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
*Spoilers herein*
Where do I begin with just how silly this movie was? 'Mole sized people, living under the garden attacking residents of a big house'!!! When I first sat down to watch this movie I was unaware that the protagonists where not poltergeists etc but 10 inch high goblins that looked mighty easy to kick hard and far. I carried on watching it because I like to see movies through to the end even awful ones. this movie was terrible. My girlfriend, who went to sleep inside the first ten minutes, apart from finding it a good aid to sleep thought it was hilarious that I had bothered to watch it all.
Tiny goblins even in large numbers (the thought is silly I know) are about as scary and menacing as flat cola. They only managed to trip one guy up 'fatally' and kill a cat before they were blown up, The End. I did mention it sucked right?


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


user
I bought this film from e-bay as part of a lot of about twenty horror flicks, all about a dollar a piece. When watching this, my first impression was that it probably was from the late 80s. Later on I began thinking - the Linkin Park posters on the wall and everything else seemed to hint that I was dealing with a more recent film. Realizing that, the flick became an unbearable torment. The last 3 minutes were the longest in the movie history - the film just refused to end. Is there a genre such as "horror for children"? In that case this film is definitely it. If there are parents, perverse enough to want to introduce their offspring to horror, I suggest this would be perfect for kids of about 6-8. The only thing I really liked was Greg Cipes who was much too good an actor for that kind of nostalgic retro bottom part of a drive-in double-bill.


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


user
Greetings;
I never thought I would see the day when I would be so disgusted by A movie that it would be a burden to finish it... I was always a fan of horror movies, B'C and C's included. But in this case it's hard to describe how a movie could fail to qualify for any letters in that scale...
The movie is centered on a poorly developed back story, a mix of folklore with an after taste. And to top it up, the performance of the actors is questionable. Horror B movies usually fall in two categories... 1) A gem that was under looked, and under funded 2) So bad it's funny, laugh or your money back. Well this movie falls in between. I wasn't scare, didn't laugh... So I guess if you really need to see it you could but I recommend you don't...


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


user
A friend of mine, who is even more into 1970s cult films than myself, recommended this one to me and in fact gave me the copy of it that I watched. However, I was not as enthusiastic about the result as he  or, for that matter, Michael Elliott  was. The film is a hybrid of HOUSE OF WAX (1953) and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974): indeed, I would venture to say that it served as the basis of the 2005 remake of the former much more than the 'original' did! So, we have a remote and derelict Wax Museum of incredibly lifelike dummies (guess why that is?) with its apparently harmless curator (a hammy Chuck Connors) being 'invaded' by the obligatory group of stranded teenagers (among them Tanya Roberts). He also has a mad brother  shades of PSYCHO (1960) incorporated for good measure, down to the self-same twist  who is supposed to be a mechanical genius (showcased in a 'poltergeist' which unaccountably accompanies the first murder). The film does benefit from a Pino Donaggio score but, being so derivative and not especially well made to boot, essentially ends up merely a redundant (and fairly muddled) genre effort.


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


user
This movie takes the plot behind the sci-fi flick "Doppelganger" (an astronaut from our Earth crashing on a 'counter-Earth' on the opposite side of the Sun, and the Cold War totalitarian vibes on that world) and tries to turn it into a pilot for a TV series. However, the whole thing sank without a trace, and TV is probably better off for it.
Everyone here is perfectly adequate in a 'made for TV' way. Cameron Mitchell turns in his usual solid performance. So does Glenn Corbett (who seems to be a kind of poor man's John Saxon) who plays the rugged individualist whose very existence poses a threat to the foundation of the 'World Order' on counter Earth.
But the low budget and low energy and inconsistent script and the lack of any real imagination in the set designs and cinematography keep this Sci-Fi adventure firmly tethered on the launch pad.
I'll give one example: in the original template for this pilot, ("Doppleganger"), the astronauts lose control of their landing vehicle in a thunderstorm, and crash their ship in a truly appalling sequence (it was obvious that their ship was never going to fly again). Then the two astronauts stagger helplessly from the smoking remains of their vehicle in the middle of howling rains and winds, only to be smacked down and overcome by faceless men yelling through loudspeakers.
In "Stranded in Space", the astronauts are sitting in their seats when buzzers sound, things start shaking, and the camera blurs into a blackout (and as a friend pointed out, it was pretty obvious that the actors were simply shaking themselves on their seats, the director wasn't even shaking the camera or the set). I've seen episodes of "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" that took more effort to establish mood and setting than this made-for-TV mediocrity.
And that, in essence, is what's wrong with "Stranded In Space". No budget, no time, no imagination...just making the token gestures and hoping the sci-fi Fan Boys' imagination and enthusiasm will fill in the rest. Sorry, guys, it didn't work.
I'm sure that everyone here just finished their work on this one and walked away, and never thought of it again, except as a listing on their C.V. And that's what you, the viewer will do. You'll remember, if pressed, that you once watched a TV movie called "Stranded In Space", but it made no lasting impression on you, and you can't recall too much about it.


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


user
A malfunction in space sends astronaut Neil Stryker (Glenn Corbett) off course and headed to something of a parallel world, called Terra, circling the sun exactly opposite Earth. As a being from space would pose a threat to this world's order, Stryker is held until a determination can be made as to exactly what to do with him. Stryker, however, gets suspicious of his surroundings and escapes. With the help of a sympathetic nurse and a old scientist who opposes the government, Stryker will try to board a spaceship and head back to Earth.
Stranded in Space (or The Stranger if you prefer) is another of those 70s made-for-TV movies that was to be turned into a regular, weekly show. In this case, it's easy to see why it didn't make it. First off, there's nothing new about the show's set-up. It was undoubtedly designed to follow the same formula used by The Fugitive or The Incredible Hulk or Planet of the Apes. You know, a stranger constantly on the move going from one town to the next taking whatever odd job he can all the while being pursued by a government agency or newspaper reporter. It's a formula that's been done to death. The second strike against Stranded in Space is its lead, Glenn Corbett. Could this guy come across any less likable? I was rooting for him to get caught. Without sympathy for the main character, this kind of show would never work. Finally, this is supposed to be science fiction. Just because everyone is left-handed and someone has hung three fake looking moons on the horizon I'm supposed to jump to the conclusion that this is some distant planet? So it's a mere coincidence that they all speak English, dress just like people on Earth, and drive Plymouth Furies? Yeah, right.
The lone highlight for me was the inclusion of Cameron Mitchell in the cast. Sure, it's difficult to watch him in something this dreadful, but you know the old saying - any Cameron is better than no Cameron (yeah, I've never heard it either).
As with a lot of these 70s made-for-TV movies, I watched Stranded in Space courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I wouldn't call it a great episode by any stretch of the imagination, but there are a few good jokes along the way. So in the end, while I rate the movie a 2/10, it gets a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


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


user
Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.
Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot...


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


user
The storyline of "The Stranger" mirrors somewhat the 1969 film "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (made by Gerry & Sylvia Anderson of 'Thunderbirds' and 'Space: 1999' fame). A parallel-universe Earth is the premise of both films. But there is a difference. Where the world in "The Stranger" features a totalitarian regime out to squash the freedom of the citizenry, "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" merely showed a true mirror world where handwriting, roads, houses, machinery of every kind, and of course internal organs were all in reverse (or mirrored) order. So, the similarity of parallel Earths is the only connection of both films.
Similarly, the TV series "Land of the Giants" came before both of those films, having run from 1968 to 1970. It featured a world that was nearly parallel to the Earth with the exception that the planet was populated by giants 12 times the size of the humans who crash-landed there. The idea of a totalitarian government out to capture and contain the 'little people' was similar to the premise of "The Stranger" more-so than the premise of "JTTFSOTS". Perhaps because of the similarly to "LOTG", a series to "The Stranger" was shelved. Had it turned into a TV series it would have been a sci-fi version of "The Fugitive," with star Glenn Corbett being chased by the baddies from week to week, hiding out in different locations, etc. BTW, a stronger script could have helped this film along.


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


user
I'll start by confessing that I tend to really enjoy action movies (military or other). I'm a guy. But this dreck was awful. I saw it for free, showtime or hbo and still feel I paid too much. It was a prolonged episode of general hospital.
I gave it a 1, only because 0 or 0.1 was not possible. How or why 59 others would give it a rating of between 5 and 6 boggles my mind. Unless they are all family of the cast or crew.
It might be, this movie was so bad many bailed out.......and as such, were too uninvested to bother.
I'm sorry for repeating but the 10 line minimum seems silly, for what essentially boils down to a warning.........in hopes of saving others the 2 hr black hole, this movie represents. Trust me, stare at a blank wall, they'll be more action.


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


user
It is so bad, I can not tear myself away. I keep asking myself, "Why?" "Why?" with every scene.
There is no continuity, but then again if you want to make a very overtly homosexual movie with a fetishistic attitude towards all things Big, Big boats, Big Boys, Big planes, then you don't have to worry about things like plot or character. I am baffled, and very concerned that the CAG looks so much like Richard Pryor. It seems wrong to put a Pryor look alike in such a terrible movie. But I can't tear myself away. This movie is the first movie I've ever reviewed. That is how phenomenally bad and bizarre it is. It motivated me to join this site. I have counted 50 main characters. Perhaps if I was stoned I could follow this, but as it is, I feel like I'm in some kind of never ending bad dream, where it is always 1988, and we were the greatest cocktry on earth.


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


user
Not only have I read the book and watched the movie, but I was stationed on the USS John F Kennedy when they filmed this. Needless to say, Film crews and actors can be trying to people trying to do their jobs. Now, about the movie. As a career Navy man, I was pretty upset on how they showed life on board an Aircraft Carrier. I could pick apart the inaccuracies throughout the movie (anyone that has lived on a carrier could), but that would take pages. One scene that stands out in particular was when they were in the CIC (Combat Information Center) and they were watching a RADAR contact move across the screen. Each time the contact moved, it beeped. Unfortunately, that equipment doesn't beep like that (I was a technician on that equipment). The book was based upon fact, the movie wasn't. The follow on TV series was just as bad and the Navy finally realized that support for this series would just make them look bad. If you're a Navy person, watch this to see how a movie about carrier life is seen from the eyes of Hollywood. If your not a Navy person, watch Midway or Top Gun, at least those movies are entertaining and based upon fact.


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


user
The horror of this made for TV film was that it didn't end with this one. It spawned a regular weekly series that was even worse than the pilot/movie. Most films about various professions have some type of realism to them and of course are jazzed up to make it exciting. This had none of that. If the intent was to make in "Camp" then it succeeded. It resurfaced on cable a couple of years ago and failed again. Richard Jaeckels performance as the Master Chief who does it all was the only redeeming part of this film. Campier than the Batman series of the 60's.


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


user
I hoped for this show to be somewhat realistic. It stroke me as just another mainstream show after I watched it. I didn't feel the characters at all, is this Americas glamorized idea of how terrorism operates? The main character doesn't act like a fundamentalist at all, and how he passes for a terrorist is beyond my comprehension. Neither of the other terrorists managed to appear genuine. One of the members, a blonde all-American white boy, would never be accepted by Muslim terrorists in real life. Another member, a french ex-skinhead, doesn't quite fit in an Islamic terror movement. On top of this the terrorists have sexual relations to white American housewives, which I find very strange. This is just another stupid misguiding American TV show. It is about just as realistic as Prison Break.


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


user
Very dull show. Whats worse, its very racist. The white guys are dumb idiots and the only romance is between a black guy and a white woman. There is nothing interesting about this romance, it is not exciting, it is not fun, they don't even seem to care for each other at all, its more like the writers and directors wanted an interracial thing going on. Why this is so popular in media today? It is social programming and will lead to no good, there is always tension when too many people want the same thing. This show is not worth the 20 bucks for the season, its a waste of time and harmful to society. At least when they use TV shows to sell products they are more discreet, selling whatever agenda here is quite obvious, and without clear thinking some may feel wrong to oppose it, but some of us know better.


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


user
Yeah, there's a "sleeper" watching Sleeper Cell and it was me. After reading comparisons to "24" (like on the cover of the DVD), I expected a fast-paced action romp. But nope... this series just putts along. In my groggy half-awake state I would think, "He's gonna... " and, poof, it would happen... "Guess that van is gonna roll off the... " and there she goes.
And so on.
And why would Darwyn, in extra-deep cover, pursue a babe? Could it be, perhaps, to provide a little T&A? Hey, that works for me, hence four stars rather than three.
This show is no "24". I've watched "24". Sleeper Cell, you're no "24".


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


user
I thought sleeper cell was interesting, and exciting to watch, up until the last episode, when nothing happens, its F****** BS, you Americans portray Muslims as terrorists, and the Americans as hero's, its the other way around, i hate it when every American TV show ends up predictable, i was hoping the bombs would go off in that stadium, but i knew it would'nt, it takes the joy out of watching it when you know that the good guys are going to save the day, yet again, Americans are the biggest terrorists, g bush the leader of them all, he is to blame for 9/11, and I'm P***** off that you keep throwing these shows at us, which are all the f****** same! i've a good show about terrorism, its called " The Whitehorse" and bush himself the cell leader, its the same with 24, how ever 24 was good, sleeper cell is a mock and should never make a season 2, its F***** joke! and so are you American producers.


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 been looking forward to watching "Wirey Spindell" since having happened across Schaffer's "Fall". Unfortunately, I found "WS" to be a wandering, unengaging, boring bunch of claptrap pieced together with, what apparently is Schaeffer's signature, a mix of story, narration, and poetry. The film recounts the sexual and other experiences of a Manhattan man about to be married through self-narrated flashbacks. Like beads on a string, Schaffer apparently has strung together every little sexual life experience, while neglecting to tend to the beauty of the necklace. The result is a disjointed rambling story about a boy growing up which fails to engender empathy and leaves the viewer disconnected, unsatisfied, and with a bad after taste which taints the mechanical feel-good ending. A mediocre indie and a step backward for Schaeffer.


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


user
Seeing as how I am a big fan of both "Fall" and "If Lucy Fell", I came to "Wirey Spindell" with high expectations. I am not sure I could have been more disappointed. This had it all, weak dialogue, weak performances... you name it I was let down. Oh well, better luck next time Eric.


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 supposed to be the story of the life of a man named Wirey Spindell from age 8 through to 36 told in narrative by the character at each age point in his life. So for example, when he's eight, it's the eight year old's voice that is doing the narration; when he's in junior high, it's that one doing the narration, etc. That's about the only interesting thing about this movie. It looks like each actor playing Wirey is a separate character. Not only do they not look alike, their life experiences don't seem to match up.
Avoid this movie like a bad cold.


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


user
I usually can tolerate twisted movies, but this one is really a sick obsessive self-absorbed movie!
Firstly, the writer/director is totally a self-absorbed guy full of sick jokes that are not funny at all. Secondly, he is also a sick pervert who manipulates and poisons children's mind! I can't believe my ears when I heard the sick and perverted monologues spoken by the kids!
I really feel sorry for Zane Adlum and Devon Matthews. They are both very talented, but fell prey to Eric Schaeffer's dirty little-known movie!
And what the hell happened to Eric Mabius' good looking face? I mean, he met this girl that he's supposed to marry, but he wasn't in the wedding! In fact there is this bald guy in his place! Did time really fly that fast?
Anyway, don't waste your time to see this movie, unless you want to be poisoned and manipulated by one sick Eric Schaeffer!


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


user
Alright, so not every Australian movie is all that good. Yes, maybe there have actually been very few with much merit. Take Away however is an absolute bomb, qualifying as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I wanted to like it. I figured I'd give it a fair go. I've even met one of the screen writers Dave O'neil so I feel kind of a traitor giving this movie a bad review, but... The plot is fairly thin (I won't bother relating it... read the synopsis), which I can forgive: there are plenty of movies that can cover that up with a few decent jokes. Unfortunately, Take Away's jokes cover its plot up like a $2 prostitute's skirt. Probably the only laughs that came from the 6 other people in the cinema was at the poor acting and dialogue. Take Away goes down like a week old Dim sim ... You might understand that joke if you see the film but the joke's not worth it.


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


user
Someone told me that Pink Flamingos was, in a word, "insane". Now I'm doubting whether this guy actually ever saw it, because that isn't the way I would summarize it in one word. Disgusting, absurd, um, more disgusting...would do it. Every time you think it can't get any more filthy, it does. One of my particular "favorites" was when Divine had her birthday party and when the cops came to bust it up, they were butchered and eaten by the guests. I admit that it's one of those movies where it's so grotesque you simply can't look away, but this is by no means a creative work of art. It's pure shock value.
On the upside, it makes the Jackass guys look like a bunch of pussies.


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


user
if i could rate it a zero i would , coming from someone who likes shock/exploitation films of the time and Waters overall i must say this is useless.
It does nothing , serves nothing , an idiot with a camera and a urge to prove his cleverness by rebeling against social standards is all this comes off as.
Its entirely amateur , both in principle and execution , it doesn't have a point , its digusting for the sake of disgusting ,obscene with the wit of a neanderthal , its useless.
Someone said Waters was probably "chuckling" over all the bad press and disgust others gave with this film , but why? If i made a short film depicting a man in a bathroom taking a sh*t for ten minutes straight surely it would receive the same accomidations but why would i be proud or "chuckle" at that?
Would it be because i am so unintelligent that i have to resort to this so i can say "HA! Take that censors and mainstream! Im so rebellious ill do whatever i want and film it!" No.
Waters shouldn't be proud of this mess , fans of waters shouldn't watch it , its useless , that is , without any use.
Its doesn't even fit under the criteria of art for arts sake.
To like or defend this movie is to defend something that was designed purposely as being anti-culture to be pushed for the mainstream audience , in modern terms this film is the Hot Topic of films.
Useless and Obsolete. A Poser film that demands it be acknowledged as rebellion .


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


user
I have seen most of John Waters' films. With the exception of several of his very early ones which are not available, I have actually seen just about all of them, so it's obvious I am a big fan and it's certain that I have a high tolerance for the gross and irreverent in his films. While way over the top and disgusting, I adored FEMALE TROUBLE and POLYESTER--two monumental tributes to bad taste and excess that are seriously funny films. So I am certainly NOT squeamish and can take most of what Waters has to offer. However, in PINK FLAMINGOS he has created a film so repellent, so unfunny and so offensive that I couldn't even stand it. In his other films he made before he became more mainstream, they were funny. Yet here, the humor just isn't there as it seems the intent is to shock the viewers and not entertain them in any way. I am glad that after making this film, Waters' sense of humor improved, as Divine consuming dog feces (as in this film) is shocking but not the least bit entertaining. My advice is to skip this film and just pretend it never happened and then watch his infinitely better films of the 70s and 80s.


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


user
I guess I was prepared after all the years of hearing about it. First heard about it from Siskel and Ebert. When they said Divine ate excrement, I had to look it up. Then a friend told me about it in 1991. She said also that her parents saw it when it first came out and that her mom almost dumped her dad over it! So by the time I caught Pink Flamingos on Sundance today, I was prepared. For the most part.
I still couldn't help but be surprised by the anal close-ups and the blowjob scene. That said, the only characters I sympathized with were Edie and the egg man. Her crying scene early in the film, though over something frivolous to normal people, actually makes me sad. Though she sure wasn't pretty, she had a cute voice. I was happy for her and the egg man, and they actually touched me.
On the other hand, the acting in this poverty-level production was not good. And as for the script, just how does John Waters come up with this stuff? Well, at least it's different.


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


user
The only reason I haven't given this film an awful rating is because I feel that it was such an awful film in every aspect that it deserves at the very least a 2/10; for not trying.
The plot is the least of your worries as you are slapped in the face with over the top language and scenes like 'the singing arse-hole' in a poor attempt to shock and disgust. Seen as the main aim of this film is to shock and the main body of it didn't achieve this, the final scene disgustingly manages to erase the memory of this shockingly pointless film and fulfil its aim to be the most filthy film ever.
A really low budget film, awfully acted and the dialogue is shockingly bad.
I give it 0/10 really !!!


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


user
After seeing Forever Hollywood, it would be natural to want to see a John Waters film. At least, one get to say that they have joined the legions of cinema cognoscenti who have experienced the unique cinematic stylings of perhaps the best known non-mainstream director. It's worth the effort, and PF is a lot better than Eraserhead,and there is a certain campiness about his films which his followers find addicting.


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


user
This movie was playing on Lifetime Movie Network last month and I decided to check it out. I watched for the first 20 minutes and then shut it off b/c I am sorry but plot holes that are integral to a movie's plot make the movie nothing but garbage.
The movie is about a woman who accidentally runs a child on a bicycle off the road, leaves to get help, returns only to find out that it's being called a hit and run and there's a hunt for the 'monster' that hurt (in the end killed) her.
This is a movie about a female in an affluent neighborhood who has 2 small grade school children and who is an active, sociable woman and yet in order for this movie to work, it needs to be believable that she does not own a CELL PHONE. Sorry, but that's complete BS especially when everyone else seems to have one - they used theirs to call 911 when they found the girl lying on the side of the road - when our lead female left the scene of the crime to go phone 911 at some payphone. When the lead female comes back, the ambulance is already at the girl's side and there is chatter about how horrible the person is who hit and left her.
Just DUMB. Sorry but I am not willing buy that this woman doesn't own a cell phone which is needed for the movie to work. Please don't insult my intelligence movie, thanks. Maybe if this took place in 1970 or 1960, I'd buy it but it's clearly a present day (1999 at the time) movie. ..but wait, if she had a cell phone, there would be no movie. Pfft.
The woman clearly knows about technology since she had computers in her house, ones the kids played games on so all the movie had to do was make her cell phone dead in the car, making her resort to another way to call the cops.. leaving out a cell phone altogether just created a ridiculous plot.


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


user
Thomas Vinterbergs "De Største Helte" is yet another road movie without the most important element of a film: a good story. The characters are not very original and not particularly interesting. Especially Thomas Bo Larsen is a pain in the neck, playing the same role he has played in the past few years and which he repeated in "Festen" - it seems as if he thinks acting = being angry and screaming at other people! The film doesn't make much too sense and isn't very funny either - although it tries hard to be "kooky" and "weird". If you're going to make a road movie, why not add something original to the genre?!


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


user
The DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.
Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.
Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.
Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.



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


user
(Spoilers) "Cash Crop" goes something like this. Down-on-their-luck farmers grow pot to make ends meet. DEA agent blows into town. Farmers hide the pot. DEA agent leaves town. End of story.
This flick features solid performances by some second tier actors, mediocre direction, and a so-so screenplay...but it ain't got no story. And since the story is the foundation of every drama, "Cash Crop" is an utter failure. Too boring to recommend.


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


user
I caught this on Cinemax very late at night...nothing else was on so I pretty much had no choice. Bottom line, terrible plot, slow, waste of good film and actors' time. To make it short, don't even bother with this one. It's too bad we can't give zeros as a rating; this one really is not worth even a consideration!!!


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


user
It is beyond me why two million Danish people each week sit down to watch this terrible show. The dialogue is terrible and not realistic. The characters are hollow and simplistic. There's a tough man, a tough woman and a sensitive man. The writers actually say that they have modeled the characters after Greek mythology! Give me a break! All the characters are of course brilliant policemen. When I have watched this show I have longed for "District Hill Street" and "NYPD Blue". These are brilliant shows, and "Rejseholdet" is a lousy copy. This program is a symptom of the disease Danish television is currently suffering from.


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


user
Wings Hauser and son, Cole Hauser team up to make a film about Neo-nazi thugs targeting a gay man, and terrorising a city. Wings plays the hero, and his real-life son is the villain. Fairly low-budget film that has not many redeeming features, and for some reason, no one has seen it! Perhaps because it is quite a laughable and ridiculous film, and the studio realised this! Maybe Wings Hauser himself prevented the distribution of 'Skins', after seeing it himself! Maybe people just didn't want to comment on such a bad film! Oh well! I generally like Wings and Cole as actors, but this was a film that they both should have skipped. Wings directed, wrote and was the lead actor in 'Skins'! An extremely bad and stupid film! 1/2 out of *****!


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


user
I watched this film awhile ago and the only thing i can remember about the film is how absolutely horribly outstandingly bad it was its definitely in my top 5 worst films i have ever seen.And to think i had to persuade my mates to get this film out at the video shop,my reputation has been shot to bits because of this film will my mates ever trust me again?i doubt it,they always say don't judge something by its cover,they were right when i saw the cover to skins/gang boys i thought wow this looks great as it had a load of skin heads on the front cover running riot with metal bars.Don't WATCH THIS FILM.i can't think of anything else to say the acting is bad the story is bad its just bad.


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 big fan of The ABC Movies of the Week genre. I am only 27, meaning I wasn't even born until after the series ended, but I am trying to collect as many of them on DVD as possible. I have about a dozen or so. I had read such wonderful things about this film, both on here and elsewhere, that I was really excited to see it. I just received my DVD in the mail today and watched it anxiously. I'll admit that the first one or two phone calls did give me the creeps - that boy's voice would give anyone the creeps! But it began to ware off fast and the entire divorce subplot was stupid. I also figured out that Michael Douglas was the antagonist about a half an hour before the movie ended. As soon as that story was told about how Elizabeth Ashley's character had locked up his mother, I knew something was fishy. Plus, didn't anyone ever think to ask him why he happened to suddenly appear that night when the fire occurred in the barn? I'll admit that I thought he was coaching a boy at the school to make the phone calls. I didn't guess the mute boy part or the pre-recorded tapes (did they ever say whose voice that actually was? I doubt Douglas could ever get his voice that high?).
I am only giving this movie a four out of ten because I actually liked most of the acting in it. Ashley especially is great.
It's a shame, because this movie has such a great premise, but oh well, thats what happens sometimes when one gets his or her hopes up for a movie too much.


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


user
After starting watching the re-runs of old Columbo movies, I thought they would all get about the same vote from me (6). But apparently I'm now starting to see differences in the movies. It happened in some of just previous episodes, that showed some pretty genius directing, and it shows in this one, but in the negative way.
The movie was so boring, that I sometimes found myself occupied peaking in the paper instead of watching (never happened during a Columbo movie before!), and sometimes it was so embarrassing that I had to look away. The directing seems too pretentious. The scenes with the "oh-so-mature" neighbour-girl are a misplace. And generally the lines and plot is weaker than the average episode. Then scene where they debated whether or not to sack the trumpeter (who falsely was accused for the murder) is pure horror, really stupid.
Some applause should be given to the "prelude" however. In this episode, a lot of focus is given on how the murderer tries to secure his alibi and hide the evidence etc. I really liked that. But alas, no focus on how Columbo reveals all this. And the "proof" that in the end leaves Columbo victorious is the silliest ever.
Rating: lies between 4 and 5


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


user
After a snowstorm, the roads are blocked and the highway patrolman Jason (Adam Beach) comes to the diner of his friend Fritz (Jurgen Prochnow) and advises his clients that they will only be able to follow their trips on the next day. Among the weird strangers, Jason meets his former sweetheart Nancy (Rose McGowan), who has just left her husband in Los Angeles. Along the night, without any communication with his base, Jason faces distressful and suspicious situations with the clients, and finds some corpses, indicating that among them there is a killer.
"The Last Stop" could be an average thriller, but the screenplay is simply awful. Most of the characters are despicable persons and the motives of the surprising serial killer are never disclosed, and the viewers have no further explanation why the killer decided to kill the guests. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): "Encurralados" ("Trapped")


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


user
I saw this movie while surfing through infomercials and late-night 80's sitcoms on tv one night at 2 in the morning. I must say, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. Although Rose McGowan is hot, her performance and the performance of the rest of the cast was not Oscar-worthy, to say the least. This movie has its ups and downs, and does have a nice couple of twists at the end, but in all honesty it was awful. Not even a typical slasher movie. No gore, no sex, no nudity, no real violence. Just bad acting. I'd give it a 3 out of 10.


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


user
Put the film down and back slowly away. The acting rivals a highschool play, the plot is treadworn, and the production values are slightly higher than community theater. The goofs are so plentiful that it becomes a laugher. Rooms are switched around, the dead move, dogs are used for wolves, men shot point blank with .45 caliber pistols are able to walk and ride snowmobiles, blouses button and unbutton without human touch... this is a baaaaaaaaaddddddd movie. I nearly passed out when I saw the average rating. There is no accounting for taste. BTW, there is no nudity.


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


user
this attempt at a "thriller" would have no substance at all! Some may state that this movie "has it all?" Autism, arson, robbery, lost love, a bag of money, cut throats, murder, blood, a snub nosed revolver, clenched teeth groaning, boobs (various definitions can be used), large flashlights, tribal people, a brother duo attempting to out-portray "dumb and dumber," white wolves, fight scenes that resemble "happy slapping," snow mobile(s), a large tracked vehicle, and a motel under renovation? All this, with an "Enyanesque" melody toward the end ...
Perhaps my rating is a bit harsh, but one viewing will certainly be enough for the sane cinemaphile with nothing else to do.
Yeowza!


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


user
Bette Midler is the best thing about this movie. It is a POOR second to the original from 1962 with Natalie Wood as Gypsy. The songs were done much better in the original and the costumes were better. Bette's voice was great and she looked better in most of the costumes compared to Cynthia Gibb. Only someone who has not seen the original would think this a good movie.
There was not enough of a change between ugly duckling to beautiful girl. When Natalie Wood was Gypsy she only was seen as beautiful when she got into the dress with her gloves for the first time to perform in the burlesque show. When she has her hair down and then magically it is all done up beautifully and she looks so elegant, it is an important aspect to the movie because it is also the first time Gypsy sees herself as something special and that she might actually be a star, not just a poor substitute to her sister. And the scenes where she slowly becomes more famous were rushed through. It was an important part of the movie and they butchered it. It is critical to show her becoming more comfortable with her future as a stripper and the costumes are amazing in these scenes in the original. It was a huge let down to watch it unfold in this movie. I was completely disappointed and had it not been for Bette Midler I would have shut the movie off.


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


user
Such a highly-anticipated remake of a cherished musical classic and such a bitter pill it was to have to take. Very, very hard to swallow...all of it. It didn't have an ounce of believability anywhere. And when you don't have a Rose, you don't have a show.
Bette Midler seemed born to play this part. Yet, all she was able to produce was a cute, funny, glitzy, trademark Bette Midler...weighed down with all the familiar Midlerisms. Roz Russell has nothing to worry about. She can rest in her grave knowing she is still the definitive Mama Rose (of film, anyway).
I thought Midler was really going to put it across this time...to throw herself into what is one of the greatest musical roles of all time...like she did in "The Rose." But, no, she played it safe. She played herself. She made Rose a total dinner-theatre cartoon. Even her songs were uninspired. It was maddening to watch, knowing Midler has the talent to rise above her money-making schtick. She showed promise only once in this "Gypsy" and that was with "Rose's Turn." But, by then it was too little, too late.
A sincere Cynthia Gibb as the titular heroine gave the film its only true spark and when the role of Gypsy outshines that of Rose, you know there's trouble in River City.
A huge, huge letdown.


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 was disappointing. I saw it on Broadway with Bernadette Peters and she was outstanding. Maybe as she, herself graps on to the end of her musical career, her condtion of desperatation lands her in role that she flaunts, re-invents and triumps as her own. Bette's singing is always belted, always flat and lacking to show her ability as an actress. To be entertaining, this performance was dying for a stronger lead and a stronger cast, so that the others would be memorable in Bette's absence. Another criticism: she smiles directly into the camera every time she start singing! I know it is musical theater, but please leave some grace sociale-- Middler cannot perform like Liza or Streisand might in a retrospective tour - out of character and out of context.


assistant
0