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
Drifting around on bootlegs, sometimes thought an urban comic book legend, the first FF movie is pretty much as bad as everyone fears. I guess Marvel Comics now pretends it doesn't exist, what with the 2005 version out in theaters earlier this year. But it's out there, a reminder and the last of the first wave of bad, low budget Marvel super-hero adaptations (Captain America, Punisher, most of the TV movies). 'Low budget' is too easy a description for this FF pic. Due to basically no funds, showing the powers of the super foursome was limited to very quick shots (Mr.Fantastic), quasi-animation (Torch), and fades (Invisible Girl-the easiest to do). The Thing suit was not bad and probably half the budget; the face part was especially almost convincing. The acting? Alex Hyde-White as Reed is pretty good; the other 3 are OK, tho Jay as Johnny acts like a spaz at times to sort of show off his 'fiery' temper. The dialog is comic-book style, and it's the supporting cast which ends up floundering trying to make it work. Dr.Doom is way over melodramatic and unintentionally comical, and his two main henchmen are a case study of how not to act or write dialog.
The plot? Not too good. It was quite faithful to the origin story of the FF (more so than the later big budget version), and even though the non-budget, again, restricted showing, for example, the actual crash landing, it kept the essential ingredients of how they discovered their powers in an isolated area - it's the best part of the picture, tho you have to wait a full half-hour for it. I also found the music odd in places; when the 4 are bathed in those cosmic rays, a kind of church choir is heard, as if it's a religious experience. The rest of it, however, is hopeless. Even with no budget, the story could have done without the Jeweler character (resembling the Mole Man villain of the books); it spends way too much time with him and his underground gang, as well as the blind Alicia. These sections are a waste of celluloid and very boring. The climactic struggle with Doom & his men starts fine, but degenerates into an awful mess as the Torch races a laser beam (cool animation but belonging in a cartoon). Fans can have a laugh at the bad FF FX and witless storyline, if they don't get depressed & outraged first.


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


user
Yes! this movie was just bad in every way in things like cast,effects,boredom,excitement,and of course,being fantastic and we all know the four heroes in this one were a bit more colourful compared to the new ones but it still has to go,A fantastic bore like this really was just silly trash which i knew nobody would like when i saw it,i mean surely with that budget about 3 or 4 GOOD movies could have been made but no. I am just glad that the new version made this year totally showed everyone how the fantastic four should have been made with good story,great cast like Jessica Alba one of my favourite actresses otherwise it would have been totally forgotten but thankfully no. The new one was excellent when i saw it with my mates at the cinema but this old fantastic bore has gotta go.


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


user
As long as you keep in mind that the production of this movie was a copyright ploy, and not intended as a serious release, it is actually surprising how not absolutely horrible it is. I even liked the theme music.
And if ever a flick cried out for a treatment by Joel (or Mike) and the MST3K Bots, this is it! Watch this with a bunch of smart-ass wise-crackers, and you're in for a good time. Have a brew, butter up some large pretzels, and enjoy.
Of course, obtaining a copy requires buying a bootleg or downloading it as shareware, but if you're here on the IMDb, then you're most likely savvy enough to do so. Good luck.
And look for my favorite part....where Dr. Doom informs the FF that they have 12 hours to comply with his wishes....and he actually gestures the number "12" with his finger while doing so....it's like "Evil Sesame Street"....hoo boy.
...and of course Mrs. Storm declaring "Just look at you....the Fanstastic Four" is just so heartwarming....you'll laugh, you'll cry.....
So if you love schlocky Sci-Fi, this one's Fantastic For you!


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 a chess player and I wanted to like this film. Trouble is, the content could have been fitted in a 30-minute documentary.
There were lots of shots of corridors being walked down and Kasparov gazing out in the hall where he won the World Championship. There were other shots of Kasparov being walked round the site of the 1997 match and being told where he sat and where Deep Blue was located. This just looked like filler.
Also, I didn't find it interesting to see in detail where Deep Blue was now and seeing an IBM techie trying, unsuccessfully to 'open' it. What would we have seen of interest inside anyway - a little grandmaster?
Also, the recent match against Karpov. I no longer follow professional chess enough to know when and where this was. It would have been nice to have been told: was this a one-off 'just for the money'? Was it part of the world championship cycle? What was the final score? The nub of the film was the play in game two. Could/would IBM let Kasparov see 'inside' the machine? That's where the focus should have been.


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 in this documentary.i thought it would be about the second chess match between Grandmaster Garry Kasporov and Deep Blue the supercomputer designed by IBM computer experts to beat any human chess player.Kasparov was and still is,considered the greatest chess player ever.the movie takes us back to 1997 where Kasporov had agreed to have a rematch with "deep Blue" after defeating it 1 year earlier.but instead of focusing on the game,it focuses more on what happens before and after.there are snippets of the game,but not very many.much of the film centers around Kasporov's paranoid obsession that the match was rigged as part of some conspiracy theory and that he lost the match unfairly.the movie also includes interviews with people who are not interesting in any way.they even chat with the manager of the building where the match took place.who cares?i also found it very dry and slow.ultimately this movie was unsatisfying.this is just my opinion,of course.if you like conspiracy theories,this movie might interest you.for people not into chess or conspiracy theories,this movie would probably have no value.i am a chess fan,and i only stuck it out because of that.i give"Game Over:Kasparov and the Machine" 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
Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.
I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.


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


user
This documentary was neither professionally nor objectively made. The whole thing played out like a conspiracy theory by IBM to win the match in question just to make some money. Garry Kasparov has an ego problem. He was puffed up before the match and when he lost, he didn't like it. I remember playing chess against computers back in the 80s and it wasn't too difficult to win. As time went on, I started to lose and didn't like it. Today, I simply don't play against computers anymore because they're just too good. Not only that, the games are uninteresting and lack the appeal of human games, where both sides are more likely to err and open the game to exciting possibilities. This documentary keeps showing us images of The Turk which is an ancient chess playing automaton that was really controlled by a human being. From the start until the end we are lead to believe that IBM short of literally hid a human GM in the back of their cupboard-sized computer. I'm a computer scientist and take offense at the notion that just because Garry lost, IBM must have cheated. I know how computers play chess. It's not magic and it's no mystery. They can be trained, have huge amounts of chess knowledge and they most certainly see positions and possibilities in unprecedented detail compared to humans. It's really no surprise that Deep Blue won. Perhaps at the time it was. If it happened today, given the ever-increasing processing power of machines; people would hardly blink. If a machine couldn't at least draw with a GM today, people would think the program was weak.


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


user
Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is no doubt a fascinating story, but I don't think you'd know it by watching this movie. I think it focuses too much on the conspiracy theory that IBM cheated...and what does this theory hinge upon? The idea that at one point the computer made a move that "looked human". I am not a chess grandmaster or a computer scientist. And while I don't doubt that the move looked human, to me it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that the most powerful chess-playing computer ever created could make a surprising move...or that such a machine could beat even a genius like Kasparov. The movie gets way too much mileage out of this theory, and not enough out of the personalities of the people involved...that could have made it a much more interesting story. The direction also relies way too much on the conceits of a pointlessly whispered narration, and the imagery of an 18th century chess-playing machine that looks like one of those animatronic gypsy fortunetellers you see at the carnival. Also the story was slowed down by many empty shots of Kasparov revisiting "the scene of the crime". I don't doubt that Kasparov and the chess community found IBM's behavior vexing, but I don't think it's any different than you would find from any other big corporation. At the end of the movie, you are left with the feeling that Kasparov is a huge crybaby and the Deep Blue programmers are either victims or cheats. I think if the filmmaker wanted the viewer to believe the conspiracy theory (which he almost certainly did), he should have presented a lot more evidence. In fact, more evidence would have been a good idea in the first place. The whole thing left me with a sour taste in my mouth.


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


user
This episode sucks.
Over the past few years I have watched all episodes of "Next Generation" and "Voyager" and am now watching "Enterprise".
I am thoroughly enjoying this series. Until this episode. I stared at the screen in horror at the destruction of character and entertainment. It is more like an attempt at slapstick.
It does not build the characters but throws them out on a limb - and leaves the audience gasping. It does little to build the series.
Why this was ever allowed to go to air amazes me. Was it the writing? Was it the directing? Was it the producer? We'll probably never know.
But one bad apple isn't bad I suppose. I say that hoping it is only one.


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


user
Where on earth do I start with the mess that is Darkhunters? Firstly the script is one of the worst to ever find its way onto a cinema or TV screen and can only be described as a poorly judged Stephen King rip-off. At one point the supposedly fearsome darkhunter Jack claims that Carol, the girl who is helping the man he is pursuing, is as annoying as "a gherkin in a burger". I would be laughing if I was making it up-BUT I'M NOT! Just as ludicrous is how Carol originally came to have the power to see how people die. A cat gave it to her when she was holding it during an auto accident she had as a kid. WHAT????????
Secondly, for a horror movie, it has no sense of tension or threat whatsoever. This may not be helped by the fact that all the action happens during stark, broad daylight. Not very atmospheric at all.
Thirdly the acting is truly awful, Pinion proves again that he needs to be speaking in his native tongue to be even remotely believable. Jeff Fahey is obviously on auto-pilot but how can blame him as he runs through a woe-ful Humphry Bogart impersonation as Barlow (Marlowe-Barlow? We get the joke it just isn't funny). Credit should go to Susan Paterno, an actress I was not aware of, she does her best with the awful part she has and puts the other, more experienced actors to shame.
At no point is it even explained how the HUMAN character can understand what Van Husen's character is saying to her. She obviously has some sort of degree in screwy alien languages.
On the plus side one moment is well done, the car crash involving Susan. The sfx are throughly believable and if it weren't for the hilarious storyline reason for this to occur it would have been applauded.
All I can say about darkhunters is that British horror will never recover from its interminable slump if movies like this continue to be made and shown. Avoid this movie like the plague, although the plague would be a lot more scary.
Darkhunters 0/5
p.s. the insinuations in other reviews that the film remains too intelligent for some are honestly hilarious. It is a weak defence when some claim "you didn't like it because you didn't understand it". The letters after my name make a fool of you not me.


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


user
This has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen! The cast is an international one - Australian-pretending-to-be-British, stage American and a character with an English name sporting an unrecognizable "European" accent. What passable efforts in acting from this motley crew are totally undermined by a plot and script of especial inanity. So short were the shoestrings of this film's budget and the overall production values are so low that it would have no trouble winning a cinematic limbo competition. In the last twenty or so years we have seen horror films and stalk'n slash thrillers of extraordinary (though not necessarily "high") quality which have been made on no budget at all. Recent examples include the poorly made but totally scary "Blair Witch Project" and of course - the most recent - that low-budget winner, SAW, featuring practically unknown leads (Gary Elwes is just someone you don't remember even if you have seen him before). In DARKHUNTERS, it is shocking to find a known character actor, Dominique Pinon and Hollywood has-been Jeff Fahey struggling valiantly to save the film. It is embarrassing to see the once handsome leading man (Fahey) in corny makeup uttering bizarrely bad lines. I would have rated this film 0 out of 10 had that been possible!


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


user
Well, I'll begin with this: I love horror-movies, not even the worst plot or the most insanely terrible acting will ruin the experience as long as there is a certain amount of gore and suspense present. Second; this is the worst movie of all times. It even beats Mean Guns, and the attack of the killer tomatoes. And for that I pay it homage.
However, the involuntary humor was only funny until half the movie had passed, after which point everything was so so sad. To my great surprise, the reviews where somewhat divided; and you guys who rated this piece of C-movie-crap from 7 and up; I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING! GOOD ONE!! HAHAHA! Because if there is any reason in the world, and we have just an tiny bit of the same notion of what quality is; you can't be for real.
Everything worth to be mentioned about the contents has already been summed pretty good up, so I'll leave it.
MINOR SPOILER ALERT
But the scene where the cloaked rubber mask guy drags the woman back and forth through the dog-kennel for ten minutes, with o so terrible music score and the mind blowing dialog between the two, really does it for me.


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


user
Spoilers
I'm going to be as kind as I can about this film (some people, including directors!, can get quite upset when reviewers speak their mind) so...
There is a nice car accident and the opening credits look good and... that's it; everything else bites the big one. All the acting is appalling, the script is embarrassing, the special effects look like they were done by school children on cheap computers. All in all this film has serious bowling shoe tendencies.
As a horror film it's not very scary and if it supposed to a "thinking man's" horror film well it succeeded on some level, I kept thinking that the end of this film is an awfully long way away. It may actually be an ironic look at bad horror films and I'm missing the point but I somehow doubt it.
This is a complete car phone warehouse of a film and I could not recommend it to anyone, and it does pain me to say this as I eagerly await the resurrection of British Horror.
If you don't agree with this review, that fine, it's just my own opinion, and I'm sure someone out there will love it (the director's Mum for instance).


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


user
OK, it was a "risky" move to rent this flick, but I thought I had nothing to lose.Well, I was wrong. This is, next to "Bloodsurf", the worst "horrormovie" I have ever seen. Crappy actors, crappy technical output, crappy story and so on. The soundtrack though, isn't to bad. That is why I give it a 2 on the vote and not just a 1. And of course the cats are a positive surprise. By far the superior actors in this movie..... Do not rent or buy it. Stay away from it and hope that this horrible, horrible film will vanish to some obscure existence and not become a "cult classic". It most definitely do not deserve any recognition.


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


user
From the dire special effects onwards I was absolutely gob smacked at how bad anyone can make a film. Lets put it this way, I have absolutely no directing experience whatsoever and for the first time ever when watching a film I thought 'I can do better than that! whilst sat watching this pap. The acting in this film was terrible, I suppose the best actor was the guy from Lawnmower Man but the French guy from Aliens3 was so wooden I wondered how he got the former job in the first place. The storyline was mediocre and I suppose, like most films, If the rest had been done well it would have stood up. I don't usually write reviews here but after seeing a couple of people gave this film a good rating (must be cast/crew) I felt I had to say my piece to save anyone from accidentally hiring it or wasting their money on buying this cack.


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


user
OK the box look interesting, the opening have great music and its kinda original, to that its all OK. But when the movie start...well its not my first videoville movie, i watched Ghost Lake, and its very similar of this movie except its ever worse here. The story at first sounded interesting but the whole movie look like a movie shot by a bunch of university student, with specials effect that me laugh, the blood look like a mix of red and white paint, the fire effect on the demon face look like it was done with a program i could buy at my local computer shop. All the movie is shot in day(very great for a movie supposed to be horror) and there like no gore(1 scene only and it look so home-made and not credible) and near no blood(it can be considered a great thing considering the look of the blood show) and 1 demon for the whole movie. The story is going nowhere , it give you the impression that it never start, there so much useless scene done only to give the movie the average duration time(when the demon search the guy in the dogs thing for about 4 minutes...) Way too much slow-mo things. Well lets just say this movie is a Z-series one and a very poor one. All cool idea lost themselves and you get a cheesy movie. It bored my all long and I'm not the guy who get bored very easily with horror movie, man i even like house of the dead and alone in the dark from Uwe Boll and you probably know the name for being one of the worst director but here it look too much like some guys wanting to make a movie for fun. Plus for us french speaker(tough i understand English i prefer to watch movie in my native language) there the usual videoville bad translation. In normal movie you can barely see its not the actor speaking(you have to check on lips etc) here you just have to listen to it and you know it. Very cheesy


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


user
This film is truly pathetic in every conceivable department. awful, awful, awful. It's only around eighty minutes long, but believe me you'll feel like you're watching an Andy Warhol film (then again twenty hours in the life of the empire state building would surely be far more interesting).
Where to start... the putrid script, the disgusting cinematography, the so bad its bad acting, the spectacularly dismal effects, dreadful music, or just the wafer thin plot that thouroughly resembles a sieve. This film is an incoherent shambles
A particularly noteworthy scene takes place outside a cafe when Dominic Pinon decides to shoot a cat, cue the waitress watching through the cafe window who comments with an average English accent "God damn". To right that woman. God damn this horrendous monstrosity.
Everyone involved should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves. Let us hope that the director never finds the funding to work again.


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


user
Horrible acting with the worst special f/x I've ever bore witness too. It's bad enough I wasted $3 to watch this crummy pile of crap, but it's the hour and a half time I lost that I could've been doing anything else like getting a root canal or volunteering for jury duty. Getting drunk couldn't even help this video.
To put it bluntly, I sincerely believe I actually lost a few IQ points during the course of watching this idiotic piece of mind-numbing "work"! Perhaps I should have followed my own advice this time. Never expect a decent film if it's written, directed and produced by the same person, and never EVER expect anything of value from Jeff Fahey.


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


user
I just watched this today on TV. It was on ABC's Sunday Afternoon Movie.
This wasn't a very good movie, but for a low budget independent film like this, it was okay. There is some suspense in it, but there are so many bad qualities that really bring the movie down. The script is pretty lame, and the plot elements aren't very realistic, such as the way a 911 operator would laugh and hang up when someone is reporting a murder. I don't know what the writer was thinking when they came up with that idea, but it isn't very realistic.
I thought this movie was going to be a good suspense thriller, because there were a few scenes that seemed like they would lead to something good, but unfortunately, they never did. There were a few plot elements that have been used in other movies similar to this, and in the end, didn't prove to be very creative.
If there is something good about this movie, it is the cast. Every actor in this movie did good with what they had to work with. The terribly underrated actress Elizabeth Pena was great in this movie. She is very sexy, and has an incredibly sexy voice. However, if you want to see a movie of hers that is really good, watch the excellent animated movie The Incredibles. In that movie, she put her sexy voice to good use.
What can I say, this movie isn't really worth your time, but the actors were good. Unfortunately, they were all wasted on this movie, which is a real shame. This movie tried to be a good suspense thriller, but in the end, it fell flat. If you want to see a good movie that is similar to this, but much better, see The Hitcher. If you want to see something with the cast members of this movie, watch any of their other movies. You can real easily pass on this movie if you ever get the chance to see it.


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


user
The first half of this film held some promise as it seemed like the film was going to be a low-key character psychodrama like THE MINUS MAN but then the whole thing collapses into cliche and the viewer slowly loses all interest. There's a decent cast here but the film is lifeless and the talent completely wasted.


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


user
When the Legends Die is a powerful, moving story of an orphaned Ute Indian who goes on to become Tom Black Bull, a champion bronc rider. Raised in the old ways, Tom is given a white man's name and must adopt the language and ways of the white man to live in that world. Bitter about the role he has been forced into, Tom finds fulfillment doing one thing, busting horses, riding them to death, in the rodeo. The movie has Richard Widmark in the role of Red, the man who befriends Tom and acts as his manager. Red is a drunk who eventually dies in the story, which is about where the movie ends. The real story is completely ignored, the dark side of Tom Black Bull who develops a reputation as a killer of horses in the rodeo arenas. Oh well, you should read the book, this movie doesn't come close to doing the story justice.


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


user
Enjoy the opening credits. They're the best thing about this second-rate but inoffensive time-killer which features passable performances from the likes of Eric Roberts and Martin Kove. The main part, however, goes to newcomer Tommy Lee Thomas who looks a bit diminutive for this kind of action but who, nevertheless, occasionally manages to project a banty-rooster kind of belligerence. The first time we see him he's bare-chested, sweaty, and engaged in that favorite "beefcake" activity -- chopping wood. After this he has seven more scenes without his shirt including one in which he's hanged by his wrists and zapped with electricity a la Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon." He could use a better script, however, since the manner in which he exposes the truth about corruption and violence inside the prison is never very convincing. There's also talk about millions of dollars which apparently is tied in with this investigation but which is never explained. There are a few pluses, though. Sending "John Woodrow" undercover as "John Wilson" is an amusing play on a presidential name, and co-star Jody (Ross) Nolan shows promise as an inmate who, early in the proceedings, is shown hanged by his wrists and getting punched by a burly guard. One final note: the movie's low budget is painfully responsible for the lack of "extras." Despite the impressive size of the prison, it only seems to hold about 12 inmates! (Note: the cast credits at the end aren't too helpful. For the record, the burly, bald-headed guard who uses Jody Nolan as a punching bag is played by Bill Fishback, and the young, fair-haired guard who administers electric shocks to Tommy Lee Thomas is played by Marc Chenail.)


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


user
2001 wasn't perhaps Eric Roberts best year. Both Raptor and this came out. Watched Raptor a while ago and really thought it sucked and being Erics worst. But that had it´s share moment of fun and D-standard. This one doesn't have a thing.
Tommy Lee Thomas is the name of the probably worst actor in these days. The story lacks any punch and the whole thing feels even slower than a snail breaking in curves.
The two thing that stands out are Martin Kove and Eric Roberts. You could argue about their effort being good or what but compared to the rest they are above all criticism.
I say thank you Roberts see you next time (and hopefully a better one).


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


user
Eric Roberts "stars" in this Tommy Lee Thomas debut prison film. He plays the leader of a corrupt ring of guards. Though evil by most people's standards, his character is the kind of guy who is nice enough to give you supporting wires while you hang chained to the ceiling as he tortures you with "Lethal Weapon" electric prods.
The movie has an intricate plot about prison corruption that makes absolutely no sense. Thomas has Clint Eastwood's squinter eyes, Dolph Lundgren's one-liners, the acting abilities of JCVD and the body of the tiniest guy you knew in school who took steroids after graduation.
Martin "Cobra Kai" Kove's career shares this low point with Roberts, in the film it is difficult to tell if Kove's character is supposed to be drunk for the entire movie or if Kove just came that way. I couldn't blame him if he did.
Fortunately for all involved, this movie has a "so bad that it's good" quality that can be fun IF YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BETTER TO DO.


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


user
Worst movie ever seen. Worst acting too. I cannot imagine a movie worse then this. Nothing to see. No acting at all.T hey (actors) should look for another job. I cant't understand who was stupid enough to actually put money into this movie.
I'm sorry for Eric Roberts. Must be tough...I cannot imagine how HUUUGE his mortgage must be to justify taking the job!
The ladies in the movie...perhaps they better stick to XXX.
As for the LEADING MAN...what a lead! He better be put on a lead and stay there! I can see him being more successful at barking rather than acting.
Overall rating: Do NOt rent...DO NOT BUY!


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


user
"In the sweltering summer of 1958, the Deuces, a gang of Brooklyn toughs, find their turf threatened when the leader of a rival gang, the Vipers, is released from prison. Leon (Stephen Dorff), the Deuces' leader, tries to guide his boys through bloody brawls to keep the Vipers out. But when his brother (Brad Renfro) falls into a sultry - and dangerous - relationship with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of a Viper, and his own girlfriend is brutally attacked, Leon and his gang are plunged into an all-out war to save his brother, his girl - and his neighborhood!" according to the DVD sleeve description. This is definitely no "Basketball Diaries".
Think of it as "West Side Story" getting hit over the head with baseball bats and steel pipes, stickball having left Brooklyn with the Dodgers. "Deuces Wild" has some cool Hollywood sets, 1950s cars and soundtrack songs; and, much of it is nicely photographed by John A. Alonzo. The story and direction never get beyond these strengths, which enables the film to peak during its opening minutes, and proceed downhill. The cast looks good when you read the credits, but translates into an ageing, flabby mess of phony pompadours, blood, and Brylcreem and one fright wig. A sense of sadness and regret permeates the production.
*** Deuces Wild (5/3/02) Scott Kalvert ~ Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Frankie Muniz


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


user
In a nutshell the movie is about a gang war in the 1950's. Leon, the leader of the Deuces, starts the gang after his brother OD's on "junk". He vows to protect the neighborhood. The leader of the rival gang is just getting out of prison and wants revenge.
The movie didn't really do it for me. The "Good Guys" weren't any more good than the "Bad Guys". Very little was shown to suggest that the Deuces really cared for the community. I suppose the writers were going for realism here, but I just didn't care which side won. None of the characters were likable, or even capable of drawing my sympathy.
On the plus side the courtship between Annie and Bobby had some snappy dialog, and the acting overall was well done.


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


user
Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining.


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 was really disappointed. I wasn't really planning on seeing this movie in the theater, and I wish I stuck to that plan. It really should be a made-for-tv movie. I was kind of excited to see it, as I'm a big fan of Fairuza Balk, but this movie didn't do her justice. Infact I'm a little disappointed with the acting all around. What a horrible cover up of Fairuza Balk's tattoos, it bothered me every time I saw her shoulder.
There was no flow to the movie, it was very hard to get into it. One scene we get angry, hyped up, we want blood, the anticipation rises, just then the director takes us to another scene to show the love between Annie and Bobby. It would have been more enjoyable to follow if it was broken up into three sectional sunday paper comic strip.
There was also little logic behind the characters chosen to play some parts. The gangster leaders were scrawny guys, not very believable. Matt Dillon head of a mobster organization? Come on, give me a break. There was just no intimidation there.
The soundtrack.. wow. I think this is one of the worst musical scores I've ever heard. What awful guitar solos, my god. The sound of my teeth grinding was more pleasing to my friends, I'm sure.
Anyhow, there is one positive comment I'd like to make about the movie. The settings were nicely done. I liked the colours, a good job conveying that time period.


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


user
Maybe it was the fact that I saw Spider-man the day before I saw Duces Wild, but I do not think that there can be any excuse for this movie being as bad as it was. The cast was there to do it, but it seemed as if once they found them selves with a decent cast they had to try and make them fit into the movie. The only problem was that they did not fit. I did not like any of the characters and the story was sketchy at best. I left wondering why i spent my money on this movie.


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


user
Imagine every stereotypical, overacted cliche from every movie and TV show set on the streets of Brooklyn between 1930 and 1980. Populate it with a cast of interchangeable caricatures instead of actual characters. Throw in a mix of "period" music and wailing electric guitars during the "rumble" scenes. Then pass the time trying to figure out (or care) which of the Deuces is going to be killed in the (anti)climactic final rumble.
I'll give this movie points for not being just another romantic comedy, teen slasher, explosive action movie, teen sex comedy, kiddie musical, or Oscar-nomination vehicle. But bringing something new or interesting to the street-gang tragedy genre might've been nice.


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 think they made this movie to torture people. there are no words for how much i hated this film. I could have been cleaning my room instead. i love bad melodrama as much as the next person but....come on!


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


user
It was awful plain and simple. What was their message? Where was the movie going with this? It has all the ingredients of a sub-B grade movie. From plotless storyline the bad acting to the cheesey slow-mo cinematography. I'd sooner watch a movie I've already seen like Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, even Grease. There are NO likeable characters. In the end you just want everyone to die already. Save 2 hours of your life and skip 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
How could anyone who liked the previous JP movies even stand to sit through this 1 hour of drivel? There are so many stupid things about this film it's mind boggling!! I remember when i went to see JP as a kid it was my favorite movie and franchise, the acting, the SFX the Music, the direction! all fantastic, JP2 in my opinion was OK pretty much the same apart from some really stupid moments (like the gymnast girl kicking a raptor..please!) but on a whole a watchable and reasonable cinematic experience.
But the the third one has no point!! It's supposed to be a sequel that Carry's on from JP2 and yet it magically includes brand new things to the franchise that would have been impossible to miss on the previous 2 films! for example: 1) The "new" mega Spinosaurus - Seriously, what the hell!! This thing follows them everywhere they go, they cannot escape it's presence and yet in The lost world (the same island) do you see it once? do you hear it? does anyone even MENTION it? NO! Its ridiculous!. The star character in the previous 2 movies was, and always will be the T-Rex so what does the d(urr)irector "Joe Johnston" go and do? Kill it off! as soon as you see the huge T-Rex in all its awesome roaring glory it gets killed and you never see it again - a new Dino on the town is the excuse.. where did it come from!!?? not a single explanation! and don't get me started on the whole satellite-phone-in-the-Dino-belly thing! 2)Just when you start to get over how stupid the Spinosaurus is you see the Raptors, Aside from their new "Punk" Haircuts they seem pretty credible! *Phew* they will make this movie watchable right?... WRONG! now they speak to each other!! and the excuse for them speaking in this film and not in the First and second are...wait for it... Evolution! - yes the process of millions of years in just a few months from when the second movie ended, amazing! surly they should have grown opposable thumbs and created tools by now!! OK i am not going to say anymore about the plot because it's getting up my nose, so i will close on this: Jurassic Park is a classic, JP3 is a lousy sucker punch to any of the original fans of the series, my favorite franchise was well and truly dead after watching this Monstrosity (no pun intended) Avoid this movie like the plague


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 went to see this i thought, i liked the first two and thought that they were very suspenseful so this one should be good also. WRONG! There was NO suspense and they don't explain about the new dinosaurs! When i was done watching this i had lost all respect for Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton but then it turned out that it wasn't directed by Spielberg or written by Michael Crichton! This movie was going through "the motions." i thought that this movie had absolutely no plot and i thought that no one should waste their money to see it.


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


user
You could have put the characters on the island for any reason at all and had the same movie. The first one had an original story, the second stole one from King Kong, and in the end (I hope) of this trilogy the story seemed to have been bypassed altogether. Drop some people on an island full of dinosaurs and watch them run for their lives. That was about all there was to it. The special effects were decent but not worth 8 dollars. If you have a discount theatre in your local area, wait and see it for a buck. I wouldn't even bother renting it. That would be too much money for this unthrilling thriller.


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


user
This would probably be a good film to see....provided you've already seen every other film in existence, and thoroughly explored the bellybuttons of yourself and those around you. God, this movie was unbelievably insipid, with some of the worst (or is it nonexistent) writing ever captured on film. There is no saving grace to this film; even the animatronics are kind of lame, and it's just a complete waste of time and money.
Run. Fast. It's beyond horrible.



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 clear that for this film they wanted to have the story line driven by the characters. But immediately the story line causes you to dislike the new main characters. The fly-over of the island and dinosaurs below lacked any impact at all and almost looked like a cartoon. The all action entrance to the island is merely a rehash of parts from JP 1 and 2. The story-line is predictable to the point of annoyance and it's entirely unsatisfying end left me feeling cheated. This gave me with no option but to award the film 3/10!


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


user
(A possible minor spoiler) The first "Jurassic Park" was an effective, but silly film that did it's job and was actually pretty good. The sequel "The Lost World" had a few decent moments, but those were ruined by the lame end portion of the film which had a T-Rex running amok in San Diego. Now in "Jurassic Park III," what little story there was in the first one and the sequel, has been thrown out the window and replaced by a mere 90 minutes of basically non-stop action, which would have worked had the film not been so poorly done.
Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant, who is given a proposition by a couple (William H. Macy & Tea Leoni) to come with them to an island to help them find their son, who's been lost for over 2 months. But of course this island just happens to be populated by dinosaurs and of course the plane the are on just happens to crash leaving them stranded with a bunch of dinos after them.
This one was obviously intended as a thrill ride, with no real story whatsoever, but even on that level the movie doesn't deliver. Director Joe Johnston ("Jumanji") somehow managed to take what little magic was left in the "Jurassic" movies and squeeze the life right out of it.
The dinos look okay, though by now they're just standard fair and not very scary. The bottom line is it's not a very good film, even as a thrill ride. * out of 4 stars.


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


user
To summarize, my group of friends and I spent about 45 minutes outside the theater sharing our favorites gaffes, plot inconsistencies, untied loose ends, and other ridiculous aspects of this movie. I found the story trite to the point of inconsequential and the plot lines as underdeveloped as the dino embryos still locked in the shaving cream canister from Jurassic Park 1. The editing was poor and none of the characters engendered any sort of sympathy or feeling. In short, this movie lacked any of the suspense and thrill that the first movie provided from a story standpoint
Even the new dinosaurs were few and far between (although I really enjoyed the pterodactyls.) We got several brief shots of the new species and only 2 really were involved in the action.
As a scientist and former childhood paleontologist, the lack of any real scientific content (not that it had to be realistic, but logically formed i.e. how they built the dinos in #1 and malcom's chaos ramblings) was disappointing as well.
In short, the movie seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to trot dinos back on the scene to make some money. I hope that movie-goers don't fall for this trap again (although I did apparently)


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


user
I had been looking forward to this movie since Lost World came out. It didn't bother me that Lost World wasn't as intellectual as the original, and here, I was just hoping for a good monster movie. It was all about "Dinosaurs eat people." However, it was disappointing even on that level.
For starters, there were not enough people to eat, and while I'll keep it a secret how many people get eaten, it was not enough. Also, while there was no shortage of variety in the dinosaur community, there were not nearly "enough" dinosaurs. And many dinosaurs, like the spikey-back-and-has-a-club-on-its-tail-osaurus, just made cameos and didn't do much considering how cool they are.
(START SPOILERS) Then there were the Pterodactyls. The figures I've read put their body weight at about 15 pounds, while the movie made them look closer to 300. Worse, they didn't get to eat anybody, or even splatter them on the rocks by dropping them from high up. There was no ending to the movie, either, it was just, all of the sudden, credits. (END SPOILERS) I'm left wondering if the edition I saw was missing 40 minutes of film.
My only conclusion can be that they taught the Pterodactyls to stick their long beaks stealthily into your pockets and get your $7. Go rent the Carnosaur series; at least you won't be disappointed.


assistant
0