empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie endorses self-justice! It grants freedom to a black man who killed the men who raped his daughter and in the end he gets of scat-free! Despicable enough as this may be, there is also adultery in this film. The Connaughey character has the hots for the Bullock character and the film has some of those stereotypes of trial films (like the important news brought to the court in the nick of time)that make every aesthetically demanding film-goer such as me sick! I really cannot believe that someone liked this junk. It is a film so bad and holding up false ideals that I am unable to put my critic in an eloquently pleasing way. When will the American people wake up and find out that they are being manipulated 24/7 by films like these that turn reality into some BS where there is justice for all if only they take it into their hands. This cowboy attitude just makes me sick and in my eyes it represents everything that is wrong with America!


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


user
Regardless of whether the predominant social message of this film - that vigilante justice is acceptable - is justifiable, I was more insulted by McConaughey's closing statement. In a courtroom drama, the closing statement of the defence attorney is pretty much the crux of the film, and when the issue is as difficult to resolve as this one, the statement is really being delivered to the audience as well as the jury. This basically implies that the audience consider the rape of a white girl to be a more horrific crime than the rape of a black girl. I for one find this very insulting. As for the rest, I found the acting reasonable, with the exception of Sandra Bullock, who seems to be playing her usual bubbly self (doesn't really work in a courtroom drama), but what's the point when the film's message is as poor as this one. It tells you that vigilante justice is fine, and accuses you of racism if you disagree.


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


user
So many great actors, so little worth watching. But with a script that misses so much of what made the book special, I don't hold it against anyone on screen. Though flawed, the book was one of Grisham's only that I truly liked, especially how it captured the flavor of a deep south small town, a slightly different world to a coastal urbanite such as myself. I also loved the matter-of-factness, naturalness of what occurs in the book. In the movie characters are given a "nobility" of personality that seemed so stilted. The villains and foils are flat and 1 dimensional. But as with so much of Joel Schumacher's work, genuineness and authenticity are conspicuously absent, and every point must be delivered via sledgehammer to the midsection. So preachy, stilted, and superficial about so horrendous a tragedy, I wish someone would do a remake and get the story a little more right.


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


user
Chip Foose is an absolute genius and the end result of the projects are truly amazing. The co-hosts do a good job. I particularly enjoy watching the "project" come together. The end results are much better than when they came off the assembly line what with the mechanical and cosmetic advances of today. However, I do get annoyed somewhat at the fact the "projects" seem to be the property of the already rich and/or famous. It's too bad the ones getting overhauled can afford the undertaking. Let's see now, Vince Neill of Motley Crew gets a car make over for his buddy. Hello! If he (Neill) were a true friend he would have paid to have his friend's car restored. What a joke! Another episode shows a middle aged seemingly well-to-do gal getting her '56 caddy named Betsy done. The husband of 30+ years was behind it all. The couple looked like money was not in short supply. What a shame. I guess the lunch pail guys like me will have to save for the day that will never come. I happen to own a '53 Ford project Chip. Will somebody pick me?


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 just wasted my Saturday night watching this crap! I saw the names of Chris Noth (Mr. Big, from "Sex & the City"), Robert Patrick (from "X-Files"), the decadent Elliot Gould, Colm Meaney and Mercedes Ruehl on the credit; a very reasonable IMDb Rating (5,6); and many good reviews in IMDb. For my total surprise, the film is horrible: the characters are badly constructed; the story tries to be funny, but it is totally silly; the character of Mercedes Ruehl is amazingly stupid for a professor of Princeton. So, I decided to investigate the credibility of the good reviews, and I found that most of them are made by IMDb Users with only review, therefore relatives or friends of the cast and crew, or people hired to promote this garbage. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Sem Retorno" ("Without Return")


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


user
Could someone please explain to me the reason for making this movie? Sad is about all I can say; this movie took absolutely no direction and wound up with me shaking my head. What an awful waste of two hours. Noth should be ashamed of himself for taking money for this piece of garbage.


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


user
This started out slow, then got worse. The best parts of this were all seen in the previews.
Bad Apple has the feel of a pilot - if that's the case TNT should save their money.


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


user
As a writing teacher, there are two ending I never allow my students to use: "Then I woke up" and "Then I Got Run Over by a Truck." I am now going to add, "Then I got a bump on the head." I feel it's utterly unfair to use these tricks to cover up a lack of imagination. The whole issue of transmigration could have been handled with some intelligence and craft, yet, in this film, they either couldn't or wouldn't do that. I'm not saying it's totally worthless, but it is so predictable in its progress, except for the stupid ending. There are even gangsters who go to the police to get help from this guy. They should have done him in immediately. It's just a forgettable, borderline horror/sci fi film, with nothing new to offer.


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


user
"A young man, recently engaged to be married, is the victim of a traffic accident and dies as a result of his injuries. His father, desperate to revive his son, agrees to let a scientist friend try his experimental soul transmigration process to save him. After the young man returns to life, the father and fiancée notice a dark and violent change in the young man's behavior, leading them to believe something went horribly wrong in the revival process," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
At one point, Edward Norris (as Philip Bennett) is asked, "What do you think this is, Boys Town?" Mr. Norris should know, since he was in "Boys Town". "The Man with Two Lives " is more like "Black Friday" minus Karloff and Lugosi. You do the math. This film might have been a contender, with a re-worked script; it does feature an intriguing final act. After a tepid "shoot out", hang in for the drama to pick up with a well-played scene between star Norris and pursuing detective Addison Richards (as George Bradley).
**** The Man with Two Lives (1942) Phil Rosen ~ Edward Norris, Eleanor Lawson, Addison Richards


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


user
"Black Friday" did this plot so much better, which is why it is remembered and "The Man With Two Lives" is just a forgotten potboiler. "Shed No Tears" was it's working title and it would have been a better one as he was a thoroughly evil character for most of the film.
Philip Bennett is newly engaged when he is involved in a traffic accident. Dr. Clark (Edward Keene) has been involved in some experimental operations on animals - bringing them back from the dead. His colleagues urge him to try his operation on Phillip, who has died. As he is operating , a dangerous criminal, Wolf Panino, is going to the electric chair and trans migration of the soul occurs. When Phillip awakes from the operation, he has the soul of Panino. He is a changed person, he is rude to his family and starts to hang around Panino's old haunts. He takes over Wolf's old gang - going by the name of Philip Bennett, he also romance's Wolf's former girlfriend - who smells a rat. Bennett, as Wolf, is determined to even up scores and starts to eliminate his enemies.Bodies pile up, including the girlfriend and a policeman, then his own family begins to fall victim.
But - I HATE those "bad dream" movies - you always feel let down. This film would have been better if he had stayed in character as Panino and had a final shoot out. Eleanor, his fiancée, would have ended up sadder but wiser with his brother.
Edward Norris, the star, had a big career mostly in B movies.
Not really recommended.


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


user
Well, it is a Monogram quickie from the dreaded period of the '40s when poverty row studios put out a good many "horror" films that are almost unimaginably dull... So I was expecting the worst.
The story concerns a doctor who has been working on a way to restore life to the dead through the use of a room full of non-utilitarian electrical devices which spark nicely. There is a dog's heart hanging under a bell jar and twitching fitfully, which we are informed is proof that his method is perfected.
A brief discussion of the metaphysical implications and mention of an important plot point precede the inevitable death of a young man who is revived in a rather undramatic sequence - undramatic even with the sparks. The important plot point is that a convicted murderer is being executed just at midnight, which turns out to be exactly when the young man is revived. It is no surprise that the young man is very different after his experience; apparently amnesiac and with a strange desire to visit the haunts of the underworld and become acquainted with certain gangsters...
It's hard to explain why this all is not completely unwatchable, but perhaps it suffices to say that it's mildly interesting and contains several murders and a couple of interesting characters. Towards the end it even begins to move along with a bit of real tension and a confrontation that is downright Hitchcockian. SPOILER
I have to warn of a very, very bad ending. A tagged on unnecessary, pain in the ass sorta ending. After the plot resolves rather effectively...
You know the sort of thing... It's all a dream. Never happened.


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 watching a lot of Asian horror movies lately, but this one has to be the worst so far. It started out interestingly enough, but lost momentum after the first 15 minutes of the movie. The added "drama" scenes, flashback sequences and serious plot holes left me hanging. What really happened in the tunnel? Just "something terrible"??? Who started all the killing if it wasn't the ghost? What did she want returned to her????? No answers whatsoever! Overall, not very scary at all and the movie makers need to come up with a lot better ideas than this...
One positive was the cute actress, but that's about it.
Not recommended.


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


user
Oh gosh,I'm really fed up with all these generic Japanese horror films about long-haired female ghosts and ghostly kids."Ghost Train" is no exception.It is clearly influenced by "Ringu","Ju-On","Shutter" and "Pulse".Two years ago I was into such modern ghost stories,because they usually managed to give me some goosebumps,unfortunately there is nothing fresh or interesting in "Ghost Train".In fact the film is really boring.Noriko goes missing in a subway tunnel-like an elementary-school classmate-Nana must investigate a mystery of multiple disappearances,with the help of a youthful train conductor and another "disappeared" child's mother.The film offers some mildly creepy moments,however the CGI effects are laughable and the climax is illogical.Skip it.


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


user
Oh noes one of these attack of the Japanese ghost girl movies... i don't even remember how many i've seen. maybe it sells... but not to me. not scary at all. the japanese horror movies are have been very similar since the first one of these... also the pulling of the kid. i have seen that pulled under scene so many times in so many horror movies. cellphone scene is also nothing new... the dramaticness of the guy getting hit by a train kinda sucked... i mean it lacked all dramaticness... OK this is for kids 14-16 who listen to japanese rock and think they are so unique... we'll let me tell you. there's a million of you =D this is one of them. 3/10 i've seen worse but you won't be missing anything by NOT seeing this!


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


user
Before "Miracle on 34th Street," Maureen O'Hara and John Payne made this, this, this film. I was going to describe it, but can't find words for how badly this film turned out. The subject matter of adopting a child and Maureen's illness are both very serious and sensitive issues, but that notwithstanding, this could have been done a whole lot better than it was. It was so extreme in its portrayal that it didn't come across as real at all. Probably its problem started with a weak script.
Another example of a screenwriter taking a novel and writing a weak movie. (See my review of "A Stranger in My Arms.") The beautiful O'Hara was often saddled with clunkers like this, another being Forbidden Street (Britannica Mews,) which I may review eventually.
If you have any emotional ties to this from childhood, you'll be kinder to this rather lifeless, colorless, and lackluster film. But for something along the lines of this, maybe you can find its TV-movie remake. It has to be better. It has to be.


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


user
Maureen O'Hara is always beautiful and appealing. Here she plays an actress terminally ill. We don't know with what.It is a bit of a precursor to "Love Story" in that respect.
William Bendix is good, as is most of the supporting cast. John Payne is meant to be grieving but he seems to sleepwalking. The girl who plays the child he and O'Hara adopts does her best with a contrived plot device: Of course! Adopt an orphan. She will live on after the passing of your wife. It's a sweet movie but it doesn't feel sincere.I was hoping to be moved. I was, by O'Hara's gentle performance. But I don't like to feel manipulated.


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


user
Try not to see this one. I thought it was going to be good because I'm a fan of cheesy 80's films and I've enjoyed quite a bit of Linnea Quigley's work. I was wrong. I should have said "no" and watched Gigli instead, which is probably a far better film. I guess my biggest problem with this film was its attempt at humor. Nothing about it was funny or even close to funny. The acting is bad, even for the queen of cheesy 80's films. There is no story, just random clips. I guess I shouldn't hate it so much because it was just made as a fun and silly piece but I didn't have any fun and I wasn't entertained once. I even had to fast forward to the ending to get through all of the crap. I'm sorry, but I don't find zombies doing aerobics funny.


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


user
This 'documentary' sheds absolutely no light on what it would be like to be backstage during the Hard Knock Life tour. Granted, I wasn't there, but watching this film didn't make me feel like I was. And for a film like this, that's not exactly a compliment. The whole time I watched it, all I could think was, "What are they leaving out?" When it's all over, the only rapper you feel like you have some insight into is DMX, and that's mainly because he just talks about his dogs. A waste of time.
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
This movie is bad as we all knew it would be. Most times i usually love the bad 80s / early 90s trash-can comedy (haha no pun intended). I list Ski School, Career opportunities, Hot Shots, Summer School and many more made around this time. This even has the classic yet forgotten comedy of Dean Cameron (aka.. ski School section 8 instructor and Party Maniac for Summer School). But this movie is just to slow. It takes almost 30 min to get going and we have to sit through pointless dialog between to half-wits the Sheen boys (E&C). And yes i can hear the bloggers dieing to trash me with "obviously you don't watch 2 and 1/2 men). Well Charlie was not at the level he is now during this flick...not that he's anything worth watching now. Charlie only shines when his co-stars support him and Emilio isn't anymore than an overused wonder bra offering little support. Actually, this movie was written by Emilio and it shows. It has no real ending (come on Emilio, even the Ski School 2 writers barfed out an ending). No idea how any issue brought is solved, no hot babes, no swearing to lighten the bad plot, characters, acting... I'm now tired of this tirade. Just save your time and watch the movies i listed above. You'll enjoy them much more.


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 one of those movies that I watch every time it's on not because I like it, but because it's so bad I can't take my eyes off it (like "Battlefield Earth" or "3000 Miles to Graceland"). The first time I watched I kept waiting and waiting and waiting to laugh and didn't get my chance until about 3/4 of the way through the movie when they strip the harassing cops to their undies and handcuff them in the park in a unflattering position. Beyond that, the jokes aren't funny, the characters aren't funny, their mishaps and missteps aren't funny...add it up, it's not a very funny movie! Not even at a slapstick level! And what's with the reggae soundtrack? It's a movie about two white garbagemen and the music is all reggae. Seems out of place, don't it? If you like a good trainwreck, this is for you. If you like a good comedy, look elsewhere.


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


user
I was duped into watching this by the many friendly reviews here. Boy, are they way off mark! To give this 9 to 10 points and call it "one of the best movies of the 1990ies" is just unjustifiable. The big problem here is lack of pace and a paper-thin plot. It's like slapstick on Prozac. Everything trundles along predictably and listlessly. The plot is weak to begin with -- two garbage men peep on their foxy neighbour, witness a murder and unravel a waste disposal conspiracy -- and the movie never manages to go much further. There are some amusing situations and decent acting, but that's not anywhere near enough to save this jalopy of a movie.
It's simply a comedy that doesn't get its fat ass off the ground, so why waste your time?


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


user
Writer-director Emilio Estevez shows a definite lack of talent here with this un-redeemable, supposed comedy. The script is completely hopeless, let alone the fact that it is unoriginal and badly worked. The comedy just does not work. When Estevez isn't using poor taste sex jokes, he is borrowing used gags and re-doing them very poorly. You would think the teaming of Estevez and brother Charlie Sheen would be cool...but...it isn't.
The entire cast is uninspired and unfunny, never managing to raise a laugh, and barely coaxing a smile from their audience. Do yourself a favour and leave this one on the video shelf.
Thursday, June 25, 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
I know i loved this movie when i was 12-14 years old. Now that i am 24 i watched it again, and i wished i hadn't. Because all the things i laughed at when i was younger, is no longer funny. so this is an hour and a half without fun. For me the jokes were lame, not funny or just too childish. So the same thing i loved about the movie when i was a kid, is now the things i don't like about it. Besides not being funny it is not actually believable at all. The evil character is very poorly done but i guess that is the kind of movie it is. And the last 20 minutes of the movie is pretty lame with bad fighting sequences and so on... But if you are young you will probably love it. I rate this movie 4/10


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


user
I thought I had seen this film before as the plot summary sounded familiar. However, when I watched it one afternoon (in need of some mindless-but-amusing entertainment), I didn't recognise anything - if I had seen it before, I must have blocked the horror of it from my memory.
This film is dreadful, and it shows its age. In fact, it looks older than it is: more like a mid-80s moronic comedy. Whilst I am a fan of toilet humour and can see the funny side of many things, this is "comedy" at its most puerile and homophobic. The plot is as thin as a Supermodel, which wouldn't bother me if only the film were funny.
There is only one amusing line in the whole film, spoken by the character Louis: "Looks like somebody threw away a perfectly good white boy!" In fact, Louis is the only likable character (and that's not saying much). James and Carl are the type of irritating, immature men that a sensible woman would run a mile from, their practical jokes about as humorous as the war in Iraq; the character of Susan Wilkins is colourless (looks like Julia Roberts, but lacks her charisma) and there is zero chemistry between her and Carl - though it may be unfair to blame the actress, as I don't know what she could have done with such a poorly written part; and the villain is neither funny nor scary nor memorable.
There is good trash and bad trash. This is trash that definitely should not be recycled.


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


user
One of the dumbest movies in the history of cinema. Wait, I take that back-- this movie can't be included in any category related to "cinema"; it belongs in categories like "waste", turds, or similar categories. Ironically, it's even _about_ two garbagemen. The movie is "Men At Work", a lightweight crime comedy starring the Estevez (Sheen) brothers from 1990. Setting aside the asinine and implausible plot line, bad acting, bad dialogue, poorly executed stunts and slapstick, continuity errors, and high rate of no-name actors never to be seen again, all in all it was a pretty bad movie anyway (at its core, I mean). It was the kind of movie that might be good for one thing: you can watch it about 200 times, learn every line, and in a campy kind of way repeat them back and forth in public with your *wasted* friends, thus securing your status as the biggest dorks in your tenth grade class.
To make matters worse, I actually submitted an IMDb trivia entry (along with this bad review) to the movie's IMDb web page, if only because I spotted a silly little punk music joke that apparently nobody else spotted yet(about the Butthole Surfer statue). I'm so conflicted about why I should even *waste* my time submitting what looks like a supportive trivia note, when what I really want to do is blow up Emilio's acting career (no, wait, he's already done that himself. Thanks, dude!) I'm so glad I *wasted* only time on this, not real money. For that matter, can I maybe have at least one tenth of their budget? Anyone other than this director (Emilio) could have made two or three much better movies with just what they spent blowing up cars, carefully placing bikini-clad bimbos in the background, and beating up useless extras (henchmen) in haz-mat suits. I'd mention Emilio's writing credit, but it would be a stretch to call this screenplay "writing" -- it's more like crayon-scrawled cartoon ideas. And Charlie Sheen, if you're reading this, I assume M.A.W. must have been made during the part of your career in which you were a coked-up, hooker-loving Hollywood brat who had not grown up yet. (Oops! Sorry, I guess that part of your life isn't over yet. Get well soon, you "half a man". Such a promising talent, so *wasted* oh look, there's that word again.)


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


user
Unfortunately, Koontz seems doomed to die without seeing a decent adaptation of his work. Whispers follows the original book very closely, seemingly until the production company ran out of money. All of the sets in the first half of the movie were meticulously recreated from the book - something which has been lacking in many other Koontz films. Despite its other (numerous) downfalls, I continued to watch in anticipation of some really great scenery. Wrong. By the time the detectives show up at the crack head's apartment (in the book), the movie is out of funds, and one of the most suspenseful scenes from the book, is ruined. Where the book offered grisly discovery, a search and a chase through the guys apartment, the movie offers the backseat of the guys car.
Let's face it - Koontz writes without a budget in mind, because imagination is free. If a Koontz novel ever gets made into a decent movie, no one will go and see it, because they have been let down so many, many, many times before. This is why Dean Koontz's Frankenstein is now just Frankenstien - if you had seen your work butchered that many times, you'd get out early if it looked like happening again!


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


user
I actually saw the movie before I read the book. When I saw the movie I was upset because I wondered why Dean Koontz had made such a bad book/movie. The movie was confusing and didn't have a flow at all, it was choppy and made me want to throw a rock at the TV. I couldn't connect with the characters at all, so i didn't care about what happened to them(normally I love the characters because I can relate to their personality or problems). Then I read the book and loved it. I often re-read the book, and the movie is collecting dust. I wish someone would make a Koontz movie that follows the plot of his books, then the movies wouldn't suck so much. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU NEED TO WASTE MONEY!


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


user
Just ONCE, I would like to see Koontz's work given to a decent screenwriter, director, and producer! JUST ONCE!
This is a good attempt by Jean LeClerc and Chris Sarandon, and an even better attempt by Victoria Tennant, but everything else is pure unadulterated garbage. The screenwriter should be shot for bastardizing Koontz's work this way and the director...please.
The story is a well-written story, but the screenplay is quite dull, unbelievable and horribly executed. The only elements which work are the performances by LeClerc, Sarandon, and Tennant.
On a personal note, I really wanted this to work. I adore Koontz's novels, but they have never given them the attention, backing, and talent they deserve. If they put the same money into Koontz's work that they shovel by the barrels-full into King's, Koontz would quickly rise above. But alas! Without powerful people who believe in his work, I fear he will never get the chance.
As an adaptation to the novel, this movie was a total suck-fest. As a stand alone movie, it wasn't that bad, though extremely weak in many places with huge plot holes and terrible, stiff, unprofessional dialog which never should have made it to the final cut. This movie failed miserably to live up to its potential. Had they followed the original work by Koontz, a bit more closely, and invested a decent amount of production money, this could have been a far better endeavor.
However, all I can manage to see in this, is how good it could have been, and wasn't.
It rates a 4.3/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
A terminally dull mystery-thriller, which may sound pretty sound theoretically but plays out very poorly. The ludicrous script is full of (MINOR SPOILER) people dying and then coming back to life when the plot requires them to, and the director doesn't seem able to work up any energy and suspense. The gooey sequence that kind of "explains" the film's title is the only halfway memorable one in this tiresome film. (*1/2)


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


user
The 1977 animated-live action hybrid version of Gulliver's Travels (or rather 'Travel,' since he only gets as far as Lilliput) didn't get much of a release, and it's not too difficult to see why. Michel Legrand comes up with some catchy tunes, but they merely inspire lyricist Don Black to the likes of "One simple fact remains/No-one here suffers from growing pains.' Richard Harris once again over-indulges in his passion for excessive makeup, toning down the eyeliner for far too much foundation this time in an effort to hide the fact he's at least 25 years too old for the role, but at least he (perhaps inappropriately) reduces his larger-than-life tendencies for a performance made up mainly of patronising whispering. The Belgian animation looks only slightly better than early morning French children's TV, but Peter Hunt's film is not nearly as bad as it sounds  the use of real model sets for the animated characters harks back to Max and Dave Fleischer's 1939 version while a couple of moments of Swiftian satire do remain - although it's definitely aimed at the youngest of children.


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


user
I had watched this on Italian TV as a kid and recall being fond of it – in view of its mixing live-action with animation; however, it was universally panned at the time…and, catching up with it again after all these years, I have to admit that the critics were right!
What must have seemed wondrous to a child's eyes is actually very poorly done, not to mention boring for a fantasy-adventure; fatally, both star (ex-'Angry Young Man' Richard Harris) and director (action expert Hunt) are ill-suited to the material! At least, Michel Legrand's score (with lyrics provided by scriptwriter Don Black) is serviceable – if not exactly inspired. By the way, a number of well-known personalities are featured among the voice artists on this British-Belgian co-production (Julian Glover, Bessie Love, Murray Melvin, Robert Rietty, Vladek Sheybal, Graham Stark and, this being his last film work, Michael Bates).
While the essential plot points of Jonathan Swift's classic novel ('giant' Gulliver becomes the pawn in a war between the little people of two neighboring countries and, on escaping, ends up in a land of real giants) do emerge here, it's done on a strictly kiddie level (with stereotyped characters though, thankfully, little intrusion of the comic/romantic variety) – which renders the whole venture somewhat pointless, outside of its intrinsically experimental nature, since Max and Dave Fleischer had already done a splendid feature-length cartoon version of the book way back in 1939!


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


user
Peter Hunt started out as a very gifted film editor and got his first stab at directing when he helmed the James Bond film "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (considered by many Bond fans to be the best of the series). Other titles in his filmography include epic scale adventure movies like "Gold" and "Shout At The Devil", both adapted from Wilbur Smith novels. "Gulliver's Travels" is an odd one on his list of films; it seems strange that a director of Hunt's style and expertise would choose to direct a film of this kind. A half-live action/half-animated retelling of Jonathan Swift's classic satire, the film looked twenty years out of date even when it was made, and in all honesty it simply doesn't work. And there's not a damn thing that Hunt (with his usual eye for fast-paced action), or star Richard Harris (who can usually enliven the most stilted of roles) can do to rescue this one.
Lemuel Gulliver (Richard Harris) is a brilliant medical student living in 17th Century Bristol. His father (Norman Shelley) wants him to go to London to make his fortune; but Gulliver prefers the idea of receiving rather less pay but a heck of a lot more adventure as a ship's surgeon aboard a ship called the 'Antelope'. During a voyage, the 'Antelope' is blown off course during a storm and hits a reef. The ship sinks and everyone is lost, apart from Gulliver. who finds himself washed ashore in the kingdom of Lilliput. When he comes round, Gulliver finds that the strange land where he has washed ashore is populated by incredibly small humans, no taller than his toe. To them, he looks like a giant. They persuade Gulliver to help them in a war against another race of tiny people who live on an adjacent island. But Gulliver doesn't like being manipulated for purposes of war and devastation, so he makes plans to escape.
Harris is left to carry the entire film here. His first couple of scenes involve other actors, but once he is shipwrecked in Lilliput he spends the rest of the film striding over knee-high sets and acting alongside his animated counterparts. The idea of mixing live action and animation was not new at the time, but it certainly hadn't been done a lot. A few Disney movies like Song Of The South, So Dear To My Heart and Pete's Dragon had tampered with the idea, but it was still pretty much in its infancy. "Gulliver's Travels" is not an especially well-animated film, but the scenes showing interaction between Harris and his cartoon co-stars are at least competently done. Occasionally the film tries to be true to its satirical origins (there's one scene where we learn that Lilliput has gone to war with its neighbour because of eggs !?! - and the point seems to be that wars can begin over the most ridiculous of things). But at its heart, this is very much a kids' film and the satirical overtones are barely dwelled upon. Everyone involved has done better things during their career  "Gulliver's Travels" might fill an otherwise empty afternoon, but apart from that it is a forgettable and underwhelming experience.


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


user
This was painful! Recently given away as a free DVD with a British newspaper, this British-Belgian co-production from 1977 (could've fooled me, it looks ten years older than that at least) is quite deservedly obscure and if you make it past the half-hour mark, consider yourself a trouper. The combining of animation and live action is ropey at best and downright dreadful at worst, which makes you wonder why it was decided to even attempt making the film in this manner when clearly the technology wasn't really there. Harris is no more than a human prop and the animation is some of the most flat and lifeless I've seen, with the obligatory 'trippy' moments (especially where the animation of the brainiac-type Subtracto character is involved) that rendered countless cartoon features from the late sixties onward instantly dated. The screenplay by Don Black provides a convincing argument for the usually resilient lyricist to stick to what he does best, and the pace is so slow that even the very young will be bored. As for adults, stick to Jonathan Swift's original novel.


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


user
Blindingly stupid guff from the formerly talented John Hughes, who'll soon be making a film with the sperm from 'Look Who's Talking' if his stars get any younger. He recycles the 'Home Alone' formula yet again to produce this idiotic comedy, in which a baby makes his way around Chicago while inept kidnappers Joe Mantegna, Joe Pantoliano and Brian Haley try to catch him, along the way enduring much tiresome slapstick. If Mantegna and Pantoliano can't find a laugh somewhere in your movie then you're in trouble, but the laziness of the movie is most glaring in the scenes where crowds of people fail to notice a baby crawling around on the pavement. Utter nonsense.


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


user
Get Shorty was an excellent film. It was funny and had the perfect balance of highly comical acting and a serious plot. Be Cool is like some cheap knock-off trying to pass for a sequel. John Travolta as Chili Palmer seems to have forgotten that he was ever in the mob. He plays it like he's a bored movie exec, rather than a bored movie exec who used to be a Shylock. Uma Thurman, great in nearly every role she's ever played, comes off as strained and confusing. Is she supposed to be ditzy or clever? The chemistry between her and Travolta is strained and uncomfortable. Other than that, just add every movie cliché you can think of. A well-educated rap producer by Cedric the Entertainer, an inept gangster wannabe in Andre 3000, the girl with heart, soul, and a good set of pipes in Christina Milian, a gimmicky black dude wannabe in Vince Vaughn, and a stupid celebrity cameo by Stephen Tyler. The only funny part was the Rock, who invents his own new cliché as a gay Samoan bodyguard actor wannabe. Probably the biggest crime is the plot: IT MAKES NO SENSE. Get Shorty was clever with Chili playing one group against another and coming out on top. But this film tries that with about a million different characters. And even Chili doesn't seem to know what's going on. Fans of Get Shorty be warned: this is a very different, very worse movie.


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


user
John Travolta reprises his role as Chili Palmer, Hollywood gangster, who now turns his eye to the music business. Using his "negotiation skills," he tries to run an independent record label with the wife of a murdered friend, played by Uma Thurman, and try to get his young singer (Christina Milian) a hit record.
Before I saw this sequel, I had heard that it was a terrible film. However, Be Cool is still an enjoyable comedy even if it's not as good as the original. The movie focuses on the music industry this time around instead of the movie industry. The music business is portrayed very poorly in the movie and they use a bunch of lame stereotypes. I can't tell if this was the intention or not since Get Shorty did a nice job of spoofing the movie industry. The same can't be said for the sequel and the attempts just come as lazy.
An impressive cast is what saves the movie from sinking. The best performance is given by The Rock and it's nice to see him in a different type of role. Vince Vaughn also gives a funny performance though he started to get annoying before the end. Surprisingly, Uma Thurman gives an average performance and I was expecting more from her. John Travolta returns as Chili and he does an okay job. His performance is kind of dull though. Christina Milian gives a horrible performance and she's also not that good of a singer. Cedric the Entertainer gives a good performance though he isn't in the film for very long. There are also a bunch of cameos including Steven Tyler and James Wood.
F. Gary Gray directs and he does a poor job. He just doesn't handle the film very well and the movie is kind of a mess. There was also a ton of product placement and it got annoying after awhile. Also at 118 minutes, the film is too long and there are a lot of slow spots. The film needed to be edited badly and it clearly wasn't. Fortunately for the film, the actors are able to rise above the weak direction and script and they deliver some funny scenes. Sometimes, the film tried too hard while other times it was actually pretty funny. Compared to the original, the sequel doesn't measure up well. However, Be Cool is a fairly harmless and forgettable comedy. In the end, Be Cool is worth a rental and that's it. Rating 6/10


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


user
I'm a fan of Get Shorty. This is the sequel for the movie that needed no sequel.
Chili is back but Rene Russo is gone without a peep. Unfortunately Chili's game was played out in the first movie and rather than find an interesting personal arc for him, they just have him stand around repeating lines from the first movie. It's pretty tepid. Travolta looks old here. It's like they move people around him because his bones are getting creaky. His pink lip gloss and the blue eye contacts are very weird. The 2nd bad role is Edie (played by Uma Thurman). She's a music producer, a role that requires her only to be the female Reuben Kincaid. ("Hey these kids have a great new sound.") In any scene she strikes the wrong pitch motivationally or emotionally or both. It's painful to watch. Despite it's plentiful problems, Be Cool gets better after a very unpromising start.
I certainly got my laughs out of it (Vince Vaughan running around on fire, Cedric the Entertainer, Ludicrous, the Rock, a t-shirt that says "widow" on it), but it offers no great memories after it's over. It's a helium-light love fest from the first frame. There's no one as pricelessly idiotic as Gene Hackman in the first movie. It's just about doing good in the world, for a couple of kids who deserve a chance (Beyonce & the Rock). Ho-hum. The first one wasn't preachy.
Working in (repeatedly) gags & lines from the first movie is annoying as is the dumb concession to the Rock's wrestling fans (he raises his eyebrow twice) as are the droll inside jokes: Steven Tyler saying "I'm not the kind of singer that make appearances in movies" ar ar.
The all-star spectacular line-up is part of the problem. The first movie wasn't burdened by "stars."
For a buck rental let's call it even.


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


user
The first 10 minutes of the movie makes fun of sequels and pg-13 movies. These are the 2 reasons the movie is so bad. They constantly reference a movie called "Get Leo" which is the movie-in-a-movie version of get shorty. Every time they do this, you will be really angry. Travolta isn't very cool, neither is Keitel. However, The Rock and Vince Vaughn are hilarious. They aren't the kind of funny you would expect to see in an Elmore Leonard movie though. If you haven't seen get shorty, you will probably like be cool. If you liked get shorty, you will leave the theater wanting to kill the director and screenwriter. Wait for the DVD.


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


user
That movie while slightly flawed was entirely entertaining. About half an hour into Be Cool, I started to have Hollywood Homicide flashbacks. But guess what? This is worse. Even the dance number is bad. I like most of the cast in this movie, so that makes me feel bad about writing a negative review of it but I feel obligated. The Rock, Andre 3000, and Vince Vaughn were in a comedy. No one else seemed to decide what movie genre they were acting in. I feel bad for Travolta because he brought the same Chili Palmer from Get Shorty to this movie. He was totally consistent in the role, but this movie is so different from the original that the character sticks out like a sore thumb. I was going to give this movie 4/10 because I like the actors so much but there is a conversation in the movie about a certain song that is so asinine I couldn't believe the performers actually said it. If you want to go to the movies this weekend there should still be some Oscar contenders out there. That would be a much better way to spend your time.


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


user
I rarely give ratings less than 5, but in this instance I must weigh in. Elmore Leonard is a great writer with many wonderful, complex books, original characters, crisp dialogue, invigorating plot twists. Films based on his books go way back to Hombre (Paul Newman), Mr. Majestyk (Bronson), and Out of Sight (Clooney / Lopez) among others. Even when done so-so the films at least have some measure of story essence coming through. This one, .... it is simply not a worthy addition to the catalog.
The acting is bad (I do not know why, because these are very capable people here) and the story is handled with stupidity. The characters are re-arranged, the chemistry is missing, the actors and actresses are mis-cast.
Since Elmore Leonard is a really great story teller, I would hope that anyone who does not know his work would be dissuaded from reading his books because they saw this disappointing rendition of one of his stories.
The story is a sequel to Get Shorty. If you have not seen that film, do not watch this. If you have seen Get Shorty, do not proceed to this.
I saw Be Cool a few years back, and tonight have been re-visiting the vid. The first time must not have made such a negative impression because I had forgotten how dismal this sequel was.
Fortunately, I think no less of those who appeared in this film for having done so. They probably expected something more. Get Shorty was original and great fun. Travolta I nearly always like, but he is so much better in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and in the preceding Get Shorty. He was clearly unable to enjoy whatever was going on here.
And I hear Freaky Deaky,another Elmore Leonard book, is in pre-production for 2008 release. Hopefully they can pull it off.
Read the books. They are almost all great.


assistant
0