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
While Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, "Row Row Row your Boat" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead of five.


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


user
I don't think I can add much more to what has already been said about this film. However, I can offer a small recollection from seeing ST-V in the theater. In the last (dreadful) scene, as the camera is pulling out from the camping shot and it seems likely that the credits will start rolling at any second, the audience seemed to rise in unison. Normally, for a movie like this, at least -some- die-hard fans stay to watch right up until the final disclaimer. As the people filed out, I remember hearing no laughing and cheerful banter, only low murmurs.
I remember reading a movie review in the local paper in which the critic said that it was so bad that only Trek fans would like it. What an idiot. The fans were the ones most apt to tear it apart first!
Favorite worst scene: Target shooting on a Voyager space probe, through a periscope no less! Space must be a much smaller frontier than we thought.


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 aware that there are some fans who might like this movie. I'm aware that the idea of 'searching for god' might appear interesting to some, to me, however, it's really boring.
The movie is simply boring. When it does get a little bit interesting, it gets stupid. Come on... Kirk fights against god and wins? How low can we possibly get? The only good part in the film is the camping scene at the first 5 minutes, which is truly great, but after that, the movie becomes boring, irritating, with nothing more than a good music.
Thank god we have Star Trek VI. (Oops, Kirk beat him).


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


user
No one expects the Star Trek movies to be high art, but the fans do expect a movie that is as good as some of the best episodes. Unfortunately, this movie had a muddled, implausible plot that just left me cringing - this is by far the worst of the nine (so far) movies. Even the chance to watch the well known characters interact in another movie can't save this movie - including the goofy scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy at Yosemite.
I would say this movie is not worth a rental, and hardly worth watching, however for the True Fan who needs to see all the movies, renting this movie is about the only way you'll see it - even the cable channels avoid this movie.


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


user
Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.
The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with "God" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.
The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.
However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.
Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V.


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


user
That's the only word I can think of to describe this movie. Not waste as in a waste of time (any time spent with these characters is never wasted), but waste as in a waste of opportunities.
When I see this movie, I think of all the Star Trek novels that were written which would have made a much better film than the story Shatner chose. The setup was like an average television episode, while the finish felt like the climax (if you can call it that) of the first movie.
Nimoy, in directing II-IV, focused on the character of Spock--how he faced the Kobayashi Maru outside of the classroom, and how he handled his emotional live now that he had a chance to start fresh. Shatner could have done the same with Kirk here, but he didn't. We don't know much about Kirk that we didn't know before. Again, one of the novels would have been better--try "My Enemy, My Ally" for a very interesting character study of our friend James T. The minor characters are used mostly for cute bits, and the Scotty-Uhura subplot seems way out of left field, particularly since the subtext in the original series was Sulu-Uhura.
Even hardcore fans can't find much to enjoy here. Sorry, but it's true.


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


user
The weakest of the 'old' crew Star Trek films, this film suffers from an awful script and obvious budget constraints, particularly in the mishandled finale. The bones of a good movie are here, and the directing from Shatner is not as bad as is commonly made out, but the characters end up speaking and acting way out of the style that the previous 3 films had carefully established. Lawrence Luckinbull is convincing as the renegade Vulcan with msyterious and mystical powers to influence people and these powers are responsible for some of the best scenes, particularly for Deforest Kelley who shines as 'Bones' McCoy in this his second last movie. However, as good as those scenes are, they ultimately do not advance the plot, and end up feeling as more of a distraction. A great score from the ever reliable Goldsmith and some funny scenes in Yosemite between the main three are not enough to cover the gaping chasms in the plot, and the frankly embarassing attempts at humour serve only to alienate even die hard trekkies. All in all, a wealth of possibilities which although it fails to deliver, has its moments. Watch out for the pool table in the bar brawl scene...


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


user
Man, this would have been a bad episode of the original series. I can't believe they actually spent money on this one... I caught the second half of this on tv and, having never seen this one before, thought I would watch it... Boy, what a waste of time... More cheese than Wisconsin!!!



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 just recently, and I said to myself: "This movie is bad!" William Shatner is a great actor, but he is no director!
It's not just that the acting is bad, it's terrible. And instead of a plot, we have a very bad storyline that is called a plot! What I really thought was bad was at the beginning where Kirk and McCoy were teaching Spock how to sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat!"
Do I have something against William Shatner? I do not. But when it comes to being a director, he sucks! This film is not one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But it is the worst of the Star Trek series!
I noticed that after this Shatner did not return to direct another film in the series. They apparently did not want him to direct another film again after this happened!
Overall, this movie sucks!
2/10


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


user
Welcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.
The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. "BOONES! Hi, Bones" Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky!
The "Special" Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.
Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! "Capt. Life is Not A Dream" Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.
A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party.
Cat Woman Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.
The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. Spock's antigrav boots amazingly support Bones and The Shat as well. Should also have used em on the humped-back whales in Star Trek IV! Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery the 2nd calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.
The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat.....


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 been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in "The Undiscovered Country" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a "buddy movie" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole "Sha-Ka-Ree" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of "Star Trek III" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.


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


user
Especially if you love horrible movies. When I first started watching it, all I could say was "I hope there's a dance sequence in it." Imagine my delight when not ONLY did the two main characters dance, but the main ghost began break dancing as well. AND on top of THAT, Sherman Hemsley sings the break dance song (not to mention the theme song). It makes me a little sad that he went broke because of this movie, but I've never liked him as an actor and he really should have known better. Not even the director would take credit for this movie (and you should check out some of the other films he directed!).
One note of warning, though, the writer seemed to really like jokes about the, um, male lower regions. For example, one of the characters discovers a book called "Groins of the Darker Species." I am not kidding. And that, to me, is the most disturbing part of the film. Other than that, find the most obscure video rental store in your town, get the movie, invite all your friends over, and laugh until you cry with Ghost Fever.


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 telling a friend of mine about the time my grandfather actually picked this horrible piece of crap for us to see one night at the theater. He never picked another one again! It was that bad! Anyway, my friend then told me that her father did some of the writing for this garbage. I thought she was kidding. It turns out, she was serious. She had never actually seen it, and she said that it put a quick halt to her father's writing career. I told her not to waste her time. But, if she did actually break down and watch it, she would see within the fist minute why this ended her father's days as a writer. I mean, even for the 1980's, this crap is bad beyond description. I mean, Joe Frazier as Terrible Tucker? And why in the world would two cops care one bit about a house full of ghosts? And the movie poster? A ghost with his tongue hanging out? What is that about? Nothing about this makes any sense. Well, I told my friend that this crap not only ended her father's writing career, it ended the careers of everybody involved. Or, at least none of them ever fully recovered from being in this garbage of a movie. Let's just say that I will forever ridicule my friend for revealing to me that her father was a writer for this movie! That alone should tell just how bad this is!


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 só incredibly unfunny it makes any man want to cry, the cliché are put on thicker than 5-year old peanut butter and in such a way that it actually sucks humour out of your heart, every single joke was badly timed and wouldn't have been funny if it were timed correctly.
Don't see this movie, there's a real chance you'll never be able to enjoy going to comedies again...ever.


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


user
Sherman Hemsley was great in the Jeffersons and especially All in the Family. He was also very good in Amen, why on earth would he do this movie? This movie has a terrible script and is a waste of a very funny man. Luis Avalos does the best he can but this is awful. This movie was the beginning of bankruptcy for Sherman Hemsley. I think he is very funny but this is an awful awful pointless ghost story. Stick with Ghostbusters.


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


user
This piece of garbage belongs in the basement of some moldy old mansion where it will never see the light of day again. The only thing scary about this junk was the price of admission. I was only amused when the ending credits started rolling and I was free to vacate the auditorium. What an unmitigated bore; a complete waste of 1 and a half hours. When I die, I pray I can come back as a ghost and give a fever to the moron who penned this gibberish.


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


user
Another of those flimsy stories coupled with most forgettable musical numbers. Powell and O'Keefe as battling publicists are quite forgettable. However, there are two shining moments. Hubert Castle is the most incredible tightrope walker you will ever see - his "drunken walk" on the wire has to be the most spectacular piece of balancing ever recorded on film. He has to be seen to be believed. The other is Sophie Tucker doing a turn near the end of the film. Her magnetism, her professionalism, her sheer talent at being herself - well, charisma is not learned - you have it or you don't. A great lesson for all would-be cabaret artists. A sad note: W.C. Fields in his last film cameo is completely forgettable.


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


user
this movie is about people living at a trailerpark. later in the movie it gets obvious that those people are out-of-work comedians, mainly old males. well, more or less they sit around the whole movie and talk about f***ing. but never there is any action, just those people talking. in the beginning I thought it's some cool perverted redneck-stuff, but after a while it got boring. I mean, how many versions can you think of saying f***ing, d**k & c**t? for sure, this can be funny - for half an hour maybe, not 80 minutes. but it was funny to watch those people trying to act. I'm pretty sure that they often were reading their text on some sheet when playing. but it does not disturb the movie, it's cool like this. because those individuals seem so poor, f***ed-up, crestfallen a***oles that the style totally fits. their wooden, helpless reading of the texts makes quite good atmosphere, I fell in love with the characters a little.
***SPOILER AHEAD*** later in the movie the f***ers do some comedy-shows (rhymes about f***ing) with just themselves as audience and imagined applause. then one gets an eviction-advice and so they decide to defend the trailer park and enter their roofs - armed with some weapons. then they got shoot. fin. sounds like action, but it's not. just some trashy home-camera takes. ***SPOILER END***
but the movie is totally consequent in it's style and I'm pretty sure it's just what the movie-maker wanted to have. it's the portrait of those f**k-ups in an groggy home-camera style with characters who can not act but seem interesting personalities so they are nice to watch. but the texts about - you know what - the whole time get boring after a while.
pretty young director who also seems an interesting person, as he played some teenager-stuff in popular movies/TV-series but now got in more horror-movies which is more his cup of tea I guess. and this, his first direction-effort will be distributed by troma now. don't know anything about a release, I got this one as an "advance screener" from this years cannes which says "for bootlegging purposes only".


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 positive thing I can think of regarding this utter piece of garbage is that now I finally have a good answer ready if anyone ever asks me what the worst movie I ever saw was called.
It would have taken such little effort to make it more watchable...a lot more effort and it could have been brilliant even.
Why would anyone want to produce such waste?
I refuse to believe that a director could be so ridiculously untalented.
Making a completely intolerable movie must have been the point.
Anything else just doesn't make sense.


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


user
Officially the first martial arts movie in USSR cinematography featuring actual martial artists like Tadeush Kas'yanov and Russian Bruce Lee - Talgat Nigmatullin. Bad people highjack a ship in the high seas but fortunately just about everybody on board is a trained martial artist. A collectible for martial arts aficionado.


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


user
It was the first action movie made in banned in USSR Hollywood action style. It is not even close to the Hollywood action movies of that time. The plot is childish, the directing is so-so. This movie succeeded because it was first of its kind in Russia. Even though I watched it many times I have to admit it was kind of naive and I did not like it. This is not the best example of Russian action movie. This is just the first 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 movie has a few good performances going for it -- and that's all it has going for it. The leads, especially Pauley Perrette, are appealing. (Although some of the bit players seem to be acting from a teleprompter.) The material -- that is the problem. I feel as though the screenwriter/director watched the entire run of Felicity in one sitting, then sat down to write a script without catching any sleep. It really did remind me of Felicity -- a thoughtful young woman finding herself, finding love, with a shake-them-up-and- see-what-happens approach to the characters and their relationships. Except that while I usually enjoyed watching Felicity, this movie left me cold. The writing is just awful. It's amazing that the cast could come off as well as they did, as the dialogue is dull at best. At its worst it becomes trite, stilted and amateurish. There is nothing original here, with plot elements recycled from gimmicks that weren't so brilliant to begin with. (Angels and fortune tellers? Come on.) For the first half of the movie, I rooted for the actors and hoped to be rewarded for my patience. By the second half, I just wished for it to end already. My sympathies to the cast, who deserved a better vehicle for their talents.


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 interesting part of this movie was it's jazz and reggae New Orleans back drop. It tries to be one of those movies that has two struggles the heroine has to overcome, one from the past and one from the present which she fails to do convincingly. The acting's bad and the direction is even worse. I'm not surprised at all that this went straight to video. The end result of this film leaves no one satisfied or convinced including the actors themselves.


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


user
This low-budget indie film redefines the word "blah". It will surprise most that this word can actually be found in the dictionary, defined as: "nonsense.. uninteresting, dull, lifeless". The movie redefines the word because I would have to add to those four words: "PC crap", "pretentious on a pathetic level", and "pointless".
The film tries so hard to be "hip" and "in touch" with contemporary beautiful-people-struggling-for-je-ne-sais-quoi behaviour and "thinking" (do they think?). There is almost no plot to speak of, though there IS one to sleep to. The phoniest and most politically-correct things about it are how a white woman is great friends with a young, black stud, the black street-sax-player with a penchant for oh-so wise council and advice, and the fat black psychic. Isn't it beautiful how the races can get along after all?... Ahhhh... In the end, the woman reads out "poetry", which is nothing more than one of her dull "dear diary" entries. She gets a standing ovation(!!!), although in real life her listeners would have more likely than not dozed off into deep slumber. But this movie has little to do with real life, even though that is where it's supposed to be happening. In real life her "poetry" reading would have gotten standing ovations only if she had the sense to include the juicy, sexual details. "And then I rubbed his huge penis against my sweaty, impatient pink little vagina..." Cheers! What's worse, the lead actress has a dozen scenes in which she either bathes or screws with someone, yet they never have the sense to show her breasts, which was clearly the only thing left to save this mess.
The black guy and the blonde, who are separated by about a meter in height, hook up: they look like a cheap variation of Rodman and Madonna (as if the latter two aren't a cheap enough combination already). Nicole Eggert, mentioned by Howard Stern in his "Miss America" book, is the blonde. Stern writes of Eggert that she took her implants out. Yet I believe that when they took her implants out they also sucked most of the meat out of her flesh and muscles by mistake, for she looks starved here.
The sax player in one scene develops angel-like wings; he looks like Al Roker advertising angel food cakes.


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


user
Although the film does have a fairly stylish look for an indie made on a really low budget, that's not what I go to movies for. There wasn't one character I found sympathetic, they all seemed to be absolutely clueless losers. Everything they attempt ends badly, it's all too hopeless for me. Reviews refer to the Puffy Chair as a black comedy...comedy? The brother Rhett behaves like an escapee from an institution. When Josh talks to girl friend Emily about his brother, he almost hints at Rhett not playing with a full deck. Nonetheless Josh performs a "wedding" for Rhett and a woman Rhett met just a few hours before. There were a few interesting performances by some of the characters encountered on the road. However for me the most telling thing was that people were walking out of the film...and I saw it at a free screening.


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


user
When THE PUFFY CHAIR beckons, beware of its soft, colorful upholstery.
The movie starts out quite well. Josh (Mark Duplass) and Emily (Kathryn Aselton) are a boyfriend-girlfriend couple having a bit of a tough time with their relationship. An argument occurs one night and in order to make up, Josh asks Emily to come along on a roadtrip to his father's house where Josh plans to deliver a purplish LazyBoy recliner for his dad's birthday. Emily accepts and along the way they pick up Josh's flighty brother Rhett (Rhett Wilkins), an Amish-looking fellow more in touch with other peoples' lives than his own.
The roadtrip quickly devolves into more squabbling between Josh and Emily, as well as a bitter feeling for The Puffy Chair (it is initially very grubby and falling apart until Josh "convinces" the original owner to refurbish it). Rhett quickly ascertains that the cause of all of Emily and Josh's problems is the LazyBoy and sets it to the torch one night ...
And that's the last we hear of the chair, even though there are many minutes left in the film.
The big issue is that the title of the film is The Puffy Chair, when it isn't the chair at all that takes center-stage. It is Josh and Emily's doomed relationship and how the roadtrip seals their feelings for one another. Once the chair is destroyed, there's never another mention of it, even though they arrive at Josh's parents place on his father's birthday without a gift. Josh never mentions the chair, nor does his father. There's no connection between it and the lives of these people. So why call the movie The Puffy Chair and why isn't there a tie-in with it at the end? Bad script.
The other annoying thing is that Mark Duplass' brother, Jay Duplass, is not only the director but also the cameraman (and not a very good). Nearly every scene has a rapid zoom-in on the characters that goes grainy and out of focus before the camera's autofocus catches up and rights itself. Initially this took on a quaint and artistic feel, but rapidly became unbearable.
The acting in the film is accessible and entertaining. All of the actors/actresses did fine jobs. But the poor production quality, stilted ending, and lack of coherency to the title caused this flick too many problems.


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


user
"The Puffy Chair" was a supreme waste of 84 minutes of my life which cannot be retrieved and spent in a more worthwhile way (even "The Blair Witch Project" was a better use of life's precious moments). It must be called "The Puffy Chair" because only 'puffy' chairs could accommodate the extremely 'puffed-up', self-important brothers who drooled it out for public consumption; and, obviously, they are SO full of themselves that they have assumed the public would actually want to consume their drool. "The Puffy Chair" made "The Wooly Boys" seem like a cinematic masterpiece! "Valley of the Dolls," "Beyond Valley of the Dolls," "Pink Flamingos," "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Night of the Living Dead," "Urban Cowboy," "The Blob," -- all of these would be a better use of one's time, than viewing "The Puffy Chair." The characters portrayed are either too predictable or too lacking in normal, emotional reflexes to even come close to being likable or believable. Also, at one point in the film, while the characters are supposed to be in the same small town, if one watches closely, one can see that one part of the town is apparently in the southern United States, and the other half is located in Maine. That's some town, eh?


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


user
I'd love to sit down and write an intelligent, well thought out review however, I feel I'd be spending more time in the writing process than the filmmakers did. I live in Los Angeles and I'm sorry to say that the characters seemed just SO much like underemployed and overly ego inflated ACTORS. There was not one moment in the film when I could escape the feeling I was watching the drivel ridden conversation of unemployed actors at a hipster LA coffee shop. One of the worst "indie" films I've ever seem with so little to recommend it that hearing it won at Sundance has effectively removed any prior interest I may have had in attending, much less considering a postitive Sundance review to be meaningful. Watch at your own risk.


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 at my city's independent cinema - no surprise, because no mainstream theatre would want its fingerprints on this train wreck.
The camera work is very distracting. The constant shifting, refocusing, and zooms could induce a sensitive person to have motion sickness. It looks more like a film student's project than a serious movie.
Though well-acted, the characters are unlikeable. Josh is devious, always trying to manipulate situations and people to his advantage. Without any context to Emily and Josh's relationship, she comes off as a whiny, insecure girl who's desperate to get married. Rhett is an emotional infant, incapable of understanding the complexities of human interaction. Without any redeeming qualities, I didn't care about what happened to any of them.
Obviously some people liked this movie, as the couple sitting behind me were laughing hysterically. Of course, they could have just making fun of it. I could hardly blame them for it.


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


user
In spite of many positive reviews this is a very slow film with three essentially good actors improvising the most banal dialog you will ever hear. This is another road movie that really goes no where. The camera frequently goes out of focus and the constant panning in some of the over long scenes is annoying.
The three characters are attractive but note likable. The cast also sets what must be an intergalactic record for the use of the tired word "dude". (Even Howard Stern has abandoned this tired pesudo pronoun).
The three primary actors and one supporting actor show great promise. They are clearly comfortable and bravely allow themselves to be depicted as shallow and even goofy. The character actors all seem as they are plucky amateurs who generously volunteered to speak a few lines.. Indeed they all physically fit their roles well.
All in all a dull 90 minutes that seems more like an eternity. This is among my ten worst films of all time.


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


user
So then... this is what passes as high art for the likes of SXSW Film Festival and Sundance, eh? Well, I suppose I can relate as long as story, script, dialog, acting (save for Ms. Aselton), cinematography and editing are completely irrelevant.
I remember telling other film-making friends some years ago that the biggest problem with digital video was that we were now going to have to wade through a future sea of crap to get to anything worth watching now that anyone and his brother (or brothers in the case of the Duplass') could run out and make a movie. "The Puffy Chair." Need I say more?
This feature length video is yet another chapter in the dismal, ever-expanding world of "dudeology" movies; young guns armed with a DVX100A, a few thousand dollars, a hastily written, shallow script, and some friends they call actors who decide one afternoon to make a movie and voilà!, instant feature video-makers. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all about independent cinema (i.e. Hollywierd sucks). But having said that, you can't argue with some of the realities of that system.
If the Duplass Brothers would've had to have gone out and raised a real budget and bring on real producers, its clear a script like this would never have been green-lighted! And therein lies the problem. There is no longer such a thing as a vetting process for getting films (sorry... videos) ready for production. Just grab a DV/P2 camera and off you go! And what makes it worse is that high-profile festivals like the aforementioned actually embrace and encourage this kind of nonsense. And why? Precisely because its no-budget.
I think its important, especially in todays climate of indie films, to quit allowing video-makers to high-jack the language by labeling themselves, "filmmakers." There is quite a difference in my book. When you have to go out and actually put your script on the line, asking friends and family or business people for real money to make a feature "film", knowing the potentially losses at stake, then you will know what it means to be a "filmmaker." But dropping a few hundred at Sam's Club for some DV tapes, some soda and chips doesn't cut it.
Oh... and by the way... I have to mention how utterly annoying it was to listen to a female being addressed as "dude" throughout the entire movie. Even Mark Borchardt reserves that intensely-overused moniker for his male friends only where it is at least endearing where his buddy Mike is concerned!
I think its high time the indie film community started to call out these shoddy, no-budget videos for what they are, and simultaneously scold prestigious festivals for giving such casual efforts, high praise. Either that or ask these festivals to at least have the courtesy to add a new category to their festival line ups... "Dude Films."


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


user
IMDb lists this movie as a comedy. I have no idea what genre this movie falls into but it certainly isn't comedy. tragedy maybe.
I won't say whether this is a good movie or not. All I know is it is not a comedy. I wanted a laugh tonight and what I got was some bizarre notion of someones attachment to some ugly chair.
This movie is not what is advertised. It's film school tripe that I can only assume is intended to "make people think". I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone that I know, or even that I don't know. It's ridiculous drivel that makes no sense whatsoever.
It made me think alright. It made me think, "I wish I had those ninety minutes of my life back."
I'm sure the world is full of armchair critics who have a liberal bent on their world view that will make this movie something worth watching to them.
I am not one of them.


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


user
Plot:
- A Chair from EBay
- Random people
- Random people talk (" Dude, it's right. " "I'm feeling it." "Lets get married now!")
- If you are a "hippie" then you will love this movie. (You must be high or drunk, otherwise you will question your life watching this junk.)
This movie was clearly not thought out from the beginning to the end, and the other comments are probably the crew padding the reviews. If this wasn't aimed at my demographic, I don't know what it is aimed for. I found the plot everyday boring. It's something that I would do, and trust me it's not worth filming. Going on a roadtrip and filming half of the silence does not make a movie!


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 ridiculous. It's attempting to be a comedy but the screenplay is horrible. The whole movie is done in low light and you cant grasp the fact that it's a comedy. Truly is bad cinematography. You really have to sit there and watch it to realize there's a few jokes here and there going on but either way they're all inside jokes amongst themselves. This is more like a wannabe drama flick that went bad. It really is a very pointless movie.Their expressions reveal nothing but dismay and disaster which turns out that way anyway. Unless you want to be bored out of your ass, I suggest you stay away from this gag of a movie.


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 film at the 2005 Edinburgh International Film Festival.
This film had been compared in the EIFF program to Sideways - which I liked - so I was quite looking forward to this movie. I also liked Garden State, Napoleon Dynamite etc... so I have had good recent experiences with slightly weird American indy films.
Unfortunately, I found that Puffy Chair does not compare favourably with any of these movies.
I was sitting for 35 minutes waiting for something amusing, witty, insightful or even mildly interesting to happen. It didn't - and the shaky video cam was making me sick - so I left.
This is only the second film I have ever walked out from (the first was "Showgirls") which is slightly disappointing. I probably could have lasted the duration had it not been for the nauseating effects of the wobbly picture - but nothing within the first 35 minutes gave me the impression that I would be missing anything.
Disappointing.


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


user
I walked out of this movie and I did this only one time before with the Australian movie Sweetie close to 20 years ago. After about three minutes I felt like killing the camera man and just couldn't believe that this film actually showed anywhere and- guess what - was nominated for two independent Spirit Awards. What???? Regardsless how realistic the dialog might be (I will NEVER use the word "dude" again!) -who wants to listen to these conversations? I don't go to the movies to be annoyed but that's all I got. The only good thing I came away with was the realization that if this movie can make it to Sundance and other festivals, anybody can. Well, wait, that might not be a good thing after all...


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


user
Starring Tomas Milian and Manny Perez  'Washington Heights' is a low budget drama set in a Latino neighborhood in NYC.
A young comic-book artist (Manny Perez) wants to escape his Latino neighborhood. When his father is crippled by a robber's gunshot, the young man is forced to run the family bodega.
The movie was shot in a budget (low resolution video and poor audio) with low profile actors.
The plot flowed well for 85 minutes but the last 5 minutes were just terrible. We don't know for sure if Perez and his girlfriend remained together and if Angel ended-up in jail for the shooting.
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
Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching? Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching?


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


user
....and now I'm up to episode #7. I really was hoping it'd be over by now (not to mention canceled, once everything connected with the show -including the actors - had been dumped along with some toxic waste in the middle of the ocean somewhere, never to be seen again), because this series really is dire.
To have this program listed under the genre of 'comedy' is at best misleading! It's so hard to believe Ben Elton could write something this bad, maybe this points to a lot of input from the other writers in everything he's been connected with before. In some episodes I haven't even laughed once!
Oh, and I can't believe Ardal O'Hanlon actually stopped doing 'My hero' & started doing this instead, his decision making skills were obviously impaired that day - perhaps he simply can't read, and didn't realise just how poor the scripts for 'Blessed' were. Don't get me wrong, 'My Hero' is not masterpiece, but it's a million times better than this piece of junk.
And just to annoy me even more I bet this gets a DVD release as well, when there are so many great TV series' that aren't getting released!


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 with a group of friends at the 1999 Melbourne International Film Festival and no-one had a good word for it.
I happen to love Bluegrass and Country Music so it's not as if I'm unsympathetic to the subject matter. But the problem is that at heart it's a very conservative movie- little more than a filmed Mills and Boon story. A bodice-ripper of the most simple-minded and soppy kind.
It's not just that the love story at its heart, that between Reece and Dr. Lily Penleric is more than a tad unbelievable. (Why any male would be attracted to the nostril-flaring man-devouring Lily is beyond me, and frankly, Mike Harding as Reece seems to be just going through the motions).
It's simply that the whole movie is too tame and well-mannered for its own good. There is precious little danger, dirt or drama. Sure there's a moment of "excitement" involving a school run by Lily's younger sister, but this whole episode is funnier than it is dramatic (it's just so poorly written and acted). And the movie betrays its conservative agenda in the manner in which this subplot is resolved.
As for good old Reece Kinkaid (now, what's wrong with a name like Eberneezer Bumpass?) I ask you! Is the ending of this film believable? Fitting in with the character this film had earlier constructed? I think not...


assistant
0