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
I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled "The One-Armed Swordsmen" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.
But "The One-Armed Swordsmen" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate.
Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.
Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.
If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go 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
this is by far one of the most pretentious films i have ever seen. it is a tight slap on the face of some Indians who speak in English and were looking at the mirror. disgusting. the bubble gum version of the 1970s politics of the north Indian plains. the message - the educated English-speaking Indian tried to save the poor beggars of India in all earnestness. it ignores the fact that the poor beggars are also capable of and are saving themselves on their own.
as a love story its okay. the problem is that the love story and character development is based upon a completely fraudulent version of politics.


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


user
This film is supposedly about three young idealistic people, two of whom join the Naxalite movement and blah blah. It is really just another film about some beautiful, rich people trying to decide who they should bed next; the peasants and naxalites and the political struggles of the era merely serve as a picturesque backdrop. Literally, as we don't hear the villagers say a word, never mind learn anyone's name, thus they occupy the same 'role' as the 'natives' in old Hollywood films. The movie is also dull, and the story does not actually get us anywhere - except to various bedrooms. We are apparently supposed to admire the artsiness of it all, which merely means no good song and dance routine, which would not have saved the film of course, but might have at least alleviated the boredom.
My friend Japna was annoyed at the immorality of the whole story, not the bedroom bit but the whole pointlessness of the story. The message seems to be that ideals are not worth pursuing.


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


user
The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.
It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.
The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!
Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth cliché-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?
The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one.


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


user
It would be quite easy to make this movie sound fun: a call girl gets shot in the forehead by a North Korean spy, but survives. The bullet that is embedded in her brain makes her long for knowledge, as well as sex. Unbeknownst to her, she walks away from the shooting with the cloned finger of George W. Bush in her purse, a key which can unlock the power to use nuclear armaments. Just call it a romp, and at least a few people will show up to the theater. I'm not sure how many did go to see this four year old film when it opened in New York this past April, but I sincerely hope not many. It sounds like a light and playful pinku flick, but it has art-house pretensions and is really just incredibly boring. Many pinku films in the past have been successful in their artistic aspirations, but this film's aspirations just make the time that elapses between the sex scenes excruciating. And then the sex scenes aren't even good! I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in dirty Japanese movies. I've never seen this country produce something with sex this dull. The Spice Channel is more imaginative. The only worthwhile thing in this movie is the body of the lead actress, Emi Kuroda. Otherwise, this is pure torture.


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


user
Okay. I really tried to tap into the (so called) silly & surreal humor that this film sets out to be. I'm told that the Japanese version of this film is much shorter than the one shipped to America (go figure!), and has less political references. Apart from all that, I found this sexual/political farce just as boring and pointless as standard porn. The central female lead is easy on the eyes, and could actually act. I would love to see her in a non pink film where she could actually flex her acting muscles (and no,not the ones you're thinking of). It's obvious that Japan can (and does)produce just as much crap as other countries. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, with the distant possibility of someone who has a Jones for Asian porn. Go see a real Japanese film.


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


user
My wife and I met doing a professional production of "The Merry Widow" in 1982 -- in English, but a straight translation.
Only the very basic skeleton of the original plot is visible in this "adaptation". Most of the characters have been deleted, along with the entire B plot, and all but one of the characters remaining have been renamed. Most of the characters in the movie aren't in the operetta, either. The action has been moved from Paris to, at first, Washington, DC, and then to the fictional country of Pontevedro, which the movie has renamed "Marshovia", and only later to Paris. The net result is that we don't reach the beginning of the original play until about 45 minutes in.
And the main source of tension in the plot is deleted, too. In the original, years before, Count Danilo and the heroine were very much in love, but his family refused to allow them to marry because she was poor; it's his broken heart that has rendered him a careless playboy. Now that, as a widow, she's the richest woman in the world, she still loves him, and he still loves her, but his pride won't let him admit it to anyone, even himself, and she must spend three acts playing mind games to break him down. The trope of the aristocrat with money problems who won't admit that he's in love with a rich woman for fear of what people will think supplied the main plots of a substantial fraction of Viennese operettas for decades after the 1906 "Widow". In this movie, they've never met before, which rips out not only the heart of the whole thing, but nearly all the comedy.
Lamas does a pretty decent job, though.
An interesting musical point is that several times we hear a snippet or so of "Trés Parisien", an extra song written (in English, despite the title) for the London première, which was not, as far as I know, usually found in American productions until the 1980s or so.


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


user
I feel terribly sorry! Where the Lubitsch-pic was enchanting, marvelous, full of spirit and elegance, this one here is only - colored! Lana looks like 51 (in fact she was 31 at that time, but obviously depressive) and tries to play a shy and dull girlie. Think of Jeanette McDonald, who gave the role of the widow a double-faced depth by "playing" with Count Danilo. That Lana had to play an operetta although unable to sing - crazy! She only sings one song - the title role of an Lehar-operetta, that is really funny! The only really good thing is the great waltz scene at the end: glamorous! And - after watching this scene - have a look at the introducing waltz scene in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"! Any similarities?


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 not exactly what I would call a Mad Max film, after seeing Road Warrior and experiencing the excellence of that film, I felt somewhat disappointed after seeing this. It supposedly started out as some kind of kids in the wilderness film, and was merged with the Mad Max franchise(bad idea). The casting was not exactly the best, I mean come on Tina Turner? One of the main problems with this film is that there are no good villains. No Wez, no Humungus, not even a decent Toecutter! Nothing really even happens, if you are going to plan on seeing this sub par action flick (can it even be called that?) make sure you see Mad Max 2 or Mad Max, or better yet both. Another problem with this film is that there are too many people, even the Thunderdome battle sequence is dull, Max doesn't even kill anyone! The music is bad, the characters are bad (not in the good way) and after seeing this film, it left a very bad taste in my mouth.


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


user
Every time I've seen this movie I get the same impression: some parts of it are so amazingly stupid/bad that they crack me up, they aren't intentional, and there are a lot of them; the rest is just plain bad, stupid and/or irrelevant. A movie like Evil Dead gets credit for being bad at it's own expense because it's the intended result-it' stupid and cheesy because Sam Raimi succeeded at what he was trying to do. This movie doesn't have that excuse, it's stupid and cheesy because the filmmakers failed so miserably. The crap result gets heaped on top of the crap writing and crap performances to make it a shame that the lowest rating a movie can be given is one for 'awful.' Watching this movie has the same effect as listening to a Billy Madison essay--"Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." I should be able to give this movie something around a -5.


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


user
Like the previous two 'Mad Max' films, 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' is not exception to the violence and strange plot. Mad Max is in a post-war society where he must destroy master blaster and get the children to 'tomorrow morrow land'. This is generally a warped film with Peter Pan references and Tina Turner, methane-pigs, and odd characters. I got very bored by watching it all, and it offered nothing to me. I did not feel inspired after watching this film; the only decent thing about this film were the extremely-odd characters that got picked off in various ways throughout the film. It's too weird for me, and it was much too dull.


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


user
Intelligent summary, isn't it?
If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!
Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.
Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.
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
Even allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.
Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third {and thankfully last} instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on {to be expected by now}, and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since The Road Warrior's crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.
It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s; but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying 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
I watched all three mad max films in succession for the first time a few days ago and was left bitterly disappointed with the third instalment. it destroys the fine work of the first two films with weak and cheesy action and a story line that turns the apocalyptic Australian wastelands into a comical sand pit one would expect to see in a children's adventure movie. the character of max is unrecognisable from his dark and cynical persona seen in the previous films and changed into a predictable uninteresting saviour that left me feeling betrayed. if you haven't seen this film yet then simply don't. Let the story end with the road warrior and save yourself a very painful hour and a half. (spoiler alert) the other major issue i had with this film that truly left a bitter taste in my mouth was the flying man. we had already seen him in the road warrior where he had helped max and yet when he reappears in thunderdome it looks like the two had never met. whether he was supposed to be a different character or a relative of the road warriors gyro man i do not know. however it was not explained and is a weak element in this overall weak film. 2 out of 10. doesn't get a 1/10 because of the thunderdome fight.


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


user
Originally I wrote what was a sarcastic,scathing review of this pathetic piece of dung,but every time I submitted the review I got "this contains a very long word which is not allowed", also words that were not misspelled were judged incorrect.
Now the word that was judged too long was never identified.After numerous attempts at eliminating words eventually I got the sneaking suspicion that the IMDb site is politically sensitive and set to reject certain words automatically.Nothing I wrote was obscene or racist in itself.But after eliminating all of the longest words the same message was repeated again and again,also words that weren't judged misspelled were all the sudden considered misspelled!
The pc police are everywhere.


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 without question one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, it is also one of the most unintentionally hilarious. I like to compare it to Plan 9, in that it can be so bad, so awful,so dumb, and such a waste of time that I find myself laughing out loud.
One of my biggest problems with it is that it's a complete ripoff of Robin Hood, and let be honest and say that I love Robin Hood with Errol Flynn, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. But let's face it, from the forbidden love between Peck (who is definitely slumming it. Although in all fairness this was still a good few years before the masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird) and the female character (who is so forgettable, apparently, that I have forgotten her name.), to the final scene where the good guys dress up as monks to fool the bad guys screams "ROBIN HOOD" all over it.
However, I don't think the film isn't worth seeing. On the contrary, I think that this is one of the funniest movies I've seen in years, even if it was unintentional.


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


user
This turned out to be more of a women's romance-soap-suspense film than what I hoped it was....simply a tense thriller. Yes, the final 20 minutes were suspenseful but much of the previous 75 bordered on being just plain tedious.
Ruter Hauer was a little too subdued, not playing his normal intense character. Natasha Richardson sports somewhat of a dumb look most of the time and her character was very unappealing.
The story is so-so. It's not as bad as I'm making out, but it sure isn't anything I'd watch again, and the back of the VHS describing this movie was misleading.


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


user
Everything you do in this world should make at least a little bit of sense. Unfortunately very little of "Delusion" makes any sense. Jennifer Rubin is adequate in her role as the main squeeze of hit man Kyle Secor. Secor on the other hand overacts to the point of annoyance. Jim Metzler, the embezzling yuppie is very unbelievable as the novice, revenge seeking, adversary. When Jennifer Rubin gives back the money she has carefully been concealing, all credibility flies out the window, and the guns pointing final showdown between Secor and Metzler is beyond ridiculous. Avoid "Delusion", unless you are delusional enough to believe the misguided positive reviews here. - MERK


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


user
"Delusion" is what you experience when you watch this flick and then believe you saw something worthwhile. This flick, which tells of a trio of semi-psycho travelers who are up to no good somewhere in the CA desert, is amateurish and just plain stupid. The film suffers from an awful story, a lousy screenplay, and some terrible direction just to mention a few of the deficits. If the flick has anything at all going for it, it's B-movie diva Rubin's even performance. Don't waste your time on this turkey. (D)


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


user
Now I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?
I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.
Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like "If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been," or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.
If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.
There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title.


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


user
The Hindi remake of Mrs Doubtfire starring and directed by Kamal Hassan is a somewhat shoddy version, and not as good as expected.
Kamal Hassan clearly struggles with Hindi dialogs, even after all these years, and cannot handle even one scene effortlessly. The guy has aged and should give it a rest. Hassan doesn't bring anything new to the role or to the character as say, Dustin Hoffman does to Tootsie, or Marathi actor Macchindranath Kambli does to Mavshi's (aunt's) character in "Moruchi Mavshi" (Moru's Auntie, comedy play).
What was the kid doing playing with firecrackers when it wasn't Diwali? Most of Chachi's romantic 'cross-connections' -- Vs Amrish, Paresh and then Johny Walker, seem redundant to the main storyline. Tabu's bathing scene was unnecessary. The family is North Indian but must be reminded of Karva Chauth night by a 'Maharashtrian' Chachi. Yeah, right.
The fine acting skills of not one but four actors namely Tabu, Om Puri, the late Amrish Puri and Paresh Rawal have been wasted in this film.
Watch the original Mrs Doubtfire -- clean, crisp and crackling with fun, quite unlike Chachi 420.


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


user
Like most musicals of the era, one must check reality at the door. Broadway MELODY of 1938 is not remotely believable nor plausible, but kind of fun in its strange way. This movie is really just an excuse to execute the talents of the stars. Some scenes just happen as if they were in a review, not a plot driven movie.
Judy Garland shines and it's a pity she has so little to do unless much was left on the cutting room floor.
One of the most inane happenings are the way Eleanor Powell get a lead role in a Broadway show and Robert Taylor says it's going to be work, work, work from dawn til dusk. Several scenes go by and there's no work, no rehearsals...NOTHING. She needs money to win a horse in an auction. She has no money. Isn't she getting paid while she rehearses? Taylor has to borrow money to help. He's supposed to be a big time producer. He has no money??? Anyway, that's just two elements in this strange story.
The musical numbers are quite wonderful which saves this from being a total loss. Broadway MELODY OF 1940 is much better as is Broadway MELODY OF 1936.


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


user
All I can do is echo the sentiment already expressed by some of the other commenters. This is CITY OF GOD meets HAPPY DAYS. The bipolarity of the ruthless thug (one minute a ruthless killer, the next minute a Luv's diaper commercial) is completely unconvincing. You can approach it in one of two ways: (1) A gritty, realistic movie turned sappy; or (2) a sappy, ABC-afterschool-special with profanity, violence and animal cruelty. Either way it just don't fly, do it? Why then has it received so much praise? As others have implied, it gets the "conscience vote" from the west. Show us pictures of poverty to contrast against our fluffy, double-wide theatre seats and 44-oz cokes, and we'll applaud in a heartbeat. But--oh--don't forget to candy coat it, because the bitter pill of reality (tantalizing as it is) is hard for us to swallow.
I'm terribly disappointed that this film would receive so many awards and accolades, especially when there are far more deserving works of film out there. All I can say is: beware of any film that receives awards (Hollywood Oscars = sweeping, syrupy tripe. Cannes Film Festival = beard-stroking, artless propaganda). To find the real gems, you'll have to work hard at it.


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 looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.


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 included on the disk "Shorts: Volume 2"--a rather dull collection of short films. Shorts are among my favorite style of films but somehow the people assembling this second collection had a hard time finding quality content--and it wasn't nearly as good as the first volume or other shorts collections.
This short film feels like it's woefully incomplete. There is a story, but so much in unanswered that the viewer, like me, feels a bit left out and unfulfilled.
The film begins with a woman, her boyfriend and her Westie (that's a dog, by the way) going to a lonely beach. The lady speaks with an accent that, at times, is a bit difficult to follow. Given that I am hard of hearing, I sure would have loved if it had been closed captioned. Anyway, the boyfriend goes for a swim while she naps. When she awakens, her dog is gone. She panics and makes the guy follow her all about looking for the dog. They spend most of the time arguing and being disagreeable. Then, out of the blue, they stop to have sex. Later, they find the dog--end of story.
As far as the characters go, both seemed rather dysfunctional and unlikable. She was a fussy and demanding lady and he seemed to have contempt for her. When you wondered why they were together, their little sex break showed what bond kept them together.
Some might like the characterizations--I kept finding the people irritating and unreal--more like caricatures than people you might meet or know. Also, the payoff for all this just isn't worth the wait (unless you want to see the guy naked).


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 not surprised that this film did well at the Hamptons Film Festival. It is a shallow film that would appeal well to shallow people. Two actors pretending to be actors in a relationship who fight and look for a lost dog. The film is allegedly exploring the dynamics of the relationship, however, the relationship is far too petty to merit any such exploration. This couple has one dimension: they fight, they tease, then they make love and fight some more. There brief moment of tenderness does not reveal any possible reason that these two would be involved with each other given their venomous and volatile relationship. Beautifully shot, excellent score, but without anything of merit in the script or characters, this short is just that.


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


user
Do these guys take have a computer kick out these same plots over and over again, only the names, places, and faces are changed to prevent complete boredom. Hubby is handsome and rich, but too busy to pay attention to his gorgeous wife. A situation she constantly tries to remedy. Her friend/neighbor has the same problem so they become interested in each others hubbies--the grass is always greener. Throw in a sexy scheming made who has designs on everybody and you get a lot of stripping and dipping and a salad bowl of an unintelligible plot.
The quality of bodies is pretty high here, although not much in the way of "contact", even simulated is shown. Good late night erotica if Jay Leno can't put you to sleep.


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


user
Based on the comments made so far, everyone seems to either hate this movie or love it. I think it would be fair to point out that although this is not a GREAT movie, it has its interesting moments. For one thing, it was filmed on location in Colorado (was it Breckinridge or Telluride? I can't remember, but it is in the credits). The location is absolutely stunning and spectacular. It's beautiful, even to me who lived in Colorado for several years.
Next, it has Disney's penchant for wonderful character actors. Harry Morgan has never been in better form than when he plays in a Disney movie. He is literally hysterical. Also, remember the wonderful Mary Wickes? Although she has a "bit part" in this movie, she is great, as always. If you don't know who she is, think of the animated Disney version of Hunchback from Notre Dame (she was one of the gargoyles), and she was also the most interesting nun in "Sister Act", as well as the best nun in "The Trouble With Angels." She has always been a great character actress and most character actors never receive the recognition they deserve.
In addition to character actors and all-star casts, in the 1960s-1970s Disney may have not had the "greatest" movies, but, if you really watch some of them from beginning to end, you will NOTICE that every movie has some really funny or hysterical moment in it. The entire movie may not be funny, but there is always a comic gem (at least 1 or 2) in every single "live-action" movie Disney ever made. Whether it's Harry Morgan in one of his bellowing tones of voice, or Tim Conway floundering around, or Joe Flynn giving one of his priceless looks of horror, it is all good. The whole film may not be good, but there are ALWAYS hysterical moments in every Disney film from this period that I have ever seen. Disney in this time period always managed to make a person smile, despite the dumbness of the film.
Bsed on these comments, I disagree with viewers who say every Disney movie in this time period is awful. That statement it not quite accurate. Rather, it is easier for me to give credit to the funny moments and overlook the weaknesses in the plots.
Some live-action Disney movies are true classics (Old Yeller, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins), but for those that aren't, I am able to appreciate them for what they were -- good clean family fun in a time when movies had become vulgar, crude and offensive.


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


user
"Snowball Express" from the Disney Studios isn't quite as dated as some of their output from this era. There are no hippies or hot-rodders, just dull-as-dishwater Dean Jones inheriting a ramshackle hotel/ski-resort from a deceased relative. When Jones and family pull into a sleepy Colorado town, the folks who give them directions--looking like extras from "Deliverance"--are curiously vague about the hotel (we expect it to look like a one-room shanty), but actually the accommodations are very nice. Jones' teenage daughter has a sour look on her face throughout (which doesn't prevent one of the local yahoos from leering at her), and of course clumsy pop Dean Jones is a regular stumblebum on the slopes, leading to a lot of pratfalls in the slush. Perhaps this square scenario might've benefited from some magical whimsy, for this script is a frozen stiff. * from ****


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


user
This movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. "Max Q" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in "space flicks", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but "Max Q" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.


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


user
I'm sorry, but this really does feel like a modern day Apollo 13 knock-off. Totally implausible (at least Armageddon FELT like a comic book! This felt like a bad High School film project), acting was about as cliché as one can get, and....landing a space shuttle on an LA freeway? Come on. Seriously. Jerry, what were you thinking? And all the clichés: The pregnant astronaut's wife, the nosy reporter who gets in everyone's way, the stalwart manager with "Go Fever". And it's one thing to twist the laws of physics or politics or whatever to make an entertaining story, but at least make it GOOD! Fact and science were totally butchered for this. The space shuttle doesn't have fuel tanks in it's wings, and even if it did, it couldn't steer by shifting fuel between them (and neither could a DC-10).
If you like bad acting, bad storytelling, low realism, and cheesy clichés, this one can't be beat!


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


user
This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.
Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.
I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!
And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.
The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.
I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.


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


user
The plot was not good.
The special effects weren't.
The acting was... not very good at all.
Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.
I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.
By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".
Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.
So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.


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


user
Some famous stories are prone to being moved to another epoch and, as such, becoming an embarrassing TV-movie. Oscar Wilde's Canterville Ghost is one of them. This TV movie for kids is utterly cheap, concerning acting, character work, credibility, directing and even concerning the modest special effects. As often, the question arises: what was this made for?


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


user
What can have been on Irene Dunne's mind when she accepted the role in this distasteful account of a woman of negotiable morals? Certainly, the Irene Dunne of the 1940's, whose reputation as a faithful Roman Catholic who publicly abhorred smut, and shunned any film scripts or Hollywood society, that might be even be remotely construed as corrupting public morals--would never have become associated with such a dubious project as this.
Perhaps, New York's Cardinal Spellman, in his private audience with her, gave her a good dressing down over this role? That we will likely never know, inasmuch as she never spoke of it in later years, though she did denounce her morally suspect, (though quite successful) 1932 film, "Back Street" as "trash".
Certainly by the time she received the distinguished St. Robert Bellarmine Award in 1965 for exemplary public Catholicism, "Ann Vickers" was no longer recalled by the general public.
Suffice it to say that "Ann Vickers" works neither as entertainment or social commentary.
Miss Dunne's role as an adulterous social worker, who sleeps around, (between reforming prisons and writing a best seller on correctional rehabilitation) doesn't dovetail with her temperament or on screen demeanor, and one keeps suspecting that the whole thing is a kind of tongue in cheek gag, (what else can we think when we witness a montage of Miss Dunne's sympathetic beatific gaze superimposed over a shot of a female prisoner being scourged?) By films end, she has renounced careerism in favor of marriage, (to crusty convict Walter Huston no less--and what kind of lunacy would ever conceive of pairing these two romantically?)
Irene Dunne completists will no doubt wish to see this curiosity, if only for the chance to hear her promise to rehabilitate a cocaine addict under her charge: "I'm going to get you off the snow cold turkey" !!!
Well, if nothing else such sordid goings on, do present her light years from her usual milieu of operatic trills, furbellowed chiffon and strawberry phosphates--cocaine addiction not being the first subject one associates with the irreproachable Miss Dunne.


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


user
I rented this type of "soft core" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as "Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the "Must be 18 to Rent" Sticker. I was looking for more "cheese" and less "cheesecake."
First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with "actors" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever "actors" rehearse). In this movies seeing the "actors" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.
Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video "erotic" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.
I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.


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


user
After just viewing the movie, I must say this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. This takes my worst movie award away from Komodo, which is no easy feat. It is neither a porno nor a legitimate film and it gives them both a bad name. The acting, camera-work, plot, script, and sound are all awful. My personal favorite part of the movie is the duck asking the bartender if he has any grapes. Why was a joke such as this put in the film? Was the director thinking; "I need a humorous scene to balance out the great acting so I will use some lame ass joke I read on a Laffy Taffy wrapper." Another retarded part is when Norman spills the invisibility potion on himself as he attempts to keep it from spilling. Why did they even bother to give the film a NC-17 rating, were they hoping to get as large of an audience as possible? At least if it were rated X it would be more sexual and therefore taking the viewers focus away from the overall low quality. I pray for someone who worked on this panty waste of a flick to respond.


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 surprised after watching this piece of crap , if you have seen an episode of TOM and JERRY in which jerry pours some liquid onto him and becomes invisible than you are likely to see the same cartoons with added EROTIC topping a man becoming invisible and doing S*i* is the conclusion of the movie. involving too much sex in a cartoon themed movie doesn't increase its worth :( , and most of all i was surprised when the same cartoon ending was used to show up the Mr.Invisible and that was really awful i must say , flour drops off the rack and our very own Mr.Invisible becomes Visible "watch ZACK and MIRI make a porno" i bet you wont get bored,
1/10 from me


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


user
One would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a "famous quote" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because "after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse," or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the "streets of New York" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period.
The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look.


assistant
0