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
This movie was disturbing, not because of the subject matter but because of the way it was handled. The extremely overweight mother (Angela) did not even make it on the cover of the video case when most of the rest of the cast did. This is not fair but is a statement in itself. I also notice her picture is missing from IMDb (maybe her own choice) and it looks like this is her only film ever? The language in this movie was crude beyond necessity. Watched with my 10yr old son because it was rated PG in Canada and the language coming out of their mouths was shameful & disgusting. Never did appreciate Shirley Maclain like so many others seem to.
LOVE Kathy Bates and always will. Sinese's part was annoying.
The little boy Alex is a great little actor. I'll have to see what else he's been up to lately..


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


user
This odd little film starts out with the story of Bruno (Alex Linz) in a catholic school who has no friends and gets beat up everyday. He likes to wear dresses and his obese mother Angela who is a dressmaker doesn't think their is anything wrong with what her son likes. Angela complains to Mother Superior (Kathy Bates) but gets ignored and as the two of them walk back to they're car they are harassed by the other kids and are pelted with eggs. Bruno's father Dino (Gary Sinise) is divorced from Angela and is totally disgusted by his son being a sissy and practically disowns him. Bruno meets a new student at school named Shawniqua (Kiami Davael) who is a free spirit and dresses like Annie Oakley with cap pistols. Angela has a heart attack and Bruno's grandmother steps in to take care of him when Dino refuses.
The film starts out with a very hard and unsympathetic look at all the characters involved. Angela has a great deal to do with Bruno wearing dresses as she practically encourages him. Dino was told when he was a young boy by his mother that he was a sissy because he liked opera and now he refuses to help Bruno when he needs it. The catholic school that Bruno attends is very unruly and all the kids run rampant and even call Shawniqua the "N" word. Once Shirley MacLaine steps in the film shifts and becomes more family oriented (So to speak). ****SPOILER ALERT**** The ending after the spelling bee is incredibly contrived and "feel good". Hugs and cheers for Bruno as reporters follow him and take his picture for their papers. All the while Shirley MacLaine is acting like the "tough old broad" who snaps at everyone. There is one thing about MacLaine's character in the film that no one has mention in these comments and it has to do with the masculine nature of her. I think the character of Helen might be a lesbian! She's very tough and strong and at one point in the film she shares a shot of whiskey with Bruno and smokes a cigar at the same time. I don't remember anyone in the film mentioning who her husband was or if she was ever married at all! This is why I think her character might be gay. Lots of other good actors appear in the film as well. Joey Lauren Adams, Jennifer Tilly, Brett Butler, Gwen Verdon and Lainie Kazan all should have taken a better look at the script before they signed on. I guess when they heard that MacLaine was directing that it would be an honor to be part of it. Very difficult to feel any remorse or understanding towards any of the characters and the subject matter is probably impossible for most to relate to. The actors are not bad but what exactly was MacLaine aiming for? Tolerance towards a young boy who wants to wear dresses and freedom of expression? We get that in the first 10 minutes, the rest of the time I was trying not to cringe.


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


user
What was I thinking when I rented this one? What did the distributor think when he copied the tape and shipped it all the way to Holland? That anyone really wanted to see this s***?!?
It's about some astronauts getting into trouble outer space (Apollo 13 flashback, but never even in the shadow of this fine film) and they want to return to home. If you act in such a film, you should be glad that you're gonna drift away from earth as far as possible!
This one wants to surf on the small wave of space movies in 1998 (Deep Impact and Armageddon), and this one fails everywhere. Deep Impact and Armageddon weren't perfect either (far from it), but they were at least worth watching once (and maybe one more time when we're all old). They gave some fun. Max Q doesn't. It gives irritation. Okay, okay. It's a TV movie, but does that mean you're allowed to come up with such a mess?
If you haven't choked in your own vomit by the end (by all the cheap drama and worthless dialogue) you've must have bored yourself to death with this waste of time.
It gets at its worst at the end when the space shuttle lands on... No, I can't 'spoil' this one (IMDb guidelines forbid it). So you have to see for yourself. NO! DON'T SEE IT (sorry), but rent a movie which is worth renting (like Battlefield Earth... just kidding!)
Probably the worst one I have ever seen.


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


user
Stay away from this movie! It is terrible in every way. Bad acting, a thin recycled plot and the worst ending in film history. Seldom do I watch a movie that makes my adrenaline pump from irritation, in fact the only other movie that immediately springs to mind is another "people in an aircraft in trouble" movie (Airspeed). Please, please don't watch this one as it is utterly and totally pathetic from beginning to end. Helge Iversen


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


user
An old high school teacher of mine used to brag that he'd seen every movie EVER made, so one day a friend of mine and I decided to make up a movie called "Pacific Inferno". Later, we got into an argument whether the lead role was played by Carl Weathers or Billy Dee Williams. Our teacher found the argument interesting, so he came up to us and informed us that the lead role in "Pacific Inferno" was played by Jim Brown. We thought he was trapped in a lie, that was until we went to the library and discovered that "Pacific Inferno" was in fact a real movie. This incident forced me to rent the movie... it's horrible. Our made up movie had a better plot than this piece. Weathers and Billy Dee would have been much better in the picture.


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


user
Jim Brown stars and produces a tale set in the Philippines just after the Japanese invasion. The story has the Japanese taking several navy men prisoner including some divers, who they use to retrieve the gold that MacArthur had dumped into the Manila bay.
It's a messy movie aiming to make a statement about war and racism (The film uses Edwin McCain's War in a not so subtle montage). The performances are just adequate at best. Jim Brown is okay, but he doesn't really show any sort of range in a performance that just has him standing there looking annoyed. The sets are serviceable but seem rather cheap. The film suffers from the outset due to a great deal of stock footage including many of the best known shots from the Japanese attack in Tora! Tora! Tora!. The use of such big budget sequence effectively makes the rest of the film look positively anemic; it also reminds one that there are better films out there one could be watching. For me the film seems to have half a real plot, the retrieval of the silver, and half a plot that is there just to fill time. None of it is particularly exciting even with the explosive finale.
Given the choice I'd take a pass.


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


user
The best thing about this flick is that it seems like they used a lot of stuff left over from the Pearl Harbor attack in Tora Tora Tora. My favorite was the shot of the P-40 crashing into the row of parked P-40s but filmed from the top of a hangar or crane. Unfortunately it just gets worse from there.
There's two black guys and two white guys as American POWs, as well as some Filipinos POWs and Japanese guards. The ranking POW of the Americans is a white naval Lieutenant, which is of course an O-3 in the navy. At any rate, he's in need of a haircut, badly, distractingly badly. Hockey hair does not belong in a WWII movie. Oh, and he's a racist. He doesn't want to share quarters with the 'negros'. Of course in real life, he wouldn't want to share quarters with the white enlisted guy either. I think the Geneva Convention has a clause about officers quarters and enlisted but that wasn't the point here. Oh well, I think plot is secondary to other issues in this flick. He gets put in his place and pretty much spends the rest of the movie as a look out and running the air pump for the divers.
But once you get going, it's not a bad story line. The japs want the divers to raise the silver thrown out by the Americans before Corrigador fell. The Filipino resistance wants them to take their time. And the POWs do their best to help. A potentially good story and not that badly done I guess. A bit unbelievable when the POWs use camp made re-breathers to swim between the POW camp and the Filipino village, every night. Maybe I'm not that picky when I know going in that this is not a blockbuster film. I guess that's why it comes on a 20-pack DVD war movie collection for five bucks.
The 70s music did not belong in this movie or any WWII movie. It's quite distracting to say the least. The acting was not that bad. Probably better than I could do.
Not being a fan of football, at least I found out that Jim Brown is a real person and not somebody Richard Pryor made up. That in itself was worth the 25¢ I paid for this movie.
Worth watching on TCM or paying a quarter for.
One star for being a war movie, another for being WWII and one more because I'm feeling generous.


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 are in to bad movies for the entertainment of witnessing bad movies, bad acting, bad production etc..aka Mystery Science Theater 3000 quality....you will love Pacific Inferno. Jim Brown will be forever remembered as one of the greatest football players to ever play the game...as an actor he will forever be remembered as one of the greatest football players to ever play the game... I am not sure who Rolf Bayer was...but I am hoping he was 15 or 16 years old when he directed this, perhaps he may have been the next Spielberg in the making...because if he was a grown man directing this...a 15 or 16 year old could have done better.... The basis or plot for the movie probably had some historical merit and maybe even truthfully accurate...but the actual film may be one of worst movies made in American film history...I kept waiting for Lee Marvin, William Holden or Charles Bronson to pop in to somehow save whatever "face" was left of this film. I would have loved to have been at the red carpet, black tie gala for the Hollywood opening when this movie previewed...as this movie had to have many a viewer laughing and cringing under their breath... it is on the dime DVD racks now....look for it for entertainment value...this movie is so bad it is too good to pass up...


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


user
Why are there no good reviews? Because this film is hysterically bad.
Set in a Japanese prison camp in World War II, we have Jim Brown as the hero who puts up with a hysterically unbelievable racist officer, and just as hysterical is the way the Japanese officers brown nose Jim Brown's character.
This is probably the worst film any of these actors ever did. Stereotypes not only abound, but they dominate this film. The sixties-seventies music may be the best thing about the film, maybe because it has nothing to do with the film.
This is even difficult to sit back and enjoy as mindless fun. This film is even more racist than the message of racism it tries to deliver. And believe me, I was alive in the seventies, and we thought crap like this was just as stupid then. It was never popular.


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


user
Our story: Two U.S. Navy deep sea divers search for silver coins hidden beneath the ocean off the Filipino coast. Our proof: Extremely dull entertainment at its best, with no plot in sight. Jim Brown is completely wasted, provided his help in producing this 70s war turkey. Richard Jaeckel is in his usual form. Don Cornelius and Richard Pryor are among those who gave special thanks in their contributions! BOMBS AWAY!!!


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


user
A man in blackface lands in a spaceship and meets a girl who lives in some sort of shack with a monkey. He hooks her up with a telephone, and she teaches him how to Charleston. Then they fly off in the spaceship, leaving the monkey behind. Cringe-inducing blackface aside, this short film makes no sense. I think that's the plot, but I'm not sure by a long shot. You can't tell that this is Renoir at work, despite his characteristic humanism. Good use of slow-motion, though. Can be found on the NY Film Annex's series of Experimental Film videos, No. 18, I believe.


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


user
Made with film stock left over from the production of Nana, 1927's Sur un Air de Charleston is described as a holiday film for all concerned, and that's the best way to view it. Jean Renoir seems never to have thought enough of it to even edit the footage together. The plot is a simple reversion of racial stereotypes  in 2028 a black explorer travels to a post-holocaust Paris where a white native girl teaches him the Charleston (naturally he assumes she's a savage whose dancing is a prelude to her eating him before giving in to the seductive beat of 'White Aborigine' music). There are plenty of surreal touches, be it the pet gorilla eating the flowers in Catherine Hessling's hair, the angels the girl telephones (Renoir and producer Pierre Braunberger among them) or the fact that black performer Johnny Huggins plays his part in minstrel blackface while Hessling's dancing ability is almost completely nonexistent, and there are some interesting occasional experiments with slow motion, but there's not really enough to sustain it for two reels. An additional air of surrealism is provided by the fact that this silent musical has absolutely no score at all on Lions Gate's new DVD


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


user
I enjoy science-fiction just as much as the next man but what the hell was that? Apparently shot over just three days using excess film stock left over from his previous film, 'Nana (1926),' this Jean Renoir short is a bewildering futuristic satire, produced on a budget that couldn't have been much more than zero. In the year 2028, following a great war, Africa has become the most civilised region on Earth, and what was formerly Europe has been designated "Terres Inconnues (Unknown Land)." An African explorer  played by Johnny Huggins, a Black man dressed up as a White man dressed up as a Black man, if you follow me  travels to the ruins of Paris in his spherical aircraft, and lands outside the lair of a Parisian savage (Catherine Hessling, then the director's wife) and her primate companion, perhaps the creepiest ape-man costume I've ever seen. The savage, as part of some bizarre sexual initiation ritual, starts showing the explorer the Charleston dance, which he is delighted to learn himself.
It doesn't help the film that Hessling, who was wonderful the following year in Renoir's 'The Little Match Girl (1928),' isn't much of a dancer, though the extensive use of slow-motion adds a touch of surrealism to the ceremony. Furthermore, I'm quite shocked that Renoir would exploit his own wife as such a blatant sexual object  it doesn't come as a surprise to learn of their divorce just three years later! On the plus side, I did like the general sci-fi concept behind the film, and the slyly satiric touch of the reversing the racial roles usually typical in such stories as this. However, why Renoir decided to dress up his Black actor as a minstrel will remain a mystery for all of time. Silly, crude and quite pointless, 'Charleston Parade (1927)' is a cinematic oddity from one of cinema's most respected directors, and is perhaps an effort that he would have liked to forget. The DVD version came without a musical soundtrack, but I compromised with a selection of pieces from Dmitri Shostakovich.


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 didn't do it for me, an avid SNL fan for the past 14 years. Jamie Gertz' portrayal was OK, but there was something so off-putting about the movie itself. The facts presented in the movie are totally skewed. But Merv Griffin produced it, so that would explain a lot. He was never on SNL, nor had anything to do with it. The points in her life when she was on SNL are backwards. When we first see her on SNL, walking through the studio with Lorne Michaels, the logo on the wall is circa 1988-1989, not 1975. And let's talk about the cast -- who are these people?? I have never heard of a one of them. Truly dissatisfying. This movie shows why TV movies are just that, TV movies.


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


user
1st watched 7/29/2001 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Mark Dindal): Fast-paced, frantic animation effort by Ted Turner's feature animation group plays a lot like tv cartoons and leaves a lot to be desired in the area of likeable characters, but definetly has extremely unlikeable villains. I'm not even sure why the kids would like this movie because there are so many references to old movie stars that kids know very little or nothing about. Mediocre effort at best despite raves on the box comparing it to Disney efforts like Aladdin and Lion King. Don't let this fool you -- there is no comparison in story or quality.


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


user
Two years after leaving the small town of Grover's Bend due to encountering the Krites, Brad Brown returns to spend time with his grandmother in time for Easter. Meanwhile the Krite eggs begin to hatch. As they cause trouble in the town, Brown & the townsfolk, as well as the alien bounty hunters who have returned to finish the creatures must fight the bloodthirsty furballs before they wipe out the town.
The original Critters was a minor attempt to rip-off the family-horror flick "Gremlins". It became a cult favourite on the video shelves & was successful enough to warrant a sequel. This sequel plays down the horror & makes its entire focus comedy instead. Unfortunately the comedy part is extremely clumsy, as well as childish. The acting is on par with the rest of the film. It is just that the film suffers from a weak script. The visual effects are fairly well done.
Grade: D+ Review by M. K. Geist.


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


user
What a terrible sequel. The reason I give this film two stars instead of zero because it's a movie that has violence and gore and critters, yet it is planned out poorly. And this god-awful sequel was done by none other than BUM-BUM-BUM-BUM!!!!!!!!! Mick Garris! The bonehead that brought you the remake of The Shining which nearly got Kubrick to nearly roll in his grave when he discovered it was actually made. Garris is also the man that brought you the sad sequel of THE FLY, THE FLY, which was a wonderful movie, but Garris's movie nearly ruined John Getz career. Anyway, if you really want to see the crappy critters trilogy in order, don't. That's the mistake I made, rent the first one or the third one or better yet DON'T STOOP TO THAT LEVEL AT ALL! This movie sucked so bad that I can't believe it, please avoid this crap. Shame on you, Mick!


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


user
Some changes for the better (the special effects are more elaborate), some for the worse (Scott Grimes, a likable kid in the original, has turned into an awkward teenager), but generally this sequel is about on a par with the original - which doesn't say much. The PG-13 rating is questionable; although the film is not scary at all, there is some brief but quite explicit gore, and some out-of-place nudity. (*1/2)


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


user
OH MY GOD! After having such a promising start, Critters 2 reiterated the Karmic rule of what goes around comes around. Clearly, very few things were thought out when this movie was made, and what was up with Scott Grimes wearing an earing! This should have been the last expedition into the Critters saga, but more garbage was on its way. This was the big reason why I didn't watch Critters 3, and why is every bad film series has to have an episode in space? (Critters, Friday the 13th, Leprechaun in Space, Hellraiser, etc.)


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


user
Jack Higgins' straightforward thriller about a guilt-ridden IRA bomber forced into "one last job" (where have I heard that plot before?) gets a snarky treatment from cult director Mike Hodges. Mickey Rourke, with alarming red hair, confesses all to the priest (Bob Hoskins, of all people) who accidentally witnessed the shooting. The rules of the church keep Father Bob from talking, but then Rourke goes and falls in love with the priest's blind niece. They bond at the church organ. What? Really, that's the plot. Alan Bates is around as the top dog mobster who's calling the shots (literally) and he seems to be the only actor who's on to the jokey tone Hodges is aiming at. Bates is all set to do a sort of U.K. PRIZZI'S HONOR, but no one else, including an effortlessly charismatic Liam Neeson in a supporting role, has been informed.


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


user
Mickey Rourke ( who was once a famous movie star ) plays Martin Fallon an IRA terrorist who accidentally blows up a school bus full of children who is so disgusted by his actions decides to leave the IRA and goes on the run in London
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!
The movie's opening is rather disturbing as the lives of little children are ended in a fireball . Things like this happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s in Northern Ireland which gives A PRAYER FOR THE DYING a stark realism . However as soon as Fallon decides he's going to give up violence ( What ? He's a terrorist and he's never blown up innocent passerbys before ? ) realism disappears and clichés and ridiculous plot twists take place . Martin is employed by the London underworld ( Don't they have their own hit men ? )to commit a hit while he wears an IRA " uniform " ( Never knew the provos wore uniforms ) at a cemetery in broad daylight ( Wouldn't an IRA man use a bomb placed under a car ? ) where he's spotted by a priest who recognises him while he was in the SAS . Hands up who thinks I'm lying ? I'm not and we're half way through the running time and there's still several clichés to come
This all sounds very silly and it is but what do you expect from a novel by Jack Higgins ? Everything is clichéd , contrived and stereotypical and the bits that aren't are just plain bizarre . The critics slaughtered this movie when it came out , most notably they stated that it might have some potential if the movie had Bob Hoskins playing gangster Jack Meehan and Alan Bates playing the SAS soldier turned priest and for once the critics would have been right . They should also noted the film might have been less dire if Fallon was played by someone who was capable of doing an Irish accent . Rourke might be hunky and macho ( Oh gawd another movie with an IRA uberhunk ) but accents aren't his strong point any more than character acting is . To give you an idea how disappointing PRAYER FOR THE DYING IS the director ended up disowning it which is always a bad sign
As a footnote the original release of PRAYER FOR THE DYING in Britain was delayed for several months because of " The Enniskillen bombing " . In November 1987 the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb in the centre of Enniskillen where a Remembrance Day parade which commemorates Britain's war dead was being held . Eleven ( 11 ) people were killed and scores more injured . It wasn't an accident and no one left the IRA because of it


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 was a little girl, I absolutely adored The Swan Princess, it was reliving the same fairy tales of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella, the princess and her prince who saves the day is always a timeless story that will never die, well, hopefully. But I figured that I would check out the sequels for The Swan Princess to see what they were like and unfortunately, this is the typical cartoon sequel that just disappoints more than entertains. The only character I found still very amusing was the Queen, she was very funny in this movie and had the best part. But with the voice changes, they were noticeable and also bothered me quite a bit, I don't mean to be picky, just it was too weird for me. The story also was just more or less borrowed from the first Swan Princess, just the villain in this movie is following Rothbart's footsteps.
Odette and Derek are about to celebrate their one year anniversary, but Derek has been too preoccupied with fighting for his kingdom to keep it safe. With his mother's birthday also coming up, he forgets about that since there is a new villain in town, Clavious, who is hoping to go above and beyond where Rothbart's powers went and kidnaps the Queen on her birthday. But Odette must change back into her swan self in order to help Derek fight him and save his mother.
The Swan Princess 2 is of course more than alright for the kids, that I never mind, it's good clean fun for them. The reason why these sequels are disappointing though is because it is usually just for the kids, that is the audience they aim for, but it's more enjoyable when the jokes and story can be enjoyed by everyone. Now there are a few laughs and giggles here and there, but this wasn't as clever in my opinion to the first Swan Princess. I would recommend it for the little one's, but if you're looking for a fun cartoon movie, I'd recommend staying with the first Swan Princess.
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
I was disappointed with the sequel to the Swan Princess. I can see what they were trying to do with the story, show how married life was going for Odette and Derek but the story wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention and it seemed to cover the same bases as the original.
It isn't funny. The only bit I found humorous was when Jean-Bob was turned into a prince and then back into a frog and no-one saw it happen and he was trying to convince them that it really did.
The villain is rubbish and the animation isn't as impressive as the first film.
The Queen is a very irritating character and instead of cheering with Derek to rescue his mother, you're hoping that the villain puts a spell on her voice box to stop her talking.
It is a shame because I really liked the first movie but it didn't live up to my expectations.


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


user
the worst sequel I've ever seen. really awful songs which is upsetting considering how fantastic the first films score and story is! also, which ruins the film for me is the fact there is no John Cleese so jean bob might as well not even be in it and the new villains are dreadful. it is really annoying how that old woman type thing cant string a simple sentence together properly without repeating her words over and over and over again. but to be fair Uberta not shutting up is a little bit funny. but the fact it was her 50th birthday: why do they draw her looking like an 80 year old? i was going to give this a 1 but now i think... i might give it a 2. but still the story line is no where near as good as the first film . it is similar without the humour from certain characters. Overall i disliked this film entirely because of the disappointing music, the severe lack of voice talent: having changed the voice of prince Derek and jean bob, the new villains, disappointing storyline the annoying habits of some characters, and the very simple animation.


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


user
The plot outline of this movie is similar to the original. Someone gets kidnapped, the prince is incest with saving her, Odet turns into a Swan, the turtle/frog/puffin first the "bad" magician as best they can, and in the end.... Anyways, there is not much new here. With the exception of a lack of well known voice talent. Sorry, no Palance nor Cleese and thus Jean-Bob was a disapointment.


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 enjoyed BG Seasons 1-3 and really couldn't understand those who didn't like it. But I can't defend this nonsense. Spoilers follow.
The first problem is that the characters are now doing inexplicably stupid things on a regular basis:
So if Starbuck thinks she knows where Earth is why not send her out in a Raptor? Would the Admiral accept the resignation of his third most experienced officer? Would the Quorum elect their newest member, the non-elected Adama Junior? He has about three weeks political experience under his belt, and is the son of a man they distrust. Would Adama send Gaeta AND Halo along with Starbuck leaving himself short of senior officers? Would Adama put a man into having sex with cylon prisoners in charge of the fleet?
I just don't buy any of this.
Secondly, while I accept there have been miracles and references to god up to the end of season 3, it's now all totally over the top. I started watching BG because I thought it was Sci Fi, not some biblical epic. I expected the characters to continue to behave reasonably intelligently, and wanted some satisfying explanations regarding some of the odder developments in the series.
Baltar was the best character in the show, but he now seems to be totally insane. Not illogical considering what he's been through, but very unsatisfying.
All the characters appear to be just puppets dancing to an unknown third party's behest (some godlike entity). This isn't good drama, it's annoying and a writing cop out.
OK, so what are the good points? Nice battle at the start of 4.1. Some good dramatic scenes (well acted) when viewed in isolation. A good final scene, a nice cliffhanging curve ball of a development.
But this isn't Sci Fi, it's turned into Fantasy. I can't imagine how the writers can recover 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
There's only 2 reasons I watch this show...I invested the time already in previous episodes and Col Tigh. For all you supposed Sci-Fi fans out there who love the new BSG, give me a break! Go read some classic Sci-Fi novels by the true greats or watch some of the milestone films and TV shows from days gone by and you'll see what hacks these BSG writers are. Their only gimmick is "who is the fifth cylon". Poor writing and really, truly no sense of character development. If Adama resigns or tries to take power or cries again or discovers the inner father he should have been one more time...ahhhhh! And Roslin is as annoying a character that's ever been put aboard a starship. Out the airlock with her. I could care less if it's six more months before they conclude. These wannabe writers were out of tricks in season one. If you don't know that, you just don't know writing.


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


user
I can't believe this terrible film was made by the same people who made Lepa Sela Lepo Gore. Watch that and skip this. The plot is muddled and the characters are mostly two-dimensional stereotypes. I suspect the editor went on vacation halfway through the film because quick, choppy cuts start to appear that only confuse matters rather than elucidate them. The ending doesn't make sense either.
This is predominantly a propaganda film made so Serbs can feel sorry for themselves and vilify America for the NATO bombings of 1999. They do this by perpetuating lies about Serbs being our allies during WWII, claiming the whole world is unjustly against them, and completely ignoring everything said and done by Slobodan Milosevic, like waging war on three neighboring countries. They seem intent on making a political film but only show a few seconds of Milosevic on a TV screen with no sound. A nationalist agenda obviously superseded any consideration of art which was not the case with Lepa Sela.
Regrettably, I recommended this film to a teacher when it played last week at the Seattle International Film Festival. He also cited the bad editing and confusing plot, and I had to apologize for the bad advice. You've been warned.


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


user
Uh, oh! I just said the this "classic" film has a plot that STINKS! Well, it's true,...so get over it! This film was a vanity project for Joseph P. Kennedy in which his mistress starred and money flowed to make her an even bigger star. Today, only a fragmentary copy exists--one that was retored a few years back. However, even if the film had been in perfect shape, it STILL would have stunk for many reasons. And, without further ado, here are some of my reasons:
First, Gloria Swanson, aged 31 plays a girl in a convent school--perhaps aged 16 or 18! Come on--she looks old enough to be the mother of many of the kids.
Second, the movie all hinges on the stupid concept of "love at first sight". While some people believe it this, it is ridiculous to believe that a prince would throw away EVERYTHING on a woman he didn't even know! What a lot of hooey!
Third, the movie is histrionic and the plot is nuts! After leaving the school, Kelly goes off to East Africa and then becomes "Queen of the Whores"--and later, after the evil queen back in Europe dies (that's convenient), the prince is able to get out of prison, actually finds Kelly and marries her and she then becomes queen of a real honest-to-goodness country! Gimme a break--this is RIDICULOUS, even in the days of silent film this plot was a groaner!
So, in summary, this is a poor film with great production values (mistresses need to LOOK good) that is parading around as a classic! There are so many BETTER silent films out there--see them first and avoid this tripe.


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


user
Wow! I truly regret watching this picture... Funny, I agreed to see it just for my wife, who endured the torture of seeing it about a half an hour before retiring, while I stayed in front of the TV, but only to feed the the masochistic in me and I because I wanted to know if this movie was so bad in its entirety or if there were some redeemable aspects which might alleviate the feeling I had of being a stupid for watching this **** called Two Girls and a guy...
Everything in this picture is wrong, totally wrong... since the initial, absurd, premise of two women stupid enough to stay with their common boyfriend, until the awful, but merciful, end, not forgetting the horrible acting of the three actors... Don't believe the rumors, the junkie's acting is bad and I don't see how Graham has made herself a known name within the movie industry...
I wonder why, after the producers saved some bucks with just three actors and an only location, they didn't hire a person to write the script instead of putting a monkey to do it with his ***...
At least, I felt a little fine when I destroyed the DVD and threw it to the trash... Anyway, I liked somehow (and just a little) the brunette actress, Natasha something, but that was not enough to beat the incredibly stupid and crazy premise of Face-off (changing faces), so Two Girls and a Guy to the bottom goes...
Stay away from this ****!


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


user
The author tried to make a Kevin Smith´s style movie , but he definitely failed. The result is a boring film that cannot sustain itself using only the dialogues. Fortunately I had my remote control and could see the tape using the 2X speed.


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


user
The most self-indulgent movie I have every had the misfortune to
rent. Unwatchable. Much of the movie is obviously improvised,
and not well. It looks like Toback took the first take of
everything. The movie gets good for a couple of minutes when
Robert Downey Jr. shows up, then goes to hell again real
quickly.


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


user
After an intriguing start, this little drama quickly descends into the ranks of sheer mediocrity. The start of the movie sees two women (Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner) meet each other while waiting for their boyfriends to get home from their holidays. Natasha Gregson Wagner is a lovely looking actress, and she plays Louise; a cute girl whose beloved boyfriend is an all round entertainer; music, movies you name it, he does it. While she's telling the other girl, Carla (Heather Graham) all about her wonderful boyfriend, it soon becomes apparent that the similarities between their two male friends are too much.... and it's obvious that the two girls are dating the same guy. Oh Dear. Enter Robert Downey Jnr, the sleaze-bag that has two girlfriends while some poor guy somewhere has to go without one. Downey plays the sort of guy that the ladies like, but men find repulsively annoying; he is, basically, a mummy's boy. The worst kind too; on the phone ringing mother all the time, continually showering his girlfriends with ambitious (albeit empty) promises etc. It's enough to make a normal guy sick.
The film knowingly rips off superior three-way love triangle films such as Jules et Jim. This film doesn't work though; mostly due to the fact that it's story is so unbelievable. Seriously, if two women had just found that they were dating the same guy...they wouldn't stick around to talk about it. Another reason why it falls down is that it's just so turgid. There's no end of possibilities for the outcome of the situation that this movie presents, especially with the claustrophobia of setting it all in a small apartment; but all the movie does is get lost in masses of dialogue; badly written and poorly delivered dialogue, that is. The film is also massively overacted; it just isn't believable that people would act like they do in this film after finding themselves in this situation. Robert Downey Jnr is one of the many things that is wasted in the film. With Natural Born Killers, he proved that he could give brilliantly entertaining performances, and that is something that this movie could do with. The two females aren't wasted because nobody expected anything from them anyway, but Downey could definitely have been better utilised. Overall? A waste of time. Don't bother, see Jules et Jim or Natural Born Killers instead. That's my advice.


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


user
While the prominent and over use of the play-like format is in total operation throughout the film, it is not however this that lets this picture down. Rather it is the unconvincing female performances and rather tedious script that the film so obviously relied on a little too much. With an idea that had potential, the simple plot is diminished still by Graham's failure to truly express the devastation her character so adamantly claims to experience. The use of improvised scenes by all the actors would not be such a bad idea if only the two leading ladies could take advantage of this privilege. As Downey Jr proves as usual what a gifted actor he is, he shadows the two actresses in their scenes together which is constantly noticeable. The pointless yet intense sex scene seems merely to exist in order to prevent the film from being too verbally expressive giving the actors a much deserved break from talking. With an unsatisfying conclusion, Two Girls and a Guy has very little to recommend it other than Downey Jr's formidable if not out of place performance.


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


user
The storyline seemed fine, the actors seemed fine, the movie should
have been fine. But it sure wasn't - It didn't lead us anywhere, the
scenes are weird. Maybe it was meant to create something new, to make
us think. That atleast it did: Where is the rest of this film? To me it
was waste of money, time, and talent. Someone might want to see this
for curiosity, to see if they can figure it out. Other I personally
wouldn't recommend this to anyone.


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


user
I am being in no way facetious when I say that this movie was worse than any other movie ever made. Worse than "Batman & Robin". Worse than "Manos, Hands of Fate". Seriously, it's that bad. When people tell me that a movie is terrible I use the "Two Girls" scale to figure it out. If the movie is comparable to "Two Girls" then I won't watch it. If it's twice as good, maybe I'll watch it, but only to laugh at the retards who paid somebody to make it, because a movie twice as good as this one would still be a piece of garbage.


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


user
At my local video rental store, they have a special place for Two Girls and a Guy. It's a long running joke really. The clerk lets people rent it for free. They value their customers too much to let them waste their hard earned money on it.
I was extremely surprised to see that people gave this movie a good review. Maybe someone can explain it to me. (or maybe the positive comments were jokes? Did people involved with the movie write them? Perhaps the mother of the director/writer?)
Maybe I've just seen so many good movies that this one fails in comparison.


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


user
After sitting through this god-awful 82-minute excuse of a film, and having previously wanted to gouge my eyes out after having watched another James Toback-directed mess called "When Will I Be Loved", I've come to the conclusion that he has the best agent in the world. How else can these horribly written, painfully-directed pieces of trash get made in the first place.
I like Robert Downey Jr., but perhaps being in this movie drove him to substance abuse.
Heather Graham has to be embarrassed about her zombified performance. Half the time the camera is on her she just is looking off in a daze.
Such a crappy script. Prepare yourself for Hollywood name-dropping galore (example: five minute meandering discussions on Denzel Washington's acting....etc.)
There's a great character in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22 named Dunbar. He spends most of the time in the novel shooting skeet, which he abhors. When asked why he shoots skeet all the time if he hates it so much, he replies that it makes time CREEP by, and he'll have a longer life. Well....if you really want to feel time creep by, watch this film! I swear...the 82 minutes will feel longer than a 4 hour David Lean epic. It goes on and on and on and on...
I hope I never watch another James Toback film again. If I could give this NO STARS, I would.


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 about pathetic, spoiled, ego-driven winers who think they have something interesting to say, performed by pathetic, spoiled, ego-driven winers who think they are interesting. Straight from the coke-filled gutters of New York's arty farty incestuous drama scene.
How so many viewers get tricked into making them think this carries any substance remains a mystery to me. Maybe they secretly long to belong too to this overpaid and overestimated 'actor guild' or maybe they have never seen a decent movie?
Get out, put your hands in the dirty earth and get a real job. Otherwise, kill your self with a real gun.


assistant
0