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
'Ernest Saves Christmas' is comedian Ernest's Christmas special film. In this film, Ernest has to find a successor to Santa Claus in order for Christmas to continue. Along the way, he meets a young girl who is a thief and who ends up stealing something very important of Santa's (I won't tell you what that is; you'll just have to watch the film for yourself). Like most Ernest films, there is a lot of slapstick humor involved.
This film is probably one of Ernest's best films. It's funny, and it has some important lessons to learn regarding friendship and family and not being afraid to show love. It's not the best Christmas film around, but it is a good one to get you in the Christmas spirit. It's a little bit sad that the film is a little dated now.


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


user
I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.
But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.
The problems are many.
Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.
Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his "soul" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.
Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.
What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being "nice" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.
Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.
The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.
And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.
The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable "villian" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.
The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.
But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment.


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


user
I recently picked up all three Robocop films in one box set, rather cheaply and the only reason I did this was for the special edition of the superb first one. I have seen Robocop 2 before but not for 17 years, the year it came out. I have never watched it since because I can still remember how disappointed I was when I discovered how appalling it really is. Its a complete mess really, it has all the signs of a troubled production with so many sub-plots going on at the same time. It has a very uneven tone also and it is also one of the nastiest films I have ever seen. I don't mind a little violence, the first one was incredibly violent but this one is just plain nasty. Also the SFX is terrible even for 1990, say hello to bad stop motion. Also having a drug dealing, cursing kid as a villain is just a little too much. Peter Weller at least had the common sense not to return for the next one. The only positive thing I can say for this film is it does have a couple of nice gags, like the thank you for not smoking one and the kiddie baseball team robbing an electrics store. To quote the kid who plays the villain "It 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 really don't understand who this movie is aimed at. From just the absurdity of it, not to mention the ridiculously bad acting, cheesy dialogue, and the fact that the villain is a child, I'd assume this was meant to be a children's movie... but I think there may be more swear words than Pulp Fiction, not to mention constant references to drugs and general mayhem and killing-so which demographic is it trying to please? This movie is too schizophrenic, like trying to combine Country music with Heavy metal, in the end no one is going to like it because it's a bloody paradox. I would recommend this movie because it's so funny (in a bad way) except the actors are so patently unbearable that I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.
I'm completely serious when I say that I could not watch more than 15 minutes of this. Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiible


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


user
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
Old Detroit is back, with the giant Omni Consumer Corporation continuing to swallow everything in it's path as construction of the new Delta City continues and a new menace to contend with in the shape of Cain, a cruel drug lord with delusions of Christ-likeness, peddling a deadly new addictive on the streets called nuke. As he continues to struggle with the memories of his former life haunting him, the tin plated hero sets out to bring this villain down- only to wind up getting chopped into pieces of scrap metal. With Robocop out of action, a ruthless OCP business-woman proposes plans for her new android- a stomping, snarling beast of a machine that needs an equally nasty test subject to power it- which Cain fits perfectly. After a brief glitch in his system, Robo returns to bring justice to the streets and settle the score with Cain.
The original Robocop is a film that always manages to astound you each time you watch it, no matter how many times you've seen it, one of those films that just can't be done again. That said, it's not surprising a sequel was made- it's even less surprising that that sequel really pales compared to the original. Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kirschner has crafted an unpleasant, slightly incoherent and overlong film that can't capture the magic of the first film, no matter how hard it tries. And it certainly does that, the funny ads from the first film running none stop, the corporate satire aiming to be that bit sharper and the action roaring as fast and furious as before, but with blood/gore even meaner than the first film. The first film earned a name for some nasty, blood-soaked violence (including a man's genitals being blown off and a man being blasted to pieces) but while that was more memorable the violence/gore on display here is of a more sadistic and gratuitous nature, with a very unpleasant and mean-spirited tone to it.
But overall, the film leaves you with a feeling of general apathy- why are you watching this when you could be watching the original again instead? **


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


user
Violent sequel to RoboCop was directed by Irvin Kershner (Never Say Never Again, The Empire Strikes Back) will never be as good as the original, because it is almost humorless, and it is extremely mean, and should have been rated NC-17, because of scenes with infants being involved in gunfights, people threatening to brutally murder very young infants with REAL automatic weapons, and even scenes with a 12 year old using lots of explicit profanity, giving drugs to lots of random people, shooting and graphically shooting up and killing policemen and SWAT officers, opening fire on police officers when lots of small and young children are present, and a whole group of children using strong profanity and beating up the store owner (who is a very old man) of an electronics store and stealing and destroying lots of items there. This film gives new meaning to the term "appallingly mean", but the effects and action sequences are exceptionally incredible. Overall, an OK movie.


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


user
Unfortunately producers don't know when to leave well enough alone, or are into recycling to the point that every scrap of trash that Hollywood generates is up for rendering into Alpo. It seems that every sci-fi action adventure flick must endure a sad list of follow-up films, and Robocop is a tragic example. The first film, under Paul Verhoven's direction was a wild, stylish ride, even finding time for a little social commentary on what the dark side of bio-tech is capable of turning us into. This film has none of that, aside from maybe telling us that drugs are bad for you and could make you do things you'd regret when sober. Robocop 2 lacks the vision, the profoundly scary vision of what we are becoming, and instead clumsily takes us on a boat ride into how nauseating drug dealers and their victims really are. Social commentary be damned. This one really bit the big one for me. If you don't care for anything but the SFX, go to it, my friend. Otherwise don't waste your time with this yeastless sour cake, and preserve the first film's accurately measured, heavy-weighted pumpernickle hot out of the oven. It's that simple.


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


user
Following which, the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. Rather apt, considering the sorry state of this movie, a sequel to a film which patently didn't need one.
What really irritates about Robocop 2 is that the makers obviously didn't understand why the original was so good in the first place. Robocop (7) was a witty, vibrant satire of bad action movies. Robocop 2 is just a bad action movie.
Thin on dialogue, particularly towards the tedious, shoot-out finale, it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. The spoof ads, now a little tasteless ("Warning: continued use will cause skin cancer") seem merely there as an afterthought. And calling a new designer drug "Nuke" is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original's family board game, "Nuke em!"
The stop-motion animation  the weakest element of the original  is used more extensively, while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence, which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. Ah, humourless? You might say. But what about the funny mayor, or the way Robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes? Yes, these are attempts at light relief, as is Robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver ("we're only human") for the film's punchline, but none are likely to induce laughter. Like the rest of the film, they're staid and moronic attempts at entertainment.
The third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled Robocop 3; 5) saw Peter Weller leave, to be replaced by Robert John Burke, who does well in a undemanding role. With toned-down language and violence, it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market, a Robo action figure much plugged throughout. With it's social conscience too overstated, and Robocop's new-found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly, the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. Yet fluid direction by Fred Dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing.
Robocop, then, is the film proper. Robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. Which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle, an unwatchable dirge of a picture. A franchise vehicle that has nothing to say, save for the pound signs that rung up. Irvin Kershner is no Paul Verhoven, just as comic artist Frank Miller and partner Walon Green aren't the writers that Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner were. A tragic waste of a good, if limited, concept. 4/10.


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


user
It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it.
But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.
The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.
Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.
In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.
And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.
Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?
Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them.


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


user
A pointless cash-in with nothing to contribute except nastiness, this is a definite case of sloppy seconds for Robocop. Irvin Kershner's numbing, plot less and tired mess of a sequel is watchable and even mildly entertaining in a dubious, unpleasantly trashy way, but it has virtually none of the original's flair, emotion, intelligence or excitement. Instead we have just another empty spectacle of a blockbuster whose only reason to exist seems to be to nauseate the viewer with relentless violence, which is far more brainlessly gratuitous than anything in the original. Omni Consumer Products, who made the original Robocop cyborg, have turned into more of a totalitarian force than ever second time round, what with the suspicious Nazi-esquire banners, stormtrooper guards and tanks for hire at the end; as for the anonymous Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy), he's less of a benevolent protector and more of a hideous Mr. Burns type, surrounding himself with moronic lackeys who genuinely believe that putting the brain of a murderous psychopath into the body of the all-new Robocop 2 is a good idea. Oh, and the first Robocop gets a look in somewhere amidst all of this mess, though you wonder what on Earth a fine actor like Peter Weller saw in the script. The droll Tom Noonan has nothing to work with as the villain, while Nancy Allen is badly wasted as Robocop's partner. There are some hilarious moments throughout; the opening 'Magnavolt' commercial, for instance, but this is a poor follow-up to the truly great original.


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 a fine example of what happens when a studio wants to get a sequel to a fine movie out of the gates at all cost. Only with this movie, it truly is a near miss. Everything seems in place for Robocop 2 to be a worthy followup to the groundbreaking first movie. The complete original cast (apart from the casualties, naturally) returns and gives it their best. Too bad a hackneyed script and an incompetent director as good as neutralize their efforts.
Irvin Kershner might have been the ideal go to guy for George Lucas to direct the Empire Strikes Back. For a pedestrian filmmaker like Kershner there isn't much to ruin in Lucas' charmless film series. A worthy successor to a classic like Robocop would have needed either Paul Verhoeven to return, or a director with enough brass to give his own spin on it. Kershner doesn't know how to give his own spin on anything (Lucas hired him for that) and he's surely no Verhoeven.
So what we get here is a movie that goes through all the motions to replicate the first movie, but with none of the freshness, humor or daring the original had. Kershner probably thought he could top Verhoeven by adding more gore and gratuitous violence, but instead he reveals how much he was at work as a director for hire instead of a passionate filmmaker. And that's a shame, since everything was in place to make this another classic. As mentioned the actors give it their best, but Phill Tippet delivers some groundbreaking stop motion effects and there are some great ideas in the story by Frank Miller, who was born to write a Robocop movie. If only the studio had hired a director who was competent enough to make all the potential come through.


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 okay, but really a bit disappointing because I expected more laughs. Considering the storyline and the lead actor (Bill Murray), it should have been a lot funnier than it turned out to be. Only part of this made me really laugh, such as when Murray lost control of his semi and was speeding down the road at a weird angle. (You have to see it, to appreciate it.)
The supporting cast was anything but likable people. Just look at a sampling of the names: Matthew McConaughey, Janeane Garofalo and Linda Fiorentino. Yecch! McConaughey's role in here as "Tip Tucker" was just downright annoying. He was the worst.
Other that those people, the movie had some charming moments but overall it is not recommended. It's another Disney flop.


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


user
The over-riding problem with this film is that it can't possibly use Bill Murray to the best of his abilities, simply because of the co-star.
If this was a road movie with another comedic actor, it might work. Even if they were both trying to get the elephant across the country, it would at least allow for them to share some amusing dialogue. As it stands, Murray is left talking to an elephant who cannot answer back with witty banter. Essentially, it means that Murray is talking to himself, and this makes the film more boring than it could have been had he had another character to bounce off.
Kids would enjoy this movie,simply because of the elephant, but anyone wanting to watch Bill Murray's biting delivery and enjoy an excellent script needs to look somewhere else.


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


user
This *should* have been an amazingly funny movie...but it falls flat on its face. (In fact, I stopped watching it halfway through, which is something I rarely do...) -- Bill Murray plays Jack Corcoran, a second-rate motivational speaker who is bequeathed an elephant by his father (whom he had presumed to be dead before he was born) ; he then has one week to get the ponderous pachyderm across the country. His adventures on the way are only mildly amusing at best. Janeane Garofalo's considerable comedic talents go largely untapped. Anita Gillette is impressive in her small role as Jack's mother (who has a lot of explaining to do), and Pat Hingle stands out as a former circus associate of Jack's father. -- Perhaps the second half of the movie was better than the first, but I find that hard to believe...


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


user
I have always liked Bill Murray in films like Lost in Translation, and the trailer for this film looked really good, but the result was very disappointing. Basically Murray plays Jack Corcorin who has recently found out that his father died, and he is expected to hear his will. He finds out that his father was a clown, because he left a large shoe, his squeaky nose, and his main inheritance, an elephant! The only way that Jack can get rid of this elephant is to travel 4000 miles in four days and give him to a safe zoo for $30,000. Also starring Pat Hingle as Vernon. There are small tiny moments of humour, such as a truck's front bending forward, and Murray screaming, but overall, it's pointless. Pretty poor!


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


user
Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).
The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.
The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.


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


user
Robert Downey Jr. in a 17th century wig and dress was enough to make me shudder, but I couldn't believe a great actor like Sam Neill actually took a part in this movie. The whole thing was unbelievable. I especially like Merivel's "cure" for the crazies. They dance...and hey presto! everyone's happy and they're all better! I guess I just didn't like the character Merivel too much. Therefore, watching a whole movie about his supposed transition from a whoring buffoon into a great physician was grueling.
Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I didn't think the plague as well as the famous fire of London took place simultaneously.


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


user
I really wanted to like this film. The second film in the series had this silly, drive in movie feel to it that was fun (of course, I was also drunk). I watched this film with the highest expectation of a similar experience of high cinematic hilarity, a-la- Mystery Science Theater 3000. I WAS WRONG!!!!! This movie is a god awful waste of film, and I LIKED THE SECOND ONE!!!! From the effeminate villain with the David Bowie fright wig, to the tacky, obnoxious female villains with laughs that could strip the paint off a garage door, this whole thing was just a painful mess. I actually felt bad for Sue Price, because the material was beneath an actress of her stature (that pretty much says it all). An awful, awful film (that's not a recommendation).


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 going to be my first review on IMDb and I'm glad that the standard rating is 1 out of 10 because then I don't have to change anything...
First there are awful movies. Movies you can make a laughter out of, like Island City, Battlefield Earth or Conan The Destroyer. That is totally acceptable. They makes a great party enhancer. Then there are the worst movie ever. I cannot believe how utterly crappy this steaming pile of dog turd was.
I found it on a second hand store on VHS and bought it quickly because I like sci-fi, Terminator, post-apocalypse and stuff like that. Everything on the box art was very promising. Then I loaded in the tape quickly when I got home and the first thing that I noticed was... WHAT? There was maybe 10 minutes (or more) of switching between present clips and flashbacks in a very annoying blue effect, with sounds that makes you puke. And it just continues over and over. Then some "acting" kicks in and you wonder why you were ever born in a world, where this abomination of mankind actually exists... And then I realized, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PREQUELS. I didn't think about it first, but the title says "3" in it... And I was horrified. But as I actually in great pain and agony watch it to the end, I thought nothing could ever make me feel worse about myself and this universe... But then a little text showed up saying... "Next..." and... NEMESIS 4?!?!?! NO PLEASE NO!!!!!!!!


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


user
I got this thing off the sci-fi shelf because I remembered seeing the first of the series when I was a kid. I'd rented the second one and it was a decent "B" sci-fi. This one was out right obnoxious. The "special" effects on the cars looked like something my 4 year old cousin could have done. The two assistant female cyborgs were so terrible that I literally cringed every time they came on the screen. The plot left so much to be desired that it made me sick. I don't know what anyone was thinking when they agreed to be a part of this movie but I'm sure that they'd have done better to have left it at 2 movies. The movies in this series are going from good to decent to terrible. I only hope that no terrorist groups have access to this movie as it makes an excellent torturing device.


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


user
Perhaps the worst of the "Nemesis" films (and that says A LOT!), this mess features so many flashbacks to part 2 that you might as well say that you've seen them both, even if you've only endured this entry. Making matters worse are two wisecracking cyborgs who have absolutely no entertainment value. In other words, they are a perfect fit for this endlessly boring cinematic mistake.


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


user
Nemesis 3 is the worst movie what I have ever seen!!! I think that Nemesis 3 was only 30 minutes long. And that movie was so boo-oo-ring. When that movie ends and I saw word: NEMESIS 4... I thought I will...NOT watch that movie never again.


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


user
There's something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time.
I've seen "Pumping Iron II", "Aces: Iron Eagle III", "Raven Hawk", and even the TV movie "Getting Physical", which featured some big names in the sport. They were tolerable in their own ways (mostly, because they featured Rachel McLish. ROWWR!!).
Then I went and watched "Nemesis III: Prey Harder", on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Sharon Bruneau and Ursula Sarcev. Love the ladies, always will, but after this I'm kinda glad I missed the first two "Nemesis" flicks.
Well, the first one, anyway. Most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming, I would guess) from "Nemesis II". Actually, that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here.
But even though Price and company flex and pose, they don't get much of a chance to do anything else (like, say, ACT!). In fact, this whole film is an exercise (Get it? Ha-ha...) in oblique story-telling, ambiguous characters and open-ended movie-making (in terms of filming as well as the story-line).
Nothing makes much sense but even if it did, there would still be issues - such as making such small parts for such larger-than-life women as these. What a crime.
Of course, it was written and directed by Albert Pyun, so what did you expect: cohesion?
One star only, in consideration for all the hard work that Price, Muggli, Bruneau and Sarcev obviously put into their bodies, NOT the "craft" work done within the movie itself.
Thanks, ladies.


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


user
The original Airport (1970) was a classic of its kind, and the first two B-movie follow-ups (Airport 1975; Airport '77) were watchable fun at best, amusing camp at worst; but this crass and inept final entry lacks any entertainment value and displays a shocking contempt for its audience. It's unendurable and not even good for laughs.
All of the three "Airport" sequels were theatrical releases made by Universal's television wing but this one is beneath even the modest standards of a TV movie of its day, with cheapjack production, grotesque casting, visual ugliness and tasteless, unfunny "comedy". The project was clearly doomed by the "creative" efforts of Universal executive Jennings Lang who personally produced and is given a "story" credit.
Everyone starts somewhere, and writer Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) might have provided an element of self-burlesque, as had the previous films (especially the notorious Airport 1975), but there is nothing worth spoofing in Roth's turgid, incoherent script and even the comedy Airplane! left this crud untouched.
What makes The Concorde: Airport '79 particularly offensive is its insulting misuse of professionals. The worst victim is the supremely gifted Cicily Tyson (Sounder; The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman), pitilessly reduced to a vomitous subplot involving her escorting a frozen heart transplant on the unfortunate flight.
A special kick to the groin is reserved for the wonderful George Kennedy, who is the true lead despite being buried in the cast list. The official mascot of the "Airport" series and the only actor to appear in all four movies, Kennedy had more than earned the starring role and his turn in the Captain's seat would have been the only possible reason for this entry other than the squeezing of one last buck. Kennedy provides the only warmth and real humor in this mechanical muckup, briefly putting aside the bravura machismo and revealing a genuinely sweet and tender side to himself, and his lovable and heroic character of "Joe Patroni". Unfortunately we are never allowed to forget how fat and old and over-the-hill Kennedy is, and overage pretty-boy Alain Delon relentlessly calls him "Porky Pig" as part of a buddy-bonding that falls completely flat. Even Kennedy's Parisian romance, the only humane part of this plane-wreck, turns out to be merely a set-up for a hateful joke at Patroni's, Kennedy's, and the viewer's expense.


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 scary at times, perhaps no more so than when a naked George Kennedy tells his hooker girlfriend he wants a little more sugar. Thankfully his nakedness is covered by a blanket, but the image is still more horrifying than anything you're likely to find in, for example, Schindler's List.
The dialog in this film was inspiring; it inspired me to watch another movie. In one scene, when a stewardess remarks about male pilots, Kennedy asks, "Why do you think it's called a 'cock' pit?" Charming.
And yes, contrary to what some have written, this film is very, very bad.


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


user
All the Airport movies are stinkers, but this one is the biggest turkey of them all. The formula was different for this one because it focused on TWO disastrous flights and a lot of plot occurring on the ground, while the other movies focused on just one disastrous flight and less plot on the ground. The stunts with the Concorde are worth watching for the laughs, although the special effects aren't as terrible as I'd expect for a movie of this quality made in 1979. George Kennedy's sexist remarks are disgusting and his rendezvous with a prostitute in Paris is totally unnecessary (and made me gag a little). Poor Martha Raye was relegated to a role where she did nothing but relieve her bowel over and over in the Concorde's bathroom. There are no big stars in this movie compared to the previous films, giving you one more reason not to watch this one.


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


user
The real star of the last of the Airport films is that big supersonic carrier the French created called The Concorde. If you bear in mind that the whole film is dedicated to showing what that needle nosed plane could do in the sky, than the whole film kind of makes sense.
But if you're expecting some serious drama here, than by all means take some of the evasive action the Concorde shows here when some nasty folks try to shoot her down.
Susan Blakely plays a television news reporter who also happens to be the mistress of military industrial tycoon Robert Wagner. One of Wagner's aides just happens to bring her information on some of Wagner's dirty business dealings, selling arms to folks not friendly to the USA. When the source, Macon McCalman, is killed in front of her and she's nearly done in by a hit-man whom she escapes from of course she confronts Wagner with the information. And of course he denies it. But right before Blakely boards The Concorde, McCalman's widow Kathleen Maguire hands her the necessary documents.
But on the way to Moscow with a stop in Paris, Wagner and his minions try to put the big bird down. But the fearless crew of Alain Delon, David Warner, and George Kennedy is up to all their tricks. It's quite a bag full as you'll see if you want to watch the film.
If you're an aviation enthusiast, you absolutely won't care about the plot. It's like the film Le Mans with Steve McQueen which has a legion of auto racing fans who have made it a cult item. Maybe Le Mans is better at that because they just didn't bother with any kind of story.
Among the passengers is a pot smoking saxophonist played by Jimmie Walker, a distraught mother accompanying a new heart for her child, played by Cicely Tyson and Martha Raye a woman with a weak bladder who spends the entire trip from Washington to Paris in the loo. She's actually the best one here.
Robert Wagner must have been psychic though because I'm sure on the strength of this film he got the part of Doctor Evil's number two in the Austin Powers series.
I'm sure all concerned got a big pay day out of this film, but it seems to have killed the Airport saga of movies.


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 what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the "Childs Play" series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....
Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, "I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!" when your soufflé accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.
When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.
Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.
I had an appetite for soufflé, and got served insipid cliché pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose!


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


user
The last of the "Airport" sequels. This has Alain Delon and George Kennedy (who was in all the Airport movies) as pilots; David Warner (!!!) as the radio engineer; Susan Blakely as a newswoman targeted for death; Robert Wagner as a brilliant scientist (stop laughing!); Eddie Albert as a president of the airlines; Charo in a dreadful "comical" bit; John Davidson as a newsman (love how his hair stays in place even AFTER the plane turns upside down!); poor Martha Raye is humiliated; Cicely Tyson plays a mother who is flying a heart for her dying son (stop rolling your eyes!); Jimmie Walker as a clarinet player (what did I say about not laughing?); Mercedes McCambridge as a Russian gymnastics coach (OK you can laugh at that one); Bibi Andresson as a hooker and Sylvia Kristel and Sybil Danning as love interests.
Just pathetic. Full of stupid plots and dialogue that will have you roaring--watch for Davidson getting "married" on the plane near the end! The Concorde is taking all these people to Russia. They're attacked with missiles, escape, land safely in France and TAKE OFF AGAIN the very next day!!!! Don't you think the flight would have been cancelled or something? Most of the acting is terrible--McCambridge is a sight to behold in a red fright wig and a horrible fake accent. The only good acting is from Kennedy and Delon (looking fantastic) who gives a very engaging performance. Still that's not enough to make you sit through this drivel. Too long and lousy special effects too. This was a mega-bomb and (thankfully) stopped Universal from doing anymore.


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


user
Some slack might be cut this movie due to the fact that it was made in 1979. That much said, it really is pretty dire.
Never mind the laughable back-projection or the awful, awful camera-tracking of supposed "in-flight" objects, it's the stunts that the Concorde pulls off that will have you blinking in disbelief at the absurdity. Barrel-rolls, loop-the-loops and violent "evasive" maneuvers left me wondering why the Air-Forces of the world didn't just fly Concordes as their main fighters.
So, here are the important lessons I learned from this celluloid cheese-fest:
1. The Concorde is at least as agile as a Phantom 4 jet-fighter.
2. You can fire a flare gun at Mach 2 simply by opening the cockpit window and sticking your arm out.
3. If the flare gun fails to discharge, do not drop it, as it may then go off.
4. The Concorde can dodge up to two Sidewinder missiles fired at it at once.
5. A flare will distract a heat-seeking missile every time.
6. Switching off your jet-engines is a sure-fire way of throwing heat-seeking missiles off track if 5 (above) fails.
7. When performing a crash-landing in the Concorde, it is apparently impossible to jettison your fuel beforehand.
8. Concorde pilots are all combat-trained veterans.
As you might imagine, this film is not very realistic. The effects are primitive by today's standards and that, coupled with the nonsense acrobatics the Concorde performs, makes this a movie deserving of little but scorn.
Not recommended. Not recommended at all!


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


user
My Take: The silliest of the AIRPORT movies, and probably one of the worst of the 70's disaster movies.
As if to milk the franchise with all its got, the producers of this third sequel to AIRPORT throws in more action, silly subplots, gratuitous star appearances and goofier elements. In its attempt to be the biggest AIRPORT yet, CONCORDE: AIRPORT '79 is the worst one yet, and probably one of the worst of the disaster movies of the 1970's. With its bad box-office results, it is no wonder that the genre has overstayed its welcome.
The film opens with a rather catchy score by Lalo Schifrin backed-up by some impressive shots of the titular aircraft in its former glory (the same plane used in this film would be involved in a crash in July 2000). But then the credits appear, and we get a glimpse of the "all-star" cast, which is composed nothing more of faded Hollywood stars, TV actors and none-too-popular B actors. The plot is sillier than ever: George Kennedy is back in the role of Joe Patroni, now the pilot of the Concorde (co piloted by co-pilot Alain Delon) en route to France after the Summer Olympics. On board is reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely), who has just discovered that his boyfriend, renowned weapons manufacturer Kevin Harrison (Robert Wagner), is selling their weapons to terrorist. To prevent her from revealing the news to the world, Harrison sends his most advance missiles and best saboteurs to prevent the Concorde from landing.
The cast/subplots are dumber than ever, even sillier than an alcoholic Myrna Loy or a singing nun. We have Cicely Tyson transporting a live human heart in a cooler (!), Martha Raye as a woman with a bladder condition (and the character doesn't go deeper than that), J.J. Walker a a pot-smoking saxophonist (arguably the most annoying character in the film), Eddie Albert married to "old" wife Sybil Danning, Avery Schreiber as Russian coach with a deaf daughter and finally, a love story between reporter Jon Davidson and gymnast Andrea Marcovici (much to the sour watching-eye of coach Mercedes McCambidge). Plus the movie gets much closer to LOVE BOAT episode than ever with the silliest cameos of Charo (and her pet Chihuahua) and Bibi Anderson. Camp buffs will no doubt get a real kick-in-the-balls in this silly entry in a long strain of 70's disaster movies. This one is, in more than the sense of the word, a true disaster.
Rating: *1/2 out of 5.


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


user
I gave "Airport '79" only two stars because it's a truly lousy film. Nobody who had anything to do with it deserves any praise (except for Charo's Chihuahua, who does a pretty good job in his role.) This is not to say that the film isn't worth watching. It helps if you have a buzz on, but this is not essential.
A'79 really does seem like an early version of "Airplane!" Every scene has a set-up and a payoff, and the scenes blunder after one another as if they were totally disconnected. One of my favorite recurring points is that the passengers, crew, and airplane get to keep going, no matter what. You're a news reporter and a strange guy gets murdered at your house in your presence? The hit-man then chases you onto your greenhouse roof? No problem. You can still catch that early-morning flight to Paris...no need to get the cops involved. Your plane dodges one unmanned "drone" missile, four heat-seeking missiles, and cannon fire from an unidentified Phantom fighter, doing barrel rolls, an unpowered dive, and a crash-net landing without thrust reversers in the process? No problem, we'll have the mechanics check the oil and get you on your way in just a few hours. It's truly funny.
And I'll admit that there's a bit of the anarchist in me that comes out when the passengers pay no attention to the cabin attendants. The highlight is when the attendant tells Jimmie Walker he'll have to put away his saxophone (God spare me from a flight seated in front of a saxophonist playing jazz!) prior to take-off. Jimmie basically says, "Nope." Later in the flight, the sax is damaged during a barrel-roll and Jimmie actually shows up on the next leg of the flight with yet another sax that he won't put away. This aspect of the film is just fun. (ONE passenger actually obeys the attendant. When Charo is told she can't take her dog on the flight, she leaves the plane. Naturally, this is because you can't get a good view of her ass and boobs while she's seated.)
In summary, a terrible movie, but terrible enough to be a bit amusing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers and cast deserve no credit whatsoever for this, as it was probably entirely unintentional.


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


user
WARNING **SPOILERS**
Lord knows I have seen some bad movies in my time and this one makes me just as angry. This is an insult to people who ARE LOOKING for a bad movie. The "story" involves a stewardess who discovers her boyfriend (badly acted by otherwise great Robert Wagner) is a murder, thief, and just an overall puke face. After the Concorde takes off, he sends guided missiles to destroy the Concorde. So while the Concorde is traveling at the speed of light, our "hero" (played with utter stupidity, George Kennedy) opens the window in the cockpit then, sticks his hand OUT THE WINDOW to fire at the missile! I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems his hand would at least get a wind burn. Then towards the final "climax" when the Concorde is headed for certain disaster and everyone will die, a passenger turns to his fiance and proposes marriage. A Priest just happens to be sitting in the next row and proceeds to marry them as the planes is crashing! (I'm not making this up) Wow, the guy who wrote the script must have been sniffing glue for a week.


assistant
0