empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking "Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!" Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I saw House Party 1-3 and I loved them but this one wasn't funny at all.First it can't be a House Party movie without Kid n'Play right? This one sucks and it was more like a black version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off than a House Party movie.Second who the heck is John-John?These new character's can't even compare to the ones from the other three movies.Now i know why they put it straight to video.It has horrible music, weak plot, untalented actors,and no hilarious jokes at all.My advice,watch this movie at night only if you can't get to sleep.They should have ended the series after House Party 3 since Kid'n'Play separated after that one.I hate this one am glad my local video store doesn't have this film and never want to buy it or want to see it on Comedy Central either.Just because Chris Strokes has talent managing an up-and-coming R&B group doesn't mean he has talent directing and producing films am I right or what? Finally, the female characters were all dressed up like cheap two-dollar hookers throughout most of the flick.IMX separated a year after this flick got released probably due to the failure of this film and are all but forgotten nowadays. In simplier terms this movie just plain old sucks!!!!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I too am a House Party Fan...House Party I is my favorite movie of all times. House Party 4 is a disgrace to all of the HP's and to Kid n Play...This was supposed to be part of a series really..there was nothing about kid n play in this movie or any of the other veterans..yea kid n play was probably too old to be throwing a House Party movie b/c its kind of focused on teens..but kid n play could have at least made a cameo appearance ... you can tell how good it was b/c it didn't even make it to the movie theaters. Immature was in House Party 3 so it made sense for them to carry on the legacy...but they should have represented right...they should have left it at House Party 3. I am 27 years old and I have been watching House Party I since I was 11 when it came out in 1990(16 years ago) and I have been a fan ever since. When I first seen House Party 4 I was like what are they really thinking about...There was nothing familiar about this movie that would compare to the previous 3 movies.. I thought it was a black Ferris Bueller days off.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Watching this movie, you just have to ask: What were they thinking? There are so many noticeably bad parts of this movie, you might get the feel that its intentionally poor, as some sort of joke.
I think the worst part about the film is the directing. There are so many bad uses of camera angles and other cinematic elements in this movie that are laughably bad. The funniest example of this would be in the beginning where the party guests are receiving their invitations by email - The same camera angle is used for each shot (which last an awkward 2 seconds a piece) and the same computer screen with the same desktop/window/program etc appear. It even looks like the thing is shot on the same set each time. The whole sequence was also completely silent, with no music, or sound effects. Overall, it was a poor way to convey the idea that an email was being sent all over town.
If you listen closely, you may notice that the music sounds very similar to other movie sound tracks. This is no surprise- most songs, including the one that opens the movie, are in fact slight alterations of scores from other movies (See if you can guess which ones). Also, I noticed that the music is not played by a real orchestra. It sounds like its been written and played through a low end midi keyboard. If you are familiar with the LucasArts SCUM adventure games, the timbre of each instrument sounds like something from the IMUSE engine.
Everything else about the movie just plain sucks. The acting is terrible. The script is derivative (Ferris Beuller?). There is no joke in the movie remotely funny, unless you see the whole film as one big joke, being played on a paying audience. Don't rent this. Don't even watch it when it's rerun on comedy central. Just forget this - it's terrible.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I've seen a lot of bad movies in my life. Date Movie. That was bad. But this...this is just...it's not good. House Party 4 is the worst movie ever. It's as simple as that. It's basically Ferris Bueller with black people in it. Oh, and it's not funny. It's awful. So awful. Chris Stokes may be a superstar on BET, but he's an idiot. He can't write a comedy. Or a horror movie. I like to refer to him as a blacker, lesser-known Uwe Boll. Except Uwe Boll's films are funny awful, if you know what I mean. You can invite some buddies over, pop in Alone In The Dark, and have a great time laughing and eating snacks with your buddies. Chris Stokes is like that, except if you invite friends over to watch House Party 4 with you, no one will be laughing. Not even the biased token black guy or the illiterate jock. I'm serious, I didn't laugh once throughout this whole movie. The acting is terrible, and the movie looks like a bad indie film. What was the budget for this movie? 5 damn dollars? I mean, what the hell? This movie just sucks; don't waste your time with this crap. It's disgusting.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
In all honesty, I haven't seen this film for many years, but the few times I have tend to make parts of it stick in my memory, as anyone who has seen it will understand. I first saw it as a child at a YMCA Halloween party in the early Sixties, and it scared the hell out of us kids, in a fun way. I remember feeling genuine anxiety about the unknown thing lurking in the maze. I can't risk giving away the ending, except to say that it was surprising, to say the least. I remember vaguely the entire audience of young boys letting out a big scared holler, followed by laughter when the terrible secret was revealed. The ending has been seen by most viewers as one of the greatest unintentionally funny climaxes to a movie in film history, and yet oddly moving, in a way. You have to see it for yourself, which is not easy these days. I don't know if it's available on home video or not, but it would still make a great Halloween feature for both kids and adults.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Wow. Not because of the 3-D imagery, which at times was used nicely to provide good deep imagery, but what a lame ending! The end of the movie just seems to implode on itself. This film has got to be one of the goofiest movie monsters ever and one of the most pathetic attempts to try to explain it. The misogyny of this film is painful as well. If you are looking for a bad 50s sci-fi film to laugh at (aka 'bot fodder), go for it. Otherwise, look for better films.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I like all different types of movies, so this is not a bash on romantic movies from a guy who only likes The Matrix etc etc.
I just felt it was a lousy movie. I don't feel that there was enough buildup of the characters to fall in love. They were there for a few days and while dealing with a severe hurricane and major issues in each of their lives, Richard Gere and Diane Lane fall hopelessly and helplessly in love?? It isn't realistic. This movie didn't make me buy into it and feel it emotionally and that is something that you look for in a good plot. Some emotional connection. If someone can relate to them falling in love that quickly, without any true substance , than so be it. You are neither right or wrong. Different strokes for different folks.
Another very unbelievable component to the movie was Diane Lane's very rude teenage daughter becoming nice and sympathetic at the end of the movie. Does a teenage girl who is that miserable and aggravated at her mother for not getting back with her cheating husband going to just have a switch turn on and be nice? This movie, in a nutshell, had some big names, but to me, was a major disappointment.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If you read the book before seeing the movie you may be disappointed like I was. The book was great and I was sure after seeing the movie preview that the movie would be great as well, however I felt like I was watching a movie where the director and cast did not even read what these characters where like. The movie is short and they do not really ever make us feel that these people were truly in love and felt like sole mates. Even if the movie did not go in the same direction as the book at least they could of made the romance between these two characters feel more intense. I think both Diane Lane and Richard Gere were perfect for these two characters and they have good chemistry however they just did not develop a long enough storyline for us to see how they longed for each other. The book was true love story and I think this movie could of been a lot better.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Richard Gere and Diane Lane star in a chick flick romance with the sort of ending I get really angry about...lets just say its not my cup of tea, just like the dime store romances are not my cup of tea.
The plot has a doctor stopping at an inn and meeting a woman that he has a deep but brief affair with. He goes off to meet his estranged son and she goes back to her life.
Well acted and well made the filmmakers forgot to get a real plot line. This is the stuff of dime store romances that makes the women swoon and the men shake their head in disbelief. I wouldn't be so adverse to the film as a mindless romance, except that the film takes a turn in the final reel that is so out of left field as to be completely unbelievable. Why must certain types of movies do stupid things like this? It really ruined it for me.
If you like romance give it a shot, though wait for cable.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Here in Australia Nights in Rodanthe is being promoted in the same class as the Notebook. Quite frankly what a lot of rot.
This film is a like a recipe. On paper we have all the right ingredients... Richard Gere normally perfect in this genre, Diane Lane an old favourite from "Under Tuscan Sun" and "Unfaithful", ocean side location, solitude and yet the movie sucks. At the session we went to yesterday afternoon a women next to my wife fell asleep and half way through the movie got up and left! The main problem is there is no build up or credibility to the relationship in the first place. And perhaps there are too many long faces and downbeat if you like histories that Gere and Lane's characters bring to the movie. There's hours of those balanced out with perhaps 5 minutes of what we can to see... romance! There's no warmth from Gere's character, Lane looks dreadful at the start of the movie and all washed out. So as the viewer we cannot really connect to the characters.
Others here say the book is great. Well be it the screenplay, direction or production someone here has made a real mess of this movie. It's like the scenes and the buildup are a deck of cards except instead of being in the correct order they've just been thrown together all over the place.
Very disappointing... save your money for when it hits the video shops and even then wait for a good deal when it goes to the weekly rate.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is one of the more unromantic movies I have ever seen.
Casting: Richard Gere is just too old looking for romantic lead roles anymore. Diane looks a bit eager to please and frowning as usual but she seems unconvinced by the romance herself. Supporting cast not too memorable.
Story: The medical drama he has to deal with is unconvincing and is not interesting. The story is weak - not enough happens to make a movie about. There is nothing new to say or no new way to say it here.
The setting is a little bleak and the house it is set in is unattractive.
NOT destined to be a great one to remember.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
While I am not a woman, I can enjoy a chick flick if its good. This one however is beyond bad. You have the by the book story, girl is getting divorced, boy with issues shows up. BOOM magic happens and his demons are banished as she realizes her life has a new purpose.
Now while I can believe that kind of thing might happen, I am not an idiot. It wouldn't happen over a weekend of geriatric rumpy-pumpy, it would take time. Yet here the producers know they only have 1 hour and 30 minutes so they force the changes of the two to happen, I suppose a night of getting hammered and a night of gramps and granny going at it like dogs in heat might be enough if you believed romance novels were the gospel... but most people don't.
Now, if that isn't enough... the producers remembered that a chick flick needs to make the viewer cry... well they tried to make you cry with the two senior citizens getting jiggy with it by failed... so how could they hit you again? Why I know, lets kill off one of the characters for no good reason at all except that a random death will surely bring a tear to the eye.... and now lets have the teen daughter magically bond with heart broken mom for no reason besides the fact that it would be nice (completely unreal, but who cares).
So there you have it... girl find boy, boy find love, death finds boy and mom cries.... what a movie - NOT.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Lonely, disconnected, middle-class housewife in the midst of a divorce seeks solace to reflect on her immediate future. At some sort of bed and breakfast by (well, literally in the sea) the ocean that for some sort of odd reason she subs for the owner. Enter lonely, arrogant Richard Gere. He is a plastic surgeon. He is the only guest at the inn in the sea. Diane Lane is the lonely housewife. You'll never guess these two fall immediately in love. A tropical storm makes them true lovers.
The subplots in this melodrama make little or no sense. The locations, photography are fine. Gere remains one of the most over-rated actors in cinema and does not disappoint. Ms. Lane must've needed the money, but phones in her part with grace.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I had high hopes for this film, even though I had not read the book. Richard Gere and Diane Lane together--should be good already. But the film does not deliver on the promise. I kept waiting for more depth to the characters and there wasn't. I have no problem with the fact that it only took a weekend for them to fall in love. That can happen. But we never really get to know the characters. I would have liked more focus on them. The film reminded me in places of Bridges of Madison County, and that film was far better. I really felt for the characters in that film, and there was a chemistry (much more passion) between Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep that there wasn't between Gere and Lane. Each of them are very good actors in his or her own right. Simply not the right movie for them together.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
*Warning: 1 tiny inconsequential spoiler* You're right. This was no Bridges of Madison County. As soon as the lonely woman and Richard Gere checked into the big empty hotel, it was a foregone conclusion something kind of fun would happen. The question is: how will it come about? The answer is some stupid connect-the-dots story not worth sitting through. In one supposed bonding experience, they get drunk and clean out the cupboard of old cans.(That was my spoiler.) And the next day they put them back. LOL It wasn't compelling AT ALL. I'm an old married lady like the one in the movie and MY friendships are more interesting than HER romance with Richard Gere. LOL . . . It did have that advantage. You walk away and go, oh brother . . . even I could have written something more believable than that. I guess my life isn't quite as dull as I thought it was if I can scoff at a romance with Richard Gere. LOL! And that friend inherited that totally contemporary, probably computer-generated mansion, resting half in the ocean, from her GRANDMOTHER who built it AFTER THE CIVIL WAR??? Maybe her grandmother is Oprah and this was WAY after the Civil War? And yes, WHERE WAS THE EMAIL? What alternative universe do these people live in? I never want to see another movie that pretends we don't have email, and facebook,and texting. And OK, maybe these people have a horrible aversion to delivering news over the phone, but don't ask me to believe anyone in this age of instant communication that someone just drops into your life without calling first.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
We thought this was one of the worst movies ever. I had to volunteer to watch the end. The romance was not believable; the characters were not developed; the love affair made hardly any sense; it was miscast; and scenery was absolutely stupid because it was either (my opinion) like the ADAMS FAMILY GOES ON VACATION...just creepy, gypsy and cheesy; and the OUTERBANKS does not look typically like those houses on the surf; and who would spend the night in one during a hurricane if it was not theirs. Also..it was not realistic. hurrricanes give you plenty of notice to batten down the hatches.
Also the friend was superfluous; and did not match the story What did the civil war have to do with the outerbanks anyway? I also have to mention the wardrobe...did D. Lane have to have a scarf/pashmina/shawl on in every scene? It was overdone. She looked good enough to not have to hide things; without making them obvious like with light slacks.
Lastly I am concerned with the impact on our landfills when everyone has to dispose of this stupid, and I mean STUPID movie!!!! Don't fall for the hype on this one!!!!!! We did. Not even watchable.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie is the final straw. As two dedicated fans of the romantic comedy, this movie has finally made us realise that nothing good has come out of this genre since Love Actually. There was nothing good about the film whatsoever. It was an affront to love, death and everything in between. Including horses and beaches. There was absolutely no chemistry between the characters. This movie took the spark out of Nicholas Sparks. Diane Lane cannot act to save her life. She was unconvincing in her laugh, cry, and dance. And she needs a better haircut. There is no reason to watch this movie. Save yourself. The romantic comedy is officially dead.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Every great romantic comedy needs conflict between the romantic leads to lend suspense, anticipation and allure to the plot. This story falls completely flat in this area. There is no conflict - at least none that would inhibit the eventual joining of the two lead characters, and so suspense is flat, there is no anticipation, and there really is no allure at all.
The chemistry between Richard Gere and Diane Lane is representative of friendship at best, and with the talent of these two particular actors, I was quite surprised. During the movie, I expected them more to play a game of checkers and chat about the weather than see any moving passion.
While I'm a fan of both actors, I do believe that the casting in this movie was off - or, perhaps the direction was off-base and it impacted their deliveries. The writing was very weak, which also might have impacted the performances; most certainly, the script could have used some help from some Harlequin writers who have real experience putting the heat in romance.
This movie may be worth watching on a rainy Sunday afternoon, but only after it's on the cheap shelf.
(Sorry Diane Ladd and Richard Gere).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is probably the most uninvolving film I've ever seen. I watched it because I have a soft spot for Leon (everything else Besson has done has been just awful, in my opinion, with the exception of the script for Wasabi) and Jean Reno. It's a testament to just how bad this film is that Reno, one of the most charismatic and effortlessly affable actors (admittedly he's just starting out here) can't make this film, or the moments in which he is on screen, watchable.
It's all very film-schooly: black and white, no dialogue, people doing things for no apparent reason, people chasing each other while in turn being chased by a shaky camera. And, predictably, none of it is entertaining.
It's not a "French Mad Max" as some people have claimed (actually, I think they mean "Mad Max 2") - that is a superficial comparison based only on the fact that both films have a post-apocalyptic setting, and is just the kind of comment you'd expect from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Mad Max 2 was pulsating, Mad Max 2 was exciting, Mad Max 2 was worth your time - Le Dernier Combat is none of these.
I know it's supposed to be cool to like arty black-and-white French films and equally cool to say you saw something in them that other people did not (or you managed to sit through it without feeling drowsy), which is why I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to like Le Dernier Combat, because I see nothing of worth in it whatsoever; it asks for so much and gives nothing back. I found myself drifting from it after about five minutes and it never did anything to regain my full attention. Anyone who can sit through it undistracted isn't human, or, at the very most, is psychotic. (Actually, they're probably just trying to seem "cool").


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Lame B-horror that takes itself too damn seriously considering its subject matter concerns an aging old dear who has been turned into a creature of the night by a lodger who has come to rent a room from her. When said lodger is killed off, Mom has to go out to feed on her own and that causes some family strain and also garners some attention from the authorities.
My main complaint is that this film should have brought THE FUNNY. It failed to do so although it did have some mild gore and schlocky creature makeup effects to keep the B-movie crowd happy. I've seen worse but I wouldn't give this one a rec--4.5/10.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie has to be one of the most boring and stupid movies that Perrugorria have done.
It looks like a commercial from beginning to end. The ¨director¨spent the whole time on a tripod, it doesn't have pace, rhythm. It's illogical. what a mess. You can tell what's gonna happen since the first 15 minutes, and the ending...Wow
------spoiler-------
Jesus Christ, how the hell Perrugorria got shot? Are you serious? Worst scene of someone getting shot ever!
------end of spoiler-----
Bad directing, bad script, bad acting...Really bad overall. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. It's a waste of money and time.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was produced by the biggest producer in Costa Rica. Although their authors brag about it as a the biggest movie in Costa Rica ever made and their actors even dare to say that they didn't get an Oscar Nomination due to it's political relevance with oil (-he he, right) ...Well, this is all a lie. This movie was supposedly based on a book written by Carlos Salazar Herrera about a love triangle (super cliché soap opera-like subject) and it secondary story is about an oil problem on the Atlantic Coast of Costa Rica with an American oil company who wanted to explore oil deposits on the region, but at the end it never was approved by the government. Now, it may have some nice footage about the beaches, but that's it; nothing bigger than that... it is all in the camera. Most of the actors are lousy, except for two or three. The rest lack of sense of what acting means: they overact most of the time. The story is completely common and cliché, worthy of a cheap Mexican soap opera as I said.. because the crew advertised it as a protest movie about oil, but 80% of the movie is based on a stupid love triangle. The script is nothing impressing, it is very simple and the dialogs are not very thought. It has also got some editing problem on a couple of scene changes... but besides that is pretty decent. The director did an alright job, I mean, he is not like an Oliver Stone,but he did his job with the resources he had handy. I would like to question him why instead of using Costarican actor he spent most of the money on foreign ones.. I mean after all they bragged about being an 100% Costarican Production... that's what you at least expect. Final the end is is not well done, there are flaws and details that don't match or are useless. Besides being the most elaborated movie in all Costarican history, I think it's mediocre. You can make way more interesting and better pictures with less cash. Never heard of "Pi"? Anyway, if you are curious about Costa Rican or Central American movies, this one will do, but you are definitively not missing anything.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I happened to catch this movie on late night TV. I saw the opening credits and thought this looks good. Well I was very wrong. While not excruciatingly bad (it had some funny and tender moments)it lacked any sense of cohesion.
It started off well enough with Kathy Bates'character having a midlife crisis of sorts when her husband leaves her and her singing idol is murdered. But Kathy has played these disaffected women so well before - think Fried Green Tomatoes. The problem wasn't Kathy, it was the clueless screenplay that wandered all over the place. It was as if the writers must have been thinking what will we do next. The script also felt very contrived.
Some others who have posted comments on this movie have wondered why it didn't receive a cinematic release. The main reason I think would have been to avoid embarrassment and the critics would have murdered it.
Having said all that I thought the small woman who played Maudie was fantastic and stole the movie, not to mention how beautiful she is.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Opening with some blatantly reused footage from 'Kit for Cat', 'Tweety's S.O.S' fails to live up to that classic cartoon. Instead, we get an example of Friz Freleng's Tweety and Sylvester series at its most generic. Unlike Chuck Jones's Road Runner series, which strived to introduce new jokes to the same setting, Freleng's series seemed happy enough to recycle jokes as long as the characters were in a different place. 'Tweety's S.O.S', then, basically amounts to "this time let's put 'em on a boat". It's not an entirely weak cartoon. There are a few good jokes, mostly involving Granny's glasses, but they are outweighed by gags you can see coming a mile off (the seasickness routine) and it all builds to another of those endings where someone else other than Tweety says "I tawt I taw a putty tat", a joke that worked well once but has diminishing returns. 'Tweety's S.O.S' will probably please children who enjoy virtually any cartoon but for big kids like me who are looking for more than the same tired gags it's definitely one to avoid.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Sylvester the cat stowaway upon a ship that Tweety bird happens to be on with his owner Granny. Oh I don't even have enough words to convey how much I disdain both the Tweety and Granny characters. They simply are not funny to me and made this short quite the chore to sit through indeed. Sylvester is a great character on his own, but there's only so much he can do when confronted by the sheer awfulness of that accursed bid and senile old witch of a Granny. This animated short can be found on disc 4 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1 and features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.
My Grade: D+


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Nothing special to see here, the animation has being outdated and the plot is a typical futuristic era. This film has an original story, but if it doesn't have an original plot or characters, so in my opinion it's not worth seeing. I'm not saying that the movie was bad, it was just a typical anime story and I thought I watched this movie like a thousand times. So if you are looking for something original see another thing.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I had the misfortune of seeing this crapulous effort on television a few years ago. Suffice it to say Michael Gross phones in his performance, and Hasselhoff is the least convincing thief/psycho...EVER! If you have a couple of hours to kill, watch it and prepare to laugh.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
"The Duke" is a film based in the heart of the British aristocracy where an old Duke (John Neville) dies and to avoid his large property and the vast riches to be taken from him after death by 2 devious aristocrats (Oliver Muirhead and Sophie Heyman); he passes his Dukeship down to his dog. The dog's "best friend", an American girl named Charlotte (played by Courtnee Draper) whose parents die becomes orphaned by the former Duke due to him being her great uncle. A young chef named Florian arrives, with him and Charlotte instantly connecting creating a romantic sub-plot which in its own way, acts as the under tone for the main plot line being the activities of Hubert, The 'Duke' and his many activities and love interests with other dogs. All this is watched over by James Doohan who plays a Butler who is determined to try and serve his old Duke by doing his best to serve his new master, Hubert. Doohan acts as the older character there to comfort and advise the younger ones whilst he over looks and performs various ridiculous tasks under his new master. A fine comedic performance mixed with elements of drama to end the career of a fine and influential actor.
Though from the technical viewpoint, I dislike this film as I only watched upon discovering James Doohan's role. Though the plot is good, elements of the writing and directing have to be obscured. Ignoring the absurdity of a "Doggie Duke", I personally dislike the over use of comedic and outrageous jokes upon the 'bad' characters due to their ludicrousness. The dependence on hygiene related humour as you like is much too apparent and general silliness of many characters doesn't appeal to me. The director, Phillip Spink uses mid-long shots too often with either an overdubbed voice or affecting the overall sound quality. Plus, the acting of Muirhead and Heyman, whilst good at the dramatic and romantic sequences, fall drastically short fulfilling the wholesale requirements regarding the role.
But, as a mature movie fan, I find it easy to be over critical of a simple family film designed to make you laugh. I can admit I found certain bits funny and other bits touching along with a plot that may be far-fetched, but has definite connections. I do not recommend this film to mature movie fans but I do highly recommend it to Dog lovers, families who wish to enjoy a funny film for their child and James Doohan fans who wish to see 'Scotty' in his final role.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Even those of us who like cute animal pictures --- and I abhor them ---would be hard pressed to find any merit in this abysmally bad travesty of a film. Perhaps inspired by "101 Dalmatians" with its smart and loyal dogs, its dumb and devious humans and its absurdly "happy" and predictable ending, the alternate title "101 Turkeys" springs to mind. That would just about cover everyone involved in its unfortunate production. I dismissed it as some inane Hollywood perversion of British customs before learning, to my horror, that it actually is a Canadian film, done in Victoria BC, that phony British theme park of a town, while sucking tax dollars out of Ottawa ON, that equally phony pit of Canadian mediocrity. Let me count the ways it is bad. The dizzy plot? The asinine script? The dismal performances and sophomoric direction? The cloyingly clever animals? The endless clichés and predictable slapstick? On second thought, neither I nor those browsing the IMDb have time for a complete catalogue of its failings. Yet were I to detail its merits, this space would remain blank. Trust me, it is bad; a signal monument in the vast pantheon of truly terrible (Canadian) cinema. If you have seen it already, my condolences. If you have not, stay away from it as you would SARS or bubonic plague. Or other movies with cute animals. Don't even let your children see it lest their tiny minds be warped by the even tinier minds of those who financed, fabricated and filmed this frightful folly. Perhaps tonight, when I retire, I will have a nightmare with ghastly fanged beasts springing from the bed table as I flee in frantic flight. I hope so. It will be a far far better thing I do than watch this beastly banal boondoggle. But then, I might dream that I had to watch it a second time and the sheer terror and cold sweat of that makes me want to stay up all night, trembling at the very possibility of seeing it again even as a bad dream. I might even find something worthwhile to watch in its stead. Maybe "Godzilla" or "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" Perhaps the instruction video for my built in vacuum cleaner.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Okay, now I am pretty sure that my summary got your attention and my commenting that Zazu Pitts is Satan is not without some basis. Let me explain. The film at first appears to be a dandy B-movie about an evil organization called "the Crooked Circle" and their vow of revenge in the form of murder on a rival organization dedicated to solving crimes. While this is very odd (especially the idea of a club of private citizens who solve crimes) and COULD have been interesting, this film falls apart despite a rather impressive list of familiar supporting actors. Why? Well because Zazu Pitts (never one of my favorite actresses) spends most of the movie whining just like Olive Oyl with a bad toothache!! While murders are being committed, people are being kidnapped or whatever, you can always count on Zazu whining at full volume--almost like someone's obnoxious 3 year-old who wants everyone at a party to pay attention to her! At the same time, she's NOT an integral part of the film but received top billing. Why she is even there is beyond me--I assume it's just to whine and yell. As a result, I found the movie practically unwatchable and it was completely ruined. Now you probably know why I referred to this actress of dubious talent as "Satan"! I'm sure that when the actors in this film saw the final product, they, too, felt pretty much the same way I did about her horrible overacting and amateurish performance.
This film is in the public domain and can be found for free download on the internet. I can see why.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Spike Milligan was one of the funniest men I've ever seen, and a huge influence on my life.
This movie is limp and awful, and does his memory no credit. The script is cluttered and preserves too many lines from the book intact (the leg jokes here are incomprehensible). The actors' performances are uniformly ineffective, a great cast wasted, and the lead, Sean Hughes, delivers Milligan's belligerent hostilities in a plaintive whine, which misses the point completely.
The gentle pacing is a killer as well. Farce should accelerate towards the end. The Goon Shows often did, the novel "Puckoon" definitely did, but this film, if anything, slows down just when you want the various elements to smash together in a final climax.
Milligan narrated an abridged audio recording of "Puckoon" in 1980, with T.P. McKenna, Dermot Kelly, Norma Ronald and Jack Hobbs. Now, that's funny. Ten minutes of that is funnier than this whole film. I believe the LP was transferred to CD, but don't know if it's still in print.
There is a movie of "Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall" with Jim Dale and Arthur Lowe. It too is a godawful mess, but it's funnier than this thing.
It's possible that Milligan's spirit is too rambunctious for the screen. The other reviewers here are indulging in politeness and wishful thinking. This film fumbles virtually every opportunity and never misses a chance to disappoint.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
technically, this movie would have had it all: decent actors, a nice landscape, no obvious sights of a lack of budget, a celebrity like richard attenborough. the plot summary also sounded promising, suggesting a satire on silly bureaucracy and common people outwitting it.
however, it never delivers. the plot is simply too illogical. throughout the whole movie, not one person does a single sensible thing. mad politicians, ridiculous soldiers, brain-dead villagers - all just hustle from one incredible situation to the next. what they all do never makes sense in a context beyond the current scene.
of course, this kind of movie has to be absurd and exaggerated. however, it's also supposed to have at least one instance to point out the madness behind splitting a city in the middle. actually, there are (at least) two attempts, which unfortunately fail: the main character, who doesn't seem to have a clue about what's happening to him, and the "writer", who occasionally cracks jokes from the off that might be considered funny by an audience consisting solely of 12 year olds.
what i found most impressing is that the movie tries to be funny all the time, but didn't made me laugh once. i've seen several bad "funny" movies, but until yet every single one of them featured at least 2 or 3 good laughs. so in this sense, "puckoon" is really remarkable.
if you want to see a great movie with a comparable plot, check out "brazil". don't waste your time on "puckoon".


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
When I first looked at the back of the cover of this film, it seemed like me and my friends could be looking forward to 82 memorable minutes. And it certainly was memorable. Puckoon was the kind of movie where you keep asking yourself how this was possible. How it was possible that it was released on DVD at all. Out of all of the movies available at the video rental store that night...we might just have picked the worst. And yes, they had Tomb Raider. Absolutely nothing in this movie amused me even slightly. Who came up with the idea that it would be funny if the narrator could change the story by suggestions from the main character? Out of all the stupid things you can totally ruin a movie with, this is now my favourite. The character Foggerty, the village idiot, played by Nickolas Grace is the most annoying character since they started making movies in color. If there is one single movie that you definately not should see this year, please let it be Puckoon, cause I don't think it can be any worse. I still wonder if this just might have been the worst way I have spent my money, and take my word for that I have made many lousy purchases over the years.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This was a mish mash of a film that started out going nowhere, got lost on the way then suddenly found a plot in the last 5 minutes when the title character is FINALLY introduced. There were so many ugly, mutton-chopped guys in this film, I lost track of who was the owner and who were the overseers. I have a theory about the casting though; all the bad guys were played by ugly actors (and one ugly actress) and all the good guys/victims were played by beautiful actors. Indeed the actors who played the ultimate victims, the slaves, were gorgeous as was the innocent priest's daughter, while the plantation owner, his minipulative mistress and his overseers were pretty hard on the eyes. On purpose? You make the call.
I hung in there till the end and some others might be able to make it as well. If you just want to look at bare breasts, there are plenty of them here and if you have a slave/master fetish then you'll love this film. Otherwise, watch it once, vomit, shower and never speak of it to anyone.


assistant
0