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
SPOILER - This film gives away plot points and discusses the ending. I hated this film - mostly for political reasons, but also for moral and aesthetic reasons. Politically, this film glorified war and military technology - blowing things up real good. We are led to cheer as the music swells and the Afghans use our weapons to blow the Ruskies to bits. And no U.S. soldiers put their lives on the line - so it's a fun war. Aesthetically, there isn't a touch of real human emotion in the film, just smug, privileged people being sarcastic, feeling superior, and doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. And speaking of consequences, the film only makes a few small hits at what the arming of the Afghans actually led to. I had read an earlier draft of this script, and it ended on 9/11 - with Charlie Wilson realizing that things had gone horribly wrong. But that wouldn't leave the audience feeling good. This is a feel good movie about killing Ruskies. And it made me sick.


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 American movie industry tries to critically look at their own government they make damn sure it looks good even when it's bad.
The film does 1 thing right it demonstrates perfectly what is wrong with the American politics. The motto seems to be to f**k with whoever it takes to get things done!!! Mix an American Congressmen, a CIA agent, a Jew and an Arab... just to f**k the Ruskies. Thanks to US for giving us Osama Bin Laden.
The disappointment of the film comes in the face of muddling up the issues: using imagery of Afghan children with no arms and the stories of soviet atrocities and then making a blatant attempt to suggest a link between those and the reasoning behind the American help. Every sensible person knows why the $1,000,000,000 was raised... not the dying Afghani children that's for sure.
As usual the serious issues are covered into facade of bullshit dialogue. "Here is to you, you M***r F*****s" Hoffmam chants at the end, all that's missing is the American flag in the background and the stupid military solutes. The films can not help but leave the aftertaste of the feeling of American pride and glee on how we (the Americans) have saved the world... once again. Not even the last 5 minutes of the film can save it, where an attempt is being made to stop praising yourself and wake up to the fact that its just another American F**k up.
The acting and editing was good though.


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


user
The filmmakers neglected to connect the dots--that is, the sequence of events and choices that led from Charlie Wilson and the anti-Soviet mujaheddin to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and eventually to 9/11. The filmmakers of course neglect to tell us the back-story--why were the Soviets in Afghanistan?--but that omission pales in comparison to their failure to reveal that support for Islamicist extremists in Afghanistan in the name of rabid anti-communism ultimately strengthened the hand of anti-western forces and was a big contributing factor to the mess that we find ourselves in today (9/11, terrorist networks, a prolonged ground war in Afghanistan, etc.). Because these consequences are not spelled out, the movie leaves the viewer feeling sympathetic to Mr. Wilson (hey, check out his latest projects on the Internet) instead of seeing him as an individual whose actions were contrary to the best interests of his country and the West as a whole.


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


user
I'm sure that the folks who made this movie think they're doing something wonderfully politically correct, because they manage to criticize U.S. wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq by suggesting that the U.S. does war well, but doesn't clean up afterward, thus sowing the seeds for future trouble. Furthermore, they do this without making Islamists the enemy AND without making Republicans the enemy, since it's the Republicans that are in office and are doing this supposedly great thing, bringing down the USSR by covertly supplying a war in Afghanistan.
But seriously now . . . do we really want a movie that repeatedly says "let's go kill some Russians!" like that's the greatest thing a red-blooded American can do? And are we supposed to find this congressman adorable because he surrounds himself with women with big hair and revealing clothes? Even his supposedly smart assistant, who is always dressed professionally, keeps looking at Charlie like he's just the most wonderful, handsomest, greatest guy around. As if she's Nancy Reagan to his Ronnie. Julia Roberts does a bang-up job in her role, but basically women are really demeaned in this movie, and it was really annoying.


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


user
The 3 stars are for Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Nothing else and no one else in this movie deserves even a wee smidgen of a star. Well, OK, Amy Adams deserves a wee smidgen, but the smidgenometer doesn't seem to be working, so I'll stick with 3. Tom Hanks...nothing. Julia Roberts...nothing. Mike Nichols...do you see a trend yet? Aaron Sorkin...OMG, not a chance.
I could rant on for several paragraphs about the way Charlie Wilson's War glosses over history, morality, legitimacy and so on, but I don't think any such rant could outweigh the gushing of Aaron Sorkin fans. The rest of you, beware.Spend your movie money elsewhere.
Still, if you're looking for a pithy comment, here's mine. You can put hot fudge sauce on a pile of garbage, but it changes nothing. Garbage is garbage and so is Charlie Wilson's War.


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


user
Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day).


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


user
"Love and Human Remains" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap.


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


user
Love and human remains directed by Denys Arcand is an abysmally pathetic film as it is completely different from the kind of films he has been making all through his career.Making a different film is not an objectionable matter,what is troublesome is the fact that if a film from a master is complete out of tune then it is a really bad event. The film begins on a good note as there is some suspense created. However as the film progresses what is shown is just a futile attempt at creating something meaningful as Arcand shows us half a dozen oddball,whimsical characters whose lives are intertwined with each other.Homosexuality and Lesbianism are not of any consequences here. What is even more bothersome is the feeling of guilt related to the characters who are rather in a fix regarding their feelings towards each other and sexuality.Such a film would be of interest to some who wants to see a different Denys Arcand film.All in all,there would surely not be many takers for this film.


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


user
The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay. As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing. The actors are over the top, the art direction looks like a Disney movie, the music is contrived, and the sentiment so sweet that it gives viewers cavities. It's a bad attempt to imitate "FOur Weddings And A funeral". If one wants to watch comedy that is as flat as a pancake and how poor direction can turn a story into cavity sweetness, this is a good one to watch.


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


user
Oddball black-comedy romance featuring a great cast and a less than stellar script. Brenda Blethyn ("Lovely & Amazing") is the title character 'Betty', a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who is obviously having an affair with his beautiful, blonde secretary. Guess who's playing this minor role, yup! Naomi Watts ("Mulholland Drive") must of sandwiched this project in before her superstar status was insured with the blockbuster thriller "The Ring."
On the male side of the cast list there's the woefully miscast Alfred Molina ("Frida") an old-fashioned undertaker who suddenly decides to reveal his desires for 'Betty' which have lain dormant for decades. Perhaps Miramax is hoping Molina's turn in the upcoming "Spider-Man 2" might generate some interest in this little trinket which belongs on the DVD rental shelf.
But the award for wildest thankless performance goes to Christopher Walken ("Catch Me if You Can") who goes completely over the top as 'modern' undertaker with his Vegas-style funerals in a small provincial town. His character must have parachuted into the village because there's little reason for him to exist in this script.
That said, if you'd like to see some top-notch actors engage in some low-brow humor then this one's for you, and if this isn't your cup-of-tea then try renting "Harold and Maude," the ultimate funeral movie that's still funny to this day.


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


user
A good idea let down by heavy-handed production.
Quite a bit of the dialogue was unintelligible because of the level of music/background sound, and this didn't help this reviewer. Nor did the Welsh accents, pretty impenetrable at times. Towards the end I lost the will to live trying to follow the dialogue.
This movie didn't know whether to be a farce or a black comedy - and they require different approaches. Some of the incidents were laid on so thick that they only merited a groan, some were so unbelievable even for this sort of plot that they made the story just not worth following.
The acting was in the main good - although the American just came over as a clone of the "Back to the future" mad scientist. The little boy was very good.
I did watch it all the way through but God knows why: I can't remember laughing once.


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


user
How better to describe it than scuzzy criminals on TV? And I don't mean in the show COPS; here, they're actually being presented as protagonists.
I don't see any remedial value in this show unless you have a perverse penchant for human tragedies. Whitney Houston is a tragic example of the fallen star; a star which Bobby Brown helped pull from the sky. Bobby Brown is nothing but a low-life criminal. Why watch him? Why does Whitney stand by him no matter how despicable he is? This couple should be locked up and it's a loathsome shame they are making money and achieving a modicum of fame from watching the septic tank which is their lives and the human waste which is their character.


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


user
Though not a complete waste of time, 'Eighteen' really wasn't all sweet as it pretended to be. Nor are the ages of the actors they're portraying  18, my butt. McKellen could have actually shown up in the film telling us he was 30 and ask us to believe it. Even Michael J. Fox was more believable as a teen in 'Back to the Future' Parts II and III (okay, maybe not; they're probably equal believability.) If you can get past the obvious age flaw, you'll have either the complete void of acting or simply overacting (Paul Anthony's so called anguish, Clarence Sponagle's Lifetime moments, and even though I do favor Brendan Fletcher, it's best to just watch him, and more, in 'Freddy Vs. Jason,') incomprehensible scenes (a faster than Britney Spears marriage, incest to prove a point and a man who needs help to urinate, but still has one hand free  I'm guessing this was the writer's fantasy,) an entire movie of despicable characters (Anthony might be playing someone that's 18, but acts like he's 12 and some odd "john" thrown in so Anthony's character Pip can save the day  was there really a sex scene in front of a baby?) and practically every character questioning their own sexuality by strange actions/scenes. On the positive side, I did enjoy Ian McKellen's voice-over, seeing a (rarely well portrayed) straight/gay friendship, puppy love (from someone who collects stuffed puppies, that is,) good score, some decent dialogue (love the separation of gays and pedophilia  wish more people would realize that) and acting from the female leads (as well as Cumming.) I can't really recommend it as it's really trying to be too many things  gay tolerance, gay hustling, homelessness, WWII epic, priesthood, first love, flawed judges, etc, etc, etc  on a shoestring budget.


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


user
On paper this movie has some chops: a street kid overcoming past trauma, rebuilding his life and succeeding when the world would have written him off. Great stuff, everyone loves a happy ending.
In the theater though, there were some omissions that left the movie dead inside. The dialog was hollow and uninteresting, the characters were almost cartoonish in their lack of dimension and complexity, and why did everyone need to be gay? I have nothing against homosexual themes or characters in a movie but when it's used in this fashion not only is is offensive to homosexuals, it trivializes the lifestyle and cheapens the movie. If the story works without this cheap trick it should have been cut.
Every character seemed to come out of the same cookie cutter form: Each had one major flaw and one minor flaw, every character is good hearted were they succeed or not, and everyone one of them had or is in an abusive relationship with someone.
The most annoying fact of the movie is that they never let you get over that the name "pip" comes from great expectations. They give it to you once and that should be enough. The story shares enough with the Dickens classic to make this fact obvious.
The most interesting part of the film is the story of the grandfather and the cassette he leaves for Pip and how Pip, the main character, learns how to grow up from the lessons learned from the tape. In the end, with lessons learned, Pip confronts his dark past and movies forward with his life.


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


user
Four Guys (Jacks) go into the restaurant business with a fifth Guy and lose all common sense. They allow themselves to be abused worse than textile workers at the turn of the century without simply leaving the situation. This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. I just hope I can resell this item to someone who might like it.
It is true that it holds your attention if you can let the illogical plot developments not bother you too much. It is very silly throughout however especially once a stranger enters the restaurant. Who is he? Guess.



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 see the title "2069 A Sex Odyssey" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other "80's" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think "80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.


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


user
"The New Twenty" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic "indie" film that pretends to be more is worse.
"The New Twenty" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.
THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS
From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail.
In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself.
The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes.
Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).
Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a "Gordon Gecko" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.
Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.
DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE
I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent.
The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.
The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.
CONCLUSION
"The New Twenty" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making.


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


user
What we're given in this trying-to-be trendy film is a "frat-pack" of college friends, now approaching age 30 (which we all know, of course, their generation thinks of as the "new 20"). Consisting of four guys and a gal, we have thrust at us the following types: seemingly "unemployeds" and frequent drug users, along with one individual who is job successful and one who is trying-to-be. They are all, in their own way, drifting while trying to find both a future and emotional happiness. With one, possibly two exceptions, these are people this reviewer would definitely never care to come close to modeling myself after. There is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment in almost all their lives. Except in the instance of one individual (who appears on the way to finding it), none appears headed toward emotional satisfaction in his/her life. And so, about the only sincere moment in this film is when a knock at the door brings to the person answering it an unexpected and heartfelt "I love you."
With only the exceptions mentioned, these people are the kind hardly deserving or worthy of several hundred thousands of dollars being thrown away in presenting their stories.
PS--Writer/director, Johnson, definitely appears to have a problem with showing gay sexual scenes----with no such problems in presenting more prolonged and revealing heterosexual ones. Why might that be?
****


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


user
Talk about marketing. The poster/home video cover of 'The New Twenty' broadcasts a half-naked male in a "Wolfe Video." For those familiar with the gay-themed movies  this broadcasts a "must-see." (I loved reading one reviewer (from another site) stating they had been "tricked" into seeing a "Sodomite" movie. Are you serious? The tagline itself as the word "gay." The Lord gives you eyes, yet you cannot see) That being said, despite the number of gay characters, stereotyped, no less (see: the lonely gay, the AIDS victim gay and the closeted gay) it's more about long-term friendship and characters that grow apart. In fact, if anything, there's more (here's one for Christians to complain about) heterosexual couples having sex outside of, gasp!, marriage. Not to mention backstabbing, drinking to excess and drug usage. I see this more of a made for TV-Logo or Showtime movie than big screen effort. Sure, I loved the cinematography, some of the actors could act and I always love seeing a big-group-of-friends that actually act like they've known each other for a million years. But we've see this all before. Nothing really "new" here. Barely an original idea  hence bringing back the same 'ole "I have AIDS, let's deal with that" for a good portion of the movie and boy, our friend has a serious drug problem, but let's not deal with that until it's almost too late. That's so (US) 'Queer as Folk' and 'Broken Hearts Club,' respectfully. The film deals with a group of college buddies, now grown (in size not minds) who have to eventually grow up and each trying their best while failing. Strangely, as in most of these independent movies, the most interesting, to me at least, was the heavier-set one, Ben. He stole each scene, but, again, there wasn't much to take.


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


user
Synopsis Correction: The ending does not show Ben cruising online for guys. He is looking up Arabic Language courses at The Presido Military Acadamy in San Francisco. Perhaps to Join the War in Iraq as a translator, (FYI- many of the dishonorable discharges from "D'ont ask D'ont tell have been Translators (they are now it major short supply) Ben Also spoke Russian. This movie is a good time capsule of life in Manhatten but quite a bit of non reality here. Mostly a good laugh at Lame social skills and the sad portrayal of "Grown up" twenty somethings not developing beyond the college party mode. Also a brief study of the always changing scene in Manhatten.(somehow it Always stays close to the edge of the same B.S.)
Watch together the films "Englishman in New York"" and the "The New Twenty" Both good for Nostalgia. I think the movie "twenty" shows how far the blur between gay and straight as evolved.
These two films are GAY Time Travel For Sure!!!!ENJOY


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


user
Ugh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.
Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.
Save your time and money, and skip 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 if you took the Christ myth, mixed it with a healthy dose of porn, against a backdrop of bad sci-fi blackxploitation(brotha from another planet like) throw in a dash of after school special, and lots of really bad kung fu fighting. oh and some decent break dancing. with an awesome casio keyboard soundtrack.
and some how they make this even worse than you could imagine. there are at least 4 rape scenes, at least one great car explosion, a buff black guy running around in his undies with an Uzi.
add alcohol and this is the perfect movie.
i mean lots and lots and lots of alcohol


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 almost gave me a nervous breakdown. When I was recovering from appendicitis a few years ago, I had just started teaching in secondary (high) school. The whole teaching business was all a bit nervewracking for a beginner, but to mentally prepare myself for going back into the classroom I decided to watch some rather awful films. The Flintstones was one of the films that I chose, and then I put "King Of The Streets" (the UK title of 'Alien Warrior') on. Just before it finished I found myself almost in tears at the sheer waste of it all...my life, the film stock, the £2 I had paid for it a couple of weeks ago in the Blockbuster ex rental section, the time it must have taken to print the sleeve art, the effort of the editors and musicians involved in the soundtrack (as negligable as their efforts were)...the list goes on.
I love bad films. Let me make this perfectly clear - I LOVE watching crappy films from Blockbusters. Me and my mate Dan used to sit and watch many, many cheapjack horrors and laugh at them. But this was a different type of crappy film. I don't think that anything has come close to this, not even Tobe Hooper's "Death Trap" (which is probably my second worst film in the world). The whole making a car from abandoned parts section nearly killed me; the repetition of music at any available opportunity, regardless of on-screen events; the whole.... AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I can't even carry on with this 'critical' dissection, as my gag reflex has started. The futility of that film, even now, three years after I watched it for the first and last time, still renders me speechless (but I am still able to type). The whole "making a car from odd parts" section had me contemplating horrible things.
I implore you, if you are interested in watching this film, just gaze at the cover of the video and imagine the worst possible version of the story synopsis on the back. I can almost guarantee that it won't be even half as bad as this film actually is. Don't, under any circumstances, contemplate actually watching it for any reason whatsoever. Not if you are a Christian and you want to see a Christ allegory; not if you are a bad movie afictionado and you want to experience the true nadir of trash; not even if you want your life to seem longer (and believe me, every second that this film runs seems like at least a minute). Make no mistake about it, this film is unholy. It is the antichrist in video form. As Bo Cattlett in Get Shorty said: "I've seen better film on teeth".


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


user
Hargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100.


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 a perfect example that a movie can not be successful with a high budget alone. It's obvious that there was a lot of time and effort dedicated into this: the animation is fluid, detailed and superb- the soundtrack isn't too memorable except for the ending song by Celine Dion (at least I think it was her). The musical score is powerful full orchestra material. Kudos to the animators and music composers! 9/10. However, the story and characters fall flat. It feels very 'been there, done that', predictable and plain uninteresting. The characters have distinct personalities but nothing too likable. They annoyed me to no end. I tried really hard to like this, but I didn't care about the story- it was cliché action-adventure plot. There were 'jokes' that weren't funny. It was vomit inducing predictable from start to end. The dialogue was cliché and awful- especially the last line "It's not ... that gives you wings, it's love!" Whatever it was, I remember cringing. I was wishing it would hurry up and finish. I wasn't the only one either- the people I went with thought it was boring. Please watch the Asterix and Obelix Cleopatra film if you're going to watch any. This was a waste of time.


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


user
This Asterix is very similar to modern Disney cartoons. Soulless, technically good and the usual in-jokes for adults. Maybe it's because this is the first cartoon I watched after Laputa: Castle in the Sky, but it was quite disappointing.
The plot is contrived and forgettable but it involves Asterix and Obelix going to the Viking's territory to rescue a spoilt teenager who then learns humility and finds love as well. Oh and initially they don't get on but after facing adversity they all share a deep bond of friendship... yadda yadda.
The best bit is to watch out for the little jokes. The Vikings get all the best ones. Such as Vikea (the Viking's chief's wife) giving a list of furniture and skulls to bring back from the next raid. Or the Vikings not knowing the meaning of mercy (literally). Oh, and Olaf the dumbest Viking is actually hilarious (as much for the voice acting as the dialogue).
For example, aboard the Viking ship: (After a speech by Abba, the captain's daughter) Olaf: Who is this new guy? Captain: That's my daughter, cod-brain! Olaf: Your... daughter's... a man?


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 not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...
Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).
Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 / TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.
Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a "cool guy" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move!


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


user
I've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home.


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


user
Danny De Vito shows us here he is definitely, indeed infinitely, a better on screen performer than off. He plays the part of Owen, a miserable would-be writer with a cranky old mother (delightfully played by Anne Ramsey) he would like to see dead. Billy Crystal is Larry, a very frustrated writing teacher who has an estranged wife he feels the same way about. So Owen, after viewing Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", suggests they swap murders.
As director though, De Vito's control is inconsistent as he wastes this clever idea, while his film lurches from the very humorous to the very bland. He and Crystal are okay in the lead roles, but the show belongs to Anne Ramsey as the cantankerous Mrs. Lift.
Saturday, June 20, 1992 - Video


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


user
This is a comedy version of "Strangers on a Train". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the "moma" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.


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


user
Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP.


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 derives from a Long Running ITV sitcom by the same name.The Sitcom lasted for half a decade roughly and brought to our screens Rigsby,Phillip,Alan,Mrs Jones & Vienna.
Then in 1980 The film version hit the Cinemas.Now when it did,sadly Richard Beckinsale had passed away & was replaced by Only when i laugh actor Chris Strauli.
I myself felt this gave the film a different feel.I would have preferred if it wasn't shot as Richard was a key character.Thats like having the porridge film without Godber or Mackay!
The Film did have some classics moments definitely but it felt a bit De-Ja-Vu! Many parts were seen before in the TV Series. Now if you saw the movie first rather than the Series you would get a different feeling about it then the series fan!
Saying that Leonard is definitely on top form and makes the movie,just like in the TV series.The Film has recently had a new lease of life on DVD and is usually on Terrestrial over a quiet weekend.It is a cracking good film,but for Rigsby fans you may feel that youv'e seen it similarly before.
Saying that though its worth a buying/watching
7.8/10


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


user
The film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.
Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.
As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.
Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.
On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.
When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste.


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


user
Doesn't this seem somewhat familiar? Oh wait, that's right.. 90% of the jokes in this movie have already been done in the TV series. What's the point in repeating yourself, you may ask? Is it for the benefit of the Americans who haven't seen the programme? Did the scriptwriters run out of inspiration? Or maybe everyone on set suffered a sudden attack of amnesia, and forgot they'd covered this ground already? Either way, for someone who has sat through the first three series, this was just really boring. I had to turn it off during the 'tablets that turn your water green' part.. yes it is very funny, but give us something original for goodness sake! Actually, if the best new stuff you can come up with is Leonard Rossiter's take on Saturday Night Fever, you can forget it.
The guy they got to replace the late Richard Beckinsale is a lookalike alright, but not half the actor. Personally I would exorcised the role, as a mark of respect to him. Or better yet, not bothered making the film at all, and just let the hilarity of the TV series speak for itself. But no, they couldn't do that.. not as long as there was money to be made. Sad, really. 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
no way out 2007 was a really bad and if it is the road to wrestlemania they choose the wrong road.
Chris Benoit & the hardy boys def MVP & Minn: in my view this was the best match of the night some good wrestling here but not much. 7/10
cruisweight championship open(which chavo Guerrero won): awful, no high flying at all, really quick and boring. 3/10
little bastard & Finlay def little bogeyman & the bogeyman: this was more comedy than wrestling, some laughs. 5/10
Kane def king booker: a decent effort by these two but they could do better. 6/10
wwe tag team championship Paul London & Brian Kendrick def deuce & domino:another boring match,no high flying by the champs. 4/10
ecw world title Mr Kennedy def bobby lashley (disquilification): in my mind the worst match of the night. truly awful.i thought ecw was no rules,i was wrong 2/10
john cena & Shawn Michaels def Batista & the undertaker: an okay match but could have been a hell of a lot better. 6/10
overall this was bulls*it id give it a 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 good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to "plot" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the "bad" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean.


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


user
"TNT Jackson" isn't completely unwatchable. But either the version I saw on DVD was edited with a weed-whacker, or the screenplay itself is the lowest level of grind-house/blaxploitation sausage. Or maybe both.
Jeanne Bell is supposed to have been a Playmate at one point in her career,and the movie makes the most of the connection by displaying her breasts at least two times more than was really necessary (including a hilarious topless fight scene that I am pretty sure was meant to be funny). I will admit, they are quite nice. Still, she's sort of average looking and doesn't have the charisma of a Foxy Brown, of even a Cleopatra Jones. She does have her moments as an actress in the film, though, but it would have been nice if the director had pushed her a little harder or the screenplay had given her a chance to do more than emote "attitude" and kick people.
Speaking of kicking people, the fight scenes (the other putative reason to watch a film like this) are pretty poorly done.There's no real choreography to speak of here, just people posing and sticking feet and fists in the general direction of their opponents. One minor exception is a nice moment with an opponent equipped with butterfly folding knives; another is a sequence near the very end where an obvious stunt double for Bell (and maybe for Stan Shaw) leap around and do some decent sweeps and groundwork for a minute or two before Bell/"Jackson" punches her enemy's liver out, Shaw collapses and the screenplay just stops. (Again, I will admit that this is very much in the tradition of Shaw Brother quickies since time immemorial).
There are a couple of supporting actors who are actually better than the film deserves (I'm thinking of "Joe" and the fellow playing the drug lord's right hand man). There's a halfway decent funk laden soundtrack that complements the action on the screen and add a star to the rating by itself. There's a semi-dodgy sex scene that manages to be effective almost in spite of itself.
This one is strictly for hardcore fans of blaxploitation. I saw it out of sheer curiosity, and I'm not sorry I took the time. But I can't imagine wanting to take the time to see it again unless I decide to write a dissertation on the pop culture intersections of "Kung Fu Theater" and "Foxy Brown".


assistant
0