, which the audience will not even remotely understand. Repeat that several times, with different objects/props.\"

\"Make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around, crashing into each other, generally raining destruction all over, and which could kill them all at any moment -- but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless-looking, almost pastoral green rock in the distance.\"

The whole thing is a long succession of events, actions, and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer, to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly.

This is the Plan 9 of CG cartoons, except that it doesn't have Ed Wood groan factor to make it fun to watch.

Do yourselves a favour: spend your cartoon budget on Pixar movies.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Spoilers of both this and The Matrix follow.

I liked the original Matrix a great deal. It was not a deep movie, despite Fishburne's attempts to philosophize, but it was fairly well paced, fun, and I have a soft spot for Hong Kong fights.

In the original, Neo was the secret life of the rather unhappy cube worker Anderson. By day, corporate drone, and by night, brave hacker. Eventually, he eventually is forced to choose between these lives by his actions - does he become an outlaw fighting the machine, or does he go back to the safe, forgettable world he started in. Interestingly, he discovers that once one is shorn of illusions, life rather sucks. He has his girl by his side and his boon companions, but he eats processed swill, dresses in sweats, and lives in a truly skungy bit of machinery. Still, the truth makes him free.

At least part of the fun of that first movie lay in the \"what if it were me\" questions raised in the viewer's mind. What if _I_ were capable of the impossible? What if I were \"The One\". It does not even matter that much what you are The One example of, with a cool title like that.

Further, agent Smith made a wonderful bad guy, as he embodied all of the fear of authority that we carry with us. He was as unstoppable as a terminator, and as merciless.

At the end of the Matrix, Neo must return to the Matrix to share his good news of freedom.

This movie fails to completely to carry through on the ideas of the original movie, and it does so with such lack of gusto, such poor scriptwriting and such poor editing that I cannot believe they had planned these changes. When the dialog is at a fifth grade level, with various long words dropped in randomly, I find it hard to believe that they understand what they are saying.

My short list of characterization failures:

The Oracle goes from mildly helpful, if deceitful to utterly obstructionist without any real reason.

Major \"personalities\" of the matrix are introduced without need - the keymaster, for example, was a cute idea, but just not that interesting a character.

Fishburne loses his \"advisor\" role, and gets nothing to replace it with.

The people of Zion are not particularly likable, nor would you really _want_ them running the world.

Special effects problems:

The fight scenes are pointless and intermitable. In The Matrix, you felt Neo could lose, and that he had to become something greater in order to survive. In The Matrix Reloaded, he is merely the viewpoint character of a particularly poorly plotted video game.

The fight on the freeway looked quite fake, and not that interesting.

Pacing problems.

As I mentioned above, the fight scenes were interminable.

The rave went on too long - everyone in my row at the theater was looking at their watch. Not because we mind good dancing and good orgies, but because we did not know about the people pictured, nor did we care.

Whatever hack wrote the creator's soliloquy should be blacklisted from the business. It meandered, used words that the scriptwriter clearly did not understand, and was a waste of time and a pacing killer. The creator's speech could have been done in a tenth the time, and with more peril as \"Zion exists to give rebels a place to go so they do not destroy the Matrix. There are now too many people who do not believe; the matrix is in danger of crashing and killing every person hooked up to it. Further, the earth cannot support even the people in Zion, let alone these others. You may choose one person from Zion to form the new Zion, while I wipe the memories of the people currently in the Matrix.\"

Instead, we got a long, drawn out bunch of twaddle. If someone argues that it is deep, ask for a transcript, and try breaking down the sentences. Each one is too long by several clauses, and uses words with clearer, shorter synonyms.

So, in summary, not worth seeing.

I have seen the third one, and despite what a number of reviewers have said, skip it. It does not save this turkey.

The reviewers who feel that the second and third movies were \"deep\" should go see some truly deep movies. Perhaps read a book or two on rhetoric and debate, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. This movie is just not hard to understand, but it is hard to stomach.

Scott", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This James bond game is the best bond game i have played in my life it is my favorite James bond game so far because:

The missions in this game are really fun they can be really hard that makes it more fun to play the missions have lots of actions the weapons you use are really good. The cars in this game are awesome the car missions have lots of action and are really fun to play. The voice over actors are really good and it is cool that Sean Connery does the voice for James bond also the way bond looks is really cool because it looks just like Sean Connery when he played James bond in the movies and the other character look pretty much the same as the look in the movie. The graphics a pretty good in this James bond game. Also the game follows the movie pretty much but not all the but most of the time it does which is cool.

overall score ********** out of **********", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Weak plot, unlikely car malfunction, and helpless fumbling characters. At first I thought this movie was made during the seventies, since the picture quality, as well as the storyline and drama seemed taken from an old Kojac episode. When I checked and found that it was really made as late as -97 I was astonished. This is by far one of the worst and least (thriller) movies I have ever seen.

If you read this, be advised, if you see it you waste time when you could have done something more exciting, like watching paint dry.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Loved the movie. Loved the two families crossing paths in history. Only question is if Sam gets killed then how does his family's line continue? He is Madame Zeroni's son and Zero is supposed to be related but no mention of any other children? Hmmmmmmmmm. Never mentioned any other children or wife prior to his speaking with and falling in love with the teacher? Maybe she had a child prior to becoming the kissing Kate Bandit? Even with the mistakes in the movie. Just loved it. The acting was great. Not sure where the story was with Mr. Sir being Marion a women at the end but makes his character even funnier. The other \"counseler\" did seem concerned for the kids but of course maybe not so much. Poor Warden must have had a really stinky childhood to be so mean when she grew up.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Not that I was really surprised....movies are never as good as the books that they originated from. I was looking forward to seeing this movie because this is one of my favorite books, even though I knew it would probably suck. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. However, they strayed from the book's storyline too much, and the movie version did not convey how horrible this house really was. Ending was different too. Lara Flynn Boyle looked terrible due to some really bad cosmetic surgery. The acting was unremarkable at best. Perhaps if a theatrical version was made so that they wouldn't have to stay so much in Lifetime's \"made for TV movie\" box, it would be a better flick. If you saw this movie I highly encourage you to track down the book and read it. I doubt you'll be disappointed and hope you enjoy it as much as I do every time I read it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I found this to be a profoundly amusing dark comedy. Brosnan is genius; as anyone will now testify, he is not to be pigeonholed in the bond role. Kinnear was as charismatic and as funny as anyone could have been in the role. I don't know if I've laughed as hard during any movie! What an unexpected pleasure! My favourite line would be 'I feel like a bangkok hooker on a Sunday after the navy left town'. Brosnan delivered this very un-bond line with such unexpected comedic finesse. I was also very impressed with Hope Davis's performance. It seems like everyone in this movie branched out from their previous work to such a degree that it actually improved the comedy. If you liked the dark and hilarious 'The Weather Man', you will definitely like this.

I voted 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "SPOILERS Sex huh? It's one of the most basic parts of human life. Yet, do we ever take it too seriously? People always want more, even those who get it on a daily basis, and if you are unlucky, there are potential life changing (creating) consequences. Ironically people claim we are all starting to have sex at a younger and younger age (despite Victorians getting married and having children in their early teens), so it must be increasingly difficult for those who get to a point as virgins. In Steve Carell's first big screen lead, he plays a man who has gotten to 40 without managing it. Treating us to countless lude and extreme sex related incidents, not to mention more profanity than an episode of \"Eurotrash\", the general plot of the film and it's principle doesn't sound funny. It's a pleasant surprise therefore that for all the inappropriate, failed jokes, there are an incredibly large number of ones which hit the mark and leave the audience in hysterics.

Andy Stitzer (Carell) is a nice guy with a good job and a pleasant temperament. At the same time though, he blatantly takes life too seriously and after being invited to a poker game as a necessary fifth member, Andy's friends discover his secret. At the age of 40, Andy is still a virgin. Now, for multiple reasons, but mostly pity, the three men (Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and Romany Malco) all offer Andy advice with one goal in mind. To put him out of his misery and get him laid.

One of the few good things about \"Anchorman\", it was only going to be a matter of time before Steve Carell got himself a lead of his own. Impressively, in \"The 40 Year Old Virgin\" he doesn't disappoint. Showing the hopeless, shy virgin to perfection, Carell is a revelation as he gradually grows increasingly confident as the advice begins to help.

Carell is not alone however in his performance. Rudd, Rogen, Malco and Catherine Keener as the love interest are all superb. Rudd is a personal favourite as the love sick David who falls apart at multiple times and shares the finest scene with Rogen as the two argue over homosexuality.

The biggest surprise about this film is not the way that so many of the jokes hit the mark, but actually the clever way that it flips the message on it's head. Obviously designed for conservative America, the film's entire tone evolves from a simple story of sexual conquest into one of safe sex and abstinence. The virgin doesn't need sex to make his life complete, he just needs confidence and true love. A worthy message to preach, and a considerable improvement on the one you expect to see at the beginning of the film.

It's weird to see a crude comedy which is consistently funny and well acted, but low and behold, \"40 Year Old Virgin\" is just that. Throw in a well meaning message too and you're well on the way to a top class comedy. A surprising joy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Bette Davis' electrifying performance is such that it is hard to remember the other female players. They were as perfect in their parts as Davis was in hers - they just didn't have as much to do. Some of the reviewers felt that the book was so much better - it was but to give the film it's due, to condense a 600 page book down to 83 minutes is no mean feat. The first part of the book didn't even make it to the screen - it told of Phillip's childhood, then moved to Germany and Paris, where Phillip had gone to try to make good as an artist. It also chronicles his first romance - with Fanny Price, who kills herself when she realises Phillip cannot return her feelings of love. It is a wonderful book but rambling and I think that anyone who does not think too highly of the film should read the book and will realise how good the film is.

After realising that he will only ever be a mediocre painter, Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) comes back to England hoping to take up medicine. When out at a tearoom he meets a sullen waitress, Mildred (Bette Davis). Even though she has no interest in him and basically treats him like dirt, Phillip is obsessed. It is so hard to watch his efforts at trying to find any civility in this vicious shrew. In one scene she promises to meet him in a second class railway waiting room, when they almost miss each other, she berates him with \"why would I wait in a second class waiting room when there is a first class one available\". You just want to shake him. The only time she is pleasant to him is when she tells him she is going to marry another man, a coarse sales- man, Emile Miller (Alan Hale). With Mildred out of the picture, he meets Nora (Kay Johnson) a lovely woman, who writes romantic novels under a male pseudonym. She jokes about the popularity the books enjoy among servants (in the novel he had seen Mildred reading them.) Nora gives Phillip all the love and confidence he needs but he is incapable of returning her love. When Mildred returns (Miller didn't marry her and she is having a baby), of course he takes care of her and helps her with the baby (in the film it is treated as an object - always called \"baby\", never given a name or gender) - she repays him by running off with his best friend.

At the hospital he meets Sally Athelny (Frances Dee) who is visiting her sick father. He begins to visit her home and for the first time in his life gets a sense of family. Then surprise! surprise! Mildred returns like a bad penny and surprise! Philip takes her in. But he has changed and feels only disgust when she tries to show gratitude the only way she knows how. Then follows one of the most vicious, verbal fights on film with phrases such as \"you cad, you dirty swine\", \"I only kissed you because you begged me\" and \"when you went I wiped my mouth, I WIPED MY MOUTH\"!!! In the book a lot of Mildred's stock phrases such as \"you're a gentleman in every sense of the word\", \"I don't mind\", and \"Mr. High and Mighty\" were associated with prostitutes and when Phillip meets her for the first time he is struck by that.

The end of the film shows Phillip (being truly free of Mildred in the only way possible) now free to love Sally. Again in the book Sally tells Phillip that she thinks she is having a baby but that just makes him more sure of his love. That ending, like Mildred's \"sickness\" could not be in the film - even a pre-code one.

Kay Johnson was always called on to play sensible, believable women - which she played to perfection as she was obviously sensible herself. Her Nora was the woman Philip should have stayed with. Frances Dee was one of the most beautiful of screen ingenues. She was obviously being groomed for stardom with some roles that proved she was not just a pretty face (\"The Silver Cord\" and \"Blood Money\") but when she married Joel McCrea her career started to peter out. Her Sally did not push her talent to the limits. Apparently Leslie Howard was not very helpful to Bette Davis on the set - he was annoyed that an English actress was not given the part. He used to throw her her lines \"whilst reading a book off camera\". He did start to take an interest when a newspaper reported \"the kid was running away with the picture\"!!!

Highly, Highly Recommended.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I watched this movie with some friends a couple months ago, I still laugh today thinking about some of the utter stupidity. The first few scenes alone were hilarious. I won't spoil anything for those who wish to see it, I wouldn't want to ruin the laughs. Needless to say the entire time I watched this movie I was trying to figure out exactly what the point of anything the characters in this movie were doing. Towards the end we all got bored however, as the initial hilarity and shock of a movie being this random wore off. There is no plot and not a trace of decent acting. The characters are about as well developed as those in a kindergarten \"Learn to Read\" book. They even managed to make a lesbian sex scene uninteresting.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Peter Jacksons version(s) are better films overall from objective point of view. That being said, they are not my favorite screen versions of Lord Of The Rings, and let me explain why.

Firstly, the acting of the on-screen characters is just too ordinary and uninspiring with Jackson's LOTR. The whole cast is too run of the mill. \"Are you claiming that those silly cartoon characters of Ralph Bakshi version are better actors than real people?\" one could ask. Well, they are not really silly(save for Hobbits, later about them) and they certainly pack more personality than Jackson's party - even with much more limited dialogue time. And that is because of superior _voice_ acting of the Bakshi's LOTR. Take Aragorn for example. In this version his voice is deep and charismatic with full of authority(Aragorn the lord)and with a seasoned rasp(Aragorn the ranger). This is due to John Hurt's brilliant voice acting. Compare that to Viggo Mortensen's rather high pitched sound with no soul and the duel gets quickly uneven: Hurt beats Mortensen hands down.

And then there is Gandalf. Probably the most dominating(and the most popular) character in the whole saga. In this Bakshi version Gandalf(William Squire) is a real wizard. And by that I don't mean he shoots bolts from his fingertips(he does not), but his presence is just captivating. He is a mystical, powerful and can switch from gentle old man to a scary person with ease. Add to that his looks: Tall, old as the ancient oak, beard long as his body, sharp eyes, wizardy hook nose and of course, the classical wizard hat. A Perfect Gandalf, just like in the books. Ian McKellen's Gandalf in the other hand, is simply just too boring. He looks too human, sounds too human, acts too human and wears no hat or wields no sword. Yes a sword. In this Bakshi version Gandalf scores couple of bloody orc kills with his sword(as he did in the books). And those are stylish slow motion kills. Gandalf is not a power to be messed with. And it must be noted, that while I'm sad to say this, the great Christopher Lee didn't bring Saruman alive. Fraser Kerr in this movie did, even with a very limited screen time and lines.

Before I move completely to visual aspects of the movie, it must be mentioned that the voice acting and the general presenation of the Orcs are also superior to Jackson's pretendeous bad guys. Bakshi's orcs taunt their enemies(or each other) constantly with growls, screams and nasty language. They are more believable as monsters and are more faithful to the book in my opinion. And finally, the Black Riders - or the Nazgul. Those ultimate bad guys are scary ghosts in this one - not just some riders wearing black. And they speak with haunting voice, which mesmerizes their victim. My favorite scene in the film is when the Nazgul are chasing Frodo near the river. While Peter Jackson couldn't do anything but show the riders simply chasing the party, Bakshi throws in a nightmarish dream with some cool slow motion scenes and thundering sky.

But as much I like this film more than Jackson's, the latter are, if only technically, still better. And that is because of some key visuals. As you know Bakshi LOTR features a mixture of animated characters(all hobbits and the main cast) and real actors covered with paint. I don't really have a problem using real people in animation this way, but they just don't fit very well with traditional cartoon figures. This is especially true with humans(Riders of Rohan, tavern people etc.) Orcs are different matter, since they are meant to look very distinctive from other characters. Orcs, while played by humans with animation mix, look far superior to Jacksons version. They have brownish-green skin, shiny red eyes, flat face and pointed teeth.

Biggest screw up in this films visuals, howerver, are the Hobbits. While I prefer almost every character in Bakshi version compared to Jackson, the latter has clearly superior Hobbits, in fact they are perfect. With Bakshi you get some irritating and rather poorly drawn humanoid Disney bambies. And you are forced to spend a lot of movie time with them, so be warned. Again, the voice acting is OK with them too, but the actors mouths cannot save the \"immersion damage\" made by these little weasels. Well, I never really liked those halflings anyway.

General failures in the Bakshi script are well known. Limited playing time(with limited budget) and a lot of missing scenes. So while this film covers nearly half of the story, it doesn't do it in extensive detail compared to Jackson's version.

In a summary the Ralph Bakshi version of LOTR has a superior:

-overall atmosphere (it feels more like Middle-Earth) -overall voice acting -music (I really dig the fantasy score by Kont & Rosenman) -Gandalf -Aragorn (One of the John Hurt's finest roles) -King Theoden -Orcs -Black Riders -Elrond (He's not some fairy hippie in this one!)

While Jackson version is better:

-because it covers the whole story -overall visuals and special effects -Gollum/Smeagol -Balrog -Hobbits

Lord of the Rings by Ralph Bakshi, even with it's well known shortcomings, is one of the best animation films ever made and it captures the atmosphere of Tolkien's fantasy world very well, if not perfectly. I'll give it a score of 8½ out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.

The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.

I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.

For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.

Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What starts out as generational conflict in this movie, ends in understanding, solemnity and grace. The movie meanders through Europe with the father and the young son cramped in a car over 3000 miles. The cramping forces lifestyles, beliefs and life skills to collide. There's really no clear winner. It all adds up in the end as experience, experience of multiple layers of life. For those interested in understanding Islam, this movie offers a generous and gentle outlook, without being pushy about the agenda. It's a coming of age story for the young son, his dismissive and rebellious nature turning to openness for receiving more ways of life.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Istanbul is another one of those expatriate films that Errol Flynn was making in the last decade of his life trying to support his family and stay out of trouble with the IRS. It's a remake of the Fred MacMurray- Ava Gardner film Singapore from a decade ago.

Unlike that studio product, Istanbul has the advantage of that great location cinematography right at the sight of the Golden Horn. But Errol Flynn, who was aging exponentially before the camera in every film, was way too old to be playing these action/adventure types any longer. His scenes with Cornell Borchers really do lack conviction.

As for Cornell, she plays Errol's former sweetheart who through the trauma of being saved from a fire now has amnesia. She both doesn't remember Errol and is now married to Torin Thatcher.

But Errol's got some nasty people led by Martin Benson and Werner Klemperer who are after some diamonds which have come into his possession. Got to deal with them too.

Best reason to see Istanbul is to hear Nat King Cole sing and play the piano. Most people today don't realize that Cole was an accomplished jazz pianist, they only think of him as a singer. Actually he was a pianist first, the singing was an afterthought.

Istanbul is a routine action/adventure film for those who are fans of that type of movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Bill Paxton stars in and directs this highly original film. Having watched the first time I was by how good it was. The reviews I had heard were OK . As a result I was expecting an average thriller at most .However because of Paxtons excellent directing and acting the film is well worth watching , especially if you are a horror film fanatic.The film is also helped by the plot twists which keep coming until the closing credits . The films strongest point is the storyline which I have to say is highly original and is like I have ever seen before. Well done also to the 2 young leads which perfectly convey the emotions if these confused boys. I give this film 9/10 and I highly recommend that everyone catches it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I've just seen it....for those who don't know what it is, I suggest to download the entire feature and enjoy viewing it...it's kinda amateur made trailer featuring the same producer of the famous short Batman Dead End, but this time besides the black knight there is also Superman... It would be wonderful if they made the entire movie...but I'm afraid that it's almost impossible, especially just before the official Batman 5 film.

-- There is no greater crime against peace than the refusal to fight for it.

Lorenzo 'Purifier'Pinto", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "i watched this tape, immediately rewound it, watched it again and laughed twice as hard. I strongly recommend this tape for those who are not hateful of, but uncomfortable around transvestites. It shows you that transvestitism is a feature, rather than the entirety of one's being. The comedy is not single issue. This man is brilliant. All comics should aspire to his level of candor, intelligence and talent.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I thought this was an excellent and very honest portrayal of paralysis and racism. This movie never panders to the audience and never gets predictable. The acting was top-notch and the movie reminded me of \"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest\".", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I don't know who Sue Kramer, the director of this film is, but I have a strong suspicion that A) she is a lesbian and B) she somehow shamed everyone involved in this project to participate to prove they are not homophobic.

I can imagine everyone thinking, \"My God, this is horrible. Not funny. Pedestrian. Totally lame.\" But keeping their mouths shut for fear they will be labeled anti-gay or they \"don't get\" the gay lifestyle. (This is probably why Kramer did NOT cast gay people to play gay people too.) Anyway, it's not even worth reviewing. The actors are all directed to play every scene completely over the top so there is no sincerity or believability in anything they do. It's full of clichés and there is nothing about this movie that is the least bit amusing - much less funny.

I hated it and I'm not afraid to say so. Too bad the gutless people who gave Kramer the money to make this bomb weren't as unbiased in their judgment.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is the third in a series of seven Amicus horror anthologies. If THE MONSTER CLUB is included as part of the series, this would make eight movies. Although, that movie is very different from the others.

I look upon the Amicus anthologies with great memories as I used to love them when I was in my teens. My feelings for them today are just as strong.

I spent many years trying to track down this movie. The synopses of the stories was so appealing that I went as far as paying a substantial amount for it when I eventually found a copy. As great as though the movie is, I did feel a sense of disappointment when I finally saw it. It wasn't quite as good as I was led to believe. Whilst better than its two predecessors, it's nowhere near as good as its four successors as I shall demonstrate.

The linking story sees John Bennett as a police inspector tracking down a missing person who lives in a mysterious old house. His journey begins at the local police station where he learns the stories of previous occupants. The linking story later sees him visiting the estate agent who sold the house. Whilst this linking story seems enticing on paper, it is flat and lifeless in practice and easily the weakest of any Amicus anthology. I couldn't help but get the feeling that John Bennett is a poor man's version of Donald Pleasance or Ian Hendry. I would much rather have seen one of the two aforementioned actors in his role. We could have even had both here - one as the police inspector and another as the estate agent. They could, and I believe would, have brought this weak element of the movie to life much better.

The movie contains four stories, each of which focuses on an inhabitant of the house.

The first story sees Denholm Elliott as a writer of crime stories. He is absorbed into an exciting story about a strangler, even going as far as drawing a sketch to aid his writing. Soon after, he begins seeing visions of his own creation. Some excellent direction by Peter Duffell, particularly with the choice of camera angles helps to detract from the restrained script. Elliott's performance is superb as the tormented writer and he also helps to elevate the story. The story ends with a semi-twist but I couldn't help get the sense of a script which didn't allow it to live up to its potential.

The second story sees Peter Cushing move into the house. He is a lonely man who is still pining for a beautiful young woman who once jilted him and who he keeps a picture of. Cushing's performance really brings this emotionally-moving story to life. He is helped by the director who chooses to include continual focus on Cushing's loneliness. This is taken further with a great hallucination scene that helps us to see inside Cushing's mind. Anyway, Cushing sees a figure at a nearby wax museum that looks just like his girl. Naturally his obsession grows but this seemingly romantic story has a disturbing twist at the end. Joss Ackland plays Cushing's rival but his performance is massively overshadowed by the late great Peter Cushing.

The third story and easily the best sees Christopher Lee - my favourite horror actor of all time - move into the house with his daughter. Mr. Lee gives one his perfect ice cold performances here. He shows no love or attention for his daughter at all. He even brings in a school governess to educate her. The governess, played by Nyree Dawn Porter in another of her superb performances, tries to find out what is wrong. Without giving too much away, I can reveal that witchcraft plays a role. Christopher Lee's presence is truly electrifying in every scene he's in. Chloe Franks deserves special recognition for her massively underrated performance as the little girl who is easily the creepiest character in the whole movie. The movie is worth seeing even for the sake of seeing just this one story.

The final story is played almost entirely for laughs but it certainly does entertain and that's what matters. Jon Pertwee plays a horror movie actor who moves into the house. He is very dissatisfied at the approach his producers take to movies, seeing everything as cheap and fake, particularly the costumes. So he decides to buy an authentic cloak for his latest vampire role. Geoffrey Bayldon has an excellent cameo as a dealer who sells Pertwee an ancient cloak. When Pertwee puts the cloak on, he starts developing fangs and basically transforming into a vampire. Pertwee's performance has to be seen to be believed. It truly is hilarious. Ingrid Pitt is also in this story but her talent is wasted in a role that should have been much larger.

The linking story finishes with a loose connection to the final story. This is particularly fitting since the inspector was looking for Pertwee and naturally decides to visit the house. The rest you'll be able to work out for yourself. As weak as the linking story is, it does have a decent if somewhat unintentionally comical ending.

I'm convinced that the blame for the shortcomings in what should have been a truly magnificent movie doesn't lie with Peter Duffell, the director, who really does his best with what he's got. I think the script was just too restrained and lacking the ambition that can be found in the four later movies.

Overall, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, despite its flaws is a must-see for fans of the Amicus anthologies, fans of other Amicus movies or fans of portmanteau horror movies. If my summary provides the movie with enough appeal in your eyes, check it out. You'll enjoy it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Enormous fun for both adults and children, this film works on numerous levels: there is everything from car crashes and cake in the face to some very good (yet subtle) jokes for adults.

Glenn Close is at her sublimely evil best as Cruella (`call me Ella') De Ville.

After three years in Dr. Pavlov's Behaviour Modification Clinic she is cured of her desire for fur – even the puppy-skin fur she had so intensely desired. She even has all of her fur coats placed in the dungeon of the extraordinary castle she inhabits.

But it wouldn't be a ‘Dalmatian' movie without the subterfuge and machinations of Cruella and you know that something will change her behaviour modification. And now she needs one extra puppy (hence 102 Dalmatians) to complete her nefarious scheme this time round.

Ioan Gruffudd is instantly appealing as the hero of the film that runs the `Second Chance' dog shelter. Though he was in `Titanic' and in last year's television version (as Pip) of `Great Expectations' I didn't recognize him; well, he was ‘Fifth Officer Lowe' in `Titanic' and I didn't see `Great Expectations' so I am not terribly surprised.

Gerard Depardieu does a delightful turn as the furrier-pawn of Cruella. He prances and postures in the most outlandish and outrageous of fur clothing you have ever seen – and does it well. His 'Wicked Witch of the West' homage is hilarious.

Tim McInnerny is superb is Cruella's not-so-evil henchman – he was also ‘Alonzo,' Cruella's butler, in `101 Dalmatians' and you may also recognize him from all of the `Black Adder' Brit-Coms. He plays his usual bumbling, good-hearted, somewhat dim-witted character to great effect.

Oscars for costuming are generally given for the entirety of the costuming in a film. This is unfortunate as the clothing worn by Glenn Close is amazing – it is incredibly detailed (note her handcuffs when she is being released from the Behaviour Modification Clinic) and worthy of such an over-the-top character. Her clothing alone deserves at least an Oscar nomination.

Animation holds a special place in my heart – but comparing this film to the original animated film is like comparing apples to orangutans: it can't be done. Suffice it to say that `102 Dalmatians' is even better than the film version of `101 Dalmatians' that came out in 1996. There is a lot to like here: from the sight gags, the dialogue, and the costumes to the casting - it is a good film for the whole family.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film has all the size and grandeur of many of the great biblical epics of the 1950's and '60's. But it is also perhaps the first that really humanizes the biblical characters themselves. The best thing about it is that it does not diminish them in the eyes of the viewer. This is a unique and compelling balance that helps us to realize that even great people like David are flawed people who find their faith and greatness in facing their flaws.

The actors are all first rate in the film from Gilbert Barnett as David's second son Absolom through to the wonderful Susan Hayward as Bathsheba. Hayward is at her best in this film. Her own truthful but larger than life style of acting is quite at home here. She is ever the seductress, but she plays the role in such a way that you sympathize with her.

Raymond Massey does a great job as Nathan the prophet. As a child when I first saw the film, Massey seemed like he truly had just conversed with the Lord himself and was an awesome sight. No doubt helped also by the great music composed by the always amazing Alfred Newman who also had great successes in other biblical epics like \"The Robe\" and \"The Greatest Story Ever Told\" along with perhaps 100 other films too! The cinema photography by Leon Shamroy is well done and adds to the size but also the intimacy of the film. Henry King, a truly underrated film director who like William Wyler never really pigeon-holed himself into any one genre, pulls together a larger than life production that never loses sight of the love story between David and Bathsheba and David's own deep struggle with his faith in God. The path tread in this film could have been very hokey, but King keeps it real and interesting all the way. Plus we never lose the sense of mystery about trying to understand the will of God, just as David himself is struggling with the same. From the first scene where a soldier dies trying to save the ark from destruction. David is not satisfied with Nathan's answer, (to paraphrase)that no one can understand the will of God. This is the journey we embark on right through to the powerful ending where David is finally confronted with himself.

Finally this film belongs to Gregory Peck who wonderful as King David. His David is a man you can believe could rule a country ruthlessly but was at one time a faithful singer of psalms. This is one of his best performances.

I don't see this movie on television much anymore, but when I do I never fail to watch it. I think it still holds up very well today.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I thought it was an original story, very nicely told. I think all you people are expecting too much. I mean...it's just a made for television movie! What are you expecting? Some Great wonderful dramtic piece? I thought it was a really great story for a made for television movie....and that's my opinion.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw this movie in my international cinema class and was grossed out from get go. This movie is nothing but one scene of blatant shock value after the next.

The 4th Man is about an alcoholic writer named Reve, who has visions of his in-pending danger. He meets up with a woman named Christine when giving a lecture at a local book club, and only decides to stay with her when he discovers how attractive her boyfriend is. To put it plainer, Reve likes the Dutch sausage. So Reve concocts a plan to seduce Christine's boyfriend so he can ultimately have sex with him. But its later discovered that Christine has had 3 previous husbands, who she all murdered. Now Reve and Christine's boyfriend could be \"THE 4TH MAN.\" The storyline makes sense with no plot holes. The editing and everything else that is technical about this movie is perfectly fine. The movie is just gross and I felt the need to vomit in some parts. Basically, this isn't my cup of tea.

The movie opens with Reve getting out of bed in JUST a t-shirt. So in the very beginning, you get to see Reve's lovely pecker flopping around as he walks around his cramped apartment in a hangover state. Later on he has a dream where his pecker gets cut off by a pair of scissors, and they do show it along with the blood fountain that ensues. Reve fondles a statue of Jesus and has homosexual sex in a mausoleum. Plus there's a lot of blood. More blood than all the Freddy Krueger movies combined.

Not that I have anything against \"shocking\" scenes, but this movie is just so blatant when it comes to shocking. The whole movie is revolved around the shock value.

So if any of this is your cup of tea, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay far far far far far away from this one. My mind is still scarred.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Okay, okay, maybe not THE greatest. I mean, The Exorcist and Psycho and a few others are hard to pass up, but The Shining is way up there. It is, however, by far the best Stephen King story that has been made into a movie. It's better than The Stand, better than Pet Sematary (if not quite as scary), better than Cujo, better than The Green Mile, better the Dolores Claiborne, better than Stand By Me (just barely, though), and yes, it's better than The Shawshank Redemption (shut up, it's better), I don't care WHAT the IMDb Top 250 says.

I read that, a couple of decades ago, Stanley Kubrick was sorting through novels at his home trying to find one that might make a good movie, and from the other room, his wife would hear a pounding noise every half hour or so as he threw books against the wall in frustration. Finally, she didn't hear any noise for almost two hours, and when she went to check and see if he had died in his chair or something (I tell this with all due respect, of course), she found him concentrating on a book that he had in his hand, and the book was The Shining. And thank God, too, because he went on to convert that book into one of the best horror films ever.

Stephen King can be thanked for the complexity of the story, about a man who takes his wife and son up to a remote hotel to oversee it during the extremely isolated winter as he works on his writing. Jack Nicholson can be thanked for his dead-on performance as Jack Torrance (how many movies has Jack been in where he plays a character named Jack?), as well as his flawless delivery of several now-famous lines (`Heeeeeere's Johnny!!'). Shelley Duvall can be thanked for giving a performance that allows the audience to relate to Jack's desires to kill her. Stanley Kubrick can be thanked for giving this excellent story his very recognizable touch, and whoever the casting director was can be thanked for scrounging up the creepiest twins on the planet to play the part of the murdered girls.

One of the most significant aspects of this movie, necessary for the story as a whole to have its most significant effect, is the isolation, and it's presents flawlessly. The film starts off with a lengthy scene following Jack as he drives up to the old hotel for his interview for the job of the caretaker for the winter. This is soon followed by the same thing following Jack and his family as they drive up the windy mountain road to the hotel. This time the scene is intermixed with shots of Jack, Wendy, and Danny talking in the car, in which Kubrick managed to sneak in a quick suggestion about the evils of TV, as Wendy voices her concern about talking about cannibalism in front of Danny, who says that it's okay because he's already seen it on TV (`See? It's okay, he saw it on the television.').

The hotel itself is the perfect setting for a story like this to take place, and it's bloody past is made much more frightening by the huge, echoing rooms and the long hallways. These rooms with their echoes constantly emphasize the emptiness of the hotel, but it is the hallways that really created most of the scariness of this movie, and Kubrick's traditional tracking shots give the hallways a creepy three-dimensional feel. Early in the film, there is a famous tracking shot that follows Danny in a large circle as he rides around the halls on his Big Wheel (is that what those are called?), and his relative speed (as well as the clunking made by the wheels as he goes back and forth from the hardwood floors to the throw rugs) gives the feeling of not knowing what is around the corner. And being a Stephen King story, you EXPECT something to jump out at you. I think that the best scene in the halls (as well as one of the scariest in the film) is when Danny is playing on the floor, and a ball rolls slowly up to him. He looks up and sees the long empty hallway, and because the ball is something of a child's toy, you expect that it must have been those horrendously creepy twins that rolled it to him. Anyway, you get the point. The Shining is a damn scary movie.

Besides having the rare quality of being a horror film that doesn't suck, The Shining has a very in depth story that really keeps you guessing and leaves you with a feeling that there was something that you missed. HAD Jack always been there, like Mr. Grady told him in the men's room? Was he really at that ball in 1921, or is that just someone who looks exactly like him? If he has always been the caretaker, as Mr. Grady also said, does that mean that it was HIM that went crazy and killed his wife and twin daughters, and not Mr. Grady, after all? It's one thing for a film to leave loose ends that should have been tied, that's just mediocre filmmaking. For example, The Amityville Horror, which obviously copied much of The Shining as far as its subject matter, did this. But it is entirely different when a film is presented in a way that really makes you think (as mostly all of Kubrick's movies are). One more thing that we can all thank Stanley Kubrick for, and we SHOULD thank him for, is for not throwing this book against the wall. That one toss would have been cinematic tragedy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Dragon Fighter is the first Sci-Fi Channel (although I guess it's now called Syfy?) original movie I have ever seen. But I have seen one or two others since, and I can tell you that they were stupid, but this one really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. The CGI is done poorly, the acting is bad, the script is ridiculous, and what happens at the very end is unexpected and out of place (if you have seen Dragon Fighter, you probably know what I mean; I didn't want to put a spoiler in my review). Plus, there was this one musical tune that was used in pretty much every single dangerous sequence. That was really stupid; they just played it over and over. And it's definitely not original; I know I've heard that somewhere before (I just can't remember where). This is one to avoid.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Cool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "For those of you who think anime is just about giant reptiles raping schoolgirls, think again. There is a totally different side to the Japanese animation. Yakitate! Japan is one of those shows. It is a sweet-natured tale of a young boy with the gift to make delicious bread. His universe is all about creating a Japanese bread that can match with the famous European breads. The show is as wacky as they come and I'm sure that non-Japanese viewers will miss a lot of the jokes. But it is still very nice to watch because of the complete innocent vibe of the show.

In the world of Yakitate! it is not uncommon for people to look like they've just had an orgasm after eating bread. The bread is hallucinating and can give the consumer a wide array of super powers, from time-traveling to swimming like a fish. That weird aspect makes it into one of the least predictable and funny shows I've watched in a while.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "After having seen the movie the first question arising in my mind was: Is this supposed to be irony or not? After reading a few comments about the character Doc Savage and the comic series, I knew this film was not meant to be ironic. So, the story tells us about an US-American Super-Doc saving a south American republic from evil. Sounds like a typical story. But this one comes in such an unrealistic way that it becomes ridiculous. The mandatory end-fight shows the worst presentation of martial arts I have ever seen. The film might be interesting for low budget movie designers as a bad example.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Several years ago the Navy kept a studied distance away from the making of \"Men of Honor,\" a film based on the experiences of the service's first black master chief diver's struggle to overcome virulent racism. Ever eager to support films showing our Navy's best side the U.S.S. Nimitz and two helicopter assault carriers, with supporting shore installations, were provided to complement this engrossing tale of a young sailor's battle with uncontrollable rage. Some of the movie was shot aboard the U.S.S. Belleau Wood.

Antwone Fisher wrote the script for Denzel Washington's director's debut in which he stars as a Navy psychiatrist treating Fisher, played effectively and deeply by Derek Luke.

Fisher is an obviously bright enlisted man assigned to the U.S.S. Belleau Wood (LHA-3), a front line helicopter assault platform. Fisher can't seem to avoid launching his own assaults at minimal provocation from his fellow enlisted men. Sent to the M.D. as part of a possible pre-separation proceeding, Fisher slowly opens up to the black psychiatrist, revealing an awful childhood of great neglect and shuddering brutality.

The story develops as Fisher cautiously but increasingly trusts his doctor and gets the courage to pursue a love interest, an enlisted sailor named Cheryl, played by a stunningly beautiful Joy Bryant.

Fisher reluctantly engages with the doctor by asking long simmering questions but soon realizes he must seek the answers, however painful, in order to grow and move away from conflict-seeking destructive behavior.

While all the main characters are black, this story transcends race while unflinchingly showing the evil of exuberant religiosity and concomitant hypocrisy in foster family settings. Viola Davis, a versatile actress seen in a number of recent films, is a picture of sullen immorality but is nothing compared to foster mom, Mrs. Tate (Novella Nelson), who in short but searing scenes would earn - if it existed - the Oscar for gut-churning brutality.

Films about patient-therapist interaction follow a certain predictability (all that transference and counter-transference stuff) but the earnestness of Fisher and his doctor/mentor is realistically gripping. It's a good story, well told. Period.

While set in the Navy, \"Antwone Fisher\" is not in any real sense a service story as was \"Men of Honor,\" an excellent movie that dealt with crushing racism directed against a real person. Nor is it truly a film about blacks. It's about surviving terrible childhood experiences and, as Fisher says, being able to proclaim in adulthood that the victim is still \"standing tall.\" The persecutors shrink in size and significance as a brave and strong young man claims his right to a decent life with the aid of a caring doctor.

My only quibble is that Washington is a lieutenant commander but is addressed as commander. With all the Navy support people listed in the end credits, someone should have told Director Washington that his character, like all naval officers below the rank of commander, is addressed as \"Mister.\" Not a big criticism, is it? :)

I don't know why this film is playing in so few theaters. It deserves wide distribution. Derek Luke may well get an Oscar nomination.

8/10.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Of all the kung-fu films made through the 70's and 80's this is one that has developed a real cult following. With the exception of all the films Bruce Lee starred in this is a film that has stood the test of time and its due to the unique story. An aging kung-fu master tells his last pupil Yang Tieh (Sheng Chiang) about five pupils he has trained in the past. All five wore masks and nobody has seen the face of each other and they have all been trained differently. Their specialty in kung-fu is the name they have adopted like Lizard, Snake, Centipede, Toad and Scorpion. The master called them the Poison Clan and he does not know what has happened to them so he wants Tieh to find them and help the ones that are doing good to stop the others that are evil. An old man who was once a member of the Poison Clan has a map to where he has hidden a lot of money and he seems to be a target. Tieh does not know what they look like so he has to mingle in society and try and figure out who they are. Tieh has discovered that the Snake is Hung Wen Tung (Pai Wei) and along with Tang Sen Kue (Feng Lu) who is the Centipede they kill a family to find the map. A map is found by a mystery man who turns out to be the Scorpion but know one knows who he is. A local policeman named Ho Yung Sin (Philip Kwok) investigates the murders along with his partner Ma Chow (Chien Sun). Sin has a friend called Li Ho (Meng Lo) who is the Toad and they do know of each others identity. The Snake bribes the local officials to pin the murders on Li Ho and while he is in prison he is tortured and killed. When Sin finds out he teams up with Tieh and together they go to combat Tung and Kue.

This film was directed by Cheh Chang and he was a very special director when it came to these films. Chang was not your run of the mill kung-fu director and his films always had a special quality to them. While most martial arts films deal with revenge Chang did not use that as a central theme. Even though there is some revenge going on later in this story this film is more complex than that. Five men trained by the same master in different ways and wearing masks. Then they are all in the same area and not knowing who the other is. Very unique story makes this film different from all the others and most of Changs stories were in a class all by themselves. I wouldn't exactly put it in the same league as \"Enter The Dragon\" because Bruce Lee was a worldwide icon and the martial arts he exhibited were more authentic looking. This film still has some impossible feats like clinging to sides of walls and all the flipping through the air but this film isn't necessarily about fight scenes. Its more about the intrigue of the story and the characters that are involved. That alone makes this different from all the other kung-fu films. Very well made with a unique story.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have grown up with Scooby doo all my life, My dad grew up with scooby doo. We have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself Shaggy and Scooby get a clue. What planet are Warner Bros on allowing this shambles to air. The characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. The story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are Scooby Doo fans too). Scooby and Shaggy just aren't!!!!! if anyone but Casey Kasem does the voice of Shaggy it just isn't gonna work folks!!!! trust me.

This program was disgraceful. What's New Scooby Doo is much better. Why change a winning format. Bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true Scooby", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Der Todesking\"-Jorg Buttgereit's second full-length feature film(the first one was notorious \"Nekromantik\")has no central character or characters,but instead thematic continuity in the act of suicide.Divided into days of the week,it comprises of a series of set-pieces,each of which featuring the self-destruction of a complete stranger.Yes,the production values are low and it's disturbing,but in many ways \"Der Todesking\" is extremely effective.It makes you think which is sometimes more important than pure entertainment.Unlike the other Buttgereit's works it isn't very gory,but there are some unpleasant images like castration scene in the Tuesday episode,a decomposing corpse and various acts of suicide.The last(Sunday)episode is so depressing and full of pain!-just amazing if you want my opinion.10 out of 10-check out this post-modernism shocker!Disturbing art in the purest form!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie features a gorgeous brunette named Danielle Petty. She has stunning green eyes, and is in the first few scenes and the last scene. She is the only thing about this movie that is not repulsive. She may not have a future as an actress, because this kind of movie is the kind of offensive disaster that kills careers.

The movie itself has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It is not a good horror film, or a good fake journalistic report, or remotely well done. There is no skill apparent in it's production. It is like a bad student film. The story's horrific elements do not make you sick, it is the fact that it is so poorly done that makes you sick. I would give this movie ZERO stars if I could.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called \"Films that Suck\" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.

My Grade: D-", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Fate/Stay Night is an animated series inspired by a h-game. Somehow the producers turned it around making this a successful series without any of the h-stuff. It couldn't have been any other way because the development of the characters is great just the way it's pictured in this series and any alteration of that could only ruin perfection.(You'll understand once you see all the episodes).

Despite a relatively slow start (the producer took his time on presenting the characters) things gain momentum quickly and soon after mid-series the action gets so intense that glues you to your seat.

The topic of the series concentrates on the War of Holy Grail that has been taking place in the Fukuky City for the last 50 years. The pilot actually starts with the conclusion of the previous war and develops from there on. Shiro is the only survivor of the fire that started during the last battle and enveloped a large portion of the city.He unwillingly witnesses a fight between two Servants that triggers his Reiju (Holy mark) to summon one of the most powerful Servants of the battlefield, Saber. His first contact with Saber left him stunned \"Such immeasurable beauty ...I was at a lost for words\".

You mustn't compare this series with any other to fully understand it's plot. FSN offers much more than some cool sword fights, good animation, spectacular lights, great soundtrack, it offers excellent character and relationship development. It presents the changes that take place within the characters personalities as the events precipitate. The action reveals believable dynamic emotional and behavioral patterns of the individuals (not similar to the linear type other series use) that are constantly shaping their personalities to reveal, from under the mask of perfection, flawed characters.

The Saber character is tied to a medieval legend that has been altered to fit this series and should be accepted as such. You shouldn't watch FSN thinking that it doesn't present the viewer with the historic fact, just remember that this is adventure/fantasy series and not a documentary and enjoy this as long as you can. The ending is sudden and unexpected and if there were twice as many episodes I would have watched them in the same breath.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Georgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, \"what?\" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.

Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.

Talk about false advertisement at it worst.

After many shots of animals doing \"funny\" things in the background of \"pivotal\" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.

The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care.

Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.

I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.

Don't see this movie : my rule.

And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have never commented on IMDb before, but I feel I have to after watching The Batman animation. Its absolute rubbish! Warner Brothers had the perfect animation series in Batman in the early 90s so what the hell are they doing trying to mess with the winning formula? I feel like writing a complaint letter to WB. The original animation was dark and brooding, exactly the way Batman was intended to be. WB had to mess this up with some tripe Batman of the Future. Now they produce this drivel. The Joker doesn't remotely resemble the Joker from DC comics. DC should sue. I urge everyone who agrees with me to email or write to WB and use people power to get back the original formula", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This has long been one of my favourite adaptations of an Austen novel. Although it is definitely not in the same category as the spectacular \"Pride and Prejudice,\" \"Emma\" is a lush and relatively faithful TV version of Austen's novel -- especially considering its short length. The biggest change between the novel and the movie is a good one, as the unnecessary snobbishness that Austen exhibits at the end of the story is removed here and replaced with someone much more akin to Emma's character in the rest of the book. I thought the characters chosen to portray the roles were well-picked. Kate Beckinsale walks the fine line between girlishness and the social snob with a grace completely lost in Gwyneth Paltrow's '96 version. Samantha Morton's wispy blonde locks suit her attitude and character as the simper that accompanies her role in previous characterisations is replaced with the Harriet we know from the book. Mister Knightly's role is carried out extremely well in my opinion; both the seriousness and the gentle compassion that the hero is painted with in the novel are present here in this much-neglected, sumptuous film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I happened to catch this film at a screening in Brooklyn - it's difficult to describe the plot; it has a lot of wacky characters, but let's just say I'd have a hard time choosing which one made me laugh the hardest, I wouldn't know where to begin. Even the peripheral roles are well written and well acted.

There are numerous small touches that make it unique and very enjoyable, it has a few \"devices\" that pop up and add another hilarious layer. It is refreshing to watch; not some recycled stuff I'd seen many times before. If this film could reach a wider audience, I'm certain it would be a real crowd-pleaser, the story is so original and heartfelt.

There's a lot here to like, funny back-stories, mishaps and misunderstandings which set up the final act and dramatic conclusion. Cross Eyed is a very funny movie with a ton of heart; it's a touching story with fast paced comedy woven throughout. Definitely worth seeing!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Melissa Joan Hart shines! This show is amazing!! There is no match. Except for maybe Melissa in Clarissa Explains it All. She was marvelous in that, too. This is SO much better than Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. This show is WONDERFUL!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.

Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas.

It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.

It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This show was absolutely great, and I always look forward to watching it.All the characters were funny and awesome in their own way, each and every episode provided non-stop laughter, and it was completely entertaining and different from a lot of other shows.Everybody was just absolutely insane and breathtakingly funny, that you couldn't help but love this show.There were a few dead weight episodes, but That '70s Show always managed to create some kind of likable atmosphere, to where it just really didn't matter.This was one of the best shows to ever be aired, and I will watch this show anytime I can, for it never gets old, never gets unfunny, and never gets uninteresting.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have to say I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The combination of reading the Novella and viewing this film has inspired my wife and I to new levels. Recently I was pondering a statement made by the artist Thomas Kinkade in one of his inspirational books; He states: \"You and I were not designed to breathe the fetid air of five o'clock traffic. Nor do I think God had banal television programs, media hype, worthless purchases, and soul pollution in mind when he created the universe...\" I hadn't seen \"A river runs through it\" in a couple of years, but after pondering Kinkade's statement something drew me to watch the film with a spiritual eye. I watched it and saw a whole new world to the film and it inspired me to read the book (a must read). I have always been frustrated in Southern California but somehow got caught up in its materialistic society. The film really puts into perspective of how we should really experience God's creations. A combination of Macleans story and my desire to move back to the Northwest has driven me to move to Montana. I want my future kids to be able to rome the landscape, go fly-fishing with me, ride horses into nothing but open land and serene lakes set in the mountainside. A place where you seldom worry about crime. I look around SoCal and all I see is shopping malls, rude snarling people in their Mercedez Bens, miles of vehicles on congested freeways, gangs, racial turmoil on the verge of violent eruption, and everyone skeptical of each others intentions.

Anyway the movie is very inspiring with brilliant acting and a deep story about the fragile connections of loved ones. There is a lot of deep thinking in this film. The scenery is worth seeing alone and actually helps relieve tension. You should finish this film relaxed yet full of insights to your own life. It takes a compassionate, intelligent, and spiritual person to really grasp the meaning. If you don't understand the art of cinema and how a director achieves his goals through dialogue, tone, light, colour, scenery, camera angles/movement, etc. Then this film is probably not for the crowd that thinks \"The Fast and the Furious\" is the greatest film. Granted it was entertaining but shallow.

The bottom line: This film helps to realize that life is not about how much money you have or what things you posses. Rather it is about your relationships with family and friends and the experiences you share together. QUALITY NOT QAUNTITY", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.

Just your average movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I can't even believe that this show lasted as long as it did. I guess it's all part of the dumbing down of America. Personally, like David Spade said, I liked this show better when it went by its original title - \"Seinfeld\". What bothers me the most about this show, aside from the obvious, base sense of \"humor\", and general smuttiness, is the pretentious way the episodes are titled. Truly great shows are still funny after many, repeated viewings, like, \"the one where Rob gets accidentally hypnotized\", on the \"Dick Van Dyke Show\", or \"the one where Lucy and Ethel work at the candy factory.\" In other words, it's an honor bestowed upon great programs by the viewers. That the writers and producers of \"Friends\" would have the unmitigated hubris to actually title the episodes, themselves, in such a fashion, before anyone's even had a chance to even see it a second time, speaks to not only the mediocrity and lack of original thinking on the part of said writers, but, also, of the stultified minds of their viewers.

You read the comments of some of these people and can only come to the conclusion that they live in a Hallmark Card-like Neverland, full of greeting card sentiment. The true meaning of friendship? I want to be a friend? I want to live in Manhattan? Wake Up. These people are supposed to be working in coffee shops and looking for work as actors, but they somehow manage to live in $4000/mo. apartments? Get real. All I have to say to those amongst us that want to move to Manhattan and live the idyllic New York life with your Rosses and Monicas, good luck with all of that. That New York doesn't exist for anyone making less than a serious six-figure income. But, good luck with all of that, anyway. Now, shut-up and pass the Soma.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I just came back from the Montreal premiere of Zero Day...and i'm surprised as hell to find a negative comment on the movie. Basically the blame is about Coccio doing an easy and overplayed social message...well, Mr-I'm-a-reviewer, it's an easy and overplayed critic of movies with a social charge.

Not that I want to expose my life here, but I come from a small town with a similar school than these guys go. Reject & ignorance on the menu. Thing is...I understand how can young kids can be driven to do such horror. High schools have became battle fields of conformity. It's a real ugly sight. You need to fight your way into being like the others. It's hard to explain, bit a lot of people dosen't realize that high schools are becoming cemeteries of human intelligence. Meanwhile, parents are closing their eyes and smiling about how their life in their comfortable suburb is perfect.

The real motive of the movie isn't about what is driving them. It's about this death-like calm suburb and everybody closing their eyes and trying to create this atmosphere of a perfect town. Cal expressed it well. It's a wake up call. Drama is everywhere and it can take every shape. In that case little dramas(like Andre being called a faggot for wearing a J.C Penny shirt) are shaping into being the worse nightmare of a whole town. Andre & Cal took the most extreme way to express their pain. The malaise of unconformity in an era where you need more than ever to be like the others to be accepted.

I like particularly the last scenes where some guys are burning the crosses of Andre & Cal, like if with the pain they communicated, Cal & Andre have communicated their blind rage to their community, their refusal to think about the causes of some acts.

It might seemed aggressive as a movie, but Coccio is meditating more than whining or enunciating. What Andre & Cal are living is a reality...and a scary one that might get to other kids.

Disturbing movie...Home making and strong feeling made Ben Coccio do a very very disturbing movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Definitely spoilers in this review! I **adore** American Gothic and have done since I first saw it late at night when it first aired on Ch4 in the UK when I was 14. The comparisons made to Stephen King are just about right. It's small town supernatural eeriness but with fantastic layered characters. Best of all, and the reason I love it so much, is it had the guts to never be black and white! Lucas Buck though lacking any conscience often works by, as he says, giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. His manipulation only works because of other people's weak morals. Caleb though generally a thoughtful, kind, insightful boy can at times show the latent dark side inherited from his father. None of the characters are wholly good or bad with even the angelic Merlyn showing a wrathful side through reckless vengeance in The Plague Sower. Not only that but having Gail, the closest thing to a mother figure for Caleb, not only sleep with but fall in love with Lucas despite all she knows made me realise this show would just go there and not apologise for it. I'm a huge Buffy fan, but when that show tried to go really 'dark' in later seasons it failed miserably because it lost it's humorous side and didn't commit fully to its ideas. AG shows that you can have a morally bankrupt character right at the heart of the show, and still have a hell of laugh doing it.

I can't even think about why it was cancelled as I'll just get too angry at the ridiculousness of it all. So much rubbish on TV and good, original shows get kicked around and stamped on. Thanks to the emergence of DVD at least I can see the show in it's entirety! Yes some of the visuals look dated now, but the creepy strange atmosphere is provided well enough by the story lines. The actors also all give such perfect performances that it more than makes up for some odd camera work.

The only reason why I think someone may not like this show is that it isn't like the X-files where there are cases to 'solve' or Lost where there's huge unanswered questions. It's pretty obvious from the get go that Lucas Buck has some kind of evil powers, and that the show is all about fighting for Caleb's soul. So this show might frustrate people looking for a purpose or an unknown 'truth' to find. Yes there are some mysterious unanswered aspects, with some such as the truth about Gails parents getting resolved, but unlike Lost and X-files this show isn't about trying to find out more 'facts' about what's going on IMO. It's all about the characters and the way they have to confront moral choices in the twisted world of Trinity. Personally I would just get such a kick out of seeing Lucas turn every situation to his advantage.

All in all the main thing I have to say is CHECK IT OUT. I'm pretty certain most fantasy/horror fans will LOVE it. Also even though it got cancelled all characters have arcs and there is enough in the finale to give some small sense of closure. The only hanging thread I felt was Dr Matt. Having him not be in the final episodes is strange.

I would have done anything for a second season, but at least the full 22 episodes exist and perhaps given how brainless some TV execs appear to be I should be glad this wonderful show got made at all!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "basically, i like Verhoeven film because in his film, i enjoy a brilliant pscychosexual story that i have seen before in \"Basic Instinct\".it is really a wonderful thriller i enjoyed very much.so it is obviously for me to watch this another Verhoeven movie.

well, it is his previous direction before his block buster hit \"Basic Instinct\" and for that i was very much curious to watch that movie and yeah, the movie has fulfilled my hope and expectation.

this movie \"The Fourth Man\" is a brilliant pscychosexual drama which is a lit bit complex for some audiences. the story of this movie is about a gay writer named \"Reve\"(Krabbe), an alcoholic person who is lives by his own moral values and sees many visions that may warn him from a future accident.after the end of his lecture, he introduce a seductive woman named \"Christine\", who has a mysterious past she doesn't want to reveal.Reve do sex with her at her house as she is a boy.next morning, he watch her sexy, macho boyfriend's picture on her table, the person he met at the station.he is curious to meet him and tell Christine to invite him to her house.

that's it. i don't want to reveal the entire story because it is a Verhoeven movie and the end of the film is really surprising!

especially, i like the character \"Reve\" which is brilliantly played by \"Krabbe\".i basically like his acting because as a gay person i am purely identified with his character and yeah i like his charming face.

i would like thanks Mr.Verhoeven to make such a black comedy.

i rate this movie: 10 out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Emory is a Cincinatti steel worker like his father before him and for most of the 20th century the twin pillars of his family's existence have been the steel mill and the union. The mill, which once employed 45,000, has seen its numbers dwindle to 5,000 recently and now 1, as the plant just shut its doors, leaving a single security guard. At first, newly-unemployed Emory and his pals enjoy their independence, hanging out around town and carousing at their favorite bar, where they down \"depth charges\" with reckless abandon. They think the mill will reopen after listening to their union rep's optimistic spiel, but reality starts to sink in when they find themselves selling their personal vehicles in a struggle to put food on the table and stave off foreclosure of their homes. Emory's father - a dedicated union man - is sure the plant will reopen and recalls for his son all the short-lived closures during his own 35 years at the mill. Meanwhile, some of the unemployed men take demeaning make-work jobs or hop in their trucks and take off in a desperate search for employment.

Finally the union admits its helplessness, as Emory explains to his stubborn father that times have changed and that the mill won't ever open again. Emory tearfully asks \"What did I do wrong?\" as a lifetime of hard work and devotion to job, union, church and family have left him with nothing and nowhere to turn. He hits rock bottom when in a drunken rage he manhandles his young sons and knocks his wife to the floor. Tossed out of his own home and stinging from the plant manager's comments that he and his men didn't work hard enough to justify their substantial paychecks, Emory recruits the steel workers still left in town to do something that will demonstrate to all what they are capable of. Early in the morning they break into the mill, fire up the furnaces and work harder than they ever have in their lives, producing in one shift enough high-quality steel pipes to fill the loading docks from wall to wall, top to bottom - something the plant manager thought was impossible.

Arriving at the suddenly-reopened plant, the stupefied manager looks around him at the tremendous output that came from a single day's work, realizing that production like this could make the plant profitable again. The manager asks Emory: \"Can you do this every day?\" Emory is forced to nod \"No\" and the manager asks: \"Then what were you trying to prove?\" Emory explains that the workers' decades of hard work, honesty and devotion to their jobs had meaning and that by showing how much they could produce in one day \"We just spit in your eye.\" Emory bids a tearful farewell to his wife and kids as he takes off with his buddies to look for work down south, promising to relocate the family when he finds it.

This is a powerful and honest treatment of the plight of American workers displaced by foreign competition and gives a realistic view of the costs they bear for the short-sightedness of concession-demanding unions and greedy plant owners who extracted every penny they could from their factories but never gave back by modernizing them. Peter Strauss as Emory, John Goodman as his best friend, Gary Cole as his college-boy brother, Pamela Reed as Emory's sympathetic wife and John Doucette as his dying father all turn in excellent performances in this fine picture.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I watched this movie yesterday and was highly disappointed.

Heather Graham and Tom Cavanaugh basically had to carry this awkwardly unbelievable script for five hours (or however long it actually was). From the beginning, every single element of this movie is unbelievable. This movie made me chuckle several times, but they were mainly out of shock that the director/writer actually expected us to believe the many messy scattered elements that attempted to piece this movie together.

The movie's focus is Gray (Graham) and her issues with intimacy. Things get interesting when she realizes that she and her brother have unexpectedly WAY too much in common.

Interesting, intriguing. However, instead of unraveling this story into something believable and palatable, the director keeps taking Gray into these ludicrous twists that never actually make any sense at all. Being an LGBT individual, this movie seemed to echo what all heterosexuals think we go through in the coming-out process. (I'll be insulted if the writer's queer.) Had it not been for the cute chemistry between Cavanaugh and Graham (which, by the way, was understandably forced), I would give it a negative 3 stars.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Once in a while in Indian cinema there comes along a movie like Sholay that changes the way the audience perceives a good movie. And den just once in a while(hopefully) we have a RGV ki Aag that breaks all the standards and creates one of its own. A standard so low, it can never be broken. Ram Gopal varma manages to take a melting pot of talent and create a dish so stale u can smell it from a distance. To take a classic like Sholay and assassinate it is totally unforgivable and I can't believe he almost called the movie RGV ki Sholay. Although Sholay had a lot of folklore elements in it, the movie managed to build on its plot by merely defining the characters so distinctively that they lived on forever. What Aag does is take these characters and mess them up so badly u'll need a contest to pick the worst. The realism element is totally missing and what the movie ends up providing is a bunch of \"actors\" parading along in a plot less and seemingly unrelated set of events. One star for this film is a ridiculous waste of a vote. its time for RGV to wake up to the reality of his failure and conjure up another \"different\" plot that can be categorized under cinema.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing.

I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the \"plot twist\" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit.

My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground.

My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the \"crucifixion\" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite \"spear\" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie \"Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ.\"

And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!

To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "this movie was so gay like its a mom and son cat that have sex, they also get scared of little kitty cats. they get set on fire by them. the mom cat alien thing kills a guy by stabbing him in the back with an ear of corn? they are bullet proof. invisible. and what not. the star of the movie, Clovis, is the cops cat, Clovis leads the cops to find the mom alien, and after the mom kills the cops, Clovis kills the mom by eating her head then she catches on fire. this movie sucks. it was way way more funny than it was scary, it wasn't even scaryt at all. the girl hits the alien on the head with a camera, it knoks him out. she then goes and hugs her. the then grabs her and begins to rape her. once again, Clovis comes to the rescue", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What an awful movie. I love monster flicks but I couldn't watch even half of the terrible acting, cardboard characters and abysmal special effects. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The characters come from either an endless supply of suicidally stupid cannon fodder or else they are vacuous, uninspiring sock puppets. The plot is formulaic, cut and paste, standard science-run-amok drivel. Even the CGI is horrible. You know it's bad when you can't even depend on the movie to provide some good eye candy. No surprises here,just same old same old. This is truly one of the worst films ever made. Director Roger Corman should be hung from a lightpost so that children can use him as a pinata.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one of those films the British Lottery Fund wastes its money on. The main problem is a rambling script which gets nowhere. The characters are not interesting, the story is conventional and insipid, the only thing of interest is the location: the city of Genoa (Genova in Italian). Having only a superficial acquaintance with Genoa, I had no idea of the intricate alleyways of its Old Town, and that the city was so interesting. I had thought Genoa was dull. I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. So from the travelogue point of view, this film has interest. The film contains one splendid performance, by a little girl named Perla Haney-Jardine. She has already made seven films despite being only 12, so she seems determined upon a career as an actress, and judging by her performance in this film, she should go far, as she is a natural and has a great deal of talent. Colin Firth, a reliable and professional actor, was on hand for the filming and when asked to be earnest, he was earnest, and when asked to be anguished, he was anguished. But somebody forgot to give him any worthwhile dialogue. The script is a total shambles. Catherine Keener does exceptionally well in a supporting role, and showing sympathy comes naturally to her, so that everybody would like to have her around (I would like to tell her every time I feel a cold coming on, as I know she would get me a soothing hot drink). So there we have it: Genoa's fascinating narrow alleys, an interesting little girl, and a sympathetic woman. Forget the rest. The older sister played by Willa Holland is such a disgusting character that the fact that the young actress does a good job of being repellent is not exactly the kind of acting tribute she would like to hear, I suspect. The notion that this family go off to Genoa to forget the unfortunate death of the mother is so trite that if we have another film like that, all dead mothers have a right to complain at being exploited. If Michael Winterbottom wanted to make a film about how interesting the old portion of Genoa is, why didn't he just go to the BBC and say he wanted to make a travel film with some mindless celebrity presenter? Why waste money on a feature film which is nothing but a vanity project of idle and meandering vacuity?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Seeing a photo of a man being attacked by zombies gave me hope that Lucio \"Zombi\" Fulci might be up to his old tricks. Unfortunately, other than the close ups of a rotting corpse, there's little to recommend in this story of the murder of a wealthy man and his daughter's quest to figure out who killed him. None of the characters are appealing and by the time you find out how they did it (that twist, at least, was cool), you stop caring. The only good thing I can say is that it made more sense than Nightmare Concert!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "To me, the final scene, in which Harris responds to the press corp, is worthy of viewing this intelligent and timeless slice of politics(especially the campaign phase). If only the \"real-life\" pols would respond in the intelligent, articulate manner as did Mr Harris,then the arrogant, self-serving members of the press would perhaps think twice before surfacing irrelevant, confrontational \"garbage\" that has absolutely nothing to do with a candidates abilities to effectively handle the challenges of the office for which he/she is pursuing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I sat down to watch \"Midnight Cowboy\" thinking it would be another overrated '60s/'70s movie. Some of my favorite films come from the '70s, in the same vein as \"Midnight Cowboy\" (\"Taxi Driver,\" \"Mean Streets,\" \"Panic in Needle Park,\" etc.) but there are many, many overrated ones as well that have gained strong reputations amongst critics for being groundbreaking - unfortunately a vast majority of them don't hold up as well today. I sort of feel this way about \"Easy Rider.\" (Although it, too, is one of my favorites.)

So, I didn't expect much from \"Midnight Cowboy\" but got a lot back. It's a touching story, well-made and well-told with some of the best performances of all time. Dustin Hoffman, as Enrico \"Ratso\" Rizzo, gives one of his best - it's a bit funny at times (he sounds like a cartoon character when he speaks - maybe because of the Lenny/\"Simpsons\" connection), but Hoffman is entirely convincing. Half of the film's budget went towards his paycheck as he was just becoming a major star in Hollywood. Opposite him is the second-billed Jon Voight as Joe Buck, the \"cowboy\" who travels North to the Big Apple in the hopes of becoming a male prostitute. Soon his naive ways land him in trouble and he pairs up with a crippled scam artist named \"Ratso\" - who offers to become Joe's \"manager\" for a certain percentage of profits.

The movie is quite long at two hours but never really seems very long. Some films can tend to drag, especially some of the films that were made in the '70s because (as it's been said in \"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls\") the directors were the stars of the movies in the 1970s and occasionally they got a bit too infatuated with their material, going on too long examining characters/scenes/etc. that aren't important. Just about the only scene I felt was a bit too long and unnecessary was the drug party - it makes the film seem extremely outdated (similar to the drug odysseys in \"Easy Rider\") and really harms its flow because it's not needed.

Other than that, \"Midnight Cowboy\" is an almost flawless motion picture. I was pleasantly surprised. It does have its flaws (flashbacks are a bit tacky and never used as well as they could have been, for instance) and some of the scenes are a bit uneasy (such as the gay movie theater sequence) but if you can handle its content \"Midnight Cowboy\" is a truly great motion picture, an uncompromising examination of life on the streets in the late '60s/early '70s. It's a depressing movie, yes, and by today's standards might seem a bit outdated and heavy on the liberal perspective of \"life is horrible, etc.\"...but I still love it and particularly the extremely touching ending will stay with me for a long, long time.

Highly recommended. One of the best films of the '70s. (It was technically released in late 1969 but I'd still categorize it as a 1970s film. It also won the Best Picture Oscar, being the first - and only - X-rated motion picture to do so. It was later re-rated R on appeal.)

4.5/5", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Director Samuel Fuller concocts a brilliant visual set-up: cocky pickpocket unwittingly lifts some microfilm from a woman's purse; it turns out she's a courier for the Communists, and now she and the grifter are being watched by the police. The Film Noir Formula is all its glory--before the ingredients became clichés--including waterfront locales, floozies, saxophones on the soundtrack, and one hell of a climactic fistfight. Performances by Richard Widmark and Jean Peters are right on target, and the smart, sharp script is quite colorful. Fabulous Thelma Ritter received an Oscar nomination for knockout supporting role as a \"professional stoolie\". Exciting, atmospheric, tough as nails. *** from ****", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Did anyone edit this film? Or was it only the DVD release that had huge thirty second gaps between scenes? It's OK though, I fell asleep watching it the first time. Then I fell asleep the second time and the third time. The plot is actually not the worst I've seen, but it's close. The acting is not the worst I've seen either...but it's close. The production .... well, I can honestly say that it was the worst I had ever seen in my life! Not trying to be spiteful, but Unhinged could have used some more production.

Please don't think I'm a hater of horror films, or even that I didn't enjoy this film. I just felt I was laughing at the film much more than I felt I was laughing along with it. The gruesome moments were not too poorly done, but could have been done better even with a shoestring budget.

Characters seemed awkwardly developed, or ignored all together, twist ending was pretty bad, and the exposition took forever without exposing much.

I'd recommend avoiding this movie.

1/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is another gem of a stand up show from Eddie Izzard . You cannot fail to laugh at the wide range of topics he talks about. He even takes the piss out of his American audiance at times and most of them didnt even realise it! A must see for anybody who likes comedians. 9 out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I didn't expect much from this film, but oh brother, what a stinker.

I found this gem in a giant crate of awful $5 DVD's at Walmart (where else)? As cheap as this disc was, I feel ripped off. The special effects had a high school look to them, the camera work marred by wobbly tripods and sketchy lighting and the acting was a perfect example of the 'Christian School'. One can imagine the long and exhausting 'prayer meetings' by the production company after seeing the rushes come back - the people who bankrolled this thing must have had seriously anti-biblical feelings towards the inept production company that cranked this thing out. Think of their anguish as they saw their $914.86 investment go up in smoke.

Someone asked why Christian movies are so bad - perhaps the Xian film-makers need to look at GOOD movies and attempt to copy some of the things that make them so good. Believable stories and characters, less hysterical arm-waving and fanaticism, oh, and a story that appeals to -everyone-, not just true believers. I.e. Stop The Sermon, Save It For Church. Take the Omen or Prophesy series, for example. Excellent films with compelling story lines, great cinematography and intense music. No hysterical arm-waving. No preaching.

If this film had a laugh track it would have been MUCH better.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments \"prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker\", then so be it . . .

But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.

It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.

I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this \"piece of imaginative genius\") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .

Sheesh . . .", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one a most famous movies of the French sexual empowerment of the seventies, starring Gerard Depardieu and Patrick Dewaere in extremely sarcastic roles. It is also one of the many dark psychological dramas of the seventies/eighties, such as \"Serie Noire\", \"Buffet Froid\", \"Beau Pere\", all realized by Blier.

However, I would like to correct the previous comment that was posted on the movie: the translated title in English is very far from the French version. It is true that both protagonists are \"going places\", but the title in French could be literally translated by \"the waltz dancers\", which is a metaphor for the movement of the testicles...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer give solid performances in this beautiful but empty film. The irony is that Dietrich plays a woman with a beautiful but empty life. Truly gorgeous cinematography and sets, and yes Dietrich's bottomless trunk of clothes are also fabulous. She look great; Boyer looks young and trim.

Story of a woman seeking meaning and an ex-priest seeking life seems pretty stale, but set against such unreal sets and skies it somehow works, given the two stars, the terrific score by Max Steiner, and a good supporting cast. The film runs like 76 minutes and seems badly edited, plus certain characters just appear or disappear.

Joseph Schildkraut is funny as the Arab guide, C. Aubrey Smith is the old priest, Lucile Watson the mother superior, Tilly Losch the dancer, John Carradine the diviner, and Basil Rathbone plays.... well I'm not sure. He just rides in from the desert and spoils everything! As others have noted, John Gilbert was slated to star with Dietrich. I can't help but think he would have been wonderful. The role of world-weary Boris would have suited the great Gilbert quite well. And after the success of Queen Christina (with Garbo), his career might have gotten back on track.

I can't think of any other 30s film Dietrich did in color. She looks great and wears some terrific clothes. My favorite is the Valentino as The Shiek-like outfit she wears by the pool.

Certainly worth a look for the lush sets and color and the two great stars.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "To preface this review, I must say that I was, I suppose, a little curious about this movie.. However, I probably would not have seen it had I not had my arm slightly twisted.

In my opinion, this movie shows just how depraved man can be. In my eyes, the worst thing about this whole Springer phenomenon is not that type of people on the \"Jerry Springer Show\" act as they do (which in itself is eminently reproachable), but that many people are so curious and excited to watch them and hear about their lives (yes, I suppose that includes me.. to whatever extent it is true). If not glorifying that kind of behavior (as some might say) at the very least we may be subtly corrupting our minds and/or desenstizing ourselves to this type of behavior.

But enough soapbox (sort of). Here's the skinny: the movie has an R rating, and while it may deserve only that (I did look away at some scenes, so I'm not completely sure), I feel that an NC-17 (tip of the hat to the other reviewer) might be a little more appropriate for the immense sexual content (a cynic might comment that the movie was just one big excuse to show sex on the big screen). The plot is very bizarre, tying together the stories of an absolutely dysfunctional family and a group of stereotypical blacks upset who will appear on different Springer shows. At the end, the movie leaves one with some resolvement- and Springer rhetoric about the need for us to see the real world (evidently as seen through his show). I agree with him there- it is important to know how the world really is so that we can seek to effect positive change. Having said that, let me just tell you- the world's pretty bad- glance in a newpaper or the news to see that, but let's not shell out good money to support the kind of sensationalistic and perhaps formulaic titallition that Springer seeks to give us.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Two great comedians in a great Neil Simon movie based on his hit play.

Great combination, especially when the comedians in question are Matthau and Burns. Small wonder why Burns won an Oscar for this; he's as sharp and as funny as ever. And Matthau is every bit his match, if a tad more crotchety.

This is familiar Simon territory: two old vaudeville partners reunite for a TV special but still can't stand one another after all these years.

It's a delight to watch these two pick at each other, their scenes together make this film an absolute delight. Myself, I especially enjoyed the \"knock, knock, knock / ENTER!\" scene. And if you're a fan of either Burns or Matthau, you'll enjoy it, too.

In fact, you'll enjoy the whole movie.

Ten stars. Put a little \"Sunshine\" in your life.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "First let me preface this post by saying that I am a fan of the original Star Wars MOVIES...I don't read the books, play the games, wear the underwear or eat the cereal (if there is one). I am simply a fan of the films.

With that being said, I struggle to see how people are giving this movie such high praise. Taking this movie by itself, and not comparing it to it's terrible predecessors (EP 1, 2), I don't understand how you can say this is an amazing movie. For all of the terrible shortcomings in the script - cheesy dialogue, contrived scenes (ie R2 suddenly being a badass, and long CGI intense chase scenes that have little human touch), HORRIBLE acting, and noted plot holes...how is this good? There was no real internal dilemma within Anakin; it just seemed like a switch was flipped and he was evil all of a sudden. I was not interested in the movie until the last 20 minutes or so (which by the way was ruined by the \"NOOOOOO!\" Frankenstein scene). When you BOMBARD the screen with intensely amazing CGI effects and fill in the gaps with absolutely atrocious one-liners when more could have and should have been said, this is NOT A GREAT MOVIE. For a film with such a \"dark\" tone, there was too much levity in the speech of ALL characters.

I close with a question: From the beginning to the end of the film, was there really a sense of urgency and importance for what was actually about to take place?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "What happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm a HUGE fan of the twin sisters. Although this was one of their \"not soo good\" movies. I'm not saying it's bad, I can't say it's bad, but this whole popular and not popular thingy isn't good. Although I give this movie a 4.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "At least the under ten year old set will stay interested. Eleanor(Geena Davis)and Fred(Hugh Laurie)Little, a nice well-to-do couple set out to bring home from the orphanage a new little brother for their son George(Johnathan Lipnicki). They come home with quite the odd new sibling...a sharp dressed little mouse named Stuart(voiced by Michael J. Fox). Yes, mouse. Stuart is happy to have found the sense of belonging even if it is in a super sized world that contains his new family's pet cat Snowbell(voiced by Nathan Lane). Stuart embarks on the experience of family loyalty and overall friendship. George will finally accept his tiny new brother when the dapper dressed Stuart saves embarrassment at a model boat race.

Also in the cast: Julia Sweeney, Harold Gould, Estelle Getty and Jeffery Jones. And the voices of: Chaz Palminteri, Bruno Kirby and Jennifer Tilly.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is going to be the most useless comment I have ever put down, but yet I must do it to warn you about the atrocity to cinema that \"Freddy's Dead\" is. It is not only the very worst chapter of the Nightmare series, but is right up there with the worst horror sequel of all time! It was boring, pointless, and nearly death free. The horrible 3-D ending and over-the-top CORNY kills are enough to drive this \"film\" into the ground. However, it doesn't stop there, just add bad acting, a terrible script, and a number of cheesy cameos and you've got yourself this heaping pile of guano! It's no wonder why Freddy, as always played by Robert Englund, has made two postmortem appearances. I would too if I went out like that. This is a strictly fans only movie, don't stare at our shame.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's a strange thing to see a film where some scenes work rather weakly (if only in comparison to other films in its legacy), and others in a 'sub-plot' or supporting story are surprisingly provocative and strong. Sudden Impact is one of those cases, where Clint Eastwood as star/producer/director shows when he can be at his best, or at his lessor of times when dealing with a crime/mystery/detective story in his Dirty Harry fame. We get that 'make my day' line, and un-like in the first film where his 'do I feel lucky' speech was playful and cool the first time and the second time at the end tough as nails, here it's switched around. He gets into another shamble with the department, as usual, when he tries to fight crime 'his' way, in particular with a diner robbery (inspiration for Pulp Fiction?) and with a high speed pursuit with a senior citizen bus. He's told to 'take a vacation', and that's the last thing on his mind. This whole main plot isn't very convincing aside from the expectancy of the story and lines, which just adds to the frustration. But soon his story merges with the sub-plot that Eastwood develops from the start.

Enter Sandra Locke's character, Jennifer Spencer, whom we soon learn after some (appropriately) mysterious scenes that she and her shy sister were victims of a cruel, unjust sexual assault (err, outright rape), and is sleekly, undercover-like, getting revenge. Her scenes and story are the strongest parts of the film, the most intense, and finally when it goes into Callahan's storyline (he's getting facts in the same small town she's in on a murder), the film finally finds a focus between Eastwood's classic form of clearly defined good vs. evil (though sometimes blurred, to be sure). Eastwood films the flashbacks, not to say too much about them, expertly, in a fresh, experimental style; the trademark Lalo Schifrin score is totally atmospheric in these scenes and in others. It almost seems like a couple of times an art-house sensibility has crept into Eastwood's firmly straightforward storytelling style, which helps make the film watchable.

It's a shame, though, that in the end it goes more for the expectable (or maybe not expectable) points, and until the third act Callahan doesn't have much to do except his usual 'it's smith...Wesson...and me' shtick. However, with Locke he gets out of her a very good performance (more subtle and touching than the one in the Gauntlet) and an exciting climax at an amusement park. In a way I do and don't agree with Ebert's remark that it's like a 'music video' in Eastwood's style here. I admit there is comparisons with the simplicity of both, the directness, but the scenes where Eastwood does break form are superior to those of any music video. It's cheesy, it's hard-edged, it's not up to par with the first two 'Harry' pictures, but hey, there could be worse ways to spend a couple hours with the master of the .44.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.

The last French movie I saw was \"Romance\" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Went to see the movie \"Troy\" this afternoon. Here's what I learned:

Contrary to popular opinion and history in general, Greek men were not gay. EVER. This was clearly established immediately at the start of the film and reinforced every five minutes or so thereafter. So it is safe for American dudes to see this movie.

Helen of Troy always had impeccable hair and makeup. She looked gorgeous in all of her brief cameo scenes which, though numerous, were probably all filmed on the same day, one after the other, with the director saying, \"Alright, now look beautiful . . . good ... OK, now look frightened ... good... now look depressed ... good ... now look interested . . . good ... now look beautiful again ... good...\"

Most Greek and Trojan men had British accents. Those with American accents couldn't act.

Trojans looked just like Greeks, but they tended to stay on the right side of the screen.

Brad Pitt does not blink on camera.

Helen of Troy's biggest line was, \"They're coming for me.\"

Trojan music sounded remarkably like modern Bulgarian music.

Brad Pitt's thighs go all the way up.

Achilles had a young male friend with whom he was very close, but it's OK. They were cousins. Never mind what history says.

Peter O'Toole can tell an entire story with just an expression.

Trojan gods apparently all had Greek names, but their statues either looked Egyptian or like Peter O'Toole in drag.

Greek men never touched each other unless they were fighting, much like American men.

All of the thousands of extras in the movie had exactly the same skin color... Light Egyptian, by Max Factor.

Troy had only three women.

There were lots of blond Greeks, which is good news for Brad Pitt, who would otherwise have really stuck out.

Despite their coastal desert locale, Greeks had the uncanny ability to find unlimited amounts of timber to build fires, funeral pyres, Trojan horses and the like.

British actors look silly with Greek hairdos.

Brad Pitt changes expression only when the sun is shining directly in his eyes.

Greek soldiers fought constantly, but their outfits always looked impeccable.

Greek soldiers wore underwear under their skirts.

Apparently Greek temples were always in ruins, even back when they were all new.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Red Eye is not the kind of movie that's going to win the Palme D'or, but Wes Craven has never been that kind of director, anyway, and his branding is a good indication of what a film-goer can expect.

The fact that Red Eye is a tight little, undemanding package at 94 minutes is part of its charm and an indication of Craven's craft in producing lightweight, but generally enjoyable, box office fare. In fact, it's the perfect kind of movie to show as inflight entertainment, attention-holding without putting any intellectual or emotional challenges on the viewer.

Overall there is a cheesy feeling to the plot, vague terrorist subplot motivation and the supporting characters, and the main section has a TV movie feel. However, there are definite elements of Hitchcockian suspense, and echoes of Schumacher's Phone Booth, which ultimately is a more sophisticated (and pretentious) play on the same idea of emotional crisis being played out suppressed in public.

For a film that focuses mainly on two people sitting in airline seats, it lives or dies on the characters and script. Cillian's icy but eloquent Jackson Rippner and Rachel MacAdams resourceful Lisa are the main reasons the film gets carried off. Not only making the dialogue zing but also giving some sort of Adam's Rib type dimension to their battle of 'male logic' against feminine 'sensitivity'.

In the final portion of the film Craven indulges himself a little Scream style as man-chases-girl-with-knife. The most surprising revelation here is what Brian Cox looks like after the 'Just for Men' treatment, his ubiqutous appearance in films as diverse as Super Troopers, The Ring and this making him the sexegenarian version of Jude Law.

Short haul fun.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I couldn't wait to receive the DVD after hearing so much about the film. What a disappointment! This became one of the most confusing films I've ever viewed. There were so many characters introduced, some resembling others, that it became impossible to follow the story line. I could not understand how George Clooney received an acting award for the film since he was hardly involved, at least in the first half of the movie. My wife and I gave up after about an hour of misery and stopped the DVD. I might have considered fast forwarding to see if the ending was any better but after so much confusion decided that chances for improvement were slim. A co-worker told me that a lot of the movie \"comes together\" in the last minute or less. I was glad I didn't waste another hour, waiting. I gave the DVD away the following day.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The line, of course, is from the Lord's Prayer - \"Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven\". Sweden, especially its far north, is not my idea of heaven -30 degree C winter temperatures are a little on the low side for me, but the good folk who live there no doubt think they are in God's own country.

The storyline here is a familiar one. Acclaimed international musician Daniel suffers health breakdown in mid-career, goes back to the little village in northern Sweden where he was born. Persuaded by the local pastor to help out with the church choir, he turns some unlikely talent into a class act, and they enter a contest held in Innsbruck Austria. There are echoes (sorry) of the band players of \"Brassed Off\" the models of \"Calendar Girls\" and the dancers of \"the Full Monty\". But of course he causes plenty of emotional upheaval as some of the more downtrodden villagers realise their worth and revolt against their oppressors. He faces hostile husbands and an increasingly dubious pastor, but nothing except death is going to stop him.

Despite the somewhat corny story, we get to know and like many of the characters, who come across as people rather than caricatures despite many of them being recognisable \"types'. I did wonder about the wife-beater being unpunished for so long – Sweden is one country in the world where such violence is pretty strongly discouraged (he was also a bit young to be one of the bullies of Daniel's youth) and the puritanical pastor with a secret passion for girlie magazines was a bit of a stereotype, but marvellously realised by Niklas Falk.

Michael Nyqvist is simply wonderful as Daniel, the frail but driven musician, and there's some nice music as well. I was rapt for the whole two hours. The ending is what you make of it, I guess, but it's not spoiling it to say Daniel achieves what he set out to do.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.

I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.

But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.

The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.

The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.

Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Rawhide was a wonderful TV western series. Focusing on a band of trail drovers lead by the trail boss Gil Favor. Most episodes - especially from the first 3 seasons were really character studies of Favor and his men. Guest stars came and went but unlike Wagon Train they seldom dominated the episodes they appeared in. Rawhide was a true, gritty western and Gil Favor stood out as a memorable character never to be forgotten. Thanks to Eric Fleming's performance the show became a massive hit. Of course he was ably supported by a wonderful cast of good actors - Clint Eastwood, Sheb Wooley, Paul Brinegar, Steve Raines, James Murdoch, Rocky Shahan, Robert Cabal. All of these actors left their mark in a piece of television history. Rawhide captured the flavour of that time of the west that no other series has for me, as yet anyhow, managed to do so. Later seasons tended to split the leads and give them individual story lines. For me some of the time this didn't work - the cattle drive and the regulars provided the best stories. However there were still some classic stories and Rawhide remained top drawer affair. The black and white photography added to a bleak, realistic feel that other western series seldom managed to capture. Rustlers, Indians,Commancheroes, beautiful damsels in distress, serial killers, they all showed up to give our heroes problems. The end came for the series quietly when the final season was axed less than half way through. The reason - Eric Fleming had departed and Rawhide was now a head without a body - the gritty realism was gone, Gil Favor commanded respect and exuded authority - he was never infallible and this made him all the more interesting. We shall not see his like again. Watch an episode whenever you can, they seldom disappoint.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!

It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.

And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.

Totally failure.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of \"Scary Movie\" for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "CAT SOUP is a short anime based on the legendary manga Nekojiru. It won the award \"Best Short Film\" at The 6th Fantasia Film Festival and also won the \"Excellence Prize\" at Japan's Media Arts Festival.

When little kitten Nyaako's soul is stolen by Death, she and her brother Nyatta embark on a bizarre journey to get it back. In the surreal dreamscape of the Other Side, they encounter many fantastic characters and remarkable, often disturbing adventures.

CAT SOUP is an anime like nothing you've ever seen. It's Hello Kitty on acid! It is very original, stunningly beautiful and possess a great sense of strangeness and lyricism. CAT SOUP is very surrealistic (there are no dialogue) and sometimes cruel and gory. So it is more an anime for adults than children (they may not understand at all!). A great journey for those who get the chance to see this absolute masterpiece. An must-see!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Even if this film was allegedly a joke in response to critics it's still an awful film. If one is going to commit to that sort of thing at least make it a good joke.....first off, Jeroen Krabbé is i guess the poor man's Gerard Depardieu.....naturally i hate Gerard Depardieu even though he was very funny in the 'Iron Mask' three musketeer one. Otherwise to me he is box office poison and Jeroen Krabbé is worse than that. The poor man's box office poison....really that is not being fair to the economically disenfranchised. If the '4th Man' is supposed to be some sort of critique of the Bourgeoisie....what am i saying? it isn't. Let's just say hypothetically, if it was supposed to be, it wasn't sharp enough. Satire is a tricky thing....if it isn't sharp enough the viewer becomes the butt of the joke instead......i think that is what happened. The story just ends up as a bunch of miserable disgusting characters doing nothing that anyone would care about and not in an interesting way either.....(for a more interesting and worthwhile application see any Luis Bunuel film....very sharp satire)

[potential spoiler alert]

Really, the blow job in the cemetery that Jeroen Krabbé's character works so so hard to attain.... do you even care? is it funny? since Mr. Voerhoven is supposed to be a good film maker i will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some misanthropic joke that got out of control.....though i'm guessing he didn't cast Jeroen Krabbé because he's the worst actor and every character he's played has been a pretentious bourgeois ass.... except he's incompetent at it. So it becomes like a weird caricature. Do you think Mr. Voerhoven did that on purpose? and Jeroen Krabbé is the butt of the joke as well? I just don't see it...... So you understand the dilemma i'm faced with here right? It is the worst film ever because he's supposed to be a good director. So there is some kind of dupery involved. I knew 'Patch Adams' was horrible without even seeing it. Do not be duped by 'The 4th Man\"s deceptively alluring packaging or mr. Voerhoven's reputation as a good director etc. etc.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Visually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one creepy movie. Creepier than anything David Lynch, and that shows what a great director Polanski is since this is not his usual type of work, and it is BRILLIANT.

It all starts of with Trelkovski moves into a tenement block in Paris. He soon learns that the previous tenant, a young woman, committed suicide and he believes the rest of the people living there drove her to it. He also believes that they are trying to do the same to him. What results is a amazing and frightening look at paranoia.

The whole production has classical horror written all over it: from the imagery to the music the viewer can feel poor Trelkovski's terror building up.

Are they all out to kill him? Or maybe just drive him mad? Is there a difference? Find out for yourself. 10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It does not seem that this movie managed to please a lot of people. First off, not many seem to have seen it in the first place (I just bumped into it by accident), and then judging by the reviews and the rating, of those that did many did not enjoy it very much.

Well, I did. I usually tolerate Gere for his looks and his charm, and even though I did not consider him a great actor, I know he can do crazy pretty well (I liked his Mr Jones). But this performance is all different. He is not pretty in this one, and he is not charming. His character is completely different from anything I had seen from him up to that point---old, ugly, broken, determined. And Gere, in what to me is so far his best performance ever, pulls it off beautifully. I guess it is a sign of how well an actor does his job if you cannot imagine anyone else doing it instead---think Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, or Washington as Alonzo in Training Day. That is how good Gere was here.

The rest of the cast were fine by me, too. I guess I would not have cast Danes in this role, mostly because I think she is too good-looking for it. But she actually does an excellent job, holding her own with a Gere in top form, which is no small feat. Strickland easily delivers the best supporting act, in a part that requires a considerable range from her. I actually think she owns the key scene with Gere and Danes, and that is quite an achievement.

So what about the rest of the movie, apart from some excellent acting? The story is perhaps not hugely surprising, some 8mm-ish aspects to it, but adding the \"veteran breaks in rookie\" storyline to the who-dunnit, and also (like Silence of the Lambs) adding a sense of urgency through trying to save the girl and the impending retirement of Gere's character. All that is a backdrop to the development of the two main characters, as they help each other settle into their respective new stations in life. That's a lot to accomplish in a 100 minutes, but it is done well, and we end up caring for the characters and what happens to them.

Direction and photography were adequate. I could have done without the modern music-video camera movements and cutting, but then I am an old curmudgeon, and it really wasn't all that bad, in fact I think it did help with the atmosphere of the movie, which as you might have guessed, by and large isn't a happy one.

Worth seeing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Generally, I am not a huge fan of stop-motion films and at first RUKA didn't capture my attention. However, knowing that this film was made in the repressive Czechoslovakia during the Soviet-domination era, the more I watched the film, the more I realized just how subversive this innocent looking little film was. This subtext really made the film come to life and gives it real staying power as both a work of art and a political statement.

The sad little film is done without any dialog, but it's pretty clear what is happening. A cute little wooden man is making a clay pot and having a lovely time when suddenly a meddling animated hand appears and destroys the pot--making it into a sculpture of a hand instead. Well, the wooden man tries again and again to chase away the hand and do his own thing. However, over time the hand becomes more and more insistent and eventually cages the man. And, by the end, the man is dead thanks to the meddling hand and the hand, in a sign of real hypocrisy, gives the man a hero's funeral!

As I said, this film is an obvious attempt by the brave Jirí Trnka to criticize his domineering government. Not surprisingly, though Czechs loved the film and gave it critical praise, the state (i.e., the hand) banned this little parable. Sadly, Trnka did not live to see his nation liberated a little more than two decades later during the co-called \"Velvet Revolution\".", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "First and foremost, speaking as no fan of the genre, \"The Bourne Ultimatum\" is a breathtaking, virtuoso, superb action movie.

Secondly, it is a silly malarky of cartoonish super-hero stuff.

Thirdly, the film carries a complex, important point, about crime-fighters turning into criminals themselves. No reference is made to Abu Ghraib or the Executive Branch's outrageous domestic assaults on constitutional rights, none is necessary.

So, the latest in the \"Bourne\" series, in the hands of Paul Greengrass (of the 2004 \"Bourne Supremacy\" and last year's \"United 93\"), is a significant achievement, perhaps held back but not actually diminished by the unavoidable excesses of the genre.

\"Breathtaking\" above is meant both as a complimentary adjective and a description of the physical sensation: for more than an hour from the first frame, the viewer seemingly holds his breath, pushed back against the chair by the force of relentless, globe-trotting, utterly suspenseful action. There is no letup, no variation in the rhythm and pull of the film, and yet it never becomes monotonous and tiresome the way some kindred music videos do after just a couple of minutes.

Oliver Wood's in-your-face cinematography is making the best of Tony Gilroy's screenplay from Robert Ludlum's 1990 novel (which doesn't stack up well against the \"Bourne Identity,\" written a decade earlier).

Matt Damon is once again the inevitable, irreplaceable Bourne, the deadliest of fantasy CIA agents, this time taking on the entire agency in search of his identity, his past, and the mysterious agency program that has turned him into a killing machine. Nothing like his quietly heroic Edward R. Murrow, the always-marvelous David Strathairn is the nasty top agency official, pitched against Bourne in trying to hide some illegal \"take-no-prisoners\" policies and brutal procedures.

Joan Allen plays what appears to be the Good Cop against Strathairn's Bad One. And, there is Julia Stiles as the agent once again coming to Bourne's aid; a combination of Greengrass' direction and Stiles acting results in a surprising impact by a mostly silent character, her lack of communication and blank expression more intriguing than miles of dialogue.

So good is \"The Bourne Ultimatum\" that it gets away with the old one-man-against-the-world bit, this time stretched to ridiculous excesses, as Bourne defies constraints of geography, time, gravity... and physics in general. (Can you fly backwards with a car from the top of a building? Why not - it looks great.)

All this \"real-world\" magic - leaping from country to country in seconds, to arrive at some unknown location exactly as, when, and how needed - outdoes special-effect and superhero cartoon improbabilities. And yet, only a clueless pedant would allow \"facts\" interfere with the entertainment-based ecstasy of the Bourne fantasy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was in a bad frame of mind when I first saw this movie. For some reason it clicked on all my levels, tensions in a family, loneliness and the want of someone to share your life with. It didn't hurt that the someone to share your life with was such a beautiful girl as Claire (Cyndy Preston). I also bought the sound track to this movie (very hard to get). Loved it and hope it will someday come out on DV", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "First of all, f117 is not high tech any more and it is not a fighter aircraft.

Secondly, the f14's and f18's cannot change their appearances; they are not transformers.

Thirdly, the f16 has only one m61 cannon, not two.

Last but not the least, at the end of the film, Seagle selected sidewinder missile. But somehow when he pulled the trigger, the actual missile fired turned out to be a maverick. As I have the experience of seeing f18's and f14's being mysteriously transformed into f16's, this small transformation of missiles is not a big surprise to me. However, there is still one question I have to ask: How did they manage to use an air to ground missile to shoot down a flying f16...

When students hand in really bad work, teachers assign 0's. Now I think for the sake of properly marking this film, IMDb should seriously consider adding a '0/10' option. Otherwise, it is not fair for those who receive 1 out of 10...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw the 7.5 IMDb rating on this movie and on the basis of that decided to watch this movie which my roommate had rented. She said she had seen it before. \"It's funny and sad! I cried the first time I saw it,\" she gushed. Maybe compared to other Bollywood movies this deserves a 7.5 out of 10, but in comparison to all the other movies I have seen in my lifetime, this deserves no more than a 3. Any movie where I can perpetually guess what is going to happen next is no good for me. The characters are unbelievable, how the act is not realistic at all and their motives are contrived. It is over dramatic and the songs aren't all that great. My biggest problem with Bollywood movies is the lack of subtlety. All the emotions are way too overdone and thus not at all realistic. Any emotion or bond between characters that is the least bit subtle must be magnified with an unnecessary song. I think I understood that the relationship between the father and son was more like one between friends than one between a parent and child without having to have it conveyed via a five minute long song. The stupid comic relief complete with laugh track was not funny or necessary (we get it, Laxman isn't the sharpest tool in the shed). If a movie tries to elicit tears through the most hackneyed means possible it just isn't meaningful, just a bit embarrassing.

*****SPOILER*****

Generally if someone has terminal stage lung cancer their son who lives with them would know something was wrong without having to be told. Too many plot holes to count. At first the movie was amusing and cute in the way Bollywood movies are to people who don't watch them that avidly but it just got tedious. It takes a lot of skill to make a movie that is amusing and heartwrenching and the best way to do it is usually not having all the amusing parts in the first half of the movie and all the heartwrenching parts at the end.

*****SPOILER OVER***** Perhaps it had a very little more depth than other Bollywood movies that I have seen, but not much at all. I spent more time laughing at the stupidity of the movie than the parts that were supposed to be funny. I didn't shed a single tear nor did I feel like it, rather I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disgust at the attempt at a dramatic ending. I don't recommend this movie if you want to watch something good, I recommend it if you want to watch a Bollywood movie that is kind of sad.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Very possibly one of the funniest movies in the world. Oscar material. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are hilarious and before you see this I suggest you see \"South Park\" one of the funniest cartoons created. Buy it, you will laugh every time you see it. Pure stroke of genius. If you don't think its funny then you have no soul or sense of humor. 10 out of 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.

It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.

So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.

I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is a totally delightful and unexpected film. You start by following a young person who hopes to get into the qualifying football game between Bahrain and Iran. If Iran win they will get into the 2006 World Cup in Germany. The problem is the young person is a girl and girls (or women for that matter) are not allowed into football matches to \"sit with men\". What follows is a wonderful comedy, played with consummate skill by a small ensemble cast. The film explores the absurdity of restrictions on the freedom of women (and for that matter the young soldiers who have to corral them). There are some excellent set pieces, not least when one of the girls must go to the toilet and, of course, the stadium has no toilets for women. The camera work is of the simplest and in some ways this story could have been told as a stage play. Yet it is the small scale that gives the film its bite. Great cinema? No, probably not; great entertainment - for sure.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I rarely make these comments but I felt compelled to spare others the pain I endured in watching this movie. It's so stupid and implausible both in the overall story and in the details that you simply can't suspend disbelief. The problem starts early, when you see a government researcher tooling around in a new Porsche and dining with his team in a restaraunt that looks like a castle, overlooking the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. That kind of life on a government salary? Hah! It only gets worse. Toward the end, when the bad guy starts killing off the good guys, the latter group act so stupidly that you want them to die, in order to cleanse the gene pool. The special effects are pretty good - any producer's money can buy that - and the lead actors have been great in other films, but the screenplay and direction here are moronic. Many people have wondered whether there was some deliberate intelligence behind Paul Verhoeven's previous, facially stupid movies (Showgirls, Starship Troopers), but this movie should stop the wondering. He's just plain bad.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Clocking in at an interminable three hours and twenty minutes, \"Salaam-e-Ishq\" is a pretty but superficial comic soap opera from India that regales us with six interwoven tales of romantic love (which is at least four tales too many in my estimation).

Filmed like a cross between an MTV music video and a Super Bowl beer commercial, the movie is a sprawling mishmash of exotic settings, dazzling colors, sexy showgirls, high-stepping song-and-dance numbers, dream and fantasy sequences, winking character asides, corny dialogue and way-over-the-top comical performances - all pretty much standard-issue stuff when it comes to Bollywood happenings these days. It's an exhausting chore just trying to keep all the characters straight as they dance, prance and preen their way through the incomprehensible storyline.

There's plenty for the viewer to feast his eyes on here - not least of all all the drop dead gorgeous women - but he'll need the patience of Job to get him all the way through it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Erroll works for The Department of Public Safety and his job is to check up on sex offenders. Sometimes he pushes the line at his job and beats on the sex offenders. I don't blame him but his boss is ready for him to retire so along comes Allison. Erroll is now training her to do his job and it's like job shadowing. Allison is somewhat naive about the job in the beginning but she doesn't realize how much danger she really is and it's all Erroll's fault. He starts to go to far with his obsession of finding a missing girl when his job isn't to be a police officer.

It's a fairly decent movie about a crazy guy who pushes the boundaries and works outside his \"scope of practice.\" Erroll did do a good job but at the sake of the safety of Allison. It has some good mystery to it too and just when I had it figured out, there was more to it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "i, too, loved this series when i was a kid. In 1952 i was 5 and my family always watched this show. My favorite character was the one played by Marion Lorne as a rather stuttering, bumbling and very lovable \"aunt\" type person. i can still recall her \"ubba bubba um um\" type comments as she would try and say something important. And then when she came back and played Aunt Clara in Bewitched it was great casting!

It was the first time that i can remember seeing Walter Matthau whose career i followed as a fan for many many years.

i have a question if anyone can verify: was the title or end credits music the \"Swedish Rhapsody\" by Hugo Alfven? Every time i hear it played on my classical radio station here in Southern California it brings back memories of the image of Mr. Peepers walking away with his back to the camera. i'm not even certain if this image in my mind's eye is correct.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The movie is boring, the characters and scenarios are unrealistic, unbelievable, the action is hilarious. This movie is a big mess. It almost seems like when the action music kicks in, the most impressive stunt is running. Either voice is dubbed over with Mr. McGregor or steven sang too much and it changed his voice. There is way too much dialog in this movie, and extremely bad acting on everyones behalf. The movie is great sleep therapy. The fighting is laughable. The eye shape shift effect on the evil designer drug addict females was decent. The main villain was a joke and his character was poorly developed. The main villain was used to explain the story through interrogation, he would just throw random plots in such as (spoiler) \"CTX (his designer drug)is going to be in the water supply\" which is never addressed in the conclusion or even mentioned again in the movie. This movie is highly recommended to pass.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This might be the worst film ever made, and is possibly worth seeing for that reason alone. Streisand is laughably unbelievable as a young woman posing as a man in order to study Judaism. The soundtrack is torturous, featuring Barbara belting out some of the weakest blather ever put to film. And don't even get me started on the plot. You will actually get more chuckles out of this film than many comedies because it is soooooooo terrible. The rampant ego of Streisand, thinking she could somehow raise this stinker to Oscar heights, led to this disaster. I'm pretty sure the novelist, Isaac Bashevis Singer, hated this film and never forgave Streisand. I can't blame him. This movie is like watching a car wreck in slow motion for two hours with the soundtrack of 'The Sound of Music' being played backwards on an old turntable. It's truly that bad. I'm amazed that anyone from Streisand enjoyed this movie on the level that it was intended.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Do not expect a depiction of the \"truth\". However, the accounts of these veterans of the Iraqi & Afghanistan wars demand thoughtful consideration.

The major strength of the film is that it vividly portrays the words and war wounds of these vets and their post-war struggles to reconstruct some degree of normalcy and functionality to their lives.

My major criticism of the film is twofold: it is one-sided and it advocates anti-war activism but nothing more to correct the serious shortcomings of the military's and Veterans Affairs' programs for helping those who've suffered and still suffer the traumas of war. These are NOT fatal flaws of the film.

As a veteran myself, I know that the horrible aftermath of war is real, and these young men and women articulate it very well. These vets vividly describe the physical and mental pain and torment that most veterans experience and that ordinary people need to understand because the horrors of ALL wars are so traumatic and disturbing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "While others may contend that by viewing other works by Bilal, one will better appreciate this movie, it does fail in one major way. It does not stand on its own. The plot is a mishmash that is confuses symbolism with substance. Here's an idea start with a definite story. Then craft symbolism around it. We start with two different narratives, this female that is somehow turning human, a \"god\" that is for some reason being judged, but getting one last fling on Earth, and this mysterious John character who seems to be developing some sort of \"resort\" just beyond the bounds of the city. Why? None of these questions are answered. But do we care, no. There is no development to want us to empathize with any character in the story, the closest we get Jill and even then the development is spotty at best. Unfortunately the movie gets caught up in the the whole visually impressive (which it is,) but at the expense of motivic development. I would love to see this rewritten by someone who could distance themselves from the material a bit and not have to feel that every image has to be in the picture.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is just flat out unwatchable. If there's a story in here somewhere, it's so deeply buried beneath the horrid characters and jarring camera work that's it's indiscernible. There's a group of vampire hunters who go around doing their thing, and the vampires they kill have little aliens inside of them. They pop their heads out and talk like Speedy Gonzales. If you can imagine a blood and gore covered alien sock puppet screaming in horror as a cowboy dude zaps it with a cattle prod, well, that's what you get here. These folks are loud, obnoxious, violent, and just extremely annoying. Then there are some anti-human humans, who stand around in their CGI spaceship being so incredibly pompous that it's impossible to take. These folks make Hillary Clinton seem like a right-wing extremist in comparison. They're friends with some vampires, or something...who cares.

Then there's the camera work. Remember how everybody hated the thousand-cuts-a-minute crap from the recent Rolleball remake? The folks who made this movie LOVE that stuff. There's enough of it in here for three really crappy nu-metal videos on MTV.

Nuff said. This thing smells. In comparison, Dracula 3000 is a masterwork.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have a lot of time for all the Columbo films, but this one in particular was extremely well written, and the solution at the end very effective. However, my main memory of this one is the opening of a scene in the middle of the film, between Columbo and the murderer (I apologise if I've not remembered every detail of this exactly). It's the most striking image of Columbo I've seen: the view is from inside the darkness of the cupboard where the victim was murdered, and into the room beyond, which is lit up by daylight. Columbo is sitting in a high-backed armchair facing the doorway (and us), contemplating the cupboard, and almost in silhouette due to the contrast in light. There's no sound. The camera slowly moves out of the room and up towards him. He's deep in meditation, puffing gently on a cigar, swirls of smoke from the cigar circling slowly upwards as he thinks. Then the dialogue starts. Superb.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I teach Japanese for an online high school and I include cultural activities so that the students can learn about the country as well as the language. And watching \"Gung Ho\" is one of the requirements. The students can either buy or rent the movie. Stereotypes or not, this helps the students to see that other people view the world and their lives differently than we do. Many of my students have told me that they enjoyed the movie so much, they are going to get a copy for themselves. It is really interesting to see what we value in this culture and what they value in their culture. I just wish I could get a cleaned-up TV version. I'm not really into the crude language the auto workers use all the time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As a convert into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I try to absorb as much as I can of my new religion's history. I was invited to attend a showing of this film with my sons & the other young men & women as well as their families of our ward.

On a beautiful spring evening, we drove to Kirtland, Ohio to the church's historical village located there. We were to have had reservations at the Vistor's Center to view this movie. Since my movie viewing was limited to only a few church documentaries, I was intrigued. The only \"full length motion pictures\" of the church's I had seen was \"Legacy\" and \"My Best Two Years\", both which I thought were very well written and preformed.

At the beginning, the missionary interpretor passed out tissues stating that several people had been deeply moved to the point of tears by this movie. I thought \"OK...but it takes a lot to move me to tears.\" Imagine my surprise when I found myself sobbing! It truly is a very moving & inspirational testament to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

See it & believe in it's powerful message!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In short, the movie had a little bit of a weak 1st act with some forced acting and a somewhat disjointed rhythm and pacing, somewhat of a decent 2nd act that managed to build some tension and intrigue despite some inconsistent pacing and some inferior performances by the cast, and the 3rd act ... there virtually wasn't ANY 3rd act!

Regarding the 3rd act, the movie just abruptly ends. There is no resolution and no path down from the climax of the 2nd act, so there wasn't much of a 3rd act. The bad guys die and that's that; the end credits roll. There is nothing to show what happens to the protagonist and the supporting characters and so on. The audience would've likely left the theater after the movie, asking \"that's it?\" A real letdown.

Music was composed by David Bell which worked adequately enough to serve the film most of the time, but it's certainly nothing outstanding. It's just functional, but achieves this by being merely generic and derivative. It is also apparent that the score is VERY dated with the use of synthesized timpani for some of the percussion. What least impressed me about the score is that some moments of tension heralds music cues sounding like they were ripped off of James Horner from \"48 HRS.\" and \"Commando,\" particularly the brass.

In all, the film had potential as the basic story itself is good, but the execution was lackluster with mediocre direction, weak acting, and somewhat inconsistent pacing.

There was virtually no 3rd act to properly finish the story, and this omission is major and unforgivable as it doesn't allow the movie to end satisfactorily. This could either be the screenplay or, possibly, the production had to cut out filming or editing the 3rd act into the finished movie due to budget constraints (but I'm speculating as to why there isn't a 3rd act). Whatever the reason, the abrupt ending really hurts the movie overall.

This is good for a view if you're curious and you can get the movie for VERY cheap as well as to learn the reason WHY you need to have the 3 acts (beginning, middle, end) if you write screenplays and make movies.

Otherwise, you might not want to waste your time unless you can get the MST3K version to at least get some laughs out of it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Kusturika made it again. Another masterpiece. A coral comedy full of his own landmarks, with a frenetic rhythm and many glorious moments, we laughed and laughed, what a party! The music is everywhere, and also the shooting, the animals, the crazy bastards, sex and amazing gadgets and inventions, everything colorfully visual to entertain only. Pure cinema in essence. A wonderful experience to watch. And one is specially grateful since good comedies are so rare, and so wonderful. Well, this is one, and if you enjoyed Kusturica's previous films, you'll love this, although, as in all comedies, it is about a chemical reaction, and you have to be in the mood for it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Imagine the plight of Richard, a painter, whose real passion is flying. When we first meet him, he is seen atop a building in London wearing his home made wings. He has ripped his canvases and other works, at the height of his despair, and fashions a flying device for his jump. When he falls into the protective police contraption, he doesn't suffer a scratch, but it lands him in front of a judge who orders him to do community service. Richard, whose relationship with Anne apparently ended badly, decides to relocate to a rural area where he finds a place in the country with a large barn he plans to use to construct his own plane.

Richard ends up trying to help Jane Harchard reluctantly. She is a young woman suffering from A.L.S., or Lou Gehrig's disease and is confined to a motorized wheel chair. Jane is extremely intelligent, but has a dark side and a salty vocabulary. She uses a hand held device to speak sometimes, as her speech is not clear. What Jane loves to do is to lose her virginity, at any cost. Jane and Richard clash as they meet, but a mutual tolerance soon makes them comfortable with one another.

Jane, who watches porn on her computer, has a notion for finding someone like Richard Gere in \"American Gigolo\", who will, for a fee, have sex with her. When Richard takes her to London, they find the right man for the job. His fee is exorbitant, but they agree. Since they have no money, Richard decides to rob a big bank. Unfortunately, things don't go according to plan when Jane realizes that she can't go through with what she had wanted. At the end, Richard takes Jane for a ride in his crudely built plane for the thrill of her life, something that brings them closer, as they find an affinity with one another.

Peter Greengrass directed this quirky film which presents an unusual situation. Jane is clearly not the romantic heroine in mainstream films, and yet, she has such a sweet aura about her that is hard not to feel for her and what she is trying to accomplish. Mr. Greengrass shows an affinity Richar Hawkins' material he wrote for the film. The movie doesn't try to be cute or give a rosy picture of a young woman afflicted with an incurable disease.

Helena Bonham Carter is the main reason for watching the film. She makes a wonderful Jane. On the other hand, Kenneth Branagh doesn't seem too well suited for this type of comedy. Somehow, he has problems of his own in the way he interprets Richard. Gemma Jones has some good moments as Anne, Richard's former love.

\"The Theory of Flight\" shows a good director. No doubt Peter Greengrass will go to bigger and better things.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Dull, flatly-directed \"comedy\" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.

One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It was a decent movie, I actually kind of enjoyed it. But the ending is so abrupt!! There is absolutely no closure and it leaves tons of loose ends. What happens after the concert? What happens with her boyfriend? Does she hook up with Grant? Does she come beck in the next semester? And what about Angela? Obviously Holly's performance would knock Angela down a few pegs, but nothing is shown to indicate how she reacts. There is so much left up in the air and it's very unsatisfying. I don't know if it is trying to leave room for a sequel or something, but it is a terrible ending and I think that it really makes the movie a joke. I was very disappointed.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Hellborn starts as a young psychiatric doctor named James Bishop (Matt Stasi) takes up his residency at St. Andrews insane asylum, or 'mental illness facility' as they like to call it there. With nearly 600 patients Bishop meets his boss Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne) & is put to work, he gets ward 'A' where some seriously deranged & dangerous patients are held. If that wasn't bad enough during his first round of visits Bishop finds a dead body & has threatening sounding graffiti messages sprayed over his room. Bishop starts to hear stories from the patients about sinister goings-on at the asylum & soon finds out for himself the stories have more than a hint of truth about them...

Known as Asylum of the Damned in the US this supernatural horror film was directed by Philip J. Jones & I sort of liked it but in the end there were too many unsatisfying elements for me to totally enjoy it. The script by Matt McCombs takes itself pretty seriously & I quite liked the basic idea behind & some of it's ideas but there are a few things which work against it. For a start the film is just too slow, the story is pretty good & doesn't give itself away too early but it takes an absolute age for it to get going & I was rapidly losing interest with each passing minute. I also thought the so-called twist ending was far too predictable & the ending itself far too bland & forgettable. It's a shame because I liked the story, the character's, the setting & some of the ideas but it's simply too slow & frankly dull to keep one entertained over it's 90 minute duration. It's one of those films which I would like to recommend but in all honesty I can't.

Director Jones does a good job, this is actually a well lit & quite atmospheric film. I wouldn't say there's anything scary here. I'm not sure if Hellborn was shot in a real insane asylum but if it wasn't they did a great job on the sets & the film looks pretty good overall. Unfortunately there is a real lack of gore or action, there are two hand-print shaped wounds & a severed tongue & that's it, absolutely nothing else in terms of blood or gore which has to go down as a disappointment. Depending on who you believe & which review you read the special effects are either the worst ever or very good, well as a devoted watcher of low budget horror I was very impressed with the effects especially the demon thing which looks mightily impressive & is a man in a suit type effect rather than a terrible CGI computer graphic although it's an impressive suit. It all depends on your expectations I suppose.

Technically the film is good, it looks nice enough & the lack of CGI computer effects is something I welcome. The acting isn't great though, it certainly could have been better.

Hellborn is a film that disappointed me, there were some good stuff about it but at the same time some terrible stuff which unfortunately outweighs the good. I sort of liked parts of it but as a whole 90 minute viewing experience I'd find it totally impossible to recommend to anyone.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Let's face it-- if you rented a STDVD sequel of a forgotten 80's gem, and expected it to be better than the aforementioned, then you are an idiot. Wargames: The Dead Code joins the long running list of unnecessary sequels that the DVD market has filled so easily. Movies like this don't need spoilers, because YOU already know them.

The \"plot\" for this \"film\", is as follows: Nerd meets girl; girl likes nerd; nerd likes girl; nerd gets accidentally involved with Top Secret Government computer; nerd and girl go to another country; nerd and girl end up being persecuted by Government suits in the other country; nerd and girl meet some important old guy that dies at key point in the \"film\"; nerd and girl are captured; the Top Secret Government computer gets crazy; nerd is hired to beat Top Secret Government Computer; nerd beats Top Secret Computer by using the same old Top Secret Computer from the first Wargames \"film\"; nerd saves the day; nerd gets laid.

The end.

The acting, script, effects, score, and cinematography are what you would expect-- B-grade. Some familiar faces are in here, and unless you are a mega fan of Colm Feore, then you should avoid this one. Granted, the movie won't make you insane enough to eat your own toes by seeing it, so if you like cheap looking STDVD sequels, then you are right at home.

Sadly, Mathew Broderick was too involved with some \"masterpiece\", that he couldn't even do a five second cameo in this one. But can you blame him?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This one is a great one! Robert De Niro and Cuba Gooding have teamed up to make a powerful and very influential film. This is the true story of the first black US Navy diver and the obstacles he faced in attaining his certification at the hands of a racist Master diver. Along the way, he must also face plain old bigotry from all of his classmates, none of whom want him in their class. They move out of the barracks when he arrives. Ultimately, he becomes certified and goes on to have a great career as a US Navy diver. Watch this one! It's a great tale of courage and honor. As the story unfolds, we get to watch racism slowly dissipate and everyone begins to respect men one at a time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Having seen the Peter O'Toole version recently, I was ready to be awed by the smart writing in this version. Little time is spent on the fighting, which I prefer. Instead, we are shown all the many motives underlying both the French and English (who held Normandy) politicos and priests who put her to death. Even the worst hypocrite of them all, the archbishop, leaves us with the thought that \"Of course, she was innocent. The innocent have always had to suffer for the ambitions of the mighty. She had no idea what she was saying, no idea of the implications of blasphemy or going against the church. Unschooled, she had no idea of what the church's stand on such matters even was.\"

Preminger was true to the myths surrounding her death, and I appreciated the preview on the tape that showed the flames reaching up and burning her. Why? They used gas jets in the movie, and 2 of them were stopped up. Suddenly, the air pressure blew out the stoppage and the flames leaped up right on her. Thankfully for her, they didn't have to repeat the shot as it was SO realistic: she WAS being burned!! Pretty traumatic introduction for an Iowa girl to her new career of acting.

John Gielgud performed outstandingly. He is the English politico who is orchestrating the show. He also makes the point that once you condemn someone to death, you don't want to be around to watch them die. You might shrink from your 'duty' the next time...not that such delicacies bother the soul of our would-be president. We Christians, even the most anti-Semitic have no problem with falling back on the Old Testament when it comes to capital punishment, even though it was overridden by Jesus' words. Bring on public executions like this little girl's. Smelling burnt flesh might bring us respectable folks to our souls' senses.

The only little 'pick' I have about this film is that we are not shown why the priest who has been so adamantly urging her burning becomes so suddenly so contrite, even to the point of madness. There should have been more expansion of his character, more dialogue--as the sudden 'coming to his senses' doesn't make sense.

And, whether Graham Greene does this deliberately or not, St. Joan is such a self-assured little upstart, you almost but not quite, are glad she meets her come-uppance. And, when she turned down life in prison, for some reason I thought of Anne Sexton, the poet who accused Sylvia Plath of 'stealing her death' when she committed suicide ...knowing such an action guarantees immortality. You gotta wonder!!

If ever there was a good example of obsessive thought and logic-tight compartments, this is one. St. Joan should have turned Buddhist and quieted the 'voices in her mind'.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Using Buster Keaton in the twilight of his career was an interesting choice. He may have been the most talented comedian of the silent age. This gives him a chance to display those talents in a little time travel story. He get hooked up with a guy living in modern times, and it becomes obvious that we are best left in our own times Keaton is able to do his sight gags very well. I've heard his voice before. I believe he did some of those Beach Party films, playing some vacuous characters just to earn a few bucks. Serling seemed to have respect for him and portrayed him that way. It's not a bad story. It shows how one reacts when we wish for something we don't have and get that wish.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Actually I liked this movie very, very much. Not because of it`s plot, acting, jokes, no. I liked it, because it`s one of the worse movies ever created. It`s so lame, so bad, that it becomes terribly funny. Some jokes are actually cool, but the rest makes me pray for unemployment for the scriptwriter. \"Men in white\" are so dumb and stupid, that you can do only two things. Turn the TV off or roll on the floor laughing (beer helps a lot:). I chose the second option.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am appalled at how bad this film is. As a pastiche of early 20th century Hollywood artistes it sets a new low - even past The Moderns or (gasp) Cradle Will Rock & I never thought I'd see a film worse than those 2. Granted they were about a slightly different milieu & period. Nevertheless the intents & results were distressingly similar.

First off there's the horrible casting: Eddie Izzard as CHAPLIN? Excuse me? Peter, did you owe this guy something? Jennifer Tilly as Loulla Parsons?? Kirsten Dunst as Marion Davies??? Holy smoke, these people don't even begin to try to capture the look or sound of the period they are purportedly depicting.

Well, Last Picture Show was a decent film, but this thing is a disaster & the rest of Bogdonovitch's pics haven't been much better. Guess rubbing up against Welles & Hitch & Ford wore off a long time ago. Still good for hosting TCM though.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Much underrated camp movie on the level of Cobra Woman, etc. Photographic stills resemble Rembrandt prints. Sometimes subtle dialog and hidden literate touches found throughout.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!

The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there \"prophecy\" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.

In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.

I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new \"worst ever\" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend \"Cyborg\" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out \"Nemesis\".

I rated this movie 1/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, \"Stop dialing\" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why \"La La land\" is so named.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what \"dan7\" in the computer graphic meant, said, \"Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24.\" He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read \"Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation\" by Jim McKeever and \"The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture\" by George E. Ladd.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "For Urban Cowboy John Travolta plays one of the stronger alpha males ever portrayed on the big screen. He's a decent enough young kid who leaves his parent's homestead and strikes out for the big city of Dallas where his uncle Barry Corbin has promised to find him work in the petrochemical industry. In 1980 that was beginning to boom and Texas was definitely a growing place in the USA.

Travolta does a good job in making we the audience care about his character who when you come right down to it is a sexist pig. He meets and marries Debra Winger who's from the same background, but she's got some ideas that women should not be shadows of their men. And when she beats him at Gilley's mechanical bull, a man's game, that's it for him.

Scott Glenn who's an ex-convict is working at Gilley's and this film was his breakout role. He's a real snake in Urban Cowboy, he gets Travolta's goat with a mere look and he moves in on Winger. Travolta in turn takes up with rich girl, Madolyn Smith Osborne who's slumming at Gilley's.

Despite the characters, Urban Cowboy was really one gigantic commercial for the self-styled biggest honky tonk in the world. Gilley's is no longer there in the suburban Texas community of Pasadena, but the memories do live on. And the best thing about Urban Cowboy is the wonderful score of country/western songs that were featured in the film. I'm not sure if some of the songs were not written specifically for Urban Cowboy, but it's the only reason I can think of why the Motion Picture Academy ignored the musical aspects of this film. I especially liked Johnny Lee's Looking For Love, if it was specifically written for this film, it's a disgrace that it wasn't nominated for Best Song.

I liked Debra Winger's character best in this film. She doesn't lose a trace of femininity, but she stands up to Travolta and does it in style. And this review is dedicated to that yet as unknown woman who will one day be the first woman bull-rider in the Professional Bull Riders.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.

The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.

The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer).", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The fact that most of the budget for this presumably went on the heavy-duty cast list shouldn't have mattered if it had been staged with flair and imagination and some sympathy for the original's satirical intent. Instead we get risibly bad song and dance sequences featuring picturesque beggars and whores, and the final alienation is accomplished by pulling back to reveal the action has taken place on a music-hall stage, appropriately enough for a production that's more Lionel 'Oliver' Blair than Brecht. The acting talent is shamefully misused: Migenes and Walters are good but don't have to try very hard: Migenes at least has a great voice and some feel for the material. Julia looks perfect as Mack, but struggles with the character, straitjacketed by a fake plummy accent. Harris's Peachum is embarrassingly mannered and Polly is atrocious. The adaptations of lyrics, script and music are often awkward: it was a bad move to base the film on Marc Blitzstein's bowdlerised Broadway version, but at least his words were singable, unlike most of what's been interpolated in gestures of faithfulness. And the attempt at overcoming the low budget by filming at claustrophobic angles on mist-shrouded sets lit in garish blues and oranges as if by some bargain-basement Vittorio Storaro fails utterly -- the film just looks cheap, shoddy and thoughtlessly made. Disgraceful.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "WOW, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "seriously what the hell was this movie about,,simply stupid,,i'd give it 0 but,,,1\"awful\" is the lowest you can go,,seriously this movie is not worth watching,,waste of time, i don't know what the hell is wrong with you guys voting this movie 7 out of 10,,i seriously can make a better movie than this , hire some other unemployed people,,'n i promise i'll make a movie better than this,,this movie was so bad,,that i'll never watch a movie starring Steve Carrel again,bottom line don't waste your time to download it off the net or rent it,,i'd nominate this movie for the worst movie of the century i mean the worst is Something Gotta give but after that this is the second", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "No, this wasn't one of the ten worst films of the 1980's, but it certainly skirts the bottom 100 somewhere. This movie looks like it was put on the shelf for two or three years and then released in 1981. How else would you explain special effects pre-dating \"An American Werewolf in London,\" disco still being considered cool, and Ronald Reagan not being the 40th President of the United States? While we're at it, let's not overlook those 1970's hairstyles in the 1950's and '60's. I've seen more of that here than in \"Happy Days\" & \"Laverne & Shirley\" combined.

The one woman who elevates this movie to the \"so bad, it's good\" category was the late, great Elizabeth Hartman, but just barely. Biff plays as Miss Montgomery, the mousey high school teacher who becomes a sexpot, a stereotype that's been done to death and is still being churned out by Hollywood today, but even as a \"hot chick\" she retains her mousey qualities. Her call for help is evidence of this. She also looks much better as Miss Wimp. \"Seven bucks at the beauty parlor, shot to hell.\" She wasn't kidding.

This isn't to say that there aren't any good parts elsewhere, they're just few and far between, and I'm not just saying that because I like Hartman. Incidentally, \"Teen Wolf\" was better than this. \"Teen Wolf Too\" was better than this, and that wasn't even so good.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I loved this episode. It is so great that all 5 of them team up and stop LutherCorp and save the world. I also love this episode because Kyle Gallner (Bart Allen/Impulse) and Justin Hartley (Oliver Queen/Green Arrow) are guest starring in it!!! I just hope that Clark will join the Justice League and we'll get to follow this group of heroes across the globe!! =)It was really exciting and keeps viewers interested because of what will happen next. I think Chloe should also join the team as Watchtower, that would be such a coool thing for her to do besides the Daily Planet because she doesn't have super powers. Also, I want to find out what types of subjects Lex is going to use for 33.1, I wonder what other types of powers other people in the world have!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What Is It? is a mish-mash of bizarre recurring motifs (snails, Shirley Temple, swastikas, and overtly racist music, among others) unfettered by any sort of narrative or plot or character development. The whole thing struck me as self-consciously \"freak show,\" and I don't mean only the unusual casting decisions. It has the feel of a bad acid trip, far beyond any level of drug use one might attribute to Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs. The only movie to which I can compare it is Eraserhead (my second-least-favorite film of all time), which was by intent much more depressing, but I still found What Is It? a total waste of my time. It's one thing to give me a peek into the inner workings of someone else's mind -- even someone else's chemically altered consciousness -- but quite another to just throw weird visuals at me purely for the sake of weirdness.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I should never have started this film, and stopped watching after 3/4's. I missed the really botched ending. This film was a disappointment because it could have been so much better. It had nice atmosphere, a top notch cast and director, good locations. But a baaaaaad story line, a bad script. I paid attention to Kenneth Branagh's southern accent--it was better than the script. The plot was stupid--driven by characters acting in unreal and improbable ways. No one behaves like this outside of Hollywood scripts.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I couldn't tell if \"The Screaming Skull\" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old \"Tales From The Dark Side\"...but only after an extensive rewrite.

The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German \"oompah band\" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience.

They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out \"The Screaming Skull\", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. (\"Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??\")", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The cinematic interests in the British monarchy continues with The Young Victoria (1837 to 1901), after having seen in recent years, the efforts with Keira Knightley's The Duchess, Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth films, and Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman's take on the Boleyn sisters with The Other Boleyn Girl. More contemporary stories would include Helen Mirren's award winning portrayal of The Queen on the current reign of Queen Elizabeth II at the turn of Princess Diana's death.

Each of the films mentioned featured stunning actresses with acting gravitas (ok, so some may dispute Johansson) or were the flavour of their moment, and each film had a definitive moment in their historical character's legacy that it becomes a no brainer to have those events featured, and in fact Elizabeth had enough to span two films. However, The Young Victoria, as the title already suggests, is a lite-version of the young queen's life, and if you're looking for that definitive event, or the staple political intrigue that plague all royal households and their dealings with shady, self-serving politicians, unfortunately there's nothing of depth here.

That's not to say The Young Victoria is without. Directed by Canadian Jean-Marc Vallee (best known for CRAZY) and written by Julian Fellowes, this film chronicles in very plain terms, ,the life and times of Victoria (Emily Blunt, soon becoming the new It girl) when she was a child, the troubles she faced before Coronation such as the eagerness of her mom The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her adviser Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) to appoint themselves as joint-Regent to her throne, as already planned for by reigning King William (Jim Broadbent). As if that wasn't enough, the political power play enters the picture with Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) being a Prime Minister-in-waiting trying to gain the trust of the new Queen, and subtly plants his own trusted allies into positions within the palace. On one hand you'd understand the need for a young, and new Queen to have trusted people in key positions, but on the other, are they really acting in her interests, or in the interests of others?

Even this angle of intrigue creeps into her romantic story with Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), where their relationship forms the bulk of the second half of the film, and pretty much everything already included in the trailers. For both, they've been brought up under the influence of others, and told each step of the way exactly what to do. Even their union may seem like a firm registration of an alliance, if not for both lovers recognizing their common need to establish their own grounding, and to do so with the help of each other. Instead of being pawns, there's this constant search and probing of opportunities to break out of stifling, and at times absurd, rules and regulations. Trust also becomes a much valued commodity, and loyalty too can be traded for wanting to set the slate clean.

However, all these themes become but a breeze through the narrative, from childhood to romance, marriage and children. In fact, there's so much fast-forwarding here, especially the last few minutes filled with inter-titles, that it actually leaves the audience wanting for more, and room of course for another movie, which I suspect would probably not see the light of day, but perhaps a television series might pick up on the film's response, and come out with a mini-series or such. It's a pity that all the effort here in ensuring the gorgeous costumes, sets and art direction would be confined to a film that's quite lightweight in theme and brief mention of issues, that they don't really challenge the protagonists in order to allow for some overcoming of character-defining adversary.

With its star-studded cast, one would expect more, but one would be left wanting more instead. Recommended for those who are ever curious about Kings and Queens in the British Monarchy, only as a complement to other more engaging stories available in the other films already mentioned.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the \"monster\"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.

To be fair, the \"creep\" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.

On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler)

Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says \"HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!\"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.

what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.

The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say \"NO\", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.

STUPID US.

Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in \"Die Hard\". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.

The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in \"The Mexican\".

Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions.

AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Last Hunt is one of the few westerns ever made to deal with Buffalo hunting, both as a sport and business and as a method of winning the plains Indian wars. Before the white man set foot on the other side of the Mississippi, the plains used to have herds of American Bison as large as some of our largest cities. By the time of the period The Last Hunt is set in, the buffalo had been all but wiped out. The 20th century, due to the efforts of conservationists, saw a revival in population of the species, but not hardly like it once was.

Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger are co-starring in a second film together and this one is far superior to All the Brothers Were Valiant. Here Stewart Granger is the good guy, a world weary buffalo hunter, who has to go back to a job he hates because of financial considerations.

The partner he's chosen to throw in with is Robert Taylor. Forgetting Taylor for the moment, I doubt if there's ever been a meaner, nastier soul than Charlie Gilsen who Taylor portrays. In Devil's Doorway he was an American Indian fighting against the prejudice stirred up by a racist played by Louis Calhern. In The Last Hunt, he's the racist here. He kills both buffalo and Indians for pure pleasure. He kills one Indian family when they steal his mules and takes the widow of one captive. Like some barbarian conqueror he expects the pleasure of Debra Paget's sexual favors. He's actually mad when Paget doesn't see it that way.

No matter how often they refer to Russ Tamblyn as a halfbreed, I was never really convinced he was any part Indian. It's the only weakness I found in The Last Hunt.

However Lloyd Nolan, the grizzled old buffalo skinner Taylor and Granger bring along is just great. Nolan steals every scene he's in with the cast.

For those who like their westerns real, who want to see a side of Robert Taylor never seen on screen, and who don't like cheap heroics, The Last Hunt is the ideal hunt.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Still the definitive program about the Second World War, The World At War isn't just long, but also very informative. The series contains 26 episodes (each episode lasts for about 45 min.), and includes the events leading up to and following in the wake of the war. Most episodes are about the war in Europe, and there are several episodes about the war in the Pacific. Other episodes include information about the wars in Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and the home fronts of Germany, Great Britain, United States and Soviet Union. There is one episode that's dedicated to the Holocaust. The series starts off with the episode A New Germany (1933-1939), and tells about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and German territorial gains prior to the outbreak of war. The series ends with the episode Remember; the war's influence in a post-war world. Remember is a fitting episode to end this great program. Every episode begins with a short introduction and then with opening credits. The credits are accompanied by a powerful music theme. There are many fitting music pieces throughout the series. Each episode is like a mini-film. The footage is fantastic, and so is the way it was put together. In addition, some of the footage is in color. The information included also makes the episodes memorable and entertaining.

The series was produced by Jeremy Isaacs for Thames Television (UK). Commissioned in 1969, it took four years to produce, such was the depth of its research. The series was narrated by Laurence Olivier (one of the most famous and revered actors of the 20th century). The series interviewed leading members of the Allied and Axis campaigns, including eyewitness accounts by civilians, enlisted men, officers and politicians, amongst them Albert Speer, Karl Donitz, Jimmy Stewart, Bill Mauldin, Curtis LeMay, Lord Mountbatten, Alger Hiss, Toshikazu Kase, Arthur Harris, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, Traudl Junge and historian Stephen Ambrose. Jeremy Isaacs says in \"The Making of The World at War\" that he sought to interview, not necessarily the surviving big names, but their aides and assistants. The most difficult subject to locate and persuade to be interviewed, according to Isaacs, was Heinrich Himmler's adjutant, Karl Wolff. The latter admitted to witnessing a large-scale execution in Himmler's presence.

The World At War is often considered to be the definitive television history of the Second World War. Some consider it the finest example of the documentary form. In a list of the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted for by industry professionals, The World at War ranked 19th. The program has everything that the viewer needs to know about the war. After watching a few episodes I liked the series so much that I tried to watch the remaining episodes one after the other. I've seen some of them several times. There are two other great documentary series that I know of that may be of interest to the viewer. One is called The Great War (1964) that's about World War I. The other is called Cold War (1998) that's about the Cold War obviously.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was one of those wonderful rare moments in T.V. that I wished I'd captured forever on VHS. Won't it ever air again?

It was so creative and I remember it was aired once a week and the wait for the next episode was excruciating. I want to see it all again. I want to buy it. I want what I can't have. Not even on EBAY.

So, having ranted enough it was, by far, one of the best series the 80's put out. It should be considered a classic but is lost in space. At least this website and Wikipedia mention it. Sob.

It was utterly appealing, funny, flirtatious, and original. Maybe not like Sherlock Holmes original, I actually think Quintin is far more attractive and has a better chance with his leading lady than the stiff and chalky Holmes ever could.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "An entertaining kung fu film, with acting, plot and fight scenes a cut above the average chop socky. All of the cast are likeable characters and skilled martial artists. Alexander Fu-Sheng's proto-Jackie Chan comedy antics are fun to watch, and his austere companion shows particularly impressive skills. For me, the film's only glaring flaw is the size of the cast -- at times, things get a little confused as the film chops and changes between various subplots, and some of the characters are not as fully fleshed-out as one might wish.

But a kung fu film should be judged first and foremost on the quality of the action, and Shaolin Temple definitely delivers on that count. The film climaxes with a high-bodycount battle that allows each character to show off his skills against a worthy opponent.

Overall, Shaolin Temple is an enjoyable low-budget kung fu movie. Not up to the quality of a good Jet Li film, but definitely worth a look for fans of the genre. My rating: 8/10.

Misc notes: The 1987 Warner Home Video release I saw was (predictably) poorly dubbed, and lacked full cast & crew credits.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was delighted to finally see the release of Amazing Stories the first season on DVD. I had forgotten just what a stellar cast of actors and directors worked on this series. For the longest time the only way you got to see this remarkable series was with the VHS 2 or 3 episode collections or when Sci-Fi would re-run the episodes. However, when Sci-Fi would host the re-runs, they generally stuck to the same episodes. There were a few outstanding episodes in Season One like The Mission that they didn't repeat. Does anyone know exactly how long this series ran? It says 1985 to 1987 at the top here at IMDb but I thought it ran longer than two years. If you loved the Twilight Zone, Night Gallery and Outer Limits, you will love this series and you will not be disappointed with your purchase.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Definitely one of the most witty and twisted who-dunnit I ever seen. Christopher Reeve and Micheal Caine were brilliant and kept me going through the whole affair.

Very classy set pieces and the props really lend a sense of atmosphere to the proceedings. The minimalist feel works for the whole picture.

My only complain isn't with the film itself but the lack of a decent widescreen edition of the movie on DVD. I own the fullscreen version (which proves I love the film enough to endure fullscreen presentation) but a awesome Deluxe or 'special' edition would most surely get my cash.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The last film in Lucas' saga is a lavish, spectacular-looking production. It is often considered the ugly duckling of the original trilogy, but I think it is a notch above episode IV (and just a notch below episodes III and V). In fact, I think it is the third best film in the 6-part saga. As far as I'm concerned, it is still a grandiosely entertaining film. It is not a movie with a beginning, climax and ending; the film's mechanism operates with only one goal in its mind: bring closure to Lucas' universe. There is an air of finality attached to the whole thing, which makes the film a little too sentimental, but emotionally rewarding. Also, it is a lot of fun. New characters are introduced and old ones face new, unexpected challenges. C3PO and R2D2 provide (as usual) great comic relief. Leia and Solo are a wonderful romantic duo, and Luke is still a great character to identify with. Again, it is Luke's (and Vader's) inner conflict what gives the saga its backbone. Lucas' aggressive imagination is still very much apparent, and the film's themes of loyalty, hope, and redemption resonate strongly. I'm glad Lucas eventually dropped the idea of making episode VII, VIII and IX, because this film is a great bookend to a long, fascinating and captivating saga. Not a perfect movie, but fun in the best matinée style.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When we talk Hollywood Hotel we could be talking about one of three things, the actual hotel, the radio program, and this film which was partially inspired by the first two. Dick Powell was the host of the Hollywood Hotel program on CBS radio network in which Louella Parsons dished out the weekly scoop on the stars.

Powell and Parsons debuted the Hollywood Hotel program in 1934 so by 1937 it had its fair share of the radio audience. Powell hosted, sang, and kibitzed with Louella and her movie star guests. With the power she had with her column, she was able to get the various stars to go on and plug their latest films for nothing.

Then the American Federation of Radio Artists stepped in and demanded she pay wages accordingly and they won the case. That ended the Hollywood Hotel program in 1938. Of course both Powell and Louella went on to other radio venues. The whole story is covered in the Tony Thomas book, The Films Of Dick Powell.

But before the plug was pulled this film came out from Powell's home studio of Warner Brothers inspired by the radio program. Powell plays a singer/saxophonist with the Benny Goodman band who gets signed to a Hollywood contract. But when he gets out to Hollywood he gets himself tangled up with an egotistical film star Lola Lane, her lookalike double real life sister Rosemary Lane, and a ham actor in Alan Mowbray.

When Mowbray is called upon to sing in a Civil War epic he's making with Lola Lane, it's Powell's voice they use. Then Mowbray develops a Lina Lamont problem when he's asked to go on the Hollywood Hotel radio program, broadcast from the Hollywood Hotel. That's got the studio in a tizzy. Let's say the problem isn't solved the way it is Singing In The Rain, but Powell's manager Ted Healy proves to be resourceful.

Richard Whiting and Johnny Mercer provide a really nice score for the film. The big hit song comes right at the beginning as the Benny Goodman band with scat singing Johnnie Davis sing Hollywood's anthem, Hooray for Hollywood. My favorite however is Powell and Rosemary Lane singing, I'm Like A Fish Out Of Water. Just listening to Johnny Mercer's lyrics about Ginger Rogers running the Brooklyn Dodgers or Sally Rand without her fan, it's a compendium of American popular culture in the Thirties.

Busby Berkeley does the choreography here and while the film doesn't have the soaring imaginary stuff that his earlier work with Warner Brothers has, the numbers are well staged. Berkeley's big moment is in a drive-in eatery where Powell and Healy have been forced to take jobs. The number starts with Benny Goodman broadcasting from the Hollywood Hotel doing Let That Be A Lesson To You and then at the drive-in Powell, Lane and the entire place start joining in song to the exasperation of owner Edgar Kennedy. And you know what you can expect from Edgar Kennedy exasperation.

Benny Goodman gets to show why he was named the King Of Swing when the band with drummer Gene Krupa and xylophonist Lionel Hampton as part of his ensemble. That together with Frances Langford singing as well. And possibly the last surviving cast member of the group was a fellow who had a small bit as a radio announcer. He died in 2004, but not before he became the 40th President of the United States. Ronald Reagan always credited Dick Powell and Pat O'Brien as being the two guys on Warner Brothers who were the most helpful to an eager young player looking to make his mark.

Hollywood Hotel is one delightful and entertaining motion picture, dated, but charmingly so.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If Saura hadn't done anything like this before, Iberia would be a milestone. Now it still deserves inclusion to honor a great director and a great cinematic conservator of Spanish culture, but he has done a lot like this before, and though we can applaud the riches he has given us, we have to pick and choose favorites and high points among similar films which include Blood Wedding (1981), Carmen (1983), El Amore Brujo (1986), Sevillanas (1992), Salomé (2002) and Tango (1998). I would choose Saura's 1995 Flamenco as his most unique and potent cultural document, next to which Iberia pales.

Iberia is conceived as a series of interpretations of the music of Isaac Manuel Francisco Albéniz (1860-1909) and in particular his \"Iberia\" suite for piano. Isaac Albéniz was a great contributor to the externalization of Spanish musical culture -- its re-formatting for a non-Spanish audience. He moved to France in his early thirties and was influenced by French composers. His \"Iberia\" suite is an imaginative synthesis of Spanish folk music with the styles of Liszt, Dukas and d'Indy. He traveled around performing his compositions, which are a kind of beautiful standardization of Spanish rhythms and melodies, not as homogenized as Ravel's Bolero but moving in that direction. Naturally, the Spanish have repossessed Albéniz, and in Iberia, the performers reinterpret his compositions in terms of various more ethnic and regional dances and styles. But the source is a tamed and diluted form of Spanish musical and dance culture compared to the echt Spanishness of pure flamenco. Flamenco, coming out of the region of Andalusia, is a deeply felt amalgam of gitane, Hispano-Arabic, and Jewish cultures. Iberia simply is the peninsula comprising Spain, Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar; the very concept is more diluted.

Saura's Flamenco is an unstoppably intense ethnic mix of music, singing, dancing and that peacock manner of noble preening that is the essence of Spanish style, the way a man and a woman carries himself or herself with pride verging on arrogance and elegance and panache -- even bullfights and the moves of the torero are full of it -- in a series of electric sequences without introduction or conclusion; they just are. Saura always emphasized the staginess of his collaborations with choreographer Antonio Gades and other artists. In his 1995 Flamenco he dropped any pretense of a story and simply has singers, musicians, and dancers move on and off a big sound stage with nice lighting and screens, flats, and mirrors arranged by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, another of the Spanish filmmaker's important collaborators. The beginnings and endings of sequences in Flamenco are often rough, but atmospheric, marked only by the rumble and rustle of shuffling feet and a mixture of voices. Sometimes the film keeps feeding when a performance is over and you see the dancer bend over, sigh, or laugh; or somebody just unexpectedly says something. In Flamenco more than any of Saura's other musical films it's the rapt, intense interaction of singers and dancers and rhythmically clapping participant observers shouting impulsive olé's that is the \"story\" and creates the magic. Because Saura has truly made magic, and perhaps best so when he dropped any sort of conventional story.

Iberia is in a similar style to some of Saura's purest musical films: no narration, no dialogue, only brief titles to indicate the type of song or the region, beginning with a pianist playing Albeniz's music and gradually moving to a series of dance sequences and a little singing. In flamenco music, the fundamental element is the unaccompanied voice, and that voice is the most unmistakable and unique contribution to world music. It relates to other songs in other ethnicities, but nothing quite equals its raw raucous unique ugly-beautiful cry that defies you to do anything but listen to it with the closest attention. Then comes the clapping and the foot stomping, and then the dancing, combined with the other elements. There is only one flamenco song in Iberia. If you love Saura's Flamenco, you'll want to see Iberia, but you'll be a bit disappointed. The style is there; some of the great voices and dancing and music are there. But Iberia's source and conception doom it to a lesser degree of power and make it a less rich and intense cultural experience.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie was boring!

Yes, there are a few funny moments and jokes, but you cannot base a whole movie on that!

The characters are too stereotyped, there is no real story - but short episodes with freaky side-characters, who are not freaky enough to make the plot genuine.

Shame, because most of the actors are acknowledged in Hungary, a mystery why they took the roles.

This is *not* a new hope for the Hungarian film. It was boring, though it was meant to be genuine or unique. They could have tried much more harder than this... 2 out of 10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "From the moment the film begins, already there is a discrepancy. As this film takes place on the borders of Normandy and the middle East, and is also an international film, one would expect proper accents portrayed. This is not done as the majority of the cast sound American. Also, I find the acting to be rehearsed at best, the story line a little difficult to follow from the beginning. Who is who? Otherwise the film is very accurate in costume and scenery. If you want to see a movie to get a feel of what it was like in the past (albeit the lack of accents) then this movie is worth a rent. If you're looking for a movie as epic as Kingdom of Heaven, then look elsewhere.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.

Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.

Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.

This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.

\"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy.\"

\"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!\" \"Give me a fire extinguisher.\"

\"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?\"

Dr Price is the snake expert.

Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is a should-be classic. It's not perfect, certainly. The pacing, while perfect for the stage, is in movie form slow as a tortoise with arthritic knees. Jean Seberg is misdirected to be too sweet and too gentle. She fully shows enough acting talent, skill, and craft to convincingly play the clever, passionate, and confident Joan, but, unfortunately, the director missed the point of the character. George Bernard Shaw is my favorite playwright. In no other play has his dialog been more sharp, nor the lines more musical. However, processing this film requires that you look at it as a lawyer. This movie is a case, and the viewer is the judge. That is how this picture is to be enjoyed. 7/10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.

I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, \"When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?\"

Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch \"Monsoon Wedding\".", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw this dull waste of time on HBO's Comedy Channel, so I quite innocently and obviously assumed that this was a comedy. But there is absolutely nothing funny here. A good cast is basically wasted on a script that I could have written with my left butt-cheek - after it had been beaten senseless by 15th-century Inquisition torturers. The first half is particularly bad, as it has some of the most dull, pointless dialogue I've come across in a while, and zero comma zero plot to speak of. Just the fact that stars such as Ewan McGregor and Zeta-Jones are in this little movie and yet this film has less than 1000 votes on this site, should tell you everything. A couple of nice shots of waves hitting the cold British coast, but that's about it.

This is the sort of movie that gets made just because the people who wrote it have good connections (family connections, preferably) and/or plenty of cash lying around.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The endless bounds of our inhumanity to our own kind never fails to stun me. This truly astonishing story of a horrifically abused and largely unheard-of population is compelling, well-documented and enraging. As an American, I am constantly humiliated by my country's behaviour and this is just another in our long catalogue of international debasement. We suck. This is probably the first John Pilger documentary I've seen, but it immediately made me want to see what else he's done. My only complaint, and the reason I gave this film only 8 out of 10, is that Pilger shows us this travesty and the appalling collaboration of the US and UK governments, demands that we viewers/citizens are complicit in our own inaction...but makes no suggestion of how to help. I don't know about Britain, but America's made it nearly impossible for the citizenry to take part in their government's doings. A gesture in the right direction might help these islanders' cause.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as \"a whining little turd\" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.

All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Strange, almost all reviewers are highly positive about this movie. Is it because it's from 1975 and has Chamberlain and Curtis in it and therefore forgive the by times very bad acting and childish ways of storytelling?

Maybe it's because some people get sentimental about this film because they have read the book? (I have not read the book, but I don't think that's a problem, film makers never presume that the viewers have read the book).

Or is it because I am subconsciously irritated about the fact that English-speaking actors try to behave as their French counterparts?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "and rent a GOOD horror movie. It's like the writer had never seen a horror movie before and didn't realize every single thing he wrote was clichéd and hackneyed and has been parodied to perfection in movies like \"Scream\" and \"Scary Movie\".

In between the scary bits is the most BANAL and BORING dialog ever written. Stupid \"we're going to the prom\" junk. I wanted to claw my ears off. Honestly, \"The Hills\" has better dialog.

There really was no need to make this movie. Leading lady is uninteresting and I kept thinking \"Her? Really? Guy is obsessed with her? Really?\"

All the characters act in stupid ways, including the police. (Cover the place in teams of 2! Front and back! Not one sleepy cop sitting in his car with the window rolled down just waiting for his throat to be slashed.)

The serial killer just swans about murdering everyone he wants without the least bit of problem. No resistance from victims (or doors). Nobody has any protection or the least idea of fighting back (or flipping the security lock on the hotel room door). The people are like mentally disabled sheep.

By the by, if you're a gore fan, you'll be disappointed too. All the killing is kept offscreen and is -- ahem -- tastefully done. (So boo hoo for you!)

None of the killings is the least bit interesting. Most of the time they've already happened by the time we find out.

The only cliché missing was the cat that always pops out in this kind of movies. \"Oh kitty! You scared me! I thought you were the killer -- AIIEEEE!\"

And then at the end when it's time for the killer to die -- well, let's just say it's the easiest and most obvious choice. Snore.

The audience was jeering and talking back to the screen throughout. It was too dumb to believe and not really scary enough. Don't encourage this kind of lazy film-making.

(Oh, and by the way -- no crowning of a prom king or queen. No tiara. No bucket of blood.)

So save your money and rent \"Carrie\" or \"Friday the 13th\" or \"Halloween\" or \"Scream\" or \"Scary Movie\" (any of them) to get a good scare with some original twists.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie has some things that are pretty amazing. First, it is supposed to be based on a true story. That, in itself, is amazing that multiple tornadoes would hit the same town at night in the fall-in Nebraska. I wonder if the real town's name was close to \"Blainsworth\" (which is the town's name in the movie). There is an Ainsworth, Nebraska, but there is also a town that starts with Blains-something.

It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it.

Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In my humble opinion, this movie did not receive the recognition it deserved. Robert Redford lives near me here in Provo, Utah, at Sundance. I enjoy most of his work, and this was my favorite. I'm sorry that more people didn't appreciate it. My grandmother was an avid reader and read the book years before it came out on the big screen. She gave it to me to read after we had seen the movie together. The movie and book hit an emotional spot within my heart, and I was weepy for several days after seeing the movie. Sometimes love isn't enough to keep our loved ones from hurting themselves. We see this in our own family relationships, yet our love and our families and their stories endure throughout generations of time. The cinematography was perfect and breathtaking -- I was awed by its beauty and how well it brought to life the words of the author of the book, Norman Maclean, \"But when I am alone in the half light of the canyon, all existence seems to fade to a being with my soul, and memories. And the sounds of the Big Black Foot River, and a four count rhythm, and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters.\" These words, taken from the book and spoken at the end of the movie (by Robert Redford who is narrating as Norman Maclean), are basically scripture, in my opinion. Any possible flaws the movie may have are overshadowed by the beauty and grace of the story and the cinematography. It was beautiful!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Everyday we can watch a great number of film, soap... on tv. Sometimes a miracle happens. A great film, with real feelings, with great actors, with a great realisator-director. For me there are two films that everyone needs to see : the first is the Pacula ? \"Sophie 's choice\" with Meryl Streep. The second is \"Journey of Hope\". As human beings, we need to learn about humility, about love of the others, about acceptation of other civilisation, other way of living. We also have to struggle against racism and fascim. We must avoid judging, criticize; we only have to love our earth companion. This wonderful film, helps us reaching John (Lennon) his dream : Imagine all the people living live in peace. These two films are difficult to see : watch these, but sure you will be hurt, but better. Great film, great actors, terrible story, pain and cry guarantee, but also better understanding of the others. Enjoy it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "There were good performances by Robin Williams and others but the movie was dull overall and very disappointing compared to the positive reviews.

I thought Sy might become a serial killer who bores people to death: a forlorn guy in ugly clothes trails his victims around food courts, quoting Oprah and reciting his medical history until they beg him to shoot them.

I think the movie mostly appeals to egomaniacs who think strangers are interested in their photos. I expect most retail workers want a break from the customers.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Cinderella In my opinion greatest love story ever told i loved it as a kid and i love it now a wonderful Disney masterpiece this is 1 of my favorite movies i love Disney. i could rave on and on about Cinderella and Disney all day but i wont i ll give you a brief outline of the story. When a young girl's father dies she has to live with her evil step mother and her equally ugly and nasty step sisters Drusilla and Anastasia. Made to do remedial house chores all day poor Cinderella has only the little mice who scurry around the house and her dog Bruno as friends. When one day a letter is sent to her house telling all available women to attend a royal ball. Cinderellas evil step mother and step sisters try to prevent her attendance Cinderella finally gets her dream and wish and is able to attend her captive beauty , Genorisity and beautiful nature help her win her prince.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Neil Simon's THE ODD COUPLE set up a model for many of his later plays. Felix Unger and Oscar Madison were the unsuitably paired roommates in the original, the former being picky and neat, the latter being slovenly and loose. Simon would rewrite (less successfully) the play in the 1990s as THE NEW ODD COUPLE, with female roommates. He made it a mixed couple (a woman with her daughter, and a man) in THE GOODBYE GIRLS. He also gave it an additional twist in 1973 with THE SUNSHINE BOYS, a Broadway hit starring Jack Alberson and Sam Levine as Al Lewis and Willie Clark, the aged, semi-retired Vaudevillians. Here the \"apartment\" problem is reduced to a teaming of two men who can't stand each other. The 1976 film starred Walter Matthau as Willie, and George Burns as Al.

In actuality, Al probably does not think totally badly of Willie - Willie is pathological on the subject of Al. First Al had little habits, such as accidentally spitting slightly when pronouncing words beginning with the letter \"t\", and slightly jabbing Willie with his index finger, on stage. Secondly, Al retired when his wife died. Willie was not ready to retire (and has been forcing his nephew and agent, Ben (Richard Benjamin) to try to get him jobs in commercials. But Willie can't remember lines unless they are funny, and keeps flubbing them. So he rarely is able to stay to the end of a rehearsal for a commercial.

Ben is asked to get the two back together for a live scene of their most famous sketch on a television show about American Comedy. He does bring Al to see Willie, and the sparks begin flying, as neither can figure out what the other is doing (and this is just in rehearsal. On top of that, Willie is insisting on changes (minor ones, but they throw off Al) such as saying \"ENTER!!!\" when Al knocks on the door. The initial rehearsal is a failure, but Ben manages to get them to the taping of the show. The question is if they will complete the scene in the finished program or will Willie wring Al's neck?

The three leads, Matthau, Burns, and Benjamin, do very well with the one-liners, frequently reminiscent of vaudeville patter (example: \"Chest pains...I'm getting chest pains Uncle Willie. Every Thursday I come here and get chest pains!\" \"So, come on Fridays!\"). Benjamin strives to prove his deep affection for his uncle, although Matthau's rough outer shell makes it difficult (he only smooths down when he discusses the glory days of vaudeville). Matthau has a little better grasp on reality (at first) than Burns, who seems senile by his repeating himself - but in actuality Matthau's sense of rejection by the world that once applauded him make him less willing to behave properly. Burns is not senile - he takes things slowly. But he seems far happier in accepting his retirement.

I call this a final \"Voyage of Discovery\" for our modern Lewis and Clark. Al and Willie transcend their old skits, as they gradually end up realizing that they have more in common in their old age than they thought. Even the irascible Willie admits that Al may be (to him) a pain in the ass, but he was a funny man.

Burns was not the original choice for the part of \"Al Lewis\" (supposedly Dale of the team Smith and Dale). Jack Benny was. Benny probably would have done a good job, but ill-health forced him out (he died in 1975). Burns (whose last involvement in any film was in THE SOLID GOLD CADILLAC in 1956 as the narrator) turned in such a fine performance that he got the \"Oscar\" for best supporting actor, and was to have a career in movies in the next decade in such films as OH GOD!; OH GOD, YOU DEVIL; and GOING IN STYLE. He died in 1996 age 100, having proved that he was more than just a brilliant straight man for his wife Gracie Allan.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I'll make this short and sweet....this movie sucked!!!!!!

I watched part 1 earlier today and thought it was one of the greatest films ever, gave it 9 out of 10 stars. So I thought perhaps part 2 and 3 would be good sequels, I was wrong. This movie bored me to death and was so different from the first one, it had the plot continue and thats it. It was like bad outtakes from part one or something.

I love Walken, but I felt sorry for him here. I was so happy about Glenn Danzig being in this film, but don't blink you'll miss him. There was a full cast full of crappy actors and people I don't like such as Eric Roberts and Jennifer Beals. However, it was a breath of fresh air to see Ethan Embry, he's one of the funniest people on earth.

This movie will make you like the first one a little less, so don't watch it because you feel you owe it to yourself, being a fan of part 1. I am gonna wait a few days before I watch part 3 and I pray it is better than this crap.

The last scene of the movie with the lightning was one of the most beautiful things ever shown on film. Fast forward or skip to that if you can't stomach the first part.

1 out of 10 stars - this was awful!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"Angels in the Outfield\" was originally a 1951 movie from the Ted Turner library; Disney remade it in 1994, this time, using the California Angels (now the Los Angeles Angels) as the team (Disney used to own this and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks Hockey Team; also, good use of the words, huh?????).

This movie was about a couple of orphaned children who wanted a family. A man promised the boys a family, only if the Angels won the pennant. So, he called upon God one night about this. The boy who prayed could see the help coming on the way (and ONLY that boy); for instance, when the first angel had come down, a player hit a ball so hard not only did the bat break, so did the ball!!!!! For much of the post-All Star season of 1994, the Angels were at the top of the AL West (of which my home team the Rangers is one and it still is). However, they lost a game because the boy was at court instead of the White Sox/Angels game (there was no Central Division in Baseball back then, hence Chicago being in the West), and no angels were there to help. Thus, a new rule was created: no angels can help in championship games. But wait! In the final championship game, the Angels won!!!!! It was a miracle indeed!

What I liked about this film: This is a good movie. I mean, I prayed every night for the last few years asking for help with school and stuff; look at me now! My work was good!!!!! So for one, this shows that if you believe, God can send His angels down to help you with any troubles that you may have in life. And second, this is a family baseball movie, which is always exciting. This is an old Disney movie, too; I've seen this just recently on the New Disney Channel (blech!!!!!).

\"Angels in the Outfield\" will change your life forever once you've seen it!!!!!

10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am currently on vacation in Israel for summer, and so was able to see this incredible film. A bit of a warning before I begin writing: I speak fluent Hebrew, and so the Hebrew parts were no problem; however, about a quarter (a bit less) of the film is in Arabic, and I was unable to understand a bit of this subtitled bit. This did not detract from my understanding of the film, but did cause me to miss a few jokes which evoked some strong laughs in the theater.

After a year of American Cinema which many hailed as one of the greatest years for homosexual cinema and relationships, it takes something truly special to stand head and shoulders above the rest; yet, \"The Bubble\" surpasses all others with its blend of excellent acting, witty dialogue, and relevant political climate.

The film opens on a checkpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian border; For the first few moments, we are unsure about the type of movie we have walked in on. Yet, this is an important element of this film's strength. The political situation, and the extreme tension in the air is constantly in the background. Most importantly, Tel Aviv serves as a character of its own in this film. It is constantly referenced. Street names and restaurant names are constantly exchanged. The skyline and city development is critiqued quite harshly, and ultimately the city evolves along with the film The film focuses on the love between Noam (Ohad Knoller) and a Palestinian immigrant, Ashraf(Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), with the societies of Tel Aviv and Palestine serving as a constant foil. We always know that their relationship is forbidden, and this creates a sense of urgency rarely present in cinema. The love is incredibly strong, and stands as the centerpiece of the film. The secondary relationships and friendships are equally strong: flamboyant restaurant owner Yelli's ( Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) relationship with the ultra-butch and grating golani solider, Golan (Zohar Liba), is particularly a source of amusement. The love scenes which abound in this film are all exquisite, fine crafted works of art, and the cinematography is astounding: In the first love scene of the film, the camera pans down as a male character gives oral sex to Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and dissolves into a shot of Noam and Ashraf. This shot any many others lead the viewer to realize that all of these relationships are expressions of the very same form of love.

To give away more of the storyline would be a tragedy, but know that there is a lot of political tension and tragedy which touches onto the current world political climate, so I will instead focus on the witty dialogue. Even when watching this movie in my second language, I could not stop laughing throughout. Lines of particular amusement include the question of whether gay suicide bombers receive virgin women or men in heaven, and an analogy of Sampson from the bible as the worlds first suicide bomber. This dialogue shows a particular sense of purity and reality which is rarely seen in Cinema. The music used in the film is also particularly powerful. Music is only used in times when characters legitimately could or should be listening to it, and in one scene the music weakens when a character removes one earphone and stops when he removes the other. Little elements like this truly elevate the film.

I could not give greater recommendation to a film; this is a superb work of cinema which is catharthic as well as extremely well crafted.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Horror spoofs are not just a thing of the 21st century. Way before the 'Scary Movie' series there were a few examples of this genre, mostly in the 80s. But like said franchise most of these films are hit or miss. Some like 'Elvira, Mistress of the Dark' mostly rise above that, but other like 'Saturday the 14th' and it's sequel fail to deliver the laughs. But out of all these types of films there is one particularly big offender and that's 'Transylvania 6-5000,' a major waste of time for many reasons.

Pros: A great cast that does it's best. Some of the dopey humor is amusing. A corny, but catch theme song. Some good Transylvanian locations.

Cons: Threadbare plot. Mostly tedious pacing. Most of the humor just doesn't cut it. The monsters are given little to do and little screen time. I thought this was supposed to be a spoof of monster movies? Lame ending that will likely make viewers angry.

Final thoughts: This is a comedy? If it is then why are the really funny bits so few and far in between? Comedies are supposed to make us roll on the floor, not roll our eyes and yawn, aching for it to be over. I can't believe Anchor Bay released this tired junk. I'll admit it's not one of the worst films ever made, but it's not worth anyone's time or money even if you're a fan of any of the actors. See 'Transylvania Twist' instead.

My rating: 2/5", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. The story was boring, the dialogue was atrocious and the acting hammy. I'm not sure if this movie was the result of a film school homework project, but it certainly played like one. It is not even particularly successful in its central conceit of trying to appear as a single continuous take. The whooshing horizontal camera pans are a cheap and unoriginal way of hiding cuts.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was a disappointing film for me. It came to me via a boxed set entitled, \"Classic Film Noir,\" which was a gift from someone who knows I typically enjoy films done in that style (I insist that noir is a style, not a genre). I do not think it is a noir film at all. There seems to be a tendency these days to label and market every black and white B movie made from 1947 to 1955 as noir, and the label does not always fit. There is a persecuted male protagonist, Ed Cullen (Lee J. Cobb), and most of the film's action takes place indoors. Those are just about the only noir elements that I could see. There is no pervasive paranoia, or any real reason why one should sympathize with Ed Cullen. Jane Wyatt was overdressed and unconvincing as a femme fatale. I do not want to spoil this film for potential viewers. However, I would be interested in hearing what other connoisseurs of film noir have to say about it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I don't know where to start; the acting, the special effects and the writing are all about as bad as you can possibly imagine. I can't believe that the production staff reached a point where they said, \"Our job is done, time for it's release\". I'm just glad the first two in the series never made it as far as the UK. I would actually recommend watching this film just so you can appreciate how well made most films are.

I don't know how any of the other IMDb users could find it scary when the \"terrifying\" dinosaurs waddle down corridors with rubber arms flailing around.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Every Sunday, a trio of buds get together at a NYC diner to boast about their sexual conquests of the night before. Sometimes they're joined by a newlywed ex-comrade and hoochie hunter who hangs on them like a puling barnacle. They're unabashed horn dogs/corn dogs and Mia, who witnesses them on the prowl, decides that they need to be taught a lesson, dammit. Ergo, she'll date and dump - why not? All three of them!

Gasp. What a wild idea. What a radical, naughty gal. Women now have the right to date and sleep around as much as they want to. As much as men do, even!

There is one solitary laughable element in \"Whipped\" - namely the fact that not once, during the amigo's detailed discussions of their bodily functions and the tantric talents of the bed partners they trash, do the other customers in the diner turn around and say, \"Dude, we're trying to EAT here.\" Indeed, a heh-heh gag has an older lady eagerly weigh in on the useful sexual properties of certain beverages. A big fat Kermit the Frog \"Sheesh\" to that.

It's truly unfortunate that a buddy movie with a great setting, a smart, cute heroine and three possible pairings had to have such a cop-out ending.

P.S. - 30 \"whip-oosh\" sound effects to the screenwriter for use of the phrase \"You go, girl\". It was tired in 2000, and it's tired now.

Save your time and watch some \"Sex and the City\" reruns...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Haunted Boat sells itself as 'The Fog' meets 'Open Water'. In many ways this is accurate. There are scares and weird looking people to keep you interested.

However the acting ability is poor at best. Showing clear signs that this is merely a bunch of friends making a horror film. Which in all credit they do to the best of their ability. When you accept the low budget makes it very difficult for special effects, with the ghosts looking pretty much like men with rubber masks on.

Many aspects of the film are creepy and strange. But it suffers for using too many twists and turns in a short space of time which just leaves you bored and confused. In terms of keeping you awake the film does it very well. Ignoring the irrelevant twisting every 5 seconds near the end, you actually want to know what is going on. And are willing to wait the 1hr 35 minutes for the climax.

This is no Ghost Ship but it'll definitely do for an evening in front of the T.V.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "All in all a good film and better for the fact that had the film not been made the story might remain hidden to the masses. Brosnan does a good job as the native American with a hidden past and the photography is stunning. To some, this may be too whimsical, to others boring - for me it is a gentle, well-told tale and perfect for family viewing. Now that's not something you get a lot of recently.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I don't hand out ten star ratings easily. A movie really has to impress me, and The Bourne Ultimatum has gone far beyond that. Furthermore, this trilogy has come together so nicely, that I believe it to be one of the greatest motion picture trilogies of our time. Though all three films could not be any more different from the Ludlum novels, they still stand as a powerful landmark in cinematic achievement. The Bourne Ultimatum made me want to cry that the series was complete, yet I could not even attempt to stop smiling for hours.

From the moment that the opening title appeared, I knew we were in for a ride. Paul Greengrass has done it again. Everything we love from the previous Bourne films is here once again: the action, the dialogue, and of course the shaky camera. However for me, that last one was never a problem. I think it adds to the suspense.

I will be back to see this film several times before it is released on DVD, simply because it is genius. It is a perfectly satisfying conclusion, and should stand the test of time as a fantastic movie, and altogether, an unforgettable trilogy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "'Capital City' fans rejoice! This first season of this series is now available from Network DVD and I've recently got my copy! Although very much an ensemble piece of key 'maverick' trading floor characters 'CAPITAL CITY' does present us with various moments through both its first and second season when each member of the team plays a significant part in a particular central or peripheral plot line. The cultural mix (English, Irish, American, German, Polish) of Head Trader Wendy Foley's (played by Joanna Phillips-Lane) group of staff is balanced with their own distinctive mannerisms, interests and personalities which helps to make the rather unfamiliar and, to most people, seemingly sterile subject of financial trading reasonably engaging through the engaging performances of the cast. In fact this seemingly dynamic young team of employees is in direct contrast to the rather staid and old-fashioned senior management of Shane Longman as represented by Lee Wolf (Richard Le Parmentier) and James Farrell (Denys Hawthorne). I suspect that such an unconventional way of working as employed by Wendy's team would not have become a reality had it not been for youthful reclusive 'free spirit' Peter Longman inheriting his thirty per cent stock in the company from his father and allowed a more trendy, relaxed modern way of business become a reality. To a certain degree Wendy's (I am led to believe) immediate supervisor Leonard Ansen (John Bowe) follows the establishment in the traditional manner of running the company however his fondness for Wendy rather sees him occupying the 'middle ground' on most occasions. The main interest in the series, I believe, stems from the simmering romantic attraction between Douglas Hodge's Declan and the cool self-assured blonde haired German trader Michelle Hauptmann (played by Trevyn McDowell) which had viewers continually wondering if the situation between these two colleagues would develop beyond the close friendship/fondness that they undoubted have.

Looking forward to browsing through this title, and hopefully the second season of thirteen won't be too far away!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie had a great ensemble of adult actors along with a cast of youthful actors that are going to be in movies for a long while if there is any justice. The directing and editing was great. I may look up the book that this was adapted from, it must have been great. (I liked it.) Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, and Tim Blake Nelson were a blast to watch! Henry Winkler and Nathan Davis were not seen enough, but were fun when they were onscreen. The kids at the camp couldn't have been better. (as I said, I liked it!)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "John Thaw, of Inspector Morse fame, plays old Tom Oakley in this movie. Tom lives in a tiny English village during 1939 and the start of the Second World War. A bit of a recluse, Tom has not yet recovered from the death of his wife and son while he was serving during the First World War. If you can imagine Inspector Morse old and retired, twice as crochety as when he was a policeman, then you've got Tom Oakley's character.

Yet this heart of flint is about to melt. London children are evacuated in advance of the blitz. Young William (Willie) Beech is billeted with the protesting Tom. Willie is played to good effect by Nick Robinson.

This boy is in need of care with a capital C. Behind in school, still wetting the bed, and unable to read are the smallest of his problems. He comes from a horrific background in London, with a mother who cannot cope, to put it mildly.

Slowly, yet steadily, man and boy warm to each other. Tom discovers again his ability to love and care. And the boy learns to accept this love and caring. See Tom and Willie building a bomb shelter at the end of their garden. See Willie's joy at what is probably his first ever birthday party thrown by Tom.

Not to give away the ending, but Willie is adopted by Tom after much struggle, and the pair begin a new life much richer for their mutual love.

In this movie, Thaw and Robinson are following in a long line of movies where man meets boy and develop a mutual love. See the late Dirk Bogarde and Jon Whiteley in \"Spanish Gardener\". Or Clark Gable and Carlo Angeletti in \"It Started in Naples\". Or Robert Ulrich and Kenny Vadas in \"Captains Courageous\". Or Mel Gibson and Nick Stahl in \"Man Without a Face\".

Two points of interest. This is the only appearance of Thaw that I know of where he sings. Only a verse of a hymn, New Jerusalem, but he does sing.

Second, young Robinson also starred in a second movie featuring \"Tom\" in the title, \"Tom's Midnight Garden\", which is based on a classic children's novel.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The Howling II starts as it means to go on with a bizarre and surreal opening narration by Christopher Lee whose image is imposed over a moving star field, oh and a skeleton appears as well for some reason. He says \"for it's written the inhabitants of the Earth have been made drunk with her blood. And I saw her sip upon a hairy beast and she held forth a golden challis full of the filthiest fornication's and upon her forehead was written, behold I am the great Mother of #an inaudible word I couldn't make out no matter how many times I rewound the tape and tried to, sorry# and all abominations of the Earth\". This opening narration means nothing at all and is just downright bizarre. After the opening credits which are set over shots of Transylvanian architecture we get an on screen caption that informs us we're in 'Los Angeles, California U.S.A. City of the Angels'. I knew I was in for a long 86 minutes. It's probably not too long after the events of the original Howling (1981) and it's Karen White's funeral. After the ceremony Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) is spoken to by an 'occult investigator' called Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee) who says that Karen is a Werewolf and that she will come back to life. Ben dismisses such nonsense. But together with one of Karen's friends and colleagues Jenny (Annie McEnroe) he visits Stefan at his home. There Stefan tells them about Werewolves and how they can be killed, he mentions Stirba (Sybil Danning) who is the queen of Werewolves. Stefan also shows them a photograph taken at Karen's funeral of a woman named Mariana (Marsha A. Hunt) and that she is an extremely vicious and dangerous Werewolf who wants Karen. Stefan says he will stake any Werewoves through the heart with titanium. Ben figures out that Stefan means he will stake Karen as well so together with Jenny he travels to the graveyard where his sister's crypt is to stop Stefan. However lots of Werewolves turn up and attack Stefan, Ben and Jenny. They survive the attack and manage to find out that Stirba is to be found in Transylvania. They all decide to travel to Transylvania and stop Stirba and her Werewolves from taking over the Earth by fulfilling a centuries old curse. Once there they travel to a small town called Vlkava which means 'where wolves live' and meet up with the local priest, Father Florin (Ladislav Krecmer) and his small but loyal group of Werewolf hunters, hey what else can I call them? Oh, and a dwarf named Florica (Ludmila Safarova) helps too. They follow Mariana who they hope will lead them to Stirba. But Stirba knows of Stefan's arrival and has plans for him Ben and Jenny. Will Stefan be able to put an end to Stirba's plans for world domination? Will this film get any more bizarre or surreal? Watch it and find out. Directed by Philippe Mora this is one strange mess of a film. It's poorly edited as certain sequences just jump around incoherently. The single biggest problem is the script by Robert Sano and Gary Brandner based on his novel which is all over the place and doesn't make any sort of sense or introduces us to any proper characters that we like. Luckily it moves along like a rocket and is never dull or boring, unlike the original. Something strange or bizarre is always happening to keep the viewer entertained. Most people will probably hate it, but for those of us who enjoy 'bad' films this is right up there with the best of them. There are Werewolf orgies which are just freaky to watch. We get some cool Werewolf killing weaponry. The sets and locations just seem so out of place and I don't know if this was actually shot in Transylvania but it doesn't look like what I thought mid 80's Transylvania would. Stirba's castle is part dungeon, part Gothic castle and part modern luxury house. Stirba and her servant's costumes are very over-the-top, Stirba wears an outfit that looks like it belongs in a S/M video and to be fair to her she looks pretty sexy, and her minions wear skimpy leather clothing too. The special make-up effects range from good to poor, a dwarf's eyes explode, someone has their hand ripped off and a priest has some creature emerge from his mouth but this isn't a film loaded with gore, although there are plenty of effect sequences with Werewolf transformations and attacks. There is plenty of nudity as well as Stirba and her minions are a real randy bunch of Werewolves! I should also mention the music, the soundtrack is dominated by awful rock music that I hated and I ended up turning the volume down. Acting is weak all round and what on Earth was Christopher Lee thinking about when he accepted this film?! I wonder what he thinks of it. Basically the whole thing is a real mess, but I found it a fairly entertaining mess all the same. Impossible to recommend but it kept me watching through to the end. Speaking of which the end credits run over what appears to be deleted scenes and cut footage, it also features the same shot of Sybil Danning taking her dress off and exposing her breasts probably in excess of 20 times! If that's your thing.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Where the Sidewalk Ends is quite a good film-noir crime drama and is shot well in black and white and on location as well.

A copper accidentally kills a bloke who is suspected of murder and to protect himself, he covers this up and blames it on another person he doesn't like who has committed a lot of crimes in the past. But towards the end, he owns up but not before falling in love with a woman he meets who is the lover of the person he killed...

The cast includes Dana Andrews (While the City Sleeps, Curse of the Demon), Gene Tierney (Laura, The Ghost and Mrs Muir), Gary Merrill (Mysterious Island), Karl Malden (The Streets of San Francisco, Beyond the Posidon Adventure) and Craig Stevens (The Deadly Mantis). Good parts from all.

Where the Sidewalk Ends is worth checking out if you get the chance. Excellent.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "You're using the IMDb.

You've given some hefty votes to some of your favourite films.

It's something you enjoy doing.

And it's all because of this. Fifty seconds. One world ends, another begins.

How can it not be given a ten? I wonder at those who give this a seven or an eight... exactly how could THE FIRST FILM EVER MADE be better? For the record, the long, still opening shot is great showmanship, a superb innovation, perfectly suited to the situation. And the dog on the bike is a lovely touch. All this within fifty seconds.

The word genius is often overused.

THIS is genius.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I so wanted to believe in this movie after the only form of mainstream comedy this country recognises is slapstick and stereotypes.

Of course, it went completely the other way - let's be cool and edgy - and came out the other side with little to show for it. I bet One Small Seed went nuts for this. I know SL did.

None of the main characters have the comedic chops to pull it off. Even Danny K had better timing. I'm actually being serious. Every time they introduced a bit character I kept thinking, \"Darn, this person should have been the lead!\".

Independent doesn't mean that the camera work needs to be horrible. Black and white did nothing for this movie - actually with such flat dialogue it hurt this even more by bringing the boredom into sharp relief. The black and white also wasn't crisp. The composition was horrible. The use of music was horrible. Strangely enough I watched Little Miss Sunshine after this movie and the composition on that was superb - maybe that's why the deficiencies in this movie stick out in my mind.

I think Corne (who was funnier than the leads before he even said anything) was speaking to this movie and not David - see it and you'll understand. I bet the guys who organise Oppikoppi were dismayed. One would think nothing happens there at all. I got the feeling it could have been filmed in someone's back garden. I know regular guys who have much funnier, raunchier and wittier conversations than any of these \"comics\". The dude who they hooked up with end was OK though.

Guess SA comedy's gonna stay in the stone age a little longer. Nice work guys.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "first, i'd like to say that, while i know my share about star wars, i am not a fanatic. i do not know how many chromosomes a Wamp Rat has or the extended family of TK427. what i know is this: Star wars, all the movies(less so with episode 2 though), captured something magical. it's hard to say what, what button Lucas has found and boldly pressed, but it works. Star Wars is more than a movie. it's an idea.

How, may you ask? i shall explain. star wars touches on the most universal of stereotypes, good vs evil. it does this so obviously, so profoundly, that literally any person from any environment can understand. Episode VI does the very well, concluding the epic struggle between a son and his used and manipulated father, yet also, with the addition of the prequels, reveals even more to the hinted back story. suddenly, it's Darth Vader at the front, and viewers realize that it's the story about Anakin, not just Luke. but even before 1-3, there was amazing depth to it all. it felt real, as if capsule fell from the sky into Lucas's lap, detailing a historical account of a galaxy far, far away.

Star Wars is definitely something far above the norm, and i must admit, whenever i see them, particularly this one, i feel very small. i feel as though i've been thrust into a world where good and evil are so clearly defined. i get a tingling feeling when i see them, a feeling that something, somehow, has touched me more than any physical thing could ever hope.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Von Trier once explained how he created such strong involvement from the viewer with his movies by placing his movie world in about the middle of the real world and the imagined world. So as viewers we think we watch a \"true\" story while in fact we are thoroughly manipulated, often to the point that the movie works disturbing (Dancer in the Dark) or painful (The Idiots/ Idioterne). Of course the Dogme-films acted only as a vehicle for this theory (besides creating some welcome spotlight on Von Trier).

The story is typical for Von Trier: our hero is idealistic, seems to balance his relations with everybody else, but soon becomes the victim of the problems others have created in the past for themselves. The idealist inevitably has to reject society in order to stay idealistic and becomes the terrorist. Mankind is spoiled and purity only leads to (self-)destruction. (These elements were also very omnipresent in Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.) The movie is also full of cynical (even humorous) undertones about the role of the Germans and Americans in post-war Germany.

As a technical achievement the movie is wonderfully designed: shifting and fading washed-out colors, screen overlays, action on different overlays (with the shooting of the soon-to-be mayor as the most interesting). In this movie we can see how good Von Trier's handles film as a technical medium. In his later works he seems to step down from this (as if he is not longer interested in technical achievements because they become so easily available).", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Nick and Kelly are ready to be married but Travis (Kelly's dog) leads Nick to a strange blue wall that will change the honeymoon for Kelly. Richard Burgi and Susan Walters play Nick and Kelly and make a good couple. Nick loves to drink, smoke, and play pool with the fellas for fun but Nick suddenly abstains from this type of fun. Sex is the one thing that he loves because he wants a child. We find out that an alien race is dying and needs to interbreed with women from Earth to save their population. It becomes a battle of survival between humans and aliens with the dog population also being involved. A fine film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When I saw the film for the first time in the early 1970s, I was in awe of this film. Visually it was stunning and the events on campuses in Europe and USA made you relate with what Antonioni was trying to say so well visually in the final 15 minutes of the movie: blowing up in your mind the \"tyrannical\" establishments and big business interests. The repeated blowing up of the beautiful house in the middle of a desert, the lead female character enjoying the natural stream of cold water, painting a plane in psychedelic designs (even the staid British Airways did it a few years ago) are some of the images that were copied by advertising personnel all over the world for decades. Even Pink Floyd increased their fan following after the film was released.

You see this film some 30 years later and you begin to wonder why the same film has lost its appeal. Today anti-establishment films have more substance--facts, documentation, fine performances, and superb screenplays. Antonioni seems to be out-of-date; a flawed genius. Even viewing Antonioni's \"Blow Up\" today gives you the similar feeling that he is passe.

\"Zabriski Point\" has to be evaluated for what it was when it was released. It was a great film if you were to see it on a wide Panavision screen as opposed to the dwarfed TV screens. The visual and aural (Mick Jagger, Kieth Richards, Pink Floyd, et al.) allure of the film still remains. The lead pair were not great actors but they were cute and natural. One of them (Mark Frechette) died in prison in USA extending the reality of the non-conformist values he personified in the film.

Today, Antonioni seems out of \"sync.\" But watch carefully and you will appreciate the muted sounds of the regular actors--Rod Taylor, G.D. Spradling, the ladies at the swimming pool, the cops at the air-strip. The real sounds in contrast are from the non-conformists. Antonioni was relevant 30 years ago but his grasp of the medium cannot be questioned even today. He knew what he was doing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "SERIES 1

As the UK eagerly awaits the launch of series two of 'Lost', series one (which just finished showing here) did not disappoint.

A group of over forty passengers struggle to cope after their plane crash-landed into a deserted island. They pray for rescue. However, as the days turn into weeks and the survivors explore the rainforest that surrounds them, they begin to wonder whether they are alone.

Admittedly, the series has a hard time keeping up the pace after the explosive pilot episodes, which hurls at the group a polar bear, a giant beastie and the possibility of others on the island. Nevertheless, the series manages to pick itself up after a few episodes and is outstanding by the final episode. Possibly the greatest thing about 'Lost' is the fact that we visit each character's life before the crash in a series of flashbacks. This gives us more insight and, hence more suspense and excitement as the events unfold in the present.

Ultimately, this show is a superb combination of drama, suspense and the supernatural; it is, quite simply, unmissable.

SPOILERS FOR SEASON 1 FOLLOW

SERIES 2

After the cliffhanger that was the end of Series 1 of 'Lost', Series 2 begins with our protagonists delving deep into the heart of the phenomenon that is the Hatch. They discover a mysterious man who has a job to do. Meanwhile, Michael and Sawyer struggle to cope with the aftermath of what happened on the raft.

As the series progresses, the viewers will be unable to bring themselves to turn off their television set, as every episode of the series contains more twists than a Curly-Wurly chocolate bar, one of which introduces a whole host of new characters. With every mystery solved with 'Lost', five brand new ones seem to come out of the woodworks. After the 974th plot twist of the series, it finally dawns on the viewer that it doesn't actually matter whether the plane-crash survivors make it off the island. However, the stunning series finale answers just over half of those questions, despite its anti-climatic ending.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "An hilariously accurate caricature of trying to sell a script. Documentary hits all the beats, plot points, character arcs, seductions, moments of elation and disappointments and the allure but insane prospect of selling a script or getting an agent in Hollywood;and all the fleeting, fantasy-realizing but ultimately empty rites of passage attendant to being socialized into \"the system.\" Hotz and Rice capture the moment of thinking you're finally a player, only to find that what goes up comes down fast and in a blind-siding fashion;that for inexplicable reasons, Hollywood has moved on and left you checking your heart, your dreams, and your pockets. Pitch is a must-see for students in film school to taste the mind and ego-bashing gantlet that is, for most, the road that must be traveled to sell oneself and one's projects in Hollywood. If your teacher or guru has never been there, they can't tell you what you need to prepare for this gantlet. To enter the\"biz,\" talent is necessary but far from sufficient", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "After reading through many of the reviews, I don't know what movie some people were watching, but clearly it wasn't the same one I saw.

This movie is horrible. The acting, primarily Moore's, is just terrible. The woman cannot act. Nice tits, but she just can't act. At no point did she come across as the actual character. Instead, it was spoiled Hollywood actress goes to the beach to play make-believe with the boys.

And that's what this movie ultimately is -- Hollywood make-believe. The training sequences are over the top. The politics -- over the top. The political correctness -- over the top. The combat scenes -- you guessed it, over the top. Your mission is to get in and get out without being detected. So what do you do? Why shoot off as many rounds and make as much noise as possible, of course. Oh G.I. Jane, you can be my wing man anytime.

The premise is good, but as soon as Hollywood gets a hold of it, we end up with Top Gun with tits.

What more is to be expected from commercial US films anymore? Not much I guess.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A case of being in the right place at the right time. What a fascinating film. It is easy to see why Chavez is so popular with his people. He gets things done. He is accessible. And it is also easy to see why the west hates him so much. He has control of the resources of his country and gives the profits back to the people. Mostly the poor. And it easy to see how the TV stations can portray misleading images to put there case. Just like the Iraq war, or the war on Terror. Or those missing WMD's. Or how about the axis of evil. People need to wake up. And get different points of view. Stop the neo cons ruling the world. Go watch this movie with an open mind. And make your own mind up. Then I suggest you see Aaron Russo's: America: Freedom to Fascism. It is not the people of America that are the problem. It is the government.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "***Possible Spoilers***

When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.

In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.

The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...

I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes \"whole\".

4/10 Movie-Man", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This film has a very simple but somehow very bad plot. The entire movie is about a girl getting sucked through a gate to another dimension then years later it gets opened again by a witch while a group of friends (including the lead actor who is having trouble getting over his ex girlfriend who is one of the other campers along with her new partner... another girl... that's right they're lesbians and there is some nudity of course for no particular reason). Unfortunately demon follows the now adult girl back through. Also unfortunately, none of this is ever explained. Where exactly were they? Where did the demon come from? How did she survive as a child in a place full of evil demons? Who the hell trained her and made her a gladiator type outfit? The acting is terrible I think but it's hard to tell because the writing is so bad maybe there was just nothing they could do with it. I give it a three because the wrestler was pretty good and the effects were pretty fun even though they were very cheap. I would not recommend it, it wasn't quite bad enough to be funny.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The story is similar to ET: an extraterrestrial run around on earth and tries to come back home. While its stay on our planet, it will create friendly ties with humans.

But, unlike ET which exudes drama, comedy, poetry, this movie is only fun. It is indeed a pure Dysney production: its core audience are children & the movie is more more in the visual than in the message.

Thus, you will find some funny scenes (the first sighting of the town, a \"cosmic\" stray toaster) and the casting is experimented, with special mentions to \"Doc\", who rejuvenates in a \"Mac Fly\" character, and to Hurley, who seems open to auto-derision.

Ice on the cake: the main title is scored by Danny Elfman, and like every other great composer, you recognize his \"voice\" before he is even credited.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "while watching this piece of crap! The Day after, I saw a 1min Trailer - that one minute included all, ALL what was at least not boring to watch...

so don't waste money or time on this one, get the original, it's much better though the effects might not be up to date...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "OK.... I just have 3 words - cheesy, cheesy and CHEESY! The only redeeming feature of this movie is Dean Cain. Other than that - it's CHEESEBALL SUPREME!!!!

The movie DOES have some promise in the concept - an underground lab creates a real live fire breathing dragon - basically giving us more of \"Jurassic Park\" meets \"Reign of Fire\"..... There are some great possibilities, but they just don't follow through.... The special effects are decent - even though you KNOW the dragon is CGI, it doesn't horribly LOOK like CGI....

I wouldn't lay the blame on Dean Cain (although he IS one of the producers), I'd lay more of the blame on Phillip Roth - the director and writer. It's HIS job to make this film.... and, unfortunately, he failed.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Its a shame she didn't get screen credit , she by far did the best job in the film has the girl on the cross , best part of the movie .She had much more impact than Avril , or just about anyone else in the film . She almost made S/M look like fun ! She really was believable has the S/M model that gets scared of her situation . Although they seem to really have messed up that sort of dreamy feeling of looking for the bad guy , Those sets were very well built but they just sort of skimmed the surface of what was shot . This is one film were both cuts should be made available. It seems they left out a lot of what was shot , and almost all of the really dark stuff that would have made the film much more demented . Its kind of like they stopped short of the mark they were going for during filming . What was shot would not have gotten a R rating probably a NC-17 or X , but that is what it would have needed to make the film they way it should have been .", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot gives us one of the best performances ever by an actor. He is brilliant as Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy, who then learned to write and paint with his left foot. A well deserved Oscar for him and Brenda Fricker who plays his loving mother. Hugh O'Conner is terrific as the younger Christy Brown and Ray McAnally is great as the father. Worth watching for the outstanding performances.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Great movie when I saw it. Have to say one of my favorite movies of all time. I saw it like 8 times in the theater and got the DVD. As I got older and saw it again I realized that the movie is average. Compared to movies that are known ad good comedys, this is nothing. I mean Rock was hilarious in the movie and the whole switching with the racial stuff breaks a little barriers which is great. Also the thought of how the movie goes is a nice way of thinking. It's like most thought of a movie but also a little twist which is a very nice touch. I like the movie overall so i give it a...

Still a good 7/10 for me.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a very real and funny movie about a Japanese man having a mid-life crisis. In Japan, ballroom dancing is not approved of. But when Shohei Sugiyama becomes obsessed with meeting the beautiful young girl he sees in the window of a dance studio, he suddenly finds himself enrolled in dance classes. No one is more surprised when he begins to like it than he. But he must keep his secret pleasure from his coworkers and family. When the truth comes out it is quite funny.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw this movie when I was in Israel for the summer. my Hebrew is not fluent, so the subtitles were very useful, I didn't feel lost at any point in the movie. You tend to get used to subtitles after about 5 minutes.

This movie blew me away!!!!!! It depicts two of the most prominent taboos in the middle east today: A homosexual relationship between an Israeli and a Palestinian. It allows a person to enter both realms of the conflict simultaneously. The dilemma, the emotions entailed. The movie climaxes in tragedy when anger and rage drive one of the lovers to one extremist side! an absolute must see!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have to be honest, i was expecting a failure so bad, because it really did sound like they were trying to milk the original movie to get money. But that wasn't the case with this pretty funny (sometimes odd) movie. I loved how they told the story of Timon and Pumba, the story with Simba and him having trouble sleeping was funny. The jacuzzi bubble, and when Pumba leaves, the bubbles stop. It's all harmless fun, good for kids and some adults. I think this movie will last for a while because it is rather good for a straight to Video and DVD movie. While the movie does seem a little odd and kind of trails off toward the end, it works. 8 out of 10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A question for you : A family go to a new house and get stalked by demonic forces . Which film am I talking about ? Every horror film you`ve seen ? Yes that`s true but that`s not the answer I`m looking for . I`ll narrow it down by saying there`s a lot of teen angst scenes . Doesn`t help ? Well there`s lots of bits where the characters are stalked by a creature and you see the characters through the creature`s POV . No futher forward ? Okay there`s a dream sequence involving lots of blood ? Could still be any horror film you say . Oh gawd this could take weeks so I`ll say the film I`m talking about features loads of Aussies many of whom have appeared in NEIGHBOURS and HOME AND AWAY . Yes that`s right the film is THE THIRD CIRCLE ( aka CUBBYHOUSE ) and do you understand what the above exercise is about ? It`s about me pointing out how THE THIRD CIRCLE is absolutely no different from any horror film that`s been made", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the \"camp\" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)

Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an \"episode\" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off \"danger zone\" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the \"real\" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the \"danger zone\" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the \"cuts\" from one take to another, I would imagine).", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "'The Mother' is that extraordinary piece of film making - it gets you thinking, it pulls no punches - and ultimately it leaves you thinking. Very much open-ended as to the lead character's fate. Anne Reid (which I only knew briefly from her appearances in some Victoria Wood-led projects and thought a fine comedienne) is truly superb here. Not the stereotypical widowed housewife that was perfect in marriage and motherhood at all. And not all that free-spirited and adventurous at first. She plays her character just with the right note that rings true (well, it did to me). Powerful cast. Great script. Renaissance of European cinema indeed ;)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Of all the football films I have watched, this is one of the 2 best. The other being fever pitch. But Hero is about the greatest world cup ever and consequently arguably also the greatest player ever to play in a world cup, Diego Maradona. This story is centered around him principally but also revolves around the other giants of the game at the time.

The musical score is evocative and the images are powerful. The narration by Michael Caine is suitably unbiased and also calmly dramatic. This story is not about the individual games of the world cup; rather it is more about the emotions of the players and the beauty of the event itself.

Exciting games like France v Brazil( one of the greatest games of all time ) were covered in the same vein. The final Argentin v W Germany was also in the same vein. highly recommended. A classic of world football. to be watched over and over again, esp if you're a Maradona fan.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "1st watched 2/28/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sydney Pollack):-DVD version I watched titled \"3 Days of the Condor\"- So so CIA drama full of laid-back performances making for a very laid-back movie. The premise of the story revolves around 7 out of 8 members of a CIA research group being killed with Robert Redford's character, codename = Condor, being the one that was left. Who killed them and why? That's what Redford tries to find out while trying to not be the 8th victim at the same time. Along the way, he gets Faye Dunaway's character involved involved, originally because he needs a place to hide, and then she eventually helps him out after a little lovey-dovey time. This is one of a handful of innocent guy on the run stories but this one doesn't have a lot of suspense. The flat performances don't help and the finish doesn't seal the deal for the audience enough either. Despite having a good director in Sydney Pollack and a group of classic performers, the story and the performances are not what they should be and therefore the movie is not what it should be.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "In the small American town of Meadowvale Dr. Anthony Blake (David Gale, the IMDb listing for this character is wrong it's definitely Dr. Blake not Dr. Blakely) is the director and founder of the famed 'Psychological Research Institute' and also host's a local T.V. programme called 'Independent Thinkers'. He uses this T.V. show to hypnotise the viewers and make them commit acts of violence. Dr. Blake has the help of a large brain with an evil face that uses it's spinal cord as a tail thingy. Usually the brain is just sitting in a tank, eats mice and the odd bad actor, each time it eats someone it gets much bigger. Meanwhile at the local high-school gifted but troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski (Tom Bresnahan) has been caught putting Sodium down the toilets. Jim is sent to Dr. Blake at the PRI for help with his attitude and behavioural problems. While there Dr. Blake hooks Jim up to, well something I'm not actually sure what. This whatever it is, is attached to the brain. At first Jim is able to resist the brain's mind control. The brain feels that Jim is a threat to itself and it's plans. Once out of the PRI Jim starts having bizarre hallucinations and crashes his car. Jim makes it to his waitress girlfriend Janet (Cynthia Preston as Cyndy Preston) but is handed back to Dr. Blake's assistant Verna (George Buza) soon after by Officer Marks (Harry Booker). The brain wants to kill Jim because he is the only one capable of withstanding it's mind control techniques, and with 'Independent Thinkers' going national the brain doesn't want anything or anyone to stop it's evil plan for world domination! Jim quickly realises that the brain is controlling the entire town and he alone must stop the brain, before it takes over the world!

Directed by Ed Hunt who calls himself Edward Hunt here, the Brain wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Don't get me wrong as it certainly isn't great either. The script by Barry Pearson tries a stab at satire with the brain washing and mind control by T.V. storyline. It moves along at a fair pace and isn't too boring. No explanation is given for the existence of the brain at all, it's just there and that's it we have to accept it. The story is a little choppy and never fully explores one single element, there's the T.V. mind control, the brain itself, Jim being hunted by the police & his misbehaviour and various other little bits and pieces here and there including a bizarre revelation regarding Dr. Blake that isn't explained at all. Production wise this film looks cheap, and probably was cheap. The acting isn't great but I've seen worse, and what is David Gale doing in this? In fact this role is similar to Gale's role in Re-Animator (1985) even down to his character's deaths in both films. The brain itself at first sits in a tank and starts to grow whenever it eats someone and by the end it is pretty big. Each stage is just made of rubber. It doesn't look particularly good and isn't scary or creepy, just cheap. There's no blood or gore in it apart from a blink and you'll miss it decapitation. The nudity is provided by Dr. Blake's assistant Vivian (Christine Kossak as Christine Kossack) before she gets eaten. The brain had a certain entertainment value for me but I would think most people would dislike it. Maybe worth a watch if you can see it on T.V. for free.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I really hate this show! I had watched one episode, and I knew this show is really terrible. The story lines are both poorly written and executed and the jokes are really bad...I mean it is just a sh++ty rip-off of Dexter's Laboratory and Johnny Quest, 'bout an obnoxious boy with flamed blond hair with his twin genius sisters and talking dog; a stay-at-home dad and a smart, super-busy mom...Like oh-my-flippin'-God! Their dad is a mother-f**kin' crazy home-maker, isn't that so gay! If my dad is a home-maker, I would personally die! Of shame that is...Really I would.

I have nothing else to about this...this travesty but only 3 word; count them 3 words to describe it:

· Lame, · Stupid, and above all... · F**K UP! That's all I could say folks, it is definitely making my list of worst animated series EV-ER! If I had one that is.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's \"acting\" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The \"story\" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I was interested to see the move thinking that it might be a diamond in the rough, but the only thing I found was bad writing, horrible directing (the shot sequences do not flow) even though the director might say that that is what he is going for, it looks very uninspired and immature) the editing could have been done by anyone with 2 VCRs and the stock was low budget video. I would say that it wasn't even something as simple as mini digital video.

There are some simple ways to fix a film with what the director has, like through editing etc. But it is obvious that he just doesn't care. There is as much effort put in to this movie as a ham sandwich. It could be made better, but that would mean extra work.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This game is the bomb and this is the 007 game of the year and should be on greatest hits. When I got Agent Under Fire, I thought that was a good game but then Nightfire came around and that was better, but now there is a new type of James Bond game. This time it a 3rd person shooter and there is more than 12 missions, the graphics of the game are out of this house. It even has all of the great actors and actresses in this game like Pierce Bronsan as once again James Bond, William Dafoe as the villain Nikolai Diavolo, and Judi Dench as M (forgive me all if I spell it wrong). This game would be own as the greatest James Bond game around.

I give this a 10/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I first came across 'My Tutor Friend' accidentally one or two years ago while TV surfing. Prior to that, I'd never watched any Korean films before in my whole life, so MTF was really the first Korean film I've ever watched. And- what a delightful surprise! I was thoroughly amused from the beginning to end, and had a great time laughing. Its comic style is quite different from those of the Hong Kong comic films (which I've been to used to all my life and hence tired of as well), breathing fresh air into my humdrum film viewing experience. I thought there're quite a few scenes and tricks in MTF that are pretty hilarious, witty, and original too.

I watched MTF the second time a few days ago, and having watched it once already, the surprise/comic effect on me kind of mitigated. That has, however, by no means affected negatively my opinion of the film. Instead, something else came through this time- it moved me- the story about how two young, seemingly 'enemies' who're utterly incompatible get thrown together, and how they gradually resolve their differences and start caring for each other without realizing the feelings themselves, reminds me of the long gone high school days. To me, Su Wan and Ji Hoon ARE actually compatible as they both have something that is pure and genuine inside them, a quality that separates them from people like say, Ji Hoon's sassy girlfriend.

The film is divided into two distinct parts- the 1st part deals with the 'fight' between Su Wan and Ji Hoon, and is more violent and faster in pace. After Ji Hoon gets a pass in his final examination and Su Wan dances the (in Ji Hoon's opinion) provocative dance, things start to change. The pace slows down and... Ji Hoon suddenly realizes he cares for Su Wan more than he could ever imagine. So the 2nd part deals with the development of their mutual feelings, leading of course to a happy ending accompanied by a final showdown with the gang boss.

Just one last comment. I find this to be a bit unbelievable- the fact that a 21-year-old self-proclaimed 'bad boy' would feel embarrassed being almost naked in front of the girl he bullies and loses his 'cool' is just a little... odd. I guess that shows that Ji Hoon is just a boy pure at heart and isn't really what his appearance seems. Btw, Kwong San Woo (Ji Hoon) DOES have a sexy body and perfect figure! ;-)

MTF is definitely on my list of top 10 favorite films of all time.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I thought that this movies was a letdown I expected it to be so much better than it was. I am so glad I didn't pay to see this movie and that I didn't sit in a movie theater for this one. Where to begin on this movie, the acting in this movie was average, the humor was terrible and just the overall storyline of this movie wasn't special. I thought that this movie was suppose to be great, but it wasn't more than a cheesy waste of time. I think that the acting in this movie was terrible no of the actors in this movie had chemistry, it just wasn't there. I think that if maybe we had a different actor play Kirk than Jay Baruchel it might have been better but the entire time I watched this movie he looked high and I didn't get the feeling that he wasn't acting in this movie. Now, Alice Eve did a great job as an actress but, there was no chemistry between her and Jay. All the actors in this movie were no names and had very little affect in this movie. The humor in this movie was not funny at all, there were a few one liners in this movie that were OK but nothing worth saying to your friends that they would understand. I think that Jim Field Smith had a hard time with this because he couldn't decide if he wanted a romance or a comedy. I honestly think he needs to stick with the Burger King commercials. I think that this movie could have been better if the writers would have gone to a different director. The storyline of this movie is just like every other hot girl just OK guy love story…boring I think that it would have been better if it had more originality, but what a letdown nothing. I honesty would not recommend anyone go see this movie. I think that you would have more entertainment at the dentist than at this movie. So save yourself the agony and just don't see it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.

The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.

They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.

This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA, John Wayne plays Townsend Harris, a real envoy from the United States who was responsible for truly opening up Japan to International relations in the late 1850s. Before him, Commodore Perry basically pushed into Japan with gunboats and forced a treaty upon the Japanese in 1853. Harris, who arrived just a bit later, worked through the details and helped ensure compliance--as many of the Japanese felt no particular inclination to honor the first treaty. All this is true and shown in the film. According to some other sources I found, the romance between Harris and a Japanese Geisha is mostly fiction and this romance is much of the focus of this film (hence, the title).

My first reaction the first time I saw this movie was one of surprise. John Wayne as a diplomat?! When he's being diplomatic in most films, he says please and thank you as he pummels people!!!! So seeing him playing a man who is NOT a man of action and is able to play the diplomatic game seemed very odd indeed. In fact, I can't think of too many actors in 1958 who would have been more unusual for this role. By the way, I've seen photos of Harris and Wayne has practically no resemblance to him at all.

However, despite the story taking a lot of liberties with the truth and the strange casting, the film is still very watchable. The color cinematography is nice, the film shows some nice insights into Japanese customs and culture and the acting isn't bad. All in all, a likable and watchable film despite it's odd casting.

PS--Read through the trivia for this film. You find out a bit more about the real life characters as well as a supposed fight between Wayne and the director (John Huston) where Wayne apparently knocked him out!! Based on what I've read about Huston and the way he got along with actors, this is an incident I tend to believe. And, it's also a nice example of John Wayne \"diplomacy\".", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In the hands of lesser actors than Claudette Colbert and Robert Ryan this film could have become silly and trite. But, with these two experienced thespians leading the way, I found \"Silent Fury\" to be a most exciting and pleasurable little mystery. When their wedding is interrupted by a stranger who claims that Colbert is already married, and that he was best man at that wedding, one can sense that there is some sort of plot against her at work. As Colbert, Ryan, and her attorney set out to disprove the strangers claim of a prior marriage, they are met at every turn by more evidence that seems to reinforce the claim that she is indeed already wed. Although it's not very difficult to figure out just who the main \"baddie\" is, it's still lots of fun as the intensity and pace of the story increases. All in all, a good, solid mystery film with fine performances by the two leading actors and a fine supporting cast which includes the often underrated Paul Kelly.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "When I rented this movie to watch it, I knew that it was not going to be a mindbender movie. Instead I thought of it as a disbelief of reality where someone is going to get a serious beating. And you know what it worked. Kurt Russel did what I though was a remarkable role in showing the emotionless soldier that he was. I recommend this movie if your out with the boys and want to watch a good action film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "i love bed knobs and broomsticks so much that it makes me cry a thousand tears of joy every time i have the magnificent pleasure of seeing it. i would also like to reiterate the simple fact that i love it so much.too much some have said. i have 27 copies on video and i love them all equally. i also love anyone else who loves it. i love you. my favourite scene is the dance scene at portobello road. i have learned the dance moves and practice it everyday. i have some audio recordings of myself singing the song. if anyone can play the drums or guitar i am thinking of forming a bed knobs and broomsticks band.i hope to call it 'the knobs'. love me (liz)", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- \"I want my Daddy\", SETH- \"So do I\". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Well, basically, the movie blows! It's Blair Witch meets Sean Penn's ill conceived fantasy about going to Iraq to show the world what the \"War on Terror\" is really about. The script sounds like it was written by 8th grader (no offense to 8th graders); the two main actors over-act the entire film; they used the wrong kind of camera and the wrong type of film(not that i know anything about those things--but it just didn't look like real documentaries I've watched), and worst of all Christian Johnson took a great idea and made it suck. It reminded me of the time I tried to draw a picture of my dog and ended up with a really bad stick figure looking thing that looked more like a giant turd. I'd rather watch the Blair Witch VIII, than sit through that again.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I found this film to funny from the start. John Waters use of characters reminded of some of the down to earth characters from Fellini films. Christina Ricci has once again expanded her abilities in this film. If you are looking for a fun movie without preaching, I recommend this film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Perhaps I couldn't find the DVD menu selection for PLOT: ON OFF. Clearly, the default is OFF. When the end credits began to roll, I couldn't believe that was it. Like our poor, but beautiful protagonist, I felt used, dirty, cheap....

The characters were drawn in very broad strokes and the writer's disdain for wealthy Thatcherites was all to apparent. I consider myself a \"Roosevelt Democrat\", but would appreciate a bit more subtlety.

Of course, the problem could be with me. I see that many others seem to find some meaning or message in this picture. Alas, not I.

The only thing that kept me from giving this a \"1\" was the nice scenery, human and plant.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I love horses and admire hand drawn animation, so I expected nothing short of amazement from Dreamworks new animated picture Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. I guess you could say I was a little bit disappointed. You have wonderful animation and at first what seems like a perfect story. A story about absolutely nothing but a horse in nature. The animals don't sing cute songs or even talk -- a major plus. Sadly, the film has an uncalled for narration by Matt Damon; a sappy soundtrack by Bryan Adams; and enough action scenes to compare it to a Jerry Bruckheimer production. If the film makers would have just stayed with simplicity, we'd have a masterpiece here. This is not a great film, but it is good entertainment for small children. I would recommend this film to families because it has its heart in the right place and its the only thing out there right now that isn't offensive to small children. Not bad, but could have been much better. Very pretty visuals though.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It Could Have Been A Marvelous Story Based On The Ancient Races Of Cat People, but it wasn't.

This work could have been just that; marvelous and replete with mythological references which kept my fascination fueled. The lead characters (Charles Brady played by Brian Krause; and his mother Mary, played by Alice Krige) were shallowly done, had no depth of personality and were hardly likable or drawing. Not even Mädchen Amick (who played Tanya Robertson)'s character fit into that description.

However, as I've said many times before, when you adapt a Stephen King novel for TV, you simply must take into account the fact that his books aren't written for TV, and his screenplay talent sadly lacks the fire and depth he exhibits as a novelist.

This is another botched attempt to take the magick of Stephen King writing, whether that is of his novels or an original screenplay. To simply cut and paste his work onto the small screen. His novels get completely bastardized in the process and all you end up creating is a nice movie; nothing less but certainly nothing more. His screenplays are hit and miss. Unfortunately, this screenplay translation was a miss.

Sorry, Sorry, Sorry movie.

This movie gets a 1.0/10 from...

the Fiend :.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A female executioner (played by the sexy Jennifer Thomas II) has the fun job of fulfilling all the fantasies of all the men on death row before they meet their maker. And what a way to go. Lucky this film is not real, or we would have a lot more people in this world on death row.

It starts out real slow. Low light and bad acting, like most (B) films. It gets better as it moves along. And ends with a bang.

I would rate it very high on the low cost, very sexy movies of the 90's. It's a must see once the kids are away or in bed.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Casting Jack Cassidy as Ken Frankin was sheer brilliance. Cassidy personified arrogance, confidence, charm and wit - all with a condescending, evil little smirk on his face. In my opinion, Jack Cassidy is by far the best murderer (having appeared three times) in the Columbo series. This particular (and first) performance, is my favorite Columbo episode ever - hands down. A fresh faced Steven Spielberg did amazing camera work (yes, there were a couple of camera shadows on the actors at times)capturing the nuances and banter at different and intriguing angles between Columbo and Franklin. Also, the panoramic and tight in shots at Big Bear Lake, CA (Franklin's cabin home) were very impressive.

If you have not yet seen this episode, then you owe it to yourself to do so - it's a true masterpiece.

Jack Cassidy was a very talented actor and singer. His charismatic personality was highly infectious. His death in 1976, at age 49 was very sad and indeed very tragic - he surely had his best years ahead of him. Rest in Peace Jack, you will live on for eternity through your great work.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.

\"The Fear: Resurrection\" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): \"Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween\" (\"Fear 2: One Night of Halloween\")", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I confess to have quite an uneasy feeling about ghosts movies, and while I sometimes enjoy the genre when it comes to horror, but when it comes to comedies, they really need to be crazy to be funny. 'Over Her Dead Body' seems to take afterlife a little bit too seriously, and fails in my opinion from almost any aspect I can think about. The story is completely unbelievable of course, and did not succeed to convince me either in the comic or in the sentimental register. The choice of the principal actresses was awful. While Paul Rudd is at least handsome and looks like a nice guy, the taste in ladies of his character seems to need serious improvement as Eva Longoria seems too aged (sorry) for him, and Lake Bell seems too unattractive (sorry again). A romantic story without good enough reason for romance is due to failure from start. Jason Biggs and Lindsey Sloane were actually better but they had only supporting roles. The rest is uninteresting and uninspired, with flat cinematography and cheap gags borrowed from unsuccessful TV comedies. Nothing really worth watching, nothing to remember.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I just want to say that this production is very one sided, breaks the impartiality needed if you want to be taken seriously.

There are no credits of the persons they interviewed, so you cant have an idea if they are worthy of being heard.

Tells the story from just one point of view. To do this is very dangerous, because the next generations learns the bad idea, and thats why wars keep coming. I know this is not the only reason about wars, but doesn't help either.

you can watch this documentary, but read in the internet a lot, before. Balcans are complex as human history is.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It is often only after years pass that we can look back and see those stars who are truly stars. As that French film critic, whose name escapes me, said: \"There is no Garbo. There is no Dietrich. There is only Louise Brooks\"; and there is, thank heavens! Louise Brooks! This is the third of her European masterpieces. But it is also an exceptional film for being one, if not the, first French talkie, for following a script written by famed René Clair, for reportedly being finished (the direction, that is) by Georg Pabst, and for incorporating the voice of Edith Piaf before she was well known! So much talent working on and in a film, how couldn't it turn out to be a masterpiece?! And that's what this film is. It's a shame Louise Brooks was blackballed by Hollywood when she came back to the States--so much talent cast so arrogantly by the wayside! In the film, in addition to getting to watch Louise Brooks in action, it's great to see pictures of Paris ca. 1930 and to hear Piaf's young voice. I never get tired of this film!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.

This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The thing that really gets me about this movie (that is, the thing about this movie that makes me physically ill) is that someone actually paid to have it made. There is absolutely no purpose for the existence of this movie. It is not frightening, it is not thought provoking, it is not entertaining, it is not good. It is a sleeping pill made of cyanide. The DVD case compares it to Blair Witch, Evil Dead, and a few other decent movies, making the filmmaker's desperation glaringly obvious. It is nothing like any other movie ever made; it is far, far worse. The claims of an \"extremely shocking ending you will never forget\" are the equivalent of one ton of stinking horse droppings. Please do not ever waste your time watching this piece of trash, because it may make you sterile. The man who wrote this movie should be wiped off the Writer's Guild membership list, and never allowed to film anything again. Because if he thought THIS was a movie worth making, he probably does not have much of anything to offer in the future. Zero stars. May Grod have mercy on the soul of anyone unfortunate enough to see this. I am going to go vomit now.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I know nothing of the Iliad so can not comment on it's accuracy to that story. However, as a stand alone film I found this very boring. The battle scenes tried to be large and spectacular but they were just obvious CGI.

The acting is poor and no doubt Brad Pitt was cast just to attract the ladies. But he does not make a good warrior, too pretty i am afraid.

Good points are is the design. This film does look good with the landscape and castle buildings/walls impressive. I do like a film that at least tries to get the characters accents true but this film just seems to ignore it completely. we hear American, Scottish English anything but what you might expect for a film about an ancient eastern civilisation.

All in all, I do not recommend this film for a family sit down. It is too long and the young will get bored.

For adults, it is OK if you don't care about the lack realism.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one of my two or three favorite Stooges shorts, and undoubtedly Christine McIntyre's best performance with the trio. She is good in a number of other shorts, but here she is absolutely brilliant. Her singing is not funny at all, in fact it is downright beautiful, but the plot is constructed in such a way that the singing enhances the humor rather than detracting from it. We listen to McIntyre sing the entirety of Voice of Spring no less than three times, but it never gets old, partly because we don't tire of her voice, and partly because it blends so well with the Stooges' antics. The use of operatic soprano in a comedy is reminiscent of Kitty Carlisle's role in the Marx Brothers' \"A Night At The Opera,\" but the singing is much more a part of the comedy here than in \"Opera,\" and McIntyre (perhaps more in other performances than here) exhibited a comedic talent of her own that Carlisle never did. The Stooges' buffoonery, McIntyre's singing, and a well-constructed plot combine for 5 out of 5 stars.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a film I saw when it first came out, and which I have seen a few more times over the years. It's always enjoyable.

One thing is that the comedy does not take sides: it skewers labor and capitalists equally. Only Sid seems outside the classic struggle, even though he's responsible for it.

Spoiler warning: do not read further if you haven't seen the film

This is a fantasy, though presented fairly plausibly. Ask yourself: could someone support most of his or her weight in a single strand of fabric? It would cut through almost any support.

Also, when cornered in an alley, Sid uses a garbage can cover like a knight's shield. Cute symbolism.

Someday, I'll get this on DVD.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.

First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.

Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike \"2001\", which had traditional classical music.

Third, its \"monster\" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.

Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.

In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.

This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the \"whole Earth\" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.

I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.

Ah, a response: \"Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before.\"

First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being \"packed with irrefutable evidence\", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This programme bugs me! There is no humour to it and is far too serious to be called \"fun\"! It's just far too educational for my liking! The characters are very stereotyped and unappealing. The plots are redundant and the morals are just repeated over and over again. Where's the fun in it? Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too long and is broadcast way too much. Does it really need to have a slot on T.V every 2 or 3 months when a brand new show runs out of episodes? I think it's time that the BBC starting bringing back some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula other than continually giving contracts to these newer shows! I thought the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I just can't believe that these games can get so much better, but they do. Unfortunately I had to rent a Dreamcast to play it, but even though I did beat it I can't wait to buy it for PS2. This is the only series of games that I must own all of them even if I have beaten them many times over. I hope they never stop making this type of game even if the series must come to an end.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is not for everyone. You're either bright enough to get \"it\" or you're not. Fans of sci-fi films who don't take themselves too seriously definitely will enjoy this movie. I recommend this movie for those who can appreciate spoofs and parodies. Everyone I've recommended this film to has enjoyed it. If you enjoy Monty Python or Mel Brooks films, you'll probably enjoy this one. The voice characterizations are done in a tongue-in-cheek manner and the one-liners fly fast and furious.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In September 2003 36-year-old Jonny Kennedy died. He had a terrible genetic condition called Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) - which meant that his skin literally fell off at the slightest touch, leaving his body covered in agonising sores and leading to a final fight against skin cancer. In his last months Jonny decided to work with filmmaker Patrick Collerton to document his life and death, and the result was a film, first broadcast in March, that was an uplifting, confounding and provocatively humorous story of a singular man. Not shying away from the grim reality of EB, the film was also a celebration of a life lived to the full. Produced and directed by Patrick Collerton and first shown in March 2004 The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off has become the most talked about documentary of that year. It attracted nearly five million viewers and after the screening the public donated over half a million pounds to Jonny's charity, DEBRA. A Jonny Kennedy Memorial Fund has been set up to raise another half a million with the aim of ensuring that Jonny Kennedy left a one million pound legacy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It's a strange, yet somehow impressive story, about love. Personnaly, I never run over such a twist-off story in real life. But, I can image there is.

It's a story that promises to be \"sick\" from the title. But, after I watch it, I didn't get this feeling of \"sickness\" which I would surely have regarding society rules. It's something beautiful in this movie... something impressive...which I cannot contradict using any moral or society rules.

The movie focuses mostly on relation between Kiki and Alex. You can see how this relation starts, evolves and finally ends. You feel the moment when this love blossoms, the first whispers, touchings. You feel the connection. And no moment I though this is immoral. You even hope it will not break in the end....it cannot break...it's not right. You feel the pain of being hart broken in the end...

But,I need also to add a negative spin to this comment...I don't know if the story is not somehow *showed* to give the feeling that these relations are sick only in form, but not in content. You don't have the total story, but only fragments. When movie has started, the relation between Kiki and Sandu was already in place. So, no clue about the nature of the relation. You feel only a tension between them...a fight between the need for love and desire to break this relation. I think this line of Kiki to Sandu says all: \"I want to stop...and if you love me, you will do as I ask you\".

This movie will probably stir some questions about what is love and what is to be moral...and where's the limit between them. I don't know if the idea of this movie is \"love conquers all...even social and moral standards\" or \"love is beautiful...no matter how or where\". But in my opinion, this movie is already a success for the simple reason that it makes you think...", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This film reminds me of how college students used to protest against the Vietnam War. As if, upon hearing some kids were doing without cheeseburgers in Cow Dung Collehe, the President was going to immediately change all US foreign policy.

The worst thing is that, while dangerous, the concept of a policy based on if the USSR and US went to war it could mean the end of the world, WORKED. The US and USSR NEVER WENT TO WAR.

Had we only conventional weapons, the notion of yet another war, a \"win-able\" war, in Europe and Asia was not unthinkable.

Not that I think they should get rid of this movie. It should be seen by film students as a splendid example of \"How NOT to make a film.\"

It should be 0 stars or maybe black holes...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Final Score...who cares - it's a reality show. It has no love for it's audience, it panders to lazy TV viewers, puts nothing in and gets nothing out.

\"Joe Millionaire\", the most blatantly phony reality show of them all, is a television disaster of epic proportions. It's a watershed, rock bottom moment, not only for Fox, but for the American viewing public who actually watch, like and talked about this crap the next day. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Because as much as Fox promotes this junk it won't make any money unless it's watch by people (and boy was it, the finale got nearly Super Bowl numbers!?). It doesn't bother you people that there are many quality shows written, directed, acted and generally have effort put into them that are being cancelled while you sit back and lap up this effortless, cold game show?

I used to be a staunch supporter of Fox. It's those of us like me who like and seek out quality TV that helped build Fox back in the days of Married...with Children and The Simpsons. Conveniently enough, now neither of those shows would make it 6 weeks with the current management. The Gail Berman \"reign of terror\" as it's often called. The network has waged war on scripted TV AND, strangely enough, it's fans. The very people who helped build them in the beginning. Now, not only do we have to fight for good shows, but we have to fight against their own network. It boggles the mind. Nothing Fox, has done in the past 3 years makes any sense. From canceling hits like \"Titus\", \"Futurama\" and \"John Doe\" (NBC can renew \"Boomtown\", but Fox can't lift it's pitiful head to give the only decent show they had this season another shot?). And the reason they can do all this: the success of junk like \"Joe Millionaire\". They can now say \"We don't need you TV fans, we have reality shows\". They apparently seem to have no idea that the big audience the draw with this junk is fickle and WILL abandon them the second the next fad comes along. To alienate their base like this will eventually kill the network the way it has set back ABC.

The show itself is a joke. Here we have a premise, in the now classic Fox gimmick, that promises us something different and edgy, but then delivers something not in any way different from \"The Bachelor\" or anything on the big 3. Fox has gone mainstream. The finale and \"twist\" (quote/unquote) showed they have no ideas up their sleeve. Now we know that all these shows, no matter how different they look, will all end up the same cornball, fairy tale ending. We got to see a bunch of lame aspiring actors that the network picked out of millions of head-shots to fit their demographics parade around like high school bimbos pretending they liked this Evan Marriott because...well because it was a competition and that's what you're supposed to do. Marriott himself is like a hideously disfigured Chro-magnum man who struggles to put together the simplest sentences. But, how can the women (all average to ugly looking by the way - an important minus is a guilty pleasure show like this) not fall for \"Joe\" with such charming lines like \"Look, you're not stupid\".

I used to think that people who watched these reality/dating/game shows were just to lazy to change the channel, but after \"Joe Millionaire\" I think they must be genuinely mentally deficient. Come on people, have a little more pride in yourselves. Demand a little bit more from your entertainment then THIS.

Boycott FOX.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Visitor Q\" is a failed attempt at black comedy which focuses on what might be the world's most dysfunctional family including physical abuse from beatings to murder to incest to sodomy to necrophilia to a lactating mom who nurses her husband and adult daughter, etc. The film is so outrageous it garnered some critical praise and established a small cult following. However, with home video quality and a slapdash production, \"Visitor Q\" just doesn't hold up even as a curiosity. Genitals are blurred out and sanitary appliances clearly visible, make-up is awful, and everything else is amateurish at best. A waste of time. (C-)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Woman In Black was a British made for TV movie which was first broadcast on the BBC on Christmave Eve of '89, and again in '92. I believe it made a round on American TV on A&E. It was released on VHS in Britain in the early 90's but went out of print. A U.S. company released it on DVD later, but that version also sold out. According to the website of the author of the book, the rights to the movie are now owned by someone else and that it won't be released again, and that there are unofficial bootlegs being sold on ebay.

I first heard about this movie just recently on a message board and had to check it out. I found a copy on ebay for about 28 bucks. It's certain to be a counterfeit from a seller in the far east, even though the DVD says, \"made in Canada,\" ha ha. But it's a good copy, and you can't really fault the bootleg labels for releasing stuff that is rare, out of print, and lost in legal disputes.

I love the movie. It's a period piece set in the 1920's, with all the very authentic and quaint British settings of that time. The Woman In Black is very atmospheric and dark. For the most part, the movie is very low-key, but effective and scary. There is no self indulgent gore, violence or much at all in special effects, but The Woman In Black is still able to create absolutely chilling moments. It's a chilling classic styled ghost movie. The movie itself looks like it could have been made in the 1930's except for the color. Without all the flash of all the modern horror movies, I'm afraid this film will always just be a lost gem. For me, it places itself as one of my all time favorites.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It is not an easy film to watch - it is over three and a half hours long and it is composed entirely of conversations. Yet it is so incredibly compelling and ruthlessly observational of the human character, that it is, in my humble opinion, one of the very greatest films of all time.

The film is depressing, cynical and cruel. (If you want something uplifting, see Jacques Rivette's fantastic Céline and Julie Go Boating, which was made around the same time). It shows the idealism of the late 1960s to be nothing different from the society that it was trying to change.

It involves a supposedly liberated ménage-à-trois between Alexandre (played by Jean-Pierre Leaud), Marie (Bernadette Lafont) and Veronika (Francoise Lebrun). Yet Alexandre is shown to be as chauvinistic and jealous as any other man. The women are exposed as being willingly subservient and defining their femininity through the male gaze.

The film is an extremely icy end to the highly revolutionary French New Wave. This movement was one of the most significant movements in film history and had a profound effect on cinema as we know it. Jean-Pierre Leaud was one of the key actors of the New Wave, having starred (among other films) in the influential Les Quatres Cent Coups (1959) by Francois Truffaut as a rebellious teenager. Director Jean Eustache is not as well known as other directors from the New Wave, but he should be.

There is no improvisation (unlike in John Cassavetes's similar films made in the US) and the dialogue comes from real-life conversations. The film is resonant with Eustache's personal experiences. For example, Francoise Lebrun was a former lover of Eustache. Eustache himself committed suicide in 1981 and the real-life person that the character Marie was based on, did too. The anger and bitterness all culminate in a harrowing monologue by Veronika delivered directly to the audience, breaking down the coldly objective nature of the rest of the film. This mesmerising, personal, and honest filmic statement remains one of the most revealing films of human nature around.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Very unfair to say the least.David made his name on the x-files and is a decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is superb and immersed himself deeply into his character. Duchovny himself isn't as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his credible.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present but dosen't detract too much from the film", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "In the mid-1930s Hollywood was regaining its confidence after the difficulties of the talkie transition. Although all the technical problems of sound had been solved very quickly, it took longer to resolve the questions of how talking pictures should look, how they should be structured and how they should be acted. The Informer is a key picture in that it shows the extent to which wordless moments can convey story, asserting the power images without ignoring the necessities of sound and dialogue.

This is not to say the Informer is truly a throwback to the golden days of the silents. For one thing, many silent pictures were not so purely visual in their narrative, and were overburdened with title cards. But what the Informer has is the self-assuredness to extend moments between dialogues, to focus on reactions more than speeches, and to let shots play out simply for atmosphere.

Director John Ford, for all his capability, was a filmmaker who appears to have put in effort in proportion to how interested he was in the material. If he thought a story was silly, he just did it half-arsed. Luckily the Informer, with its depiction of community, honour, working class life and most importantly Irish setting, was everything Ford loved, and the result is one of his finest works. In it, Ford only really employs too kinds of shot. The first is of places – the Dublin streets shrouded in mist and darkness so their furthest depths cannot be seen; dingy interiors where the walls and ceilings seem to press in on us. The second is of faces, striking close-ups against plain backgrounds, usually without dialogue, focusing us upon the inner conflicts of these people.

Lead man Victor McLaglen fits perfectly within this character and this manner of filming him. McLaglen's performance does not look like much, being as it is about 90% drunk act. But the other 10% is heartfelt emoting, as here and there his Gypo Nolan has what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. With such performances are Oscars won. McLaglen is backed by a spot-on supporting cast, among whom there are no weak links. In particular it is nice to have Donald Meek and Una O'Connor, usually only seen in comic relief roles, playing straight dramatic parts for once (although Meek's appearance does contain one or two jokes, the tone of the scene and much of his manner is serious). Not only do these two deliver incredibly deep performances, their familiarity to most viewers as comedy players gives an added note of poignancy to their part in this tragedy.

RKO, who produced the Informer, were perhaps the most adventurous and willing to take risks of all the major studios. Thanks to this, we are able to see a dismal story with a despicable anti-hero at its centre, which could easily have been a clunky, over-earnest mess, instead filled with a moody atmosphere and depth of character which keeps us watching and draws us into its world.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Just watched this early Bugs Bunny (first time he's named here) and Elmer Fudd cartoon on the ThadBlog as linked from YouTube. This was Chuck Jones' first time directing the \"wascally wabbit\" and as a result, Bugs has a different voice provided by Mel Blanc than the Brooklyn/Bronx one we're more familiar with. In fact, according to Thad, he's channeling Jimmy Stewart (his \"shy boy\" type personality of that time). Anyway, after Elmer buys his pet, Bugs goes all obnoxious on him by turning the radio real loud, pretending to die after his master repeatedly throws him out of his shower, and saying \"Turn off those lights!\" whenever Elmer catches him in his bed. Even with the different voice, Bugs is definitely his mischievous self and I laughed myself blue the whole time! According to Thad, there was an additional scene at the end of Elmer just giving the house to Bugs after the hell he went through but that was probably considered too sad since he suffers a mental breakdown at that point so it's just as well that cut scene is lost. Anyway, I highly recommend Elmer's Pet Rabbit.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Extremely poor action film starring the ever wooden Dolph Lundgren and Brandon Lee trapped in a sidekick role that never seems to gel. The action is at best average, a bit of nudity chucked in and yes Tia Carrera does use a body double!

The set-up is the usual renegade cop forced to break in a new partner on a big case, the makers at least try to give the formula a twist making Lundgren the cop with Oriental values and Lee the modern city slicker but there is zero character development making it almost comical, Lundgrens oriental warrior outfit for the big showdown has to be seen to be believed. The action sequences are by the numbers and Lee(who would go on to make the excellent The Crow) is never given the scope to show off any particular martial arts brilliance. But given his illustrious parentage he must have been under a hell of a lot of pressure and was far better served not having to live up to his father by taking on a very different role in The Crow which showed what a unique actor he may have become if not for his tragic and early death.

Unless your a hardcore Lundgren fan or a fan of poor 80's style action movies (think Cobra etc.) then avoid.

Poor 3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Spoilers.....

I saw the original on TV sometime ago and remembered this production as less gripping than most Beeb costume drama. I rewatched on DVD this week and still have the same impression of it. It's a good story at first, but weakens when the heroine becomes oh so terribly brave and noble and returns to her utterly vile husband when he's ill and I got so totally irritated with her saintliness. I suppose this was the \"right thing to do\" when the story was written as well as contributing plenty of angst, and it was difficult for a woman to be independent of her husband as marriage made her no more than his possession, let alone to carry on scandalously with a lover as I expect a lot of the modern audience would have liked to see. But it's hard to take the santimoniousness nowadays and especially when this heroine had a strong, brave admirer ready to defend her against anyone and everyone. So re the story as in the film I'm equivocal. It's well done as per the novel, but somewhat irritating as per today's kind of life.

Steadfast hero Gilbert was certainly a saint to put up with his ladylove's variable and often cryptic behaviour and persistent self-denial and to be so consistently supportive. So I felt it a great shame that when Helen was at long last free to be with him, the script didn't allow him a bit more than about one minute to fall on each other for a quick hug before the titles came up. This was completely ridiculous when we'd been waiting all this time through all that dripping sentiment over the undeserving husband for a decent bit of dialogue and a good embrace between hero and heroine. Instead, the ending was as though the film makers had run out of time or finance or just couldn't be bothered. \"Here you are - one minute, do what you can in that, then cut as the director wants to go home now.....\" I was left feeling totally dissasatisfied.

However, very high commendations to the acting of Toby Stephens a perfect and very handsome hero, and Rupert Graves a superbly nasty and self-pitying villain. Tara Fitzgerald was satisfactory within the confines of the script that forced her to be a depressing and rather sanctimonious victim so much of the time.

That said, I love these classic dramas and virtually all of them are a sight better than much of the \"modern\" drama on TV these days. So 7 stars because in spite of the irritations it's still a good watch.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I came in in the middle of this film so I had no idea about any credits or even its title till I looked it up here, where I see that it has received a mixed reception by your commentators. I'm on the positive side regarding this film but one thing really caught my attention as I watched: the beautiful and sensitive score written in a Coplandesque Americana style. My surprise was great when I discovered the score to have been written by none other than John Williams himself. True he has written sensitive and poignant scores such as Schindler's List but one usually associates his name with such bombasticities as Star Wars. But in my opinion what Williams has written for this movie surpasses anything I've ever heard of his for tenderness, sensitivity and beauty, fully in keeping with the tender and lovely plot of the movie. And another recent score of his, for Catch Me if You Can, shows still more wit and sophistication. As to Stanley and Iris, I like education movies like How Green was my Valley and Konrack, that one with John Voigt and his young African American charges in South Carolina, and Danny deVito's Renaissance Man, etc. They tell a necessary story of intellectual and spiritual awakening, a story which can't be told often enough. This one is an excellent addition to that genre.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "How this film gains a 6.7 rating is beyond belief. It deserves nothing better than a 2.0 and clearly should rank among IMDb's worst 100 films of all time. National Treasure is an affront to the national intelligence and just yet another assault made on American audiences by Hollywood. Critics told of plot holes you could drive a 16 wheeler through.

I love the justifications for this movie being good... \"Nicholas Cage is cute.\" Come on people, no wonder people around the world think Americans are stupid. This has to be the most stupid, insulting movie I have ever seen. If you wanted to see an actually decent film this season, consider Kinsey, The Woodsman, Million Dollar Baby or Sideways. National Treasure unfortunately got a lot more publicity than those terrific films. I bet most of you reading this haven't even heard of them, since some haven't been widely released yet.

Nicholas Cage is a terrific actor - when he is in the right movies. Time after time I've seen Cage waste his terrific talent in awful mind-numbing films like Con Air, The Rock and Face-Off. When his talent is put to good use like in Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation he is an incredible actor.

Bottom line - I'd rather feed my hand to a wood chipper than be subjected to this visual atrocity again.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Chris Rock deserves better than he gives himself in \"Down To Earth.\" As directed by brothers Chris & Paul Weitz of \"American Pie\" fame, this uninspired remake of Warren Beatty's 1978 fantasy \"Heaven Can Wait,\" itself a rehash of 1941's \"Here Comes Mr. Jordan,\" lacks the abrasively profane humor that won Chris Rock an Emmy for his first HBO special. Predictably, he spouts swear words from A to Z, but he consciously avoids the F-word. Anybody who saw this gifted African-American comic in \"Lethal Weapon 4,\" \"Dogma,\" or \"Nurse Betty\" knows he can elicit more laughter with the F-word than Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy put together. Sadly, despite a few witty one-liners, \"Down To Earth\" hits Rock bottom both as a contrived comedy and an improbable interracial romance.

\"Down to Earth\" utterly destroys any good will that the Weitz Brothers generated with their landmark gross-out face \"American Pie.\" This disposable drivel qualifies as a contrived as well as confusing comedy with a thoroughly improbable color-blind interracial romance. Unfortunately, a more than competent cast—among them \"The Full Monty's\" Mark Addy, Chazz Palminteri of \"Analyze This,\" \"SCTV's\" Eugene Levy, and newcomer Brian Rhodes as Charles Wellington, Jr.—are wasted in flat-footed, sketchy roles. Hardcore Rock fans will undoubtedly accuse their favorite comedian with trying to fix something that was never broken. Abysmally written by Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi, Louis CK, and Rock, \"Down To Earth\" casts Chris as a messenger who rides a bike by day in the Big Apple and gets booed off the stage at night in Harlem's celebrated Apollo Theatre. Poor Lance Barton (Chris Rock) suffers from severe stage fright. Nevertheless, his charitable manager Whitney Daniels (Frankie Faison of \"Hannibal\") sticks with him through thick and thin. After Lance learns the Apollo Theatre will hold one final amateur night extravaganza, he implores Whitney to get him in the line-up. Excuse me, but if Lance is such a deadbeat stand-up comic, why does the Apollo keep inviting him back? Meanwhile, fate has something else in store for Lance. While pedaling home on his bike, our protagonist spots a pretty lady, Sontee (Regina King of \"Jerry Maguire\"), crossing the street, but he doesn't see the bus that collides with him and kills him. Wham! Lance Barton levitates skyward with a halo wreathed around his head. In Heaven, which resembles a cruise ship nightclub, Lance learns that an overzealous angel, Mr. Keyes (Eugene Levy of \"Stay Tuned\"), timed his death 40 years ahead of schedule.

Heavenly honcho Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri of \"Analyze This\"), God's right-hand guy, apologizes and escorts Lance back to earth. The snag is Lance cannot reclaim his corpse, so he must inhabit another body. The best that Mr. Keyes can come up with is ruthless, white, 60-year old tycoon Charles Wellington. Wellington's adulterous wife Amber (Jennifer Coolidge of \"American Pie\") and his unscrupulous personal aide Winston (Greg Germann of \"Sweet November\") have just tried to poison him. Reluctantly, before Wellington's body vanishes, Lance accepts it conditionally as a loaner until Keyes can locate a more appropriate body. Meanwhile, Lance-as-Wellington encounters Sontee again. She is a nurse activist protesting his decision to privatize a Brooklyn community hospital that serves the poor. While Regina King brings a surfeit of charisma to her role as a crusading health care worker, she plays a character who bypasses credible motivation in her affairs with Wellington. Although he is no longer black, Lance not only tries to woo Sontee but also win a gig at the Apollo.

\"Down To Earth\" features Rock in his most unfunny role. The comedian's reason for making this movie seems questionable. Reportedly, he ate lunch with Warren Beatty and told Beatty that he loved the original script that scenarist Elaine May had penned for Beatty. Initially, Beatty tried the race-reversal gimmick himself in his own version by trying to cast Muhammad Ali in the title role of \"Heaven Can Wait.\" The deal fell through, and Beatty headlined the movie himself. According to Rock, his longtime co-writers and he thought that they could 'annihilate' this classic. Moreover, he justified his choice of \"Heaven Can Wait\" based on his philosophy to \"Do Something you can only do when you're hot.\" Earlier, Rock rejected a script about a busload of touring rappers, because he saw little opportunity to stretch his image in such an outing. As a lifeless comedian in \"Down to Earth,\" Rock doesn't so much stretch his image as he inverts it for the worst! This half-baked concert film with an annoying plot does as much to cremate his comic reputation as it does the Weitz Brothers! You know a film about a comedian is in dire straits when a scene at the nightclub is played so you cannot hear the jokes, only the laughter. Similarly, the casting of Mark Addy as Wellington's butler who speaks the Queen's English but is in reality a commoner from Michigan defies logic, too. Addy is an actual Englishman, and he doesn't have to fake an accent; his accent is genuine. The major overriding quandary with \"Down to Earth\" is the on-again-off-again, look-a-like switcheroo that the characters make so Chris Rock doesn't disappear completely from the sight for more than a few seconds. Although Chris spends half the movie as white guy Wellington, audiences see him largely as Lance, undercutting the comic irony of watching his stocky, bald-headed, Caucasian white, alter-ego perform ghetto humor and chant derogatory hip-hop lyrics. Incredibly, Rock served double-duty as the film's executive producer and one of its four scribes. The mystery is how such a wealth of talent could grind out such an awkward, misguided muddle of a comedy. About the only redeeming feature of \"Down to Earth\" is Jamshied Sharifi's superb orchestral film score.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Disjointed, unclear, bad screenplay, poor photography and direction...all in all very obviously an ill-conceived first effort at commercial film-making by the good people at TBN.

TBN Pictures has had great success in the past by helping to bring \"China Cry\", the story of Nora Lam, to the big screen. But \"The Omega Code\" is an unfortunate miscue. As a Christian who supports TBN and a lot of its programming and who loved \"China Cry\", I still find it impossible to recommend this film to anyone. They do much good with their ministry, but this isn't an example of it. Don't waste your money...go rent \"China Cry\" instead.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.

Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.

If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a \"great film\", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It is not known whether Marilyn Monroe ever met and spoke with Albert Einstein (and since the mysterious disappearance of her diary after her equally mysterious death, we may never know), but in their lifetime the opportunity was there.

Scripted by Terry Johnson from his own play, Nicolas Roeg's Insignificance imagines an encounter in a New York hotel room one night in 1953 between the two icons plus Joe DiMaggio (Busey), and Senator Joseph McCarthy (Curtis) - but only on one level. On another level, it elevates - or reduces - these 'personalities' (and what a lousy phrase that is) to mere avatars (the characters are deliberately unnamed), at once greater and lesser in status.

The title Insignificance is both apposite and deeply ironic; here, DiMaggio's net worth has been reduced to little more than a picture on a bubblegum card. Monroe too is reduced to her constituent parts of dress, hair, lipstick, wiggle and voice. By uncovering their insecurities and reversing their roles, the film brings into sharp focus received notions of celebrity, exploding the cult of personality.

Furthering the theme, there will be another explosion at the film's climax: Hiroshima in a hotel suite, in which 'The Actress' is burned to a cinder in seconds; a literal deconstruction of fame. Goodbye, Norma Jean. History informs the script, which in turn, shakes history upside down. As Roeg mused after watching Johnson's play for the first time, \"These characters were mythic, not invented by any single person, not the public or the press, probably not even by the characters themselves.\" As played by Theresa Russell, Marilyn (a closet intellectual in real life), lectures a childlike Einstein ('The Professor', played by Emil) on the theory of relativity using balloons and a flashlight, while getting The Professor to show off his legs, in conscious parody of her own role in The Seven-Year Itch, the movie The Actress is seen to be working on in the film's opening.

History records that Monroe's then-husband, fading baseball star DiMaggio (played by Busey as a tenderly psychotic simpleton), was unhappy about her iconic dress-splaying scene in the film, precipitating their break-up. Right on cue, we discover the jealous 'Ballplayer' in a bar, bemoaning the fact that if, \"I want to see her underwear, I just walk down to the corner like all the other guys\".

In contrast to The Professor, The Ballplayer believes the universe is round - a contention shared by Native Americans. But the Big Chief (Sampson, of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest fame) who operates the Roosevelt Hotel's elevator has been all but disenfranchised from his own culture: \"I no longer Cherokee - I watch TV.\" Meanwhile, 'The Senator' is investigating The Professor, who is on the eve of delivering a pacifist speech to the United Nations, but whom The Senator suspects is a Red. In fact, as he divulges to Monroe, Einstein is wracked with guilt over Hiroshima, and what the white heat future holds. Yet in a seemingly godless universe, all such worries and aspirations are rendered insignificant in the light of a higher (atomic) power.

Roeg really is the perfect director to bring Johnson's stage play to the screen. Throughout, tortured childhood flashbacks and pessimistic flash-forwards (ka-boom!) draw unexpected connections between time, place and circumstance, with the repeated visual motif of a wristwatch employed to mark time's passing - but perhaps also to suggest all time is one time; each moment co-existing. As evinced by his back catalogue, it's something of a hobbyhorse for a director enchanted with the notion of synchronicity - see Don't Look Now in particular. Here, 1920 bleeds into 1945 and drip-feeds into the 1980s, a period in which another 'Actor' has taken on his greatest role as the President of the United States.

If all this sounds rather heavy going (quantum physics is surely involved), the execution is anything but, owing to Johnson's witty, zippy screenplay, Roeg's playful direction, opening out an essentially stagey set-up - and the cast themselves, who are on stellar form. Tony Curtis especially leaves denture marks in the wood panelling as the paranoid, impotent Senator, who is seen attempting congress with a Monroe impersonator (a real one, as opposed to Russell's), before being let down by his dwindling member.

Of course, Curtis once co-starred with the real Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot, and whose embrace he memorably described as like \"kissing Hitler\". As Roeg commented, \"Everything suddenly seemed connected... when the film began to take shape even the actors themselves seemed part of this endless linking.\" It all goes into the pot, to be boiled down and served up in new and fascinating ways.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I remember when I first saw this movie, I was in sixth grade when it happened. Before I saw this, i had listened to the original Broadway recording of it, and I really loved it! But when I saw this, I was like, what the heck?! This movie is missing a lot of the songs from the musical for crying out loud! Who decided to do all of that?!

I really am a very huge fan of Gene Kelly, but this movie is probably the worst of a musical that he ever did! The movie looked more like a Hollywood set than the beautiful Highlands of Scotland. And who the heck decided to cut all of Meg's songs out of the movie?!

I am willing to bet that when they saw this movie, Lerner and Lowe were probably wondering: \"Who in the world decided to do this to our masterpiece?\" Well they had a right to say that if they did, they were probably mad at the fact that Hollywood turned their great musical into this rather blank movie.

Song and acting wise Mr. Kelly, you passed the audition with flying colors, but you are in a movie that is missing a lot of the text.

So in short, if you want a good movie based on a musical by Frederick Lowe and Alan Jay Lerner, this one isn't it!

3/10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "well its official. they have just killed American Pie. The first 3 were absolutely hysterical, but this one and the others have been awful. I mean the story is about two college fraternity's who battle each other for its houses, I mean come on talk about a weak plot, the first three dealt with growing up, change and marriage, which are all worthy points of development in human society.

The new Stifler is the biggest joke, I know its hard trying to compare yourself with the Steven Stifler but so no cigar. I give this movie a 3 because there is 2-3 funny bits in the film.

The best character in this movie of course is Jim's dad i don't know why he keeps continuing to do these poorly developed films.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "this seemed an odd combination of Withnail and I with A Room with a View.. sometimes it worked, other times it did not. tragedy that they changed the name for the US release though.. Keep the Apidistra Flying is much better than the nothing title A Merry War. acting was okay, script was okay.. overall it was a mediocre film..", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "After all the crap that Hollywood (and the Indies) have churned out, we finally get a movie that delivers some scary moments. There are some clichéd moments, but I'm not sure it's possible nowadays to make an entirely original movie. There's not much new here...it's just done well.

Make sure and pay attention, as the \"subtle\" scares come quickly and often. This is not a movie to watch while you're eating pizza.

There's one very well-written red herring in this movie and, unfortunately, one very poorly-cast role. Cheri Christian just doesn't make an effective Julie (the wife/mother). For one thing, she's totally unsympathetic. I know, I know...she's just gone through a traumatic experience. But the viewer never gets to know her as she \"normally\" is and the relationship between her and her husband is rather discomforting (in an unintentional way). I think that the director had meant for us to have some sympathy for her, but I never did.

Finally, a thumbs-up for the ending, which is both disturbing and satisfying. It could easily have been cheapened with a sound effect at the beginning of the end credits, but the director wisely resisted.

This is not a masterpiece by any means, but it IS a good, old-fashioned scary movie...something that's rather rare nowadays.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The acting, the dialog, the manuscript, the sound, the lighting, the plot line. I actually can't say anything positive about this, although I enjoy Swedish movies. The fighting scenes are so ridiculous that it's impossible to take it seriously. And when the lead character just happens to loose his shirt, while dodging bullets in a strip bar, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke, or if someone really thinks these are ingredients in a good film?! Regina Lund is the only half descent actor, but she disappears in a flood of laughable pronunciations and unbelievable reactions. It leaves you horrified that someone actually spent time and money on something like this...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "

Superb film with no actual spoken dialogue which enhances the level of suspense. The whole approach gives a completely different twist to a war film.

Well worth watching again if only it could be found. I saw it perhaps 20 or so years ago. - Fantastic!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I was able to watch this movie in its entirety and was deeply moved by it. I wasn't sure if it was really a comedy or a drama - it had elements of both. Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper both looked wonderful - our image of 60-year-old women has certainly changed since Aunt Bee! They are vibrant, beautiful, sexy! The only drawback in this movie was that there was absolutely no mention of other characters in either the \"MTM\" or \"Rhoda\" shows from the 1970's. I'd have thought that since it was set in New York City (where \"Rhoda\" had been set) that at least some mention would have been made of her sister Brenda or that Julie Kavner would have appeared, assuming of course she was still in the Big Apple.

It is my hope that ABC will make this a series and bring back for guest appearances all the old casts of these shows. By the way, what was wrong with CBS doing this reunion, or an eventual series? Wasn't that the network that carried the \"MTM\" and \"Rhoda\" shows?", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "So the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.

1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.

2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.

To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Russell Hopton acted in many films until his death in 1945. He only directed 2 and \"Black Gold\" was one, (the other was also from 1936). Frankie Darro had a sometimes abrasive screen presence but in this he was playing a good kid. He was obviously quite popular on the \"quickie\" circuit - he made so many films. In this one he plays the son of an old oil rigger who is convinced that he will strike oil very soon.

J.C. Anderson (Berton Churchill) is trying to convince the old man to sell up as he knows there is going to be oil struck at any moment. A geologist, Henry, comes on the scene and helps \"Fishtail's\" dad. He also convinces \"Fishtail\" to go to school regularly. Henry has his eye on Cynthia, the pretty teacher. This was Gloria Shea's last film - she had begun her career as Olive Shea in \"Glorifying the American Girl\" (1929). \"Fishtail's\" dad is killed when the rig is sabotaged and Henry is determined to bring Anderson and his cronies to justice. When Henry is kidnapped Anderson tries to persuade \"Fishtail\" to sell his oil lease. It all ends well with oil being struck and \"Fishtail\" going to Military school.

It is okay for a rainy day.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This sequel is thoroughly uneven, incoherent and rambling in \"plot\" (if there really is one)and tries too damned hard to be modern (ridiculous, out of period and character 21 st century style songs predominate) and cute (yawn: there are too many manufactured, belaboured jokes with animals.) The actors in his film are secondary to the juvenile plot. Even Glenn Close (and she is normally very good) sweeps through this film, parodying herself as the original De Ville and the lead from Sunset Boulevard! It's a film that isn't even good to look at. This is a very good example of a bad and pointless sequel. Even Basic Instinct 2 had a plot, characterisation and acceptable acting. This doesn't. It is bad.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Is there a movement more intolerant and more judgmental than the environmentalist movement? To a budding young socialist joining the circus must seem as intimidating as joining a real circus. Even though such people normally outsource their brain to Hollywood for these important issues, the teachings of Hollywood can often seem fragmented and confusing. Fortunately Ed is here to teach neo-hippies in the art of envirojudgementalism.

Here you'll learn the art of wagging your finger in the face of anyone without losing your trademark smirk. You'll learn how to shrug off logic and science with powerful arguments of fear. You'll learn how to stop any human activity that does not interest you by labeling it as the gateway to planetary Armageddon.

In addition to learning how to lie with a straight face you'll also learn how to shrug off accusations that are deflected your way no matter how much of a hypocrite you are. You'll be able to use as much energy as Al Gore yet while having people treat you as if you were Amish.

In the second season was even more useful as we were able to visit other Hollywood Gods, holy be thy names, and audit - i.e. judge - their lifestyles. NOTE: This is the only time it's appropriate for an envirofascist to judge another because it allows the victim the chance to buy up all sorts of expensive and trendy eco-toys so that they can wag their finger in other people's faces.

What does Ed have in store for us in season three? Maybe he'll teach us how to be judgmental while sleeping!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I LOVED GOOD TIMES with the rest of many of you. I love reading INTELLIGENT and INSIGHTFUL commentary. The writers on THIS show were fantastic and the Actors were beyond TALENTED. To answer Strawberry22 (the neatest commentary to the other superior and positive commentary)...What happened was that James was killed in an accident (I believe I remember that it was a trucking accident or car accident) and it was the saddest episode (when it first aired and I was a tiny thing...it was so sad to me..).

Florida and the Children actually get out of the projects and EVEN become neighbors with Willona (Wilnona) and that is how the very last show ended.

ALL of the children achieved their dreams and found opportunity in each of their dreams. It was a wonderful ending and I cried because I was happy for them and the show seemed so realistic that I actually believed in their fate. I hope that this kind of ending rings true in actually for many.

A great show and many other great shows followed including Benson and The Jeffersons. This was an awesome period for African-American television and the best writers were awesome at that time. TV LAND is Awesome for the memories and I just LOVE it because I cannot STAND the junk that we are watching today. SOMEBODY...bring back the 1970s and 1980s quickly...your intelligent viewers are a dying breed out here and we need better material.

Love, a TV LAND original sitcom junkie of the 70s and 80s (as they sing in \"ALL in the Family\"...those were the days......", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "An interesting animation about the fate of a giant tiger, a sloth, and a mammoth, who saved a baby, who was close to be killed by a group of tigers during the ice age. The morale of the film shows that good behavior with the others may bring benefits at the end. One of the tigers in the group got an order to finally capture the baby, who was hardly saved by his mother when the tigers attacked her community. The baby was then rescued by the sloth and the mammoth, but the tiger joined them with the objective of finally taken away the baby. They went through very troublesome paths with plenty of danger, and at once the tiger was to fall down and saved by the mammoth. At the end the group of tigers tried to capture the baby but the mammoth helped incredibly by his tiger colleague was able to overcome this attack and to give the baby back to his father and the community to which he belongs.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As an old white housewife I can still appreciate that Laurence Fishburne is one of our finest actors. anyone who appreciates his work like in Deep Cover might enjoy watching the incredible acting range of this actor. Since I think this is his directorial debut it might prove even more interesting. All of the acting is quite good. If you can't take lower Manhattan junky worlds or the reality of crime life (not glorified action shoot-em ups) then this is not a film you would enjoy. It is Mr. Fishburne's usual contribution to incredibly subtle relationships. I would love to see Larry and Anthony Hopkins go at each other some day in a movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was a waste of 75 minutes of my life. The acting was atrocious and the plot was ridiculous. It revolves around an evil lesbian who gets rich married men to have sex with her, and then blackmails them for money. One of the victims is a candidate for DA, which is causing problems in his relationship with his wife. Another is a plastic surgeon, also married, and the evil lesbian happens to seduce this guys wife too! Meanwhile, the evil lesbian's girlfriend doesn't really like her sleeping around. It ends in a happy ending where all is forgiven. The women get naked a lot too, mostly in situations that stretch reality. bad bad bad.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the \"villain\" that they decided they needed to create \"conflict.\" Uh huh.

To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.

What a waste of the DVD format.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's hard to say anything about a movie like this because there isn't enough words to give this magnificent, stylish and unique film the veneration it unquestionably deserves. They should make this the official and only true real Hamlet -movie because all the previous films out of the same immortal spectacle are being overshadowed by Kenneth Branagh's \"Hamlet\".

It's a perfect, complete version of the play, potent, massive, earthshaking first-class masterpiece Shakespeare would have been proud of. They've packed over a dozen of world-famous top actors in the same film and everyone of them is having one of the greatest performances of their career. Every moving and charming sequence leaves behind a comprehensive sense of satisfaction.

The cameras embrace gracefully the enchanting coulisses. Branagh is phenomenal in the leading role. His sharp, irresistible performance is the only one of it's kind and will be permanently part of the glorious movie history. Every second in this presentation is feast for the movie lover from beginning to the very end. Branagh's version of \"Hamlet\" is among the ten best motion pictures ever.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Despite the lack of logic present in the storyline, Kill Shot is a highly enjoyable film. Through a moving performance Kasper Van Dien brilliantly portrays the emotional rift between a hard working wealthy father and his misguided son. Each member of the supporting cast pitches in with a solid performance, highlighted by the vivid acting of a young asian man whose name I cannot recall. A shockingly tragic ending may unnerve some younger viewers, but as a whole Kill Shot truly delivers a death blow.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.

I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.

Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.

The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.

I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.

Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.

Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.

I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The Life and Time of Little Richard, as told by Little Richard, as produced and directed by Little Richard, was about as one sided as one of his songs. This is not a biography or even a docudrama, but does have good writing, great energy and an outstanding leading actor playing Richard. All the music is by Little Richard, so it rocks a tight lipsync on every song.

The movie covers his early childhood, carrys thru the formative years in music, the wild success and Richard's throwing it all away to praise the Lord. Its all tied together well and the obvious comeback in 1962 manages to stay away from the idea that Little Richard discovered the Beatles, whom opened for him.

My main objection is that his outrageous, counter cultural behavior is underplayed and you get no feel for how his audience experienced him at that time. Some of his energy, which he still has, does not come across full force. He seemed tame, compared to what I remember of him at the time.

The best scenes are Richard getting jilted by Lucille and writing a song about it and the strip to bikini shorts while performing, to make the point about not having a decent place to change.

If they had gotten into the \"Bronze Liberace\" as Richard use to refer to himself in interviews, then there's a story. Trust me I just saw him perform a couple of months ago and he still flirts with the pretty white boys, giving the one particularly good dancer in the audience, his headband. Nearly 68 and still going strong I recommend this movie and any concert or T.V. appearance you can find. Little Richard is always on", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Bad script, bad direction, over the top performances, overwrought dialogue. What more could you ask for? For laughs, it just doesn't get any better than this. Zadora's over-acting combined with the cliched scenarios she finds herself in make for an hilarious parody of the \"Hollywood\" machine. Almost as funny as \"Spinal Tap\" even though it was clearly not intended as such. Don't miss Ray Liotta's debut film line, \"Looks like a penis.\"", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The bittersweet twist to this movie contains a wonderful element of romanticism that evokes an impetuous passion! These characteristics of idealistic imagery which \"Moonstruck\" possesses, spur on an end result of a resounding thumbs up verdict by virtually every prominent critic in Hollywood. Let me describe the circumstances to this film, simply put, they are \"yesteryear\". \"Moonstruck\" is a cohesive film which sparks the naivety of an old Italian neighborhood in New York City. New York City has always been one big melting pot that is galvanized by many bicker-some mannerisms which are indicative of typical New Yorkers, this includes a lot of Italian Americans living in New York as well! The mid and late eighties brought on an abrupt conclusion to many strong associations with various cultural stereotypes. Ethnicity polarization was a firmly embedded scourge in American history that was far more prevalent several generations before this movie was made. These generalizing proclivities still exist today, however, they are more mollified and less identifiable! For this Italian family of a bygone era, confusion, indecisiveness, agitation, and yes, of course, love, all have the comical camaraderie of an utterly human understanding to them! The kindred spirits with everyone in \"Moonstruck\" seems to be that of comprehending individual frailties. One might wonder about Cher playing the lead role, as she is more known as an entertainer than a big box office first billing star in a movie. In \"Moonstruck\", however, I think she was incredibly well suited to her role, and came off as thoroughly believable in a relatively unbelievable situation. All of the characters in \"Moonstruck\" are very rough around the edges, really tough, and not afraid to have a formidable duel with adversity. The most hilarious aspect to their lives is imperfection, and they are thoroughly aware of the fact that weathering the storm definitely serves a constructive purpose! I thought the acting in this movie was sensational. All relationships in this movie garner an auspicious potential to vividly illuminate because everybody knows how everybody else's basic nature is really like!! For this family, nothing is glamorous, nothing is pretentiously romantic, and nothing is overly emotional (just moderately so). The fact is, this entire family is plainly and perpetually afflicted and overcome by an extremely zealous and candid cupid in all of their lives. Taking moon beams literally can indeed have a pleasantly enervating impact on one's resolve, masqueraded mystique, and resistance to the proverbial am ore'. Thus signifying everything!! The homey and mercurial tenet in this film is basically one of ; Be honest, get angry; Be honest, get confrontational; Be honest, get distorted and emphatic; Most importantly; Be honest, and fall in love!! This is Cher's best performance ever as an actress!! Nicholas Cage, Danny Aiello, and Olympia Dukakis, were wonderfully flawed in \"Moonstruck\" Such performances by these three were perfectly appropriate for the kinetic energy of the characters in this movie! Director, Norman Jewison (Famous for \"Cincinnati Kid\", \"Thomas Crowne Affair\", and most famous for \"In The Heat Of The Night\" which won the academy award for best picture in 1967) depicts many keen and humanistic instincts in the process of purveying the deliberate incongruity to this film! I am Italian American in descent, (Partially anyways) Cher is not Italian, and, for that matter, neither is the writer nor the director! I guess since non-Italians like eating our food, they may as well use our culture to make a fabulous film too! It is refreshing to know that a film can be marvelous and have an incredibly happy ending!! For those of you who didn't like this movie, I just have one thing to say \"Snap Out Of It!!\" This movie \"Moonstruck\" is totally happy go lucky!! Totally eighties!! and Totally five stars!! See it!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Lifetime did it again. Can we say stupid? I couldn't wait for it to end. The plot was senseless. The acting was terrible! Especially by the teenagers. The story has been played a thousand times! Are we just desperate to give actors a job? The previews were attractive and I was really looking for a good thriller.Once in awhile lifetime comes up with a good movie, this isn't one of them. Unless one has nothing else to do I would avoid this one at all cost. This was a waste of two hours of my life. Can I get them back? I would have rather scraped my face against a brick wall for two hours then soaked it in peroxide. That would have been more entertaining.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Don't drink the cool-aid.

This is an opinion piece disguised as a documentary. And to title it as a \"truth\" is just plain crap. The debate over global warming is far from over, and will only be over when the eco-zombies start acknowledging the mountain of evidence contrary to their beloved theory. Just Google \"Global Warming\" and \"Hoax\" or \"Junk Science\" and you will find a river of information refuting nearly every link in the chain of logic that Gore sites. The reason it is so important for people to educate themselves is the disastrous economic impact that global warming prevention measures would have. Wake up people. Anyone with a computer, a little time, and some common sense can find many many reasons why this theory is not even close to credible. Don't just read articles that support your present opinions, read everything you can find. There is no in-depth analysis to make, really. There is simply too many alternate possibilities and counter-evidence for the theory to have even the most basic level of scientific credibility. It is so uncredible, in fact, that it may be the single biggest hoax in the course of human existence. It's time for people to start speaking out against this kind of propaganda, and it's time for people to admit to themselves and others that you can be a both a conservationist AND recognize the glaring conclusion that global warming hysteria is a big lie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "It's got Christopher Lee, it's got huge banks of 1970s computers that make Teletype noises as letters appear on the screen, it's got radioactive isotopes that not only glow in the dark but emit pulsing thrumming noises, it's got volcanoes! evil aliens disguised as nuns! tidal waves! earthquakes! exploding cars! exploding coffee machines! and as a climax the entire planet blows up. How on earth does this film managed to be so incredibly, mind-numbingly DULL? The answer, my friend is because 90% of this movie is made up of establishing shots, most of them involving long tracks, pans, or zooms in combinations, or occasionally all three, that do nothing except give the crew something to do. There are endless shots of our protagonists driving, getting in and out of cars, driving again, walking around looking at stuff, getting in cars and driving... I just sat there watching endless parade of nothingness in stupefaction muttering \"Say something, please somebody, just say something... DO something... anything!...\"

The dialogue, when it does come, is terrible.

\"Maybe their minutes are measured on a different scale than ours.\" was a typically meaningless line. The script culminates in the destruction of the world by stock footage, justified in this speech from Lee as the head alien:

\"The planet Earth has emitted an over-abundance of diseases, they are contaminating the Universe. All the planets light years away from here will suffer unless it is destroyed!\"

This is is Neanderthal SF script writing. This is the sort of motivation you find in the sort of 1950's Japanese monster suit movies aimed at 7 year olds. It is, and I collect such things, the most god-awful line from an English language SF movie since Buster Crabbe retired. It beggars belief that this movie was released in the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters.

Lee, who always struck me as a smart, useful actor with a sure knowledge of his limits, delivers his lines as if he is going to kill his agent for getting him into this pile of drek. I don't blame him.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I bought this movie for $5 at a used CD store, and I kinda regret it. I'll start by saying I'm a huge fan of cheesy horror flicks. They provide a horribly tacky cheap entertainment. This movie entertained for the first half hour, because it was so bad it could be made fun of in an MST3K style manner quite easily. Then it got boring.

The acting is the scariest part of the movie. While great acting is not to be expected, this was laughably bad and, honestly, provided all of the entertainment that was to be had. This is the plus side to the movie. Where the movie really falters in entertaining is the writing, lighting, and the editing.

This movie provides way too many \"What the %$@# is going on?\" moments. There are many moments, such as the mother having strange fits at dinner, and then that having absolutely no consequence in the movie. Along the lines of dinner, someone in charge decided it was fun to watch people eat refined food for five minutes straight without dialogue every time a meal was served. During the meals and other inappropriate moments, the scene cuts away to pure darkness outside. Then cuts back in. And speaking of darkness outside, one of the funniest parts of the movie is the climate, where apparently it isn't nighttime unless it's raining. And speaking of darkness, a big problem with the movie is that it's so poorly lit you can't see what's going on half the time, which is more of a frustration than anything. In one of the climactic scenes, you can't even tell what you're supposed to be seeing that's so shocking.

And when it comes to climactic scenes, Unhinged contains one of the worst. I've seen people say \"Wow, that surprised me, and that's good.\" I can say that the big reveal did surprise me, because I didn't see it coming. The reason I didn't see it coming is because it made absolutely no sense. I won't ruin it for you, but I will tell you that my friend and I spent a good twenty minutes rewinding to various parts of the movie to find anything that would have validated that at all, and all we found were more things saying that it wasn't possible.

All in all, this movie is actually better when you watch it with the commentary tracks that make fun of it. I love crap horror movies, but this was too much.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "OK - I ADORE this film...I will credit this movie - alone - for making me such a die-hard horror fanatic. I could never watch this movie alone. I've also heard many many stories of the effect it had in it's original release at the theatres , on its viewers. Incredible masterpiece.... Horrible , psychological stuff scares the pants off me .Oh bless their hearts, whoever made this awesome film. I love it. I thought the whole film was decent and interesting. This movie is SO scary - this is the scariest movie I have ever seen in my life! Not that what happens in the film and the idea of the film are not scary enough , but what always got me - was Brendan's fabulous acting. Best horror film EVER. Nothing can ever be this scary again. Halloween viewing at its evilest.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "

I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.

My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.

And of course, there was the gore.

The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.

The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.

All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.

Loved it. Go see it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be \"saved\" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had \"proven\" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Streetfight (aka Coonskin) is a very unique film directed by animation pioneer Ralph Bakshi. It is an oddity of the cinema, and is very much worth seeing. It is live action mixed with animation, seemingly influenced on Disney's legendary Song of the South, almost as if it is a response to that flick. Philip Michael Thomas, later to become Don Johnson's sidekick on Miami Vice, and Scatman Crothers, most famous for his role in Kubrick's The Shining, are prison escapees. Charles Gordone and Barry White (yes, that Barry White) are Thomas' friends and plan to help him escape prison. They are stuck at a police roadblock, and Crothers tells Thomas a story about a black rabbit, a bear, and a fox who move from the South to Harlem in order to find a more peaceful existence. The story is animated, and provides a lot of wonderous things to see. Like all of Bakshi's films, most will be annoyed and will dislike the animation. True animation lovers will forgive its clunkiness and fall in love with its inventiveness. The movie is very violent, very sexual, and it is mostly about battles between the races. For a long time, I thought I was watching something extremely important, but after a while, especially after I got done watching it, it started to seem more like a run-of-the-mill blacksploitation flick, along the lines of Superfly. It's very sloppy and doesn't really say anything. Besides, isn't Bakshi white? Whatever the answer to that, Coonskin/Streetfight is still very much worth watching for animation aficionados as well as cult movie fans. 7/10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. Bad acting, horrible cinematography, and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. The WWF style cinemtography will make you cry...where's the tripod?! The filmakers aimed high, but sorely missed their mark.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I went to see this with my wife and 3 yr old son. He seemed to like it a lot more than my wife and I did. The writing is surprisingly poor for a pixar / Disney excursion. In fact, I had a very hard time paying attention at all. The movie does look amazing but the story just becomes so weird and long winded that I was hoping my son would fall asleep so I could pick him up and walk out.

Not to say that the film isn't an interesting concept, it's just told so oddly, (bad screenplay?) especially when we \"meet the family\" for the first time. I know we're supposed to get the impression that the family is wacky but good lord, they could've shortened that sequence by a good 15 minutes (seemingly, I didn't actually time it). By that point I was scratching my head looking for an exit.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I've known about Bettie Page for many a year now. The soft-core porn images of her from the 1950's have since become iconographic and still have a strong draw even today. The \"Bettie Page\" look is also still hugely popular within the hetero fetish world and remains as distinctive today as it did then. So I watched this film with quite a bit of familiarity to begin with. The result did not disappoint.

Among other things, it was hugely entertaining to see the movie's recreation of actual figures like Irving Klaw, John Willie, and Bunny Yeager – all consider trailblazers today. Mary Harron did an excellent job creating the desired ambiance of sexual repression and hypocrisy in 1950's America along with a sexuality that, by today's standards, was innocent in the extreme. I particularly liked the use of monochrome versus color as a visual shorthand for the emotional and spiritual climate Bettie found herself in.

I think that Gretchen Mol did an excellent job of presenting the character of Bettie in all her innocent sexuality and all her utter naiveté. Bettie loved to look pretty, loved the attention, saw nothing wrong with nudity, and enjoyed dressing up in \"silly outfits\" for the camera. The underlying sexuality and deeply fetishistic desires all that evoked were completely lost on her. To this day she still doesn't understand \"what all the fuss was about\" when it comes to her pictures or the S&M content of them.

This isn't to say she's uneducated or too simple to understand it's just that she simply doesn't \"get it\" about fetishism and never will. No harm there. Bettie Page is simply being who she is. The film captured this quite nicely.

The social atmosphere of the 1950's depicted by Ms. Harron and written by her along with Guinevere Turner makes me truly glad I live in the day and age that I do. The hypocrisy and repression combined with the massive ignorance about our sexuality all combined to a frighteningly stifling world. The film well captures this and brings to cheering as Bettie endures it all with her unshakeable faith and her unchangeable naiveté.

This film was a bit slow at times but hit all the points Ms. Harron attempted and hit them well. I'd recommend this film even for those folks with little to no knowledge of who Bettie Page was and what effect she had on American culture. For those with such interests, then this film is a must see.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.

Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.

The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.

This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is my favorite of the three care bears movies. Once again I liked all the songs. The big problem however as most people have pointed out was that this story contradicts the original. For those that saw the first movie recall the bears met their \"cousins\" who they apparently never knew about. It wasn't of course until the end that the cousins received their tummy symbols after proving how much they cared. In this story however the cousins grow up with the care bears and have tummy symbols all along. That being said this isn't a bad movie as long you keep it separate from the first. I thought the Darkheart character much more evil then the Nicholas of the first. But at the same time I felt it added a sort of balance to the sweetness of the care bears. I also liked the we care part at the end, although I know other people had mixed feelings about that scene. And of course I LOVED the songs. My favorites being Growing Up and Forever Young. The care bears movies have always had such good songs. Ten stars for a very good movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "If you read my review of SyFy's \"Dinoshark\", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a \"so bad, it's good\" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey \"Dinoshark\", I sat down to watch \"Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy\", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people!

Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Watching this last night it amazed me that Fox spent so much money on it and got so little back on their investment. It's the kind of disaster that has to be seen to be believed.

I'm sure that the first morning of filming Raquel Welch dusted off the shelf over her fireplace to prepare a spot for the Academy Award she would surely win for this daringly original movie. Oops. That's not what happened.

The infighting on the set was detailed in print by Rex Reed and this helped the movie attain a reputation before it was even released. When it was finally released there wasn't the usual three ring circus of publicity. If I remember correctly, in Houston it opened at drive-ins and neighborhood theatres and never played any of the big venues.

I lay most of the blame on director Michael Sarne, who was hot after having directed (the not all that good) JOANNA, a film with music about young people in swinging mod London.

If I recall correctly, Fox wound up firing him and piecing the film together the best they could. That's why scenes play out in no particular sequence and characters appear and then vanish. An impressive supporting cast (Kathleen Freeman, Jim Backus, John Carradine, Andy Devine and others) is wasted with nothing to do.

To expand it to feature length there are numerous clips from Fox movies featuring stars like Carmen Miranda (in amazing footage from THE GANG'S ALL HERE) andLaurel and Hardy, who never dreamed they'd be playing in an X rated movie.

The X rating is due to occasional language numerous sexual perversions; however, none of the characters seem to be having any fun. Maybe somebody involved with the film had a warped Puritan sensibility and figured that if they could make these things unappealing it wasn't bad to exploit them.

This was one of the \"youth\" pictures that nearly bankrupted Hollywood in the 1970's. One writer joked that EASY RIDER (which was made for pocket change) was the most expensive movie ever made because so many films followed which tried and failed in the worst way to duplicate its success. Sixtyish, once honored directors like Stanley Kramer and Otto Preminger made movies like RPM and SKIDOO in an effort to attract a young audience. White directors and writers attempted to make films to attract a Black audience. Those movies are locked somewhere in a vault and the two named and many others from that genre have never, as best I know, been out on home video or cable. They're the studios' deep dark secret.

Raquel Welch's performance in this is, all things considered, very good. With the right direction and script she could played the type of sassy liberated women Rosiland Russel and Barbara Stanwyck specialized in. She looks great and has awesome costumes. Mae West is the liveliest seventy-something actress I've ever seen. On the one hand it's kind of heartbreaking to watch her attempt to capture her glory from years gone by, but I'm sure she needed the money.

If you want to see a big budget X-rated movie from this era check out BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (also from Fox) because it doesn't take itself seriously. It's crazy kids playing with the equipment at a major studio. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE tries to Say Something. There just wasn't anyone who wanted to listen.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "My wife is a teacher and she is very familiar with the story, having read it to several of her classes. It never sounded all that interesting to me, though, and I bought the DVD figuring this would be a movie that wouldn't really be up my alley.

The first half of the movie has a lot of set-up and I found myself thinking that I was right. It starts off a bit slow and I have to admit that I was a little bit bored - but curious enough to stay with it. Boy, am I glad I did because this ended up being a very satisfying and rewarding movie. I would most certainly watch this again!

The casting was very good. Since I haven't read the book, I can't vouch for accuracy, but I have to say that Jon Voight was truly delightful. You liked the characters you were supposed to like, hated the ones you were supposed to hate, and laughed at the ones that were supposed to be funny.

I can see how some folks might not like this movie. It is tedious at times, especially in the beginning. All the flashbacks can be distracting (though they are essential to the story). Once the story starts to come together at the end, though, I think you're paid back in spades for your patience. When all is said and done, I think this is a very good movie - 8/10.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "BEWARE SPOILERS. This movie was okay. Goldie Hawn and Chris Sarandon were the best two in it. Okay, so the goofie foreign guy who (SPOILER HERE) trades with the biker for his clothes was funny. This guy's boss was good, too. But the movie really belonged to Sarandon and Hawn. These two should have had a lot more time on screen together. They're chemistry was great. The bathroom scene-WOW! Romantic, sweet, yummy.

Hawn is a goofy cocktail waitress who saves a foreign man and ends up at the whitehouse in the middle of a plot due to the greed of politicians. To talk about Sarandon would be to give a lot away. SPOILERS This is a rather untypical romantic/political comedy, and it satisfies both somewhat-the political side a whole lot more than the romantic. It touches on political issues, and just barely skims on romantic areas.

", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This was an incredibly stupid movie. It was possibly the worst movie I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. I cannot fathom how it ranks a rating of 5 or 6.............", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I love this movie. It is one of those movies that you can watch time and time again and still find engaging. Congratulations!! I believe everyone involved in making the movie and the script should be proud of themselves. It is so eerie, you feel like you are watching a real life band. I would like to see more movies like this. I am glad that they did not choose famous Hollywood stars to be in this movie because it probably would not have worked. And even if Billy Connolly is quite well known, he really got stuck into the role and I could not imagine anybody else playing it. Congratulations again, I really believe this movie deserves the Peter Sellers Comedy Award for Bill Nighy. And when you get to the final scene..... well what can I say!!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.

Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My wife and I both agree that this is one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly in the top ten of those I've watched all the way through. At least \"Plan 9\" was enjoyable.

I DID really enjoy \"Christine\", \"The Dead Zone\", \"Firestarter\", \"Carrie\", and some of his other films. I didn't care much for \"Cujo\" (only because the sound was so bad on versions I've seen and I often couldn't tell what people were saying), or \"Pet Sematary (Pet Cemetery)\".

But this mess was a total mistake in every way possible. The \"creatures\" themselves seemed designed by a 9-year-old. (No offense to 9-year-olds.)

Even the \"one-liners\" made us groan and weren't remotely amusing.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Don't waste your time on this film. It could have been good, but the ending was one of the lamest I've ever seen. I seriously have to wonder how the people involved with the making of this film could've looked at that final scene and thought, \"yeah! now there's an ending!\" and patted themselves on the back about it. To me it seemed more like they just ran out of ideas! They built up the final scenes to have a cool twist, but instead just let the whole build-up fall flat on it's face. When the last shot faded to black and I heard the credit music starting I was in shock - I could not believe what I was seeing and that someone could even call that an ending. The best thing anyone could do with this film is rewrite the end and give it some substance. Seriously, I'd really love to get whoever came up with that one in a room, look them in the face and say - WTF??!!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Don't even bother with this movie, it's bad when judged on it's own merits, but when compared to the 1972 original (which IS a classic) it's down right awful. And BTW, somebody commented that the 1972 movie is bad when compared to the book. This is silly, movies should never be judged against the books they are taken from. They are 2 completely different art forms (as if this needed to be pointed out but apparently it does). If you used this criteria for all movies then \"2001\" would suck and so would \"Forest Gump\" and \"Silence of the Lambs\".", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I don't normally feel much of an incentive to comment on films I don't like, but in a case like this one, I just have to say something. This movie is terrible, illogical, and stupid. There are so many flaws in the storytelling that I don't even feel obliged to elaborate on because it's time for me to move on from this experience. The most annoying point is, however, that at no point in the film does anyone explain whether the motivations for Bacon's character's madness are due to a power trip or a physiological reaction to his condition.

Granted the special effects are impressive, and in the past Paul Verhoeven has done some good stuff (the director's cut of Robocop on DVD is great). However, this movie is stupid and generally doesn't come near to explaining the point or technical aspect of the subject matter, and instead settles for predictable action without any enjoyment.

In short, as many other reviews here say (wish I had read them before...) - Stay away from this film!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Baba - Rajinikanth will never forget this name in his life. This is the movie which caused his downfall. It was released with much hype but crashed badly and laid to severe financial losses for its producers and distributors. Rajinikanth had to personally repay them for the losses incurred. Soon after its release, he tried venturing into politics but failed miserably. Its a very bad movie with horrible acting, bad-quality makeup and pathetic screenplay. Throughout the movie, Rajinikanth looks like a person suffering from some disease. I'm one of the unfortunate souls who saw Baba, first day first show in theatre. The audiences were so bored that most of them left the theatre before the intermission. Sorry, I'll not recommend this one to anyone.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Your average garden variety psychotic nutcase (deliciously essayed with unhinged glee by Stephen Sachs) knocks off various dim-witted young \"adults\" (to use the term very loosely) in Dayton Hall University, which is being closed down for demolition. Featuring dreadful acting by the entire cast (Daphne Zuniga makes her ignominious and inauspicious film debut here as Debbie, a bimbo who has her head crushed by a car!), a hefty corpse tally of 10, okay make-up f/x by Matthew Mungle, a few bloody murders (baseball bat bludgeoning, chicken wire strangulation, your standard drill through the head bit, that sort of gruesome thing), a downbeat surprise twist ending which was later copied in \"Intruder,\" a creepy score by Christopher (\"Hellraiser\") Young, a slight smidgen of gratuitous female nudity, and endearingly incompetent direction by Jeffrey Obrow and Steve Carpenter (who also blessed us with \"The Power\" and \"The Kindred\"), this entertainingly abysmal slice'n'dice atrocity sizes up as a good deal of delectably dopey and drecky low-grade fun.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This UK psychological thriller is known in the United States as CLOSURE. Exploitation of X-Files' Gillian Anderson, who plays an attractive middle aged businesswoman of substance named Alice. She must attend a business party and invites Adam(Danny Dyer), who just installed a security system for her, to be her escort. On the way home, speeding through the woods on a narrow lane, Alice's auto collides with a deer. After pulling the wounded animal off the road, the couple is savagely attacked by a drunken gang of thugs. Adam is beat to a pulp; Alice is gang raped and both are emotionally and physically devastated by the ruthless attack. When the identities of their attackers are discovered, Alice and Adam set out to exact revenge...brutal revenge. The couple at times find themselves at odds on how to deal with the ruthless attackers. Their final decision is to avenge with no mercy. Let there be no mistake, payback IS hell. Also in the cast: Anthony Calf, Ralph Brown, Francesca Fowler and Antony Byrne. Brutal violence, disturbing images, nudity and graphic rape.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.

This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I am watching the series back to back as fast as possible. I am attempting to watch all things Star Trek. This is month 3 and I am now on Season 3 of TNG and I have already gone thru DS9 in its entirety. Star Trek is the greatest television phenomenon ever achieved.

\"Shades of Grey\" is the first recap episode in the TNG series. Having just watched the shows, these clips were fresh in my mind, but I noticed how a couple of them were re-shot because the film looked better. Season 1 always seemed real dark and ugly to me - and the actors looked silly, like they didn't fit in their own skins.

The show is essentially just made of up a greatest hits of the happiest and saddest moments in Riker's life on the Enterprise up until this point. The Data and Riker scene in the holo-deck is a classic moment of new friendship. My other favorite is when the 2nd officer on the Klingon ship challenges Riker's authority as first officer and Riker beat the living CRAP out of that Klingon. Then the admiral kicks his a$$ but good. This entire episode is a heck of a reminder that a LOT of crazy, great things have happened already in a mere 2 seasons with 5 more to go and a handful of movies! At this point in the series they are really starting to develop the emotions that tie Riker to Deanna Troi as Imzadi. Up until this point they have mentioned the fact, but they have yet to exploit it. Let the record show that the ST Wiki - Memory Alpha claims that Imzadi means \"first\" and denotes that she has had intimate relations with Riker and also remains deeply close on an emotional one. This episode further proves there will be a tense romantic interest in each other for a long time to come.

Here is the article: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Imzadi By this point in the series, production value is up to speed and Star Trek TNG is settling into the sci-fi behemoth it was destined to become. Watching this again as an adult I see now what GREAT ACTORS the Star Trek Universe provides. They really need to make a new ST show set after all the current shows. A DS9 movie would have been nice too.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is one powerful film. The first time I saw it, the Scottish accents made it tough for me to understand a lot and that ruined the viewing experience. I gave up on it but then acquired the DVD, used the English subtitles when I needed them, and really got into this movie, discovering just how good it is. It is excellent.

The widescreen picture makes it spectacular in parts, with some wonderful rugged scenery and the story reminded me of Braveheart, an involving tale of good versus evil. Here, it's Liam Neeson (good) vs. Tim Roth (evil). Both do their jobs well.

Few actors come across as despicable as Roth. Man, you really want to smack this guy in his arrogant, irritating puss. (He is so nasty and vile the sick critics love his character more than anyone else's here). Neeson is a man's man and a solid hero figure as Gibson was in Braveheart. Jessica Lange is strong in here as the female lead. The movie draws you in and gets you totally involved, so prepared to have an emotional experience viewing this.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I watched \"Elephant Walk\" for the first time in about 30 years and was struck by how similar the story line is to the greatly superior \"Rebecca.\" As others have said, you have the sweet young thing swept off her feet by the alternately charming and brooding lord of the manor, only to find her marriage threatened by the inescapable memory of a larger-than-life yet deeply flawed relative. You have the stern and disapproving servant, a crisis that will either bind the couple together or tear them irreparably apart, climaxed by the fiery destruction of the lavish homestead.

Meanwhile, \"Elephant Walk\" also owes some of its creepy jungle atmosphere to \"The Letter,\" the Bette Davis love triangle set on a Singapore rubber plantation rather than a Sri Lankan tea plantation.

Maltin gives \"Elephant Walk\" just two stars, and IMDb readers aren't much kinder, but I enjoyed it despite its predictability. Elizabeth Taylor never looked lovelier, and Peter Finch does a credible job as the basically good man unable to shake off the influence of his overbearing father. Dana Andrews -- a favorite in \"Laura\" and \"The Best Year of Our Lives\" -- is wasted as Elizabeth's frustrated admirer. The real star is the bungalow, one of the most beautiful interior sets in movie history.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Well let me go say this because i love history and I know that movie is most important piece in our history and it was beautifully executed movie and Julia Stiles became my #1 favorite actress after seeing her in \"The '60s\" and i own this movie in my video box with many movies and i suggest you to look for her new movies in the future and try to enjoy history!!!!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I cant understand at all why so many Godzilla fans think this is excellent, one of the best Godzilla films ever in fact. This film is horrible and one of the very few Gojira films I cant stand to watch again (the other being G. vs Megalon).

The plot is too campy to be in the Heisei series, a series that attempted to turn the aging Godzilla franchise into bonafide action films, revolving around ideas that seemed more in place in 1974 than 1991. It just sounded ridiculous, especially with some of the subject matter, take for example the WW2 scene, with the Japanese soldiers praising a dying Godzillasaurus, a mournful and serious tone, take the exuberant former commander turn capitalist and his death, serious seens in a film its fans somehow denote as played for laughs, as a goofy romp with guilty illogical fun, if so than this is easily one of the most tasteless films I've seen, however I think its more likely it was only talent the filmmakers lacked and this was a case of a straight faced action movie gone bad. It was made ever worse by the fact that the special effects are terrible beyond compare, from the jet packs to the android, to the hokey sound effects emitted from everything, its impossible to take anything seriously, and yet the film expects you to, there's no nudges to the camera.

Like nearly all Godzilla films there's a pointless romance, and this is no exception, though something can be said about the fact that this one is especially pointless since and inexplicable. There is literally no reason at all presented for the romance, it just happens and there lives make 360 degree commitments for it. Aside from this the other terrible aspect of this film is dialogue, both the Japanese and English is horrible, clunky and possibly the inspiration for Battlefield Earth.

The Tristar DVD compounds the problems, making everything look grainy, blurred, dim and just plain ugly, the same was for the sound. I first saw the Japanese Region 2 version and the differences are night and day, with the original vibrant colors and texture, the noteworthy score, the fight scenes especially, are actually watchable.

In my opinion, the Heisei series is a disappointment, with the exception of Godzilla 1984 (Japanese version) there is little to praise here, and Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah is case in point of this failure. It doesn't even come close to deserving the reputation and fans it gets.

2 out of 10", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "One of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes. And the next day we were in the supermarket at Hollywood Blvd. and La Brea, my father and I, and guess who was coming toward us in the aisle! Barney Phillips, but no hat on -- at least, I don't think he had a hat on.

We asked him about his third eye, and he said something like he left it at home, and everybody he met that day had asked him about it.

A friendly guy. We used to see all kinds of character actors in LA in those days.

BTW, I was a teenager and it took a long time for me to get over the \"three hands\" on the other alien!

Robyn Frisch O'Neill

Hollywood native and resident 1947 to 1963.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Half the reviews were good so i took a chance for $10. Sure Priscilla Barnes had some sex talk but it wasn't much. The whole plot later that she may be the other actress mother & the documentary maker falling for the young woman is stretching it. Its not funny its not that raunchy its not much of anything but a waste of time. Boogie Nights was based on real people that were in the adult industry this is based on nothing that ever happened in the industry. It could have shocked with whats popular today in adult films mocking todays gonzo videos and that big orgy that they had 5 minutes to shoot what a joke a bigger orgy has been done bigger & better decades ago in the early 1970s.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A mix of Ninja stuff mixed with a sub-James Bond storyline. The result is incredibly awful and boring, being just the stage for endless gun battles. I can't believe this was released in theaters. Terminate this movie.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Although the likeliness of someone focusing on THIS comment among the other 80+ for this movie is low, I feel that I have to say something about this one. I am not the kind of movie-watcher who pays attention to production value, thought-provoking dialog, or brilliant acting & directing. However, I claim that this movie sucks. I don't know why I don't like it... I mean it has almost everything i want out of a horror movie: blood, outrageousness, unintentional humor, etc. According to this evidence it should be my favorite. Still, Zombi 3 is a baaad movie.

There are just too many things that compels you to yell at the screen. Like when the girl leaves the army guy when their car breaks down to find water (this spoils nothing so don't worry). She walks into what I see as an abandoned hotel or something. Did she not see that there was a friggin' lake in the middle of the building??? Yes she's looking for water and passes up a lake. Why? Cuz she wants to know why the people (who aren't there cuz the place is abandoned) won't answer her when she calls out: \"Is anybody there?\" Oh this is just a little, insignificant piece of the big picture I'm painting.

There is a reason, though, why I gave this film more than 1 star. It's one of those movies where if you forget how bad it really is, like I have a few times, you'll want to watch it again because it's just so over-the-top in every aspect. I called it blood in the first paragraph, but this movie has no blood, it has an ocean of gore. Also, it has pretty weird creatures in it as well: a zombie-baby (with an adult-size hand???) and a magically flying head to name just two.

You know when you try to think of the worst and cheesiest movies ever made and you come up with '50's sci-fi movies? I believe that Zombi 3 and movies like it should top those. It has all the elements: scientists arguing with the government, warnings of the apocalypse on the radio, armies battling monsters, and so on. This IS the Plan 9 of the '80's! While I won't say that this is a waste of money if you want to buy it, just expect the very worst. And when you find out that expecting the worst is underestimating Zombi 3, it won't be all that bad. You might actually like it, I'm not saying that's impossible.

Don't think I hate this movie, I don't... really. Oh, P.S. Killing Birds (aka Zombie 5) rules! (did I just blow my credibility?)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When I rented Domino I was expected it to be very dumb. I hate films that have really flashy editing and cinematography and Domino also just got very bad reviews. The only reason I watched it is because I like have liked Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Christopher Walken, and Tony Scott on other occasions. I also just enjoy based on fact adventure stories. Yes the editing and cinematography were frantic, the story was weak, and the acting was mediocre, but I still loved this film for some bizarre reason. Domino was very, very entertaining and often very funny. It was horribly underrated when it was released I think because everyone wanted more of an emotional journey like Scotts last film Man on Fire and instead just got wonderful entertainment. I actually understand why everybody hated Domino so much, even though I loved it and recommend it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "My wife and I both thought this film a watered-down, made-for-TV (BBC) version of Manhattan Murder Mystery...which is itself good, but not great. The story has little inter- character tension or chemistry, and not much of a plot. Woody Allen's character just sort of wanders around running off at the mouth, and Hugh Jackman and Scarlett Johannsson don't have a lot more to do. It's pretty disappointing, I must say. Ian McShane's role is just an expanded cameo appearance.

The first thing that occurred to me was \"I wonder how much the BBC had to pay Woody Allen to dislodge him from Manhatttan?\" He must've needed the money, and they must have needed his appeal to expand their audience beyond the youth market drawn to the two stars. I'm giving this movie 4 stars instead of 3 because it is unbothersome background noise. If you ever want something to have on while you're knitting or sorting your stamp collection, this'll do the job. I wouldn't pay to rent it again.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Your first clue that this is a cheesy movie is that it was shot on video, not film. The story is convoluted, and the production is amazingly sloppy. Note, for example, that when the title couple are on a plane ostensibly landing in Vermont, where they've gone to celebrate their relationship in a civil union ceremony, the plane is shown coming into an airport surrounded by palm trees. Their ceremony - in Vermont - takes place in a garden of tropical plants, including palms, which wouldn't last five minutes in the New England climate. On yet another airplane trip, the establishing shot depicts a FedEx cargo plane taking off. Presumably they could only afford to travel in steerage. As for the plot, this movie expects you to believe that Victor, the devoutly Christian brother of Arthur, is kicked out of his church when the congregation learns that his BROTHER is gay. Not only that, but the pastor eventually sets Victor up with a hit man to have Ben and Arthur killed \"to purge their souls of sin.\" Apparently no one in this church has ever heard of the Ten Commandments. Were it not for Jamie Brett Gabel, who is surprisingly effective as Arthur, this movie would have no redeeming qualities at all.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen… I don't really know why… Just your run-of-the-mill stories about guy who is about to get married, and starts to fancy someone else instead. Story has been told a thousand times. Nothing new or innovative about it at all.

I don't really know what was wrong with this film. Most of the time when these kinds of actors/actresses get together to make a film that have already been made a million times before, it's really entertaining. There are usually little clever thing in them that aren't really in any other. For some reason, this one just doesn't hold your attention. You can pick out some funny parts, or clever ideas in it, but for some reason they're just not funny, nor clever in any way… I wish I new how to explain it, but I don't… Just don't waste your time on this one…", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "

Cheap-looking and ugly, this film didn't even seem to entertain the kids in the audience, except for one fairly amusing toilet joke. Christopher Lloyd is way past his prime and actually quite tiresome in this role, although the sorry excuse for jokes by the writers don't help.   Elizabeth Hurley is embarrassingly amateurish in a supposedly comic role. Jeff Daniels and Darryl Hannah avoid humiliation. There is really no reason to make this movie, especially since it is unavoidable that one will compare it with Robin Williams's often brilliant improvisations in Mork & Mindy.

", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.

I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it \"mandatory\" or \"compulsory\".

I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.

The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to \"do right\". It appeals particularly to more \"liberal\" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to \"be good\" going.

And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.

And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to \"do right\".

Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people?", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I love the newer episodes with CJ and Grandad - I also liked the storyline with Kate falling for the principal. I want to find out what happens to Rory and Kerry and Bridget and the family next. I think CJ is very funny and I love his scenes with Grandad. I have always loved James Garner in everything he does, and it is a credit to his acting that I never think of him as James Garner or Rockford in this series and totally believe in him as Kate's Dad. This family is so real and funny. It was terribly sad when John Ritter / Paul Hennessey died, but as in real life these things happen and the way it was written into the series and dealt with was both funny and sad and always extremely sensitively and lovingly dealt with. But generally a very funny show with lots of laughs and fun.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "While watching this movie I was frustrated and distracted and by the end, I wanted to give the movie a solid 4 or 5. I thought the animation was random and all over the place and there was too much going on. Even my A.D.D couldn't keep up. It felt like a slight acid trip. Everything looked flat, there was no dimension to anything. There were so many shapes, lines and patterns. I really wanted to stop the movie mid-way and smash my burned copy of this movie. But after I finish watching it, I went online to read up on the movie and I should have done a little research into this movie before watching.

The Secret of Kells is loosely based on the true story about the original Book of Kells. A small boy, Brendan, is given the task of penning new pages in what is set to be the greatest book ever written. This book will contain information that will help \"change darkness into light.\" Brendan lives in the village of Kells behind huge stone walls. Taking place in the 8th century, Brendan's uncle, the Abbot of Kells, is trying to build the wall to keep the Vikings out. Brendan's uncle insist he help complete the wall, but a traveler and keeper of \"the book\" secretly trains Brendan to hone in on his illustration skills, and convinces him to complete \"the book\" and carry out it's word.

The entire time I watched the movie I thought I was missing something because I didn't really understand what was going on. I figured I was just missing a piece of Irish history. A simple Google search taught me all I needed to know about the original Book of Kells. After reading many articles, my opinion of the movie greatly changed.

The Book of Kells is a copied version of the first few books of the New Testament transcribed into Latin by Gaelic monks in Ireland in the 8th century. Along with it's paleographic and insular script, the book is also beautifully illustrated in insular art, a type of early art form know for it's intricacy, complexity, and miniature illustrations. Much of the art in the Book of Kells is depicted as lots of art was at the time, flat and dimensionality challenged with no perspective. But what makes the Book of Kells stand out from other early pieces of art is it's use of many colors.

The Secret of Kells is very colorful. I originally thought the animation was flat and boring. It reminded me a lot of the cartoon Samurai Jack which also had a flat and \"amine\" look to it. Once I learned about the art styles of the Book of Kells, it's obvious that many of the styles from the book are mimicked in the movie. There are lines and swirls and various shapes that inhabit Brendan's mind. Whenever he goes into his imagination, circular shapes resembling the sun, cogs, clocks and wheels begin filling the screen. The edges of the screen become framed in decorated moving triangles or circles. Transitions are filled with color, and Celtic knots. From the trees to the floors, many things in this world are covered in shapes or patterns.

Clocking in at 70 minutes minus credits, The Secret of Kells is a fun little history lesson with a little adventure and silliness thrown in to keep people (maybe just children) interested. I think one has to generally be open-mined to The Secret of Kells as half art piece, half movie about history. Despite looking like it was animated with Adobe illustrator, It's a very nice looking movie. But based on the 20 films submitted for Oscar consideration, I don't think it was worth being nominated over Mary and Max.

ThatWasJunk.Blogspot.com", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This movie is great. If you enjoy watching B-class movies, that is. This is a classic college 80's slasher movie, in which one song is played throughout the entire soundtrack. A horrible film, but worth renting to make fun of, or just to watch old men pop out of closets with knives. Kinda funny, if you ask me.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It seems more than passing strange that such utter dreck as \"Dukes of Hazzard\" and \"The Hills Have Eyes\" (the new version) can find DVD distributors while older - and far superior works such as this film - are nowhere to be found. With all the on-going debate about the morality (or lack thereof) of warfare, and interest in espionage (consider the multiple Jack Ryan, Bourne, XXX, and \"Mission: Impossible\" productions, this would seem to be an obvious choice for release on DVD. True, it LOOKS like a 1968 motion picture because it IS a 1968 motion picture. But style consideration aside, this is still a production that actually has something valuable to say, and has plenty of plots twists to keep an audience entertained. If nothing else, will SOMEBODY please consider getting the soundtrack onto some kind of CD, whether it be a compilation with other Morricone music or as a stand-alone. I don't know if industry people bother to read what we fans have to say about their products, but if you are reading this and other comments, please take us seriously. We are paying for your lavish homes with our hard-earned dollars spent on tickets, DVDs and CDs - give us what we want! All that said, if you are reading this and have not seen this film, lobby for it's release so you may see what those of us who have seen it are talking about. You will not be disappointed.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Wow! This film is truly awful. I can't imagine how anyone could have read this badly written script and given it the greenlight. The cast is uniformly second rate with some truly horrendous performances from virtually all of the cast. The story is disjointed, fragmented and incoherent. The telling, leaden and predictable. No wit, no charm, no humour. Not sexy in the least. The characters remain as flat as the proverbial pancake. There's also a strong current of misogyny which became increasingly hard to stomach as the film went on. When your lead (Carrell) is unfunny and unappealing it's uphill from there. Despite it's phony turn-around ending where love triumphs over lust I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach. If this is what passes for humour and social comment then we're definitely doomed.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "i expected something different:more passion,drama...Again another failed attempt of originality.i'm sorry to say that the film falls into the old cliché of 'cheesiness'.15 year old teens may appreciate it though.The acting was not very convincing and the lines common,lacking any wit.Still, the soundtrack was good and well adapted.I can't say that this movie is a total flop,because people do watch it but it didn't meet the public's expectations and sunk into mediocrity.So,to conclude,the production keeps you in front of the TV for almost an hour and a half,which is an appreciable thing.Thus,I guess its worth seeing if you don't get annoyed", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!

This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called \"twist\" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.

Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.

I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the \"The Fugitive\" / \"In The Line of Fire\" but written by people with mental disabilities", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is a very enjoyable film with excellent actors and actresses evoking a range of emotions. It contains some really excellent humour which the whole family can enjoy. You get to know the characters quickly and experience their ups and downs. And, it ends very upbeat", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Complete waste of time.... This movie is not comedy, it's not drama, it's not romance...not even teenage comedy at least!!! Story... it should be some turn-over one end... but it's so disappointing! When movie has a turn-over on end I expect that turn-over to make movie even better (exp. \"Fight Club\") but this turn-over makes movie even worse.... When I watch teenage comedy, and I don't do that very often, I expect lousy jokes and bunch of nudeness... Jokes are too lousy and there is no nudity... You got only one....very good looking I must admit... girl, and that's that! And she's fully dressed whole movie! Acting is bad... like soap series... Don't waste your time! There are porns with better story and acting!

(sorry on my bad English)", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This gets a two because I liked it as a kid, but it became so redundant that I just started to hate it... I can't give this a descriptive review because it would be restating one thing after the other, I probably wouldn't say anything that everyone else didn't say already.

The only other thing about this show is that it's pretty nasty, with the kid with the boil to that twisted babysitter to the stupidity that runs around and about in it. I have a cousin that loves this show and he's the strangest and dumbest person I have met. This show should be pulled from the air. It's always the same thing over and over... They need to put better shows on Nick. I'm getting really really tired of stuff like this.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one, like Evening) but when I saw that the book's author, Susan Minot, was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film, I thought that Evening would be a good adaptation.

If you enjoyed the book, don't bother with this movie. It is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another.

Here, our characters are completely different: the bride is in love with Harris. Harris is the son of the housekeeper. Buddy is a drunk, in love with Ann and/or Harris. I don't think a single character made it from the book to the screen; oh it just gets worst with every passing moment.

And, really, didn't we learn from Bridges of Madison County that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in, to scenes of our heroes' grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights, simply does not work on film? This film is a disaster. Skip it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think \"To Have and Have Not\" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Harman and Isings 'Old Mill Pond' is a true masterpiece of the art of animation. The consummate skill and artistry that characterise this duos work is nowhere more in evidence than in this cartoon. It is a shame that so many people can see only offence in what is, and was always intended to be, a light hearted piece of entertainment that in no way sought to denigrate black people. If anything it is a tribute to the infectious humour and musicality of the black race. I have not been able to view this confection for many years as the 'race commissars' in England have deemed it too offensive to be shown in multi racial Britain. If anyone knows where I can obtain a copy I would dearly love to view this masterpiece again. I think those who routinely look for messages and intent that were never intended in these cartoons, which are, after all, sixty years old, should try to lighten up and remember that the world is a very different place today, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to censor what is viewable from the past.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Obviously, I didn't care for Things to Come (aka \"The Shape of Things to Come\") as much as most viewers. That means that there is a good chance that you'll enjoy it more than I did. At any rate, you might find it useful to hear the film described from another point of view.

Directed by William Cameron Menzies, who had as much experience as a production designer and even more as an art director, this is a film adaptation by H.G. Wells of his own novel by the same name. In my eyes, it helps demonstrate why a great novelist may not necessarily turn out to be a great screenwriter.

The film opens in 1940 in a London-like \"Everytown\". War is brewing and the citizens of Everytown are worried that it might reach them. It does. And it turns into a decades-long affair that basically destroys civilization. Wells and Menzies keep jumping forward in time to show us different scenes related to the war and its aftermath. We see two pilots, one downed, coming to terms with the consequences of their fighting. We meet a post-apocalyptic community ruled over by a would-be warlord. We meet a man from a burgeoning futuristic society. We see the way that technology is changing. And finally, we're taken to the full realization of that futuristic society circa 2036, where the leaders are debating the merits of sending man to the moon.

That might all sound potentially very exciting, but it just does not work as a film. Structurally, the film is far too episodic, with little to dramatically tie it together. By the third segment, I completely lost interest in trying to keep track of the characters. I had barely been able to sort them out in the first couple segments. There's a constant parade of new faces. We don't get to learn anything about any of them.

It doesn't help that the individual segments, with a couple exceptions, tend to be awkwardly directed and edited. They are also occasionally manipulative--it can almost begin to feel like a propaganda film. But maybe contradictorily, the segments are also a bit cold and dry emotionally.

In fact, one overlong section is more like a music video/industrial promotional video. If features shots of building the futuristic city, with lots of large machinery, lots of welding, and so on. At one point, a guy who looks like an astronaut waves at the camera through some kind of futuristic glass. The music for this section is somewhere between militaristic and an overblown horror score. I can't say that Things to Come consists of engaging material in terms of drama.

But the common cry in support of Things to Come is that it is \"a film about ideas\". That may be true, but there are a couple problems with it if looked at that way. One, it still doesn't make it work _as a film_, that is, as a visual and aural dramatic artwork, and two, there are far too many ideas presented here.

The principle idea is that of war and what it does to civilizations. That's a fine thing to make a film about. It's also remarkably prescient of World War II, as the Things To Come was scripted and filmed in 1935 (released in 1936). Wells has some interesting things to say about war, some of which go against the usual interpretation of the film. For example, the ending seems to suggest that another war is breaking out, or will at any moment. The overall message seems a trifle pessimistic. Wells seems to be showing that war is simply a part of human nature that cannot be excised, although it doesn't preclude \"progress\"--in fact, maybe it fuels progress, at least indirectly.

That would certainly be enough for one film. However, there are many more ideas here. The scene between the two pilots is one of the more poignant scenes of the film. It deals with a complex dilemma. One pilot has shot the other down, but is now coming to assist him. But the pilot who was shot down was carrying a poisonous gas that is now billowing across the field. They can't both breathe the gas without harm. A girl comes along. They only have two functioning gas-masks between them. The pilot who was shot down offers his mask, as he says he's dying anyway. What to do? It's not that this scene itself could be stretched out to feature length, but the ideas--the bizarre complex of both helping and trying to hurt each other in the midst of a war--are enough to build a film on.

Another example. During the scenes featuring the would-be warlord, in the post-apocalyptic environment, there is a nasty contagious disease called the \"wandering sickness\" going around. It turns victims into something like drunken zombies. The usual procedure is to shoot victims on site in an attempt to stave off the disease. This material is dealt with as if it were an afterthought. It's a great idea and deserved its own film.

Similarly, Wells presents the future society as having controversial socialist ideas. That was enough for its own film, too. It's just impossible to effectively deal with so much stuff in 100 minutes, especially when it's supposed to be the crux of the film in lieu of dramatic attraction.

Still, there are reasons to give Things to Come at least one viewing. If you're at all a sci-fi buff, this is a historically important film. Given Menzies' background, the production and set designs are interesting, even if the cinematography seems extremely dated. It's also interesting to see how Wells was either prescient or retrospectively humorous in his \"predictions\". I particularly enjoyed the means of propulsion to the moon, which was strongly reminiscent of George Méliès' 1902 A Trip to the Moon (aka Le Voyage dans la lune). Just don't expect too much from Things to Come.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Screwball comedy about romantic mismatches in New York City. Peter Bogdanovich is obviously in love with all the women in his picture--he reveres them--yet Audrey Hepburn is (naturally) put a notch above the others because, after all, she's the princess Bogdanovich probably fell in love with at the movies 30 years prior. He shoots her in loving close-ups, gets right in the sheets between her and a wonderfully hard-boiled/soft-boiled Ben Gazzara, and allows her room to sparkle throughout. The love-connections made in the course of the film are fast and amusing, though I did tire of John Ritter's TV-styled klutziness. Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten, and the grounded, earthy-sensual Patti Hansen are all exciting to watch. But it's really Hepburn's valentine and she absolutely glows. *** from ****", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Director Brian Yuzna has had an uneven career in the horror genre, creating masterpieces such as \"Return of the Living Dead 3\" or \"Bride of Re-Animator\", but at the same time he has done awful movies such as \"Faust: Love for the Damned\" or the mediocre \"Progeny\". He is obviously better in the seat of Producer where his work producing Stuart Gordon's films has been superb.

\"The Dentist\", is one of his lesser works as director, but the low profile it has benefits the film and its lack of pretensions makes it a very enjoyable experience. It tells the story of Dr. Alan Feinstone (played superbly by Corbin Bernsen), a successful dentist who one day discovers that his perfect life is not really as perfect as he thought when he discovers that his beautiful wife (Linda Hoffman)has an affair with the pool boy. This event disturbs his mind and puts him in a killing spree as he takes revenge on the world for being so \"filthy\".

The premise is very well handled by Yuzna, as he takes us on a ride following Feinstone's day of revenge. What makes this movie different from most slashers is that we are not in the victim's perspective, we follow Feinstone because he is the main character. We witness how he goes from respected professional to psycho murder in a day. Yuzna manages to give the movie the exact amount of suspense but adds a good dose of dark humor that really helps the movie.

Most of the success of the premise is in Bernsen's performance as Feinstone. He can make you feel sympathy and hate towards him at the same time, and the subtle humor his character has is another aspect that aids the film. The rest of the cast is not as good, and I think that their sub par acting hurts the film more than it should. A notable exception is Ken Foree, as the detective trying to catch Feinstone. While his part is quite small, he makes a great job with it.

With a dentist as killer, gory scenes are expected, and Brian Yuzna delivers great SFX in the correct amount. It's good to see that he does not go over-the-top with it as he usually do, and I dare to say that this is a highlight of the film. It has the exact amount of gore that is expected, nothing less and nothing more. Yuzna restrained himself of his common excesses and the result is great.

While this is not among Yuzna's most well-known films, I would say that it is one of his best. Sure, it is not classic material as his masterpieces, but it is a movie that entertains and never gets tiresome or boring. It is a low-budget simple film, but for what it is, I think it rocked. 7/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "It begins on a nice note only to falter quickly and let down expectations.

Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Sam's (John Abraham) characters are not properly built before Mac's boss decides to hitch him with three air hostess. Rest of the drama is about how Mac, Sam and Uncle Mambo (Paresh Rawal) deal with situations which at times seem forced.

About the cast, Paresh Rawal is a very talented actor, I thought was wasted in the role of a moody cook. Akshay Kumar is tolerable, John Abraham is very bad keeps stumbling over furniture & Rajpal Yadav is the only saving grace in the movie.

The second half of the movie is funny at times, but in all a DUD (songs are boring) and a major let down if you are hoping for some wholesome entertainment and comedy.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Almost from the word go this film is poor and lacking conviction but then again most people would struggle to show commitment to a script as uninspiring as this. The dialogue really does not flow and sometimes as in this case more is less (or should have been). This is also backed-up by odd scenes (e.g. the Cemetry slow-motion walk) that you think might lead somewhere but only seem to waste a few more seconds of your life.

The plot is a strange combination of gangster / situation comedy which I am sure seemed a good idea at the time but if ever there was a case for someone needing to be honest with the scriptwriter then here was it.

Martin Freeman is okay but then he seems to have one character which always plays so I am beginning to wonder if he was given a script or just filmed and told to react as normal.

Finally - humour. This reminds me of the 'Python (I think) quote about Shakespere, of his 'comedies' - If he had meant it to be humorous he would have put a joke in it. Well I didn't see one.

Don't waste your time - I did because I was watching it with a friend and kept hoping that it was going to get better.

It didn't.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.

Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he \"got\" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was \"My Name is Modesty,\" a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.

The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her \"origin.\" I realize the words \"Direct-to-Video\" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What a fun filled, sexy movie! They certainly don't make them like this anymore. 4 sexy au pairs arrive in London and have all sorts of sexual misadventures. The tone is oddly innocent, as the considerable nudity evolves out of stock farcical situations, rather than any overt sexual desire on the part of the characters. It is only when the actresses accidentally lose their clothes that the male characters become rampant. Richard O' Sullivan literally gets 'Randi'(sic). The film certainly betrays the origins of the softcore feature as lying in the nudie cuties and naturism films of the old school. My special interest in 'Au Pair Girls' is that I am a huge fan of Gabrielle Drake. If any actress has ever looked better naked (she's slim but wonderfully curvy), or clothed, come to that (I've loved her since the original run of UFO - who else could carry off a purple wig!), I'll eat my hat.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Plato's run is an entertaining b movie with Gary Busey.it is a fairly unknown film so one i saw it at a car boot i thought this looks entertaining i was right to.Gary Busey plays Plato smith a tough mercenary who is framed for the assassination of a powerful Cuban crime lord now on the run Plato must survive long enough to prove his innocence with the help of his friends played by Steve Bauer (scarface) and action star Jeff Speaksman (the expert). what i liked about Plato's run was the way the film never got boring the plot may have been done before but it was still good the acting was fun to watch and the action was quite fun as well especially the climax Gary Busey makes a good hero ironic since he normally plays the bad guy and Steve Bauer is good as Plato's sidekick even Jeff Speaksman makes a good performance and he cant even act well to finish it of Plato's run is an enjoyable effort from nu image films and i give it 7 out of 10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Ok, honestly I dont see why everybody thinks this is so great. Its really not. There were two good things that came out of this movie 1. Jack's performance, he was very good I can tip my hat for him. 2. Danny's performance, he was good. No other then that it got pretty stupid. And, what was Stanley Kubrick thinking drafting Shelly as the Wendy? She was so bad. She looked the same every time she got scared. The problem with this movie was the ending. I would have had more respect for it if Kubrick would have ended it differently. And, the over all movie was just stupid. The problem with the movie is that the book was so much better. So dont see the movie read the book and you will be much better off. 3/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The only film I've ever walked out on. Amazing, since I paid for myself and my date and I'm really cheap. But my brain couldn't stand any more of the dreck being piled on, particularly since I could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged.

From the beginning to the end this film offends. Worse, it ain't funny. It wasn't funny then, and it sure ain't funny now. But even worse, is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart, sophisticated comedy. It's juvenile, really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs, and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film.

Sexual Olympics? What High School kid hasn't thought of that? The beginning of the end.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Besides all of the technical mistakes ....

How about a female flight attendant who's able to kill, all by herself, 4 out of the 7 terrorists (including ex marines), 2 of whom without even using a gun. Then, she lands the plane perfectly. We're not talking about Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton; we're talking about a regular, frightened, yet very well composed flight attendant. :D How about the leader in charge of the assault/rescue squad, having a full-proof (according to the logic of the script) plan of sleep-gassing everyone and having someone from his team fly the plane. Only he decides at the spur of the moment to change plans and instead lead an attack on the terrorists, guns blazing, not knowing where the terrorists are, or how many, and not securing a position of advantage, so that his whole team gets easily wiped out. Yeah, that's using the old noggin. Only later to decide to use the sleep gas anyway. And it turns out useless for all intensive purposes.

Bad as this movie was, though, I couldn't stop myself from watching and wondering, what next? :D I can't help but imagine all the excellent, unemployed script writers thinking to themselves, it's not fair. lol! :D", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Skippy from \"Family Ties\" plays Eddie, a wussy 'metal' nerd who gets picked on. When his favorite wussy 'metal' singer, Sammi Curr, dies, he throws a hissy fit tearing down all the posters on his bedroom wall. But when he later gets an unreleased record that holds the spirit of his dead 'metal' idol. He first gets sucked into ideas of revenge, but then he doesn't want to take it as far as Sammi does. Which isn't really that far as his main victims only seem to go to the hospital. This movie is utterly laughable and has about as much to do with real metal as say, \"Rock Star\". OK, maybe a tad more than that piece of junk, but you get my point. And how ANYone can root for a guy played by Skippy from \"Family Ties\" I haven't a clue. The cameo by Gene Simmons is OK, and Ozzy Osbourne reaches coherency, I applaud him for that, but otherwise skip this one.

My Grade: D

Eye Candy:Elise Richards gets topless, an a topless extra at a pool party", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.

The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.

(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)

Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.

And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!

It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I've seen this film criticized with the statement, \"If you can get past the moralizing...\" That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, \"What would I have done in this position?\" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I don't know what movie some of these other people watched, but they must have seen a different \"Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration\" than the one I saw.

I think the movie was both well-done and inspiring. I think it's definitely worth watching. It's apparent from the outset that a lot of care went into the making of this film. The background scenery is beautiful.

I think the film does a good job of portraying Joseph Smith both as a man and as a prophet. Joseph's spiritual experiences are portrayed with taste and reverence.

I would definitely recommend watching this movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Over several years of looking for half-decent films to rent for my kids, I've developed a sixth-sense for spotting the really cheesy, direct-to-video efforts that are really painful to sit through (for anyone over the age of eight). I dropped the ball on this one and the kids spent half the movie asking me \"what did she say that for?\" and \"why did he do that?\" and my eyes got sore from rolling them every minute or so as characters did a really bad job of introducing seemingly random plot changes. And the next time someone decides that having absolutely no skill with a sword is simply \"bringing realism\" to a film, please run them through with a dull butter knife. \"Prehysteria!\" was head and shoulders above this. Arrgh.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I will never forget the night I saw this movie. We were on a submarine on patrol in the North Atlantic and this was the scheduled movie of the evening. We ALL gave up after the second reel. They did not even try to show it at the mid-night showing. Opting for a rerun instead...... This is all I really have to say but they have this stupid rule that my comment must contain ten lines. I'm not supposed to pad the comment with random words so I will just continue to ramble until I get my ten lines of BS. I could not find George Goble listed in the credits but I remember him in the movie. The sining was terrible and the songs even worse.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This is one of those horror flicks where twenty-somethings fool around with the dark arts around a camp fire, getting into a heap of trouble for doing so. A portal was opened containing a world of demons known as the Kelippoth of the Sitra Achra by a man whose daughter, Summer, gets kidnapped by something, taken into it. Summer is trained by a mysterious group whose identities are never revealed to battle the demon monsters. This is a portion of the plot which lends itself to scrutiny. Anyway, three wannabee witches, who went to high school together, Renea, the most enthusiastic, serious practitioner in the dark arts, and her lesbian cohorts, Jasmine and Marlene(..it's more or less a passing fad with them, though..) join up with buddies, Jason and Ricky, on a trip in the wilderness where Summer vanished from her home ten years ago. Opening the portal through a spoken text written in an ancient book, a demon is set free, as is Summer, now a warrior babe whose training has led to a very fit and athletic body and skills that have been needed to ward off monsters in the other world.

Low budget contains a loopy, but ambitious story, restraining it into a confined setting. These young adults spend a lot of time running around in the woods hoping not to be fodder for a beast. As can be the case in these movies, the demon stands on the sidelines while the story develops as Summer attempts to remember how everything came to pass, while befriending Jason who wishes to help her restore the lost time. The action is shot mostly in the dark, making any violence hard to decipher. Brigitte Kingsley(and the rest of the female cast for that matter), is some mighty nice eye candy, dressed scantily clad as a female Conan, a gorgeous body we have to pleasure to gaze upon from the moment she appears until the closing of the movie. Some lesbianism(..some kissing and fondling)and nudity spice things up nicely, and the cast seem to be having fun with the goofy plot..it's so preposterous that the silly tone is probably appropriate for the material.

Might be of interest for co-starring World Wrestling Entertainment's \"Captain Courageous\" Christian(real name, Jason Reso)as one of the group, spoofing his alter ego, as a chicken, quivering at the sound of a snapping tree twig. Landy Cannon is likable as unlikely hero, Jason, a lovestruck, naive young man whose ex-fiancé, Jasmine(Vanessa James)is now bi-sexual and in love with Marlene(..Jasmine's cruelty is in toying with Jason's feelings by hiding her affair with Marlene from his knowledge), while Ricky and Renea attempt to steer him away from this idea that he can rekindle a dead flame that gone out, never to ignite again. The Kelippoth demon is mostly darkly lit, I guess to refrain from showing how ludicrous/laughable it looks if presented in full. The lesbian antics of Jasmine and Marlene(Haley Shannon) is mostly tame, their love making, once alone in the woods up against a tree, is toned down and also lighted using the blackness of night. My rating is a bit favorable towards it, almost solely because of Kingsley, for purely superficial reasons, rather than the plot or film-making. The movie aims to please and is marketed to the boys(and girls who love hot women). I think, though, for the most part, the humor falls a bit flat.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Loosely based on the James J Corbett biography \"The Roar Of The Crowd\", Gentleman Jim is a wonderfully breezy picture that perfectly encapsulates not only the rise of the pugilistic prancer that was Corbett, but also the wind of change as regards the sport of boxing circa the 1890s.

The story follows Corbett {a perfectly casted Errol Flynn} from his humble beginnings as a bank teller in San Fransico, thru to a chance fight with an ex boxing champion that eventually leads to him fighting the fearsome heavyweight champion of the world, John L Sullivan {beefcake personified delightfully by Ward Bond}. Not all the fights are in the ring tho, and it's all the spin off vignettes in Corbett's life that makes this a grand entertaining picture. There are class issues to overcome here {perfectly played out as fellow club members pay to have him knocked down a peg or two}, and Corbett has to not only fight to get respect from his so called peers, but he must also overcome his ego as it grows as briskly as his reputation does. Along with the quite wonderful Corbett family, and all their stoic humorous support, Corbett's journey is as enthralling as it is joyous, yet as brash and as bold as he is, he is a very likable character, and it's a character that befits the tagged moniker he got of Gentleman Jim.

The film never sags for one moment, and it's a testament to director Raoul Walsh that although we are eagerly awaiting the final fight, the outer ring goings on are keeping us firmly entertained, not even the love interest sub plot hurts this picture {thank you Alexis Smith}. The fight sequences stand up really well, and they perfectly show just how Corbett became the champ he was, his brand of dancing rings round slugger fighters is now firmly placed in boxing history. As the final reel rolls we all come down to earth as an after fight meeting between Sullivan and Corbett puts all the brutality into context, and it's here where humility and humbleness becomes the outright winner, and as far as this viewer goes..............it will do for me to be sure to be sure, 9/10 for a truly wonderful picture.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "GREAT movie and the family will love it!! If kids are bored one day just pop the tape in and you'll be so glad you did!!!

~~~Rube

i luv raven-s!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Elvira Mistress Of The Dark (1988): Cassandra Peterson, Daniel Greene, William Morgan Sheppard, Susan Kellerman, Edie McClug, Jeff Conaway, Phil Rubenstein, Larry Flash Jenkins, Tress MacNeille, Damita Jo Freeman, Mario Celario, William Dance, Lee McLaughlin, Charles Woolf, Sharon Hays, Bill Cable, Joseph Arias, Scott Morris, Ira Heiden, Frank Collison, Lynne Marie Stewart, Marie Sullivan, Jack Fletcher, Robert Benedetti, Kate Brown, Hugh Gillin, Eve Smith, Raleigh Bond, Tony Burrier, Alan Dewames, Timm Hill, Read Scot, James Hogan, Derek Givens...Director James Signorelli...Screenplay Sam Egan, John Paragon.

Elvira, Mistress of the Dark was an 80's TV icon who had her own late night show on cable. She hosted and presented classic American horror films, many of them campy, while providing her own quips and humorous remarks. Actress Cassandra Peterson has to this date ridden on that success. In 1988, her first film was released. Playing herself, she's stuck hosting monster movie shows but longs for her own show in Las Vegas and make big money. Her agent Manny proves a disappointment. It's not long before she inherits a mansion from a deceased relative, a pet dog and a book of recipes. She comes to claim her inheritance in a small Nevada town - she was on her way to Vegas and became lost - and soon stirs things up in the sedate community. Outspoken conservative town council woman Chastity Pariah (Edie McClurg) soon sees her as a threat to the decency and values of the small town. Her voluptuous figure and winning personality soon draws the youth of the town. She falls for Bob Redding (Daniel Greene) the town handyman/carpenter, but before any real relationship can bloom, she finds herself in deep trouble. Vincent Talbot (William Morgan Sheppard) an eerie older man who is also set to inherit part of the fortune of Elvira's relative is in fact an age-old sorcerer who has a personal vendetta against Elvira's aunt and Elvira herself. He is aware that the so-called \"recipe book\" is actually a book of powerful magic, a power he wishes to claim for himself. He schemes to bring down Elvira by having the town burn her at the stake. How will Elvira get out of this one ? The movie was no real success at the box office, drawing a crowd of mostly young audiences familiar with the Elvira show on cable. Truth be told, this is a funny and feel-good movie. The script is chalk full of all kinds of jokes, some bad, some good, lots of sexual innuendo, visual jokes and overall campiness i.e. the hilarious last scene in which Elvira has finally got her own strip show in Vegas. This film is a cult classic of sorts, catering to Elvira fans. You couldn't enjoy this film otherwise. It's also a look back at \"pop\" culture of the 80's. Elvira was as much an icon of the 80's as was Alf, Vicky the Robot, Hulk Hogan, Mr. T and Madonna.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw this in Detroit in what must have been its original run. I literally rolled into the aisle of the theater. It was that funny. I haven't seen it since, but would love to. Where do you get a copy? Anybody saying anything about it being dated or overdone are, for my money, just a bunch of poseurs. Each skit is either wickedly, erotically or perversely hilarious. Each one! There is not a weak one included. The opening sequence, for instance, which parodies 2001, features gorilla go-go-dancers with pendulous breasts. Felinni would have filmed it had he the wicked wit... If you come to this film with an open mind and a blithely sneering heart, you'll pencil it right into your very best list.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "that's incredible! Fidani (who he was also a spiritist) was one of the cheapest director of all the world. This movie stole the original title of Leone's \"Duck you sucker!\" but tell the boring story of a Pinkerton agent against the killer \"Testa di Ferro\" (the improbable Gordon Mitchell, a stuntman). All is poor and crazy in this pelicula filmed into the dear landscapes of Lazio. The story is bad and crazy at the same time. Fidani was not able and ingenuos at the same time. Into the story happened some kind of crazy illogical things (like the discussion into the Sheriff's house and the demential appearance of Butch Cassidy !?!?!?!?!? yes, really Butch Cassidy,who is portrayed like an idiot). Terribles nuit americaine, absurd comportaments, illogic plot, bad acting and a fugace appearance by one of the most rewarded anchorman in the story of italian television, Renzo Arbore. Ah, of course: Klaus Kinski. Yes is great and terrible, but i'm sure he was in it only for money an for playing with iron horses) 2 of 10 but...DON'T MISS IT!!!!!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I liked nearly all the movies in the Dirty Harry series with the exception of the one I think is titled \"Enforcer\". \"Deadpool\" was a bit weak in areas too, but I still enjoyed it. This one is one of my favorites of the series, if nothing else for the great line of \"Go ahead, make my day\". This one also features an interesting albeit familiar plot of someone killing those that have done her wrong. Just think \"Magnum Force\" with less mystery about who is behind the killings and you have your plot. Granted there is a bit more than that as this one does feature a very nice final showdown at an amusement park. It also features Dirty Harry getting a bulldog as a gift and it tripping up Sandra Locke in a rather humorous scene. The only question that remains is why Clint Eastwood had to have the rather mediocre actress Sandra Locke in so many of his movies. She brings the score down a point every time even when overall the movie is enjoyable to me. Granted she is not to bad here, but her character could have been so much better by someone else. Another problem with this movie and other Dirty Harry movies, at times they almost seem to be advertisements for guns. I like guns as much as the next person, but do we really need scenes of him explaining all the different strengths of his newest weapon and how many bullets it holds? Still, very nice entry into the Dirty Harry series of movies.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I saw this film at its New York's High Falls Film Festival screening as well and I must say that I found it a complete and awful bore. Although it was funny in some places, the only real laughs was that there appeared to be o real plot to talk about and the acting in some places was dreadful and wooden, especially the \"Lovely Lady\" and the voice of the narrator (whom I have never heard of) had a lot to be desired. J.C.Mac was, I felt, the redeeming feature of this film, true action and grit and (out of the cast) the only real acting. I am sure with another cast and a tighter reign on the directing, this could have been a half decent film. Let us just hope that it is not sent out on general release, or if you really want a copy, look in the bargain bin in Lidl.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "An old intellectual talks about what he considers art in movies. You get your Hitchcock, your Chaplin, your Bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies. To disguise that he has no clue what is going on in cinemas these days, he throws in The Matrix.

But it's not only the same lame film-as-art speech all over again. This speech is reduced to outdated psychological platitudes: it-ego-super ego, anal phase, sexual insufficiency.

It is garnished with the cheesy effect of having Zizte edited into the movies he is taking about. For someone who is supposed to know much about movies, his own is, cinematographicly speaking: yeiks.

To put it in Zizek's own words - I saw 5\\-\\!7 on the screen, last night, or in the words of a great movie maker:

Mr. (Zizek), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you (two) points (only), and may God have mercy on your soul.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Again, it seems totally illogical, to me at least, that \"Arthur\" merits a mere 6.4 out of 10 possible. Steve Gordon's one-shot masterpiece herein is the totally \"unlikely\" if not quite \"impossible\" melding of wildly disparate elements. That he managed to make alcoholism laugh-friendly rather than tearjerking tragic is, in itself, wonderful. That he gave Dudley Moore his finest role, and every other cinematic element herein its optimal impact, including the score, seems to me patent and egregious. I challenge ANYone to sit through this film and not laugh out loud. But, apparently, nearly a third of its audience has so managed. Well, I, for one, found and find Gordon's effort both laughable AND lovable, and the iikes of Geraldine Fitzgerald's great-aunt and Stephen Elliott's murderous would-be father-in-law absolute gems of background characters. Even the black chauffeur managed to escape patronization, and the late, sniffish Sir John Gielgud was right about accepting his fee, but wrong about undertaking his role. \"Arthur\" makes no effort to \"Underztand,\" much less rationalize, the scourge of \"alcoholism\" (hey, iFit ain't booze, it's other drugs of choice, including meth, and addictions are merely symptoms, not targets), it simply observes in its own quizzical manner.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy….man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I don't see enough TV game shows to understand the attraction of SHOW ME THE MONEY, but I suppose it holds some appeal for undemanding audiences. Ostensibly a quiz show, it offers contestants huge sums of money for answering a few simple questions. However, its quiz elements play only a small part in the proceedings, which I find tortuously complicated. For example, before answering a question, a contestant selects which question is to be asked by choosing from among random \"A,\" \"B,\" or \"C\" choices. Does this serve any purpose other than to slow the game down? It would be a lot quicker simply to start with \"A.\" Contestants can pass on questions, but must answer one of the three questions in each category.

After responding to a question, the contestant is then asked to \"lock in\" the answer--another delaying tactic. The contestant's next task is to name which woman from about a dozen go-go dancers in cages is to unveil a card that indicates how much the question is worth. A correct answer adds the card's dollar figure to the contestant's running total; a wrong answer subtracts the same sum. This time-consuming step actually has some entertainment value, as it allows the audience to get a close look at the scantily clad and uniformly gorgeous dancers. Meanwhile, the contestant is reminded that an unlucky selection of the \"killer card\" will end the game instantly. This naturally makes the contestant sweat and causes further delays as the nervous contestant contemplates the sudden loss of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My suspicion is that the possibility of sudden disaster is the show's chief audience appeal.

Meanwhile, the whole process is slowed down even more by a lot of empty banter between host William Shatner and the contestant, along with occasional routines by the caged dancers. All these delays burn up so much time that it might be possible for audiences to forget what the original question is by the time the correct answer is revealed.

A typical 30-minute episode of JEOPARDY often gets through as many as 60 questions. The first 30 minutes of SMTM that I watched got through only six questions (many of which pertained to other TV shows). No one in his right mind would watch this show because it's fun to play along by answering the questions at home. That leaves three possible reasons to watch the show.

A. To see how a contestant responds to being on the verge of winning as much as one million dollars, only to lose everything in one stroke.

B. To look at gorgeous young women performing sexually suggestive dance routines.

C. To enjoy William Shatner's scintillating banter.

My choice is \"B,\" but the women aren't on camera long enough to justify suffering through an hour of this show.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "After a day at work, I sat down to relax and turned on the movie channels. The movie came up on the guide and sounded interesting so I tuned in just before it started. The first 30 minutes were enough to make me interested, but the lack of acting ability in Jamie Foxx and the slow plot movement made me want to get up and find food during the movie. If there is any credit to be given for acting in this movie it should go to David Morse who at least tries to make the movie interesting. All in all, don't plan on impressing your friends by picking this one as a renter for a movie night.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines. They appear in cheap comedies until Marion is \"discovered\" and becomes a big dramatic star. A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretentions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team (too bad they never made a talkie together) and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glynn, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Along with 2 days in the Valley, I think this is one of worst movies I've ever seen. Just another of the long line of Tarantino rip-offs that have emerged since Pulp Fiction. The atmosphere the movie creates is amusing for the first five minutes, but then the film makers make the unforgivable mistake of allowing unnecessary and grotesque violence to up the \"hip\" quotient. You're better off skipping this one.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.

There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so \"talky\", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Perhaps the most polished and accomplished of all Indian films - Pakeezah does not fall into any of the traps commonly associated with Bollywood film (ie tackiness, farce, wholesale and unsuccessful imitation of western film themes/genres). Pakeezah is indigenous to the Sub-Continent and authentic, almost Madam Butterfly-like in plot. Characters are well-developed, direction, although sometimes unrefined by today's standards, perceptive and convincing. The Urdu-speaking milieux at the time of Pakeezah were masters of understatement and how the dialogue conveys the subtleties of the age! The acting (particularly the 'looks' and the dynamic between characters) are a delight to behold although the nuances may be lost on contemporary viewers or those not acquainted with the mores and customs of Muslim India.

Coupled, with a captivating screenplay is a beautiful musical score, enhanced by the protagonist displaying eminent command of classical Indian dance (kathak). As is the case with most romantic tragedies, the heroine must die, but she does not take her leave of the audience without the viewer feeling he/she has been party to a truly memorable cinema experience. Pakeezah is surely the pinnacle of what Indian cinema has produced and is unlikely to be paralleled.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Lets make a movie about a talk show that already exists and basically have everything that happens on the show! Well if that idea doesn't intrigue you, which it shouldn't, stay away from ringmaster. I had the displeasure of seeing this in the theater and actually being able to sit through this mess of a movie. I guess jerry springer doesn't play himself as it shows from the cheap props for his show (yes it looks even cheaper than the real jerry springer show) and he is only known as jerry in the film. The plot (if you can call it that) is about a daughter while living with her mother decides to start sleeping with the mother's live in boyfriend. So the mother's brilliant idea is to call the jerry springer show as well as getting it on with her daughter's boyfriend. (Is it any coincidence they live in a trailer park). Meanwhile somewhere else in america a woman finds her cheatin' man with her friend in bed together. So of course call america's therapist Jerry springer! I'd talk about the rest of the film but even thinking about the film now is giving me a headache. Jamie Pressly who plays the daughter looks totally unattractive in the movie. And remember Michael Dudikoff the kick ass karate master from the american ninja series? Well take a look at him now as a white trash drunk. The thing is he really looks too horrible and out of shape to call it \"getting in touch with his charecter\". But if your idea of fun is seeing Jerry Springer sing a country song about his own show or guys hooking up with transvestites...well...JUST WATCH THE SHOW INSTEAD! ... at least steve was smart enough to stay out of this flick.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "When reading a review from another user, saying that it's a terrible game, I could not stand idle and do nothing!

Well, this game is great, from the news clips (with two real persons, full of humour sense and credibility!), to the story, I find it very good! I only complain about the enemies start blinking when they die, until they disappear; and some frustrating situations on the LEILA VR missions, when riding the bike, here and there...

Except that, it's a great game, with a great story, good graphics, excellent characters, great soundtrack... I recommend it! Surely! It can be a bit old, but still enjoyable! At least, on the Dreamcast... but the PS2 version shall be the same.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": ":Spoilers:

I was very disappointed in Love's Abiding Joy. I had been waiting a really long time to see it and I finally got the chance when it re-aired Thursday night on Hallmark. I love the first three \"Love\" movies but this one was nothing like I thought it was going to be. The whole movie was sad and depressing, there were way to many goofs, and the editing was very poor - to many scenes out of context. I also think the death of baby Kathy happened way to soon and Clarks appearance in the movie just didn't seem to fit. It seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there - they were all lacking emotion. There seemed to be no interaction between Missie and Willie at all.

I think the script writers should have went more by the book. It seems like every movie that's been made so far just slips further and further away from Janette Oke's writings. I mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or Clark getting hurt because of it. And I think Missie and Willies reactions to Kathy's death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard.

Out of the four movies that have been made so far I'd have to say that Love's Abiding Joy is my least favorite. I hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if Clarks character is in them I hope he's got a bigger part and I hope his part isn't so bland. I also hope there is more of Scottie and Cookie and maybe even Marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.

The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother to go from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.

Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was borne in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).

Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.

The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their \"usual\" characters would do.

It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a \"straight\" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.

I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers \"see\" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie is a great. The plot is very true to the book which is a classic written by Mark Twain. The movie starts of with a scene where Hank sings a song with a bunch of kids called \"when you stub your toe on the moon\" It reminds me of Sinatra's song High Hopes, it is fun and inspirational. The Music is great throughout and my favorite song is sung by the King, Hank (bing Crosby) and Sir \"Saggy\" Sagamore. OVerall a great family movie or even a great Date movie. This is a movie you can watch over and over again. The princess played by Rhonda Fleming is gorgeous. I love this movie!! If you liked Danny Kaye in the Court Jester then you will definitely like this movie.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I've been a fan of Xu Ke (Hark Tsui) for many year since school. This film is the best fantasy movie in years. I dont think \"action\" is the right genre, though there're lot of action and KongFu scenese. Wait, did I mentioned this is an ORIENTAL fantasy moive? please, keep in mind that DO NOT use hollywood formula to rate this film. And for the guy who \"poo\" around, I don't blame you, 'cause you still young and need to know more about \"culture\".", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"The Gingerbread Man is the first thriller I've ever done!\" – Robert Altman

In 1955 Charles Laughton directed \"The Night of the Hunter\", a spooky slice of Southern Gothic in which Robert Mitchum plays a scary serial killer. One of the film's more famous sequences consists of two kids escaping from Mitchum on a rowboat, the kids frantically paddling whilst Mitchum wades after them like a monster.

Seven years later Mitchum played an equally spooky killer in \"Cape Fear\", another film set in the American South. That film featured a local attorney trying to protect his family and likewise ended with Mitchum terrorising folks on a boat. In 1991 Martin Scorsese, trying to branch out and tackle something more mainstream, remade \"Cape Fear\", boat scene and all.

Now we have Robert Altman's \"The Gingerbread Man\", another slice of small town Southern Gothic. Altman says he consulted \"The Night of the Hunter\" for inspiration and tackled such a mainstream film purely because he wanted to \"spread his wings and try a popcorn picture\", but what he's secretly attempting to do here is deconstruct the canonical films of the Southern Gothic genre.

So instead of a showdown on small boat, we get a showdown on a giant ship. Instead of two kids being kidnapped, we get two kids being safely returned to the police. Instead of money being hidden, we have money being readily given via a last will and testament. Instead of the righteous attorney of the 1961 film and the deplorable attorney of the 1991 remake, we get a rather three-dimensional lawyer in Kenneth Branagh. Instead of the monster chasing the family we get the hero chasing the bad guys. Instead of the monster breaking into the family's house boat, we have the hero hunting the monster on board the monster's \"house ship\". Similarly, instead of a murderous serial killer we get an innocent weirdo played by Robert Duvall. . .etc etc etc.

Altman goes on and on, reversing everything just a little slightly, pulling at the edges and doing his own thing. His touch is most apparent during the film's first half-hour, the film existing in an uneasy space between conventional plot-driven movie storytelling and Altman's fondness for overlapping dialogue, casual narratives, prowling camera movement and the way that characters aren't so much introduced as they are simply part of what's going on.

Still, despite Altman's best intentions, the film never rises above mediocrity. Altman's too bound to the conventions of the \"thriller format\" to do much damage, his style is too lethargic to generate tension and the film is simply not radical enough to counterpoint other canonical films in the genre. \"Gingerbread Man\" is thus too mainstream to work as a more pure Altman film and too Altman to work as a mainstream thriller.

The film's not a complete waste, though. Robert Downey Junior, Kenneth Branagh and the usually intolerable Daryl Hannah, all turn in juicy performances. The film also has a nice atmosphere, set against a approaching hurricane, and the final act contains some interesting twists and turns. While it's not the complete disaster that Scorsese's \"Cape Fear\" was, the film still never amounts to anything special.

7/10 – In the late 90s Altman made 3 successive films set in the American South: \"Kansas City\", \"Gingerbread Man\" and \"Cookie's Fortune\". Unlike \"Gingerbread Man\", both \"Kansas City\" and \"Cookie's Fortune\" tackle the genre on the broader, more looser canvases that Altman was most comfortable with.

\"Kansas City\" is the more important of these two films, its hierarchies of class, politics and crime, and its desire to break radically away from typical gangster genre frameworks, would prove influential on all serious 21st century film crime writers (see, for example, \"The Wire\"). That said, \"Cookie's Fortune\", while a much slighter tale, is perhaps the better picture.

Note: Altman claims that this is his first thriller, but he directed \"Images\", an art house thriller, in 1972.

Worth one viewing.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I gave this movie a 5 out of pure pity. My intention is not to burst anyone's bubble, because I've seen, as I've skimmed through other comments, that this movie is quite appreciated by many. Well, it is not worth any praises, and I say this because I've seen the original anime, Basilisk, and this movie shames it deeply. Perhaps if you see Shinobi alone, you could like it. It is enjoyable due to the well-choreographed battles, based on fantasy more than on martial arts, and I agree that their beauty is deeply enhanced. But the story is nothing like the original one. Now, I understand that when one transforms an anime/manga into a movie, one must make certain changes. I was not expecting to see the freakish characters from the anime, although they have a well-established role, and some are truly profound and well-designed. But I certainly did not expect to see immense and wrongly-placed changes, that basically ruin the entire story. Characters who are dramatically and unethically mutilated, transformed in something the public might love more, perhaps. For instance, Oboro, who, in the anime is a sweet, innocent girl, completely and utterly in love with Gennosuke, becomes a vengeful clan leader in the movie. I liked the fact that the woman becomes strong and evades the limitations imposed on her by the era (we are talking about Japan, 17th century), but her mood changes are unbelievable and badly written. Hotarubi, which is one of my favourite characters in the film, but who is not known for her childish and sensitive nature, becomes a pathetic little girl who is not only not madly in love like in the anime, but is more or less worthless in the plot. I could go on and on, like how they made Tenzen, the worst and most dangerous character in the anime, exceptionally weak and unattractive, or how Gennosuke, the leading character seems completely misplaced and confused, not to mention, again WEAK. The music is beautiful and the image is astounding, which was expected of a Japanese movie, and I appreciate it for that. But do not watch this if you've seen and enjoyed Basilisk, because it is just hopeless. Basilisk, although based on fantasy, with elements of horror and largely exaggerated is splendid and has so much more depth in its characters, storyline, historical value and it is, may I say, heartbreaking. Shinobi was a waste of time and I could not believe it kept on going after what was supposed to be the climax. Alas, it pains me deeply to judge a movie so harshly, but I advise you against it. Please, watch the anime, or at least watch the movie first and then repair your image of what Basilisk really is by watching the anime. Otherwise you will have a seizure when you realize how they've massacred it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Smokey And The Bandit\" wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but then nobody wanted it to be. It was lowdown slapstick, but it did have brains. It had a very smart script with definable characters and a fun wrap-up. People came out of the theater smiling. \"Hooper\" provides none of this. There is no reason to smile. If it's supposed to be a tribute to the Hollywood Stuntman, it makes them look awfully lazy by providing nothing but badly-choreographed fight scenes and one of the most unconvincing car-jumps I've ever seen. It all looks phony, badly-filmed almost on purpose. Poor Sally Field (as the girlfriend who wrings her hands on the sidelines) is given her weakest role, with not a single funny or smart line (\"If you do that jump, I won't be here when you get back\"). Burt Reynolds keeps looking at the camera and winking, but the joke is on any audience who sits through \"Hooper\". * from ****", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I wondered why John Wood was not playing Dr. Falken until I watched the film. BAD plot, bad science, bad acting and overall a bad film. Please don't watch this film. Rent the original \"War Games\" if you are feeling nostalgic.

I didn't like the bending of the plot to beat-the-terrorist-threat idea either. In the first film W.O.P.R was built because Russia had 1000s of warheads pointed at the U.S.A. In this film the idea behind the computer was to kill terrorist in training before they are a threat. Politics aside, one of the good thing about the first film was the highlighting that even a stupid computer could grasp the idea of the pointlessness of war in the end. No such insight is offered in this film.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Seriously, there is absolutely NOTHING good about this crap fest at all. Randolph Scott, a closet homosexual who lived with his lover Cary Grant for twelve years, is at his most wooden and boring in the least role. At 57 he was clearly far too old for these romantic roles, although it doesn't matter so much here because Gail Russell looks so much older than her 31 years and she is so ugly due to her chronic alcoholism and chain smoking. Lee Marvin plays his usual villainous role but it isn't enough to save this garbage. Thank God they don't make westerns any more, they're just dated, racist old movies that glamorise guns and murder.

0/10.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "The story at the outset is interesting: slavery in the (late) 20th century from west Africa to the Arab Middle East. The problem with it is that it intentionally castigates two of director Richard Fleisher's favorite enemies: Arabs and Germans. To make us believe that very Arab-looking men would be free to roam around and easily catch Blacks in West Africa is as believable as Whites hunting for slaves in \"Roots\". Obviously both trades are/were run by locals and involve(d) much more sophisticated networks. While Arab countries are complicit in today's child and sex slave trade, Israel is one of the worst violators according to Amnesty International. So why only point out Arabs and then choose a German as the only European buyer? It's obvious bias and hatred of those people by a Jewish director.

The acting is above average, especially by Peter Ustinov (Suleiman) and Kabir Bedi (Malik). Michael Caine (Dr. Linderby) is good as always.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "My first exposure to \"Whale Music\" was the Rheostatics album of the same name, that I bought around 1993. I was reading the liner notes and the band said the album, which remains in a prominent place in my collection, was inspired by Canadian author Paul Quarrington's book.

I picked up the book a few months later and devoured it! An amazing read! I have since re-read the book numerous times, each time finding some new element to Desmond and his desire to complete the Whale Music.

I found the film in 1996, on video. I haven't had a lot of good experiences with Canadian film, but this one worked for me. The role of Claire could have been cast differently, but overall I think that Paul Quarrington's vision was transfered nicely from the book to the screen.

Maury Chaykin gives a moving performance as the isolated genius. The movie deals with family relationships, love, and finding someone who understands. I would strongly recommend \"Whale Music\" to not only music fans, but anyone who has ever lost something or someone, and tried to find their way back to the world.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "\"De vierde man\" (The Fourth Man, 1984) is considered one of the best European pycho thrillers of the eighties. This last work of Dutch director Paul Verhoeven in his home country before he moved to Hollywood to become a big star with movies like \"Total Recall\", \"Basic Instinct\" and \"Starship Troopers\" is about a psychopathic and disillusioned author (Jeroen Krabbe) going to the seaside for recovering. There he meets a mysterious femme fatale (Renee Soultendieck) and starts a fatal love affair with her. He becomes addicted to her with heart and soul and finds out that her three previous husbands all died with mysterious circumstances...

\"De vierde man\" is much influenced by the old Hollywood film noire and the psycho thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Wells. It takes much time to create a dark and gripping atmosphere, and a few moments of extreme graphic violence have the right impact to push the story straight forward. The suspense is sometimes nearly unbearable and sometimes reminds of the works of Italian cult director Dario Argento.

The cast is also outstanding, especially Krabbe's performance as mentally disturbed writer that opened the doors for his international film career (\"The Living Daylights\", \"The Fugitive\"). If you get the occasion to watch this brilliant psycho thriller on TV, video or DVD, don't miss it!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "FLAVIA THE HERETIC is a strange entry in the nunsploit genre - equal parts sleaze, feministic journey, and \"history\" as we follow Flavia on her strange trip.

We start off with Flavia in a convent...she ain't too happy there cuz she doesn't believe in all the male-dominated \"rules\" and macho-ism of the world around her and escapes from the convent with her Jewish pal, Abraham. They are both eventually caught and Flavia is brought back to the convent where she joins another \"non-believing\" nun in hastening a Moslem invasion. Flavia hangs out with the Moslems who take over the convent and get \"busy\" with the nuns in a strange set of scenes. Eventually the Moslems roll-out and Flavia is punished as a traitor to Christianity in another singularly brutal scene...

This one has pretty much all the stuff that I like to see in a 70's era exploit film - some good gore, including nipple-removal, and a nice leg-skinning scene, some decent nudity - including the requisite full-frontal, and a decent storyline as well. I will say that it sorta dragged in a few points, but not enough to get truly bored with it. I would definitely recommend this one to nunsploit/70's exploit fans...8/10", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).

This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.

But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of \"Use the Force Luke\" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go \"TinTin, I am your Uncle\" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.

The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH????

And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I went in expecting the movie to be completely dumb. With such a low expectation, any form of entertainment would be a pleasant surprise. The soundtrack was the best part of the movie, but poking fun at the nonsense that goes on in singles wards was also amusing.

This said, there were many things about The Singles Ward that were completely annoying. The entire film was poorly dubbed and made watching mouths while listening to their voices very irritating. This lack of professionalism was surpassed only by the cameos of Mormon celebrities who have no business acting.

This film will do well among Mormondom, especially in college communities where singles ward exist. However the conclusion will offer no hope for the poor losers who find themselves unmarried. (Only the pretty girls in the Singles Ward get married, the fat, ugly ones don't, but all the ugly men do) Ultimately we realize that the whole film was an advertisement for LDSSingles.com", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Robot Jox tries hard, but is fundamentally a series of fight scenes strung together -- robot against robot, man against man, man against woman. The premise had potential, but it seems the script wasn't really given the couple of more drafts it needed. Still, it was fairly good, for a science fiction action movie. Part of it was because the script was by Joe Haldeman. For those who aren't familiar with the name, Haldeman wrote the award-winning science fiction novel \"The Forever War.\" It's considered one of the very best powered battle armor novels, right up there with Robert Heinlein's \"Starship Troopers\" and John Steakley's \"Armor.\" And this movie is really more like a giant powered battle armor movie, rather than giant robots. It's closer to what fans would have wanted instead of the travesty that was Paul Verhoeven's \"Starship Troopers,\" which bore only a passing resemblance to the novel it was based on.

Despite some assumptions, this really isn't based on Homer's \"Iliad.\" A couple of names are all they had in common. Achilles having his robot's foot blown off had no parallel in the Iliad, which didn't include Achilles' death. Nor was the ancient Achilles a noble warrior. He was the mightiest, but also vengeful and petty. Even the robot jock killed off in the first scene doesn't fit. He was named Hercules, while the Greek Iliad would have had Herakles.

The effects were fairly good for the time and the budget. True, it wasn't comparable to \"Terminator 2\" a year later, but that movie cost ten times as much. The stop motion was almost as good as the robotic walkers in \"The Empire Strikes Back\" and \"Return of the Jedi.\" Better, in fact, than a lot of Ray Harryhausen animation, which is highly regarded, but quite dated.

Don't bring high expectations into this and you probably won't be disappointed. It's better than a lot of other low-budget flicks and even some big-budget blockbuster wannabes that have better effects but far worse scripts.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Before this made for TV movie began, I had relatively low expectations. That's because it was made after the final episode of the series had aired and many of the series originals were gone. There is no President Sheridan, Delenn, Lennier, Londo, Vir, G'kar or Lyta. If you remember, on the second to last episode of the series, all the regulars except Zack, Vir and Captain Lockley left B-5 permanently. Now for this film they did bring back Garibaldi (who was not in the last B-5 movie) to join Zack and the Captain and the Doctor makes a brief and irrelevant appearance. But because so much is gone of the old chemistry, this film already is severely handicapped.

The movie is about a Soul Hunter (Martin Sheen) who is led to Babylon 5 in search of a globe filled with souls that had been stolen from a hidden repository by an archaeologist (Ian McShane). A lot of spooky mumbo-jumbo stuff occurs but frankly it was all pretty silly and pointless. Yeah, yeah, the station nearly blew up but was saved and all, but frankly I felt like it was a case of \"been there done that--and done that a lot better in the past\".

The secondary plot, provided more for comic relief, was much more interesting, as an entrepreneur installed a holo-brothel and those in command weren't sure what to do about it and when they tried to pressure them to close, they were slapped with a lawsuit. This was fluff, but it did provide a few laughs--something the other dreary plot was surely lacking.

By the way, Sheen at first did a good job playing the Should Hunter--with his wild eyes and bizarre delivery. However, repeatedly throughout the episode he fell out of character. This should have been spotted and corrected.

So the final verdict is this is only for total die-hard B-5 nuts (like myself). Others seeing it might assume the series sucked--which is a great injustice. This is a great example of a show not knowing when to quit.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "\"Life stinks\" is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.

There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.

If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.

This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich.

The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.

Yes indeed, Life Stinks.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I guess I only have myself to blame for the gigantic disillusion that is \"Entrails of a Virgin\". You already know not to expect a cinematic masterpiece when you see a juicy and proudly promoted title like this and the first impression only gets extra confirmed when noticing the film is a mid-80's production from Japan. Now, there are quite a lot of demented and sick filmmakers active in Japan, but Kazuo Komizu surpasses them all with his thoroughly depraved and sickening trilogy revolving on nothing but aggressive sex and the sadistic abuse of young girls. Not even attempting to tell a story, \"Entrails of a Virgin\" simply presents a hodgepodge of UN-arousing semi-pornographic sex and truly poor gore-effects that wouldn't even please the most undemanding fan of cheesy 80's horror. Images of a bunch of photographers and their fashion models are inexplicably intercut with scenes of a filthy pervert having crude sex with a seemly under-aged girl. He dumps her not even a minute after climaxing (typical) and she begs him to stay, even if she has to share him with other women. I don't get it. Is this supposed to represent a general male fantasy? Because it's really clichéd and wrongful. Anyways, back to the bunch of horny photographers and docile models. Surprised by upcoming fog on their way home, the group entrenches themselves in an abandoned country house where they have more appalling sex and eventually fall victim to a ridiculous sex-demon who kills them all. The acting performances are amateurish, the dialogs inane and primitive and Komizu's direction is weak and uninspired. I can tolerate all that, including the woman-unfriendly portrayal of sex, but I came too close to turning the film off during the indescribably mean-spirited wrestling sequence. One of the males brutally hits, kicks and throws around one of the girls and calls her a filthy whore until she literally pees her panties and cries with agony. This sequence is, in my humble opinion, the absolute low-point of Asian exploitation cinema. One to avoid and maybe even boycott.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I've seen this movie twice with my teenagers who love it. This one ought to be a cult fave! The best line, \"Your dress is deeply cool!\" says the Prince to Cinderella. Kathleen Turner shines as the stepmother. I also like the 1950's era cars and motorcycles. The melancholy prince is a great departure from the typical swashbuckler. He tries to stay cool, but fails to hide his love for the fairy-tale princess-to-be. Her slipper is not glass (truer to the original story), but Cinderella loses is nonetheless but gets it back from the heir to the throne. My only complaint is that it is not shown more and seems to be almost impossible to get. Hopefully Blockbuster or Amazon will start stocking this one sometime soon.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "Imagine, its, say 12-1am - your at home, your bored, your not tired. This scenario occurred about, say 4 or so years back..I turned on the TV and flicked over a few channels and found that this film was on. OH MY WORD this is the worst film I have ever seen! A runaway car that cant be stopped (cos the brakes have been cut or something) in caning it down the freeway - whats gonna happen?! This film was so bad its actually funny - I think the stunts cost about $2 to make, there was one instance where a baby/small child is being winched from the car by a helicopter - in an attempt to excite the viewer - a conveniently placed bridge is nearing ahead...THIS IS THE BEST BAD BIT OF A FILM EVER - it shows the child narrowly missing the bridge but it looks so bad - you can almost see the make of the dummy that they used - total low budget classic! Cant remember the end of the film, though but I bet it was GREAT

I doubt they will ever show this film again so I'm glad I got to see this piece of trash!", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "This was an absolutely terrible movie. Don't be lured in by Christopher Walken or Michael Ironside. Both are great actors, but this must simply be their worst role in history. Even their great acting could not redeem this movie's ridiculous storyline. This movie is an early nineties US propaganda piece. The most pathetic scenes were those when the Columbian rebels were making their cases for revolutions. Maria Conchita Alonso appeared phony, and her pseudo-love affair with Walken was nothing but a pathetic emotional plug in a movie that was devoid of any real meaning. I am disappointed that there are movies like this, ruining actor's like Christopher Walken's good name. I could barely sit through it.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "Never viewed this film and enjoyed the singing and dancing by Cagney and the other cast members namely: Dick Powell, (Scott Blair) who had a great tenor voice and Ruby Keeler, (Bea Thorn). James Cagney plays the role as Chester Kent who writes musicals and eventually goes into producing Prologues which are shown in between the feature films shown in movie theater's during the 1930's. Chester has trouble with people trying to steal his ideas for his shows. This is a very entertaining film with lots of comedy and plenty of laughs. Joan Blondell, (Nan Prescott) gave a great supporting role who was also very young and pretty. Dick Powell was great as a singer and dancer and just starting out with his long and successful screen career. Enjoy.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song \"If I Could\". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This is one of my all time favorite movies, PERIOD. I can't think of another movie that combines so many nice movie qualities like this one does. This flick has it all: Action, Adventure, Science Fiction, Good vs. Bad and even some Romance (without even an innocent \"peck\" on the cheek between the Pazu and Sheeta). Maybe best of all, you don't have to be in Mensa to \"get it\" and enjoy the movie like you do with some of Miyazaki's other movies (I don't know about you, but I watch movies to take a break from thinking). This is just a flat-out enjoyable movie that everyone will like, so do yourself a favor and go buy it. The only sour note is the American Dubbing. I found Vander-Geek to be just plain annoying. But all is not lost, the original Japanese version is on the two-disc set and it rocks! Who cares if you can't understand spoken Japanese? If you can read at a second-grade level then watch the original Japanese recording with English subtitles. You won't regret it.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "What's the best way to start a review of a movie like Der Todesking? Let me start by saying I've just come direct from viewing this movie, and the images are still burned deep into my brain - and I don't think they'll be moving any time soon.

It's probably fair to say that if you're on this page you have a good idea what sort of film this is even if you haven't seen it. If not, let me forewarn you that this is not a moderate-budget gem that's been lost for a few years a la \"Near Dark\", nor is it a low budget, schlocky, \"fun\" B-movie. What it is it low-budget art, put forward in a simple yet poignant way. The idea is a simple one - seven stories revolving around, and ending in, suicides interspersed with footage of a decomposing corpse. Sounds simple right, even boring? It isn't. Words can't really describe how powerful this film becomes by the time you are halfway through; it virtually draws you into it whether you want to go or not.

I could go on a ramble here about the technical pros and cons of the direction; maybe point out that the scenes are obviously shot on super-8 cameras and are at sometimes shaky. I could point out that some of the sound effects are out-of-sync in a way to rival any Fulci movie, but at the end of the day this all seems to pale into insignificance.

As far as extreme movies go, I've seen the hardest of them, and yet Der Todesking moved me in a way that few others have managed, despite not being particularly gory and having very few scenes that I would consider \"gratuitous\". In fact, the most disturbing scene I found was the last tale. I won't ruin it, just to say that the character's emotional agony virtually drips from the screen and makes you sympathise, if not yearn for his end.

Sure, it's not the best movie ever made, and in a lot of places is seems crude and maybe a little amateurish, but in spite of these flaws Der Todesking is an experience I would recommend to anyone who likes challenging cinema. If you're someone who likes comfortable viewing or \"nice\" movies, or simply wants to gross out on something brutal and pointless, this is not what you're looking for.

Whether you enjoy it or not, It's one you won't forget in a hurry.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "All the folks who sit here and say that this movie's weak link is the Ramones would probably say that Amadeus was ok if not for that irritating harpsichordist. Rock and Roll High School was centered around the Ramones. How anyone can watch this and not get a kick out of Joey Ramone eating bean sprouts backstage in an attempt to keep him in performing condition is obviously a wet blanket square daddy-o. Ms Trogar, exploding white mice, the hall patrols...instant classics. Nevermind the Riff Randell character.

If you don't like the Ramones then you don't know rock and roll and you don't deserve to watch a movie called ROCK AND ROLL High School.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the \"scientists\" and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliché ridden.

I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: \"A Brief History of Nearly Everything.\" There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I liked this movie. It was pretty cool. It has it all: cars, gun shooting, fighting, and even a token girl. It does not excel in any of this things, with the exception of the cars. A bit of shooting, a bit of fighting, a bit of smooching around, and LOT´s of car, with a great chase near the end. The jump, you may say, is impractical, but according to our good friends here at the IMDB it is possible, so the movie ain´t as bad as people are painting it. It has some quality, and I liked to watch it. In fact, I loved the film. And I didn´t need to turn off my brains to watch it. I wasn´t always thinking \"Is this possible?\" or tramp like that. 9 in 10.", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.

Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.

I hope the creators/\"actors\" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.

See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I've never actually seen this film but can tell you one thing about its production. While a comedy/oldies radio DJ in 1988, I got a call from the production company. They asked if I'd write and record a bit they'd drop into the soundtrack as sounds eminating from a TV (the television screen itself would never be shown). I said sure, wrote a parody of '50s sci-fi monster clichés, rounded up some sound effects and called in another DJ, Pam Landry, to play the female part. As she happened to be on the air at the time, she put on a long song, joined me at the mike in the production room and we cut the voicetrack in a single take. Giggling, she then went back to her show while I mixed in the goofy sound effects. We'd have never done it if we'd known that \"Woodchipper Massacre\" was going to be such a turkey -- but, then again, we never got paid for our efforts, either! -- Gary Theroux", "output": "Bad" }, { "input": "I really liked this movie, and went back to see it two times more within a week.

Ms. Detmers nailed the performance - she was like a hungry cat on the prowl, toying with her prey. She lashes out in rage and lust, taking a \"too young\" lover, and crashing hundreds of her terrorist fiancé's mother's pieces of fine china to the floor.

The film was full of beautiful touches. The Maserati, the wonderful wardrobe, the flower boxes along the rooftops. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Greek class and the recitation of 'Antigone'.

It had a feeling of 'Story of O' - that is, where people of means indulge in unrestrained sexual adventure. As she walks around the fantastic apartment in the buff, she is at ease - and why not, what is to restrain a \"Devil in the Flesh\"?

The whole movie is a real treat!", "output": "Good" }, { "input": "As a girl, Hinako moved away from her small village to Tokyo, leaving behind her two best friends, Fumiya and Sayori. She returns as a young woman, surprised to find that Sayori died when she was a teenager. She reunites with Fumiya and they are horrified to learn that Sayori is mysteriously being resurrected via the island of Shikoku. Oh boy. I rented this because I like Asian horror and I think Chiaki Kuriyama a nifty actress. Unfortunately, if I had to describe Shikoku in one word, it would be \"fruity.\" This movie is silly, boring, poorly filmed, unimaginative, and most of all, unscary. Kuriyama has minimal screen time as the resurrected Sayori, and her character is given little to work with.", "output": "Bad" } ] }