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


user
This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.


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


user
I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.
The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?
It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about "men's groups" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.
Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a "so bad it's good way". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.


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


user
"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.
Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.
Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes.
Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.
Pathetic.


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


user
The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.


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


user
I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.
These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.
I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to 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
This is supposed to be Charlie's masterpiece, but I will contend that it is actually one of his weaker films. First of all, it's not funny. Not one thing in this movie made me laugh. Okay, there's a quick jump into a box that was a giggle, but that was one of desperation. The Tramp's first - and only - talkie where he speaks (he sings in an earlier film), but his flat dialogue shows us exactly why he was such a joy to watch in "Modern Times" and "Gold Rush" - two films that are at least ten times better than this film. There's literally only one good scene in this film, the one where Hitler plays with the globe like a beach ball. That's it.
Okay, so it gets a lot of praise for being the first film to wage war, even long before we entered the war. Nope. Not true. Simply not true, so that praise can be turned down a bit. The Three Stooges did it on January 19, 1940 with "You Natzy Spy" - ten months earlier than the October release of Chaplin's film - and that movie was actually funny! If you want to watch Chaplin's greatest film, watch this only for reference. And then pop in "Modern Times", "Gold Rush", "City Lights", "Limelight", "The Kid", or even "Tillie's Punctured Romance".


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


user
Maybe this was *An Important Movie* and that's why people rank it so highly, but honestly it isn't very good. In hindsight it's easy to see that Chaplin (probably all of Hollywood) was incredibly naive about the magnitude of what was really going on in the ghettos, so you can't fault him TOO much for the disconnect that affects a modern viewer, but the disconnect remains.
More disappointingly, the movie is just clunky; it's as if Chaplin had no idea that movies had progressed in sophistication since the silent era. The set pieces, those involving both the Jewish Barber and the Dictator, don't flow into each other; they just sit there like discrete lumps of storyline that progress in fits and starts, moving SOMEWHERE but never arriving at resolution. Some are funny, some less so.
What charm the movie has is strictly in the person of Chaplin himself. His parodies of Hitler's speeches were the best part of the whole thing, and there's no denying that he had a physical grace that was delightful to watch. But virtually everything he surrounded himself with was ANNOYING. Hannah was TOO DAMN American. The Storm Troopers were TOO DAMN American.
Oooh! Oooh! One more thing! I don't know what purpose was served by having Garbage be the source of evil behind the throne. It almost seems like the film is saying that, if it weren't for malign influences like Garbage, Hynckle wouldn't have been that bad a guy.


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


user
*MILD SPOILERS*
In this would-be satire, Chaplin set his sights on the evils of German fascism, playing the twin roles of Tomanian dictator Adenoid Hynkel and one of his subjects, an inadvertent World War I hero and Jewish barber. Through events inspired by both Adolf Hitler and the Marx Brothers, Hynkel negotiates contracts and declares war on neighbouring Osterlich whilst finding time for numerous, oddly flat set-pieces. The dictator's much-celebrated waltz with an inflatable globe is actually entirely heavyhanded, underwhelming and unfunny.
Chaplin should certainly be commended for looking to lampoon Hitler and for speaking out strongly on celluloid - his much-maligned final speech is actually the bold, memorable highlight of the piece - but the film simply isn't sharp or funny enough to merit the praise frequently heaped upon it, nor to demand repeated viewings. The best gags are away from Hynkel's tiresome posturing and involve The Barber attempting to avoid a large spinning bomb (a sequence which steals from the gun tussle in The Gold Rush) and later, with a pot on his head, accidentally walking the plank off the roof of his shop.
Compared to the director's silent classics, The Great Dictator is slow, wildly inconsistent and altogether somewhat unsatisfactory, whilst the barren spells between laughs are often long and difficult to endure. There is no doubt that Chaplin was a genius, but even geniuses make disappointing pictures and The Great Dictator certainly ranks as such.


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


user
Chaplin was great a silent comedian, but many silent era stars fell when the public heard their voices in the first talkies. In my opinion, Chaplin's voice simply did not fit his silent characters that made him rich and famous. His career never recovered when sound came to film. Contrary to most of the reviews I have read, Chaplin's lifestyle and politics did not help his popularity with the average viewer who expected to be entertained by Chaplin the comedian, and not spend their entertainment dollar watching Chaplin's political commentary.
Despite Chaplin's awards and knighthood, I would take exception to his "contributions" to humanity. The Great Dictator was made at the same time Stalin's brutal dictatorship was having it's show trials, and both Dictators signed the agreement that lead to invasion of Poland by both Dictators. WWII started in an attempt to save Poland. The Nazi's were defeated in 6 years, but Poland disappeared as a sovereign country. This happened during the time this film was made and the investigations of Hollywood by the Federal government. Had Chaplin included Joe Stalin in this satire,in addition to including the Italian dictator, perhaps he would have had less criticism about his politics by the politicians. The Soviet's mistreatment of Jews and dissidents exceeded the Nazi's in time and numbers.
Judged simply as a film, many of the gags were too topical to be understood by younger viewers, who wouldn't know who Goebbels, Goring or Mussolini were. A classic piece of art must stand the test of time. Classic Greek Tragedy, the Mona Lisa and Beethoven's 9th are still enjoyed centuries after their creation because they are timeless. Films which rely on topical political commentary or currently popular social views usually do not outlast the generation in which they are made. But those that address issues that are common to all generations will probably live forever and receive a high rating from me.
Chaplin, as the writer, director and lead actor must take the blame for what I judge as a dated and tiresome film.
Chaplin's apologists have excused his decision to leave the country that made him rich and famous. If Chaplin found the US so offensive, why didn't he return to his native land. Great Britian fought the Nazi'with blood and money. What did Switzerland contribute in the fight against the European dictators? Switzerland is like a country club that picks and chooses its members based on race and class, and cares little about people who can't join the club.


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


user
This show is not in my opinion, good,Then again I have not enjoyed any cartoon from Disney Channel. Except for "The Proud Family" because that so is about a normal female teen This show is very similar to the way I feel about Lilo and Stich the Series. It was a mistake turning the movie into a cartoon because the movie was excellent, the cartoon is terrible. Disney Channel was doing just fine before adding all these stupid cartoons such as Dave The Barbarian, Brandy and Mr. Whiskers, Lilo and Stich the Series, American Dragon Jake long,and where it all started: Kim Possible. The shows would have been better had they come to PlayHouse Disney! As for this particular show Kuzko will never get out of school just as Dave The Barbarian's Parents will never return home, and as Brandy And Mr. Whiskers will never get out of the jungle.


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


user
It pains me to see an awesome movie turn into some lame, repetitive and lazy series. It is filled with plot holes and the plot is confusing, in a BAD way. Whoever the prick writers were that decided to turn such a great movie into this garbage should have done some research, instead of filling it with one-liners and hollow new characters, and the classic jokes from the first movie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Sure they get a little creative, but its like seeing the same episode with a small twist. Pretty much like listening to Creed, or Nickleback. Kuzco has to prevent himself from failing, Yzma has a complicated plan, but decides to go the easy way to save time and just use a potion, someone questions the monkey and the bug, Bucky appears in the background, Kuzco flirts with Malina, she disses him without sounding like a bitch, Yzma disguises herself as "Principal Amzy" and she calls Kronk, and he forgets that she is Yzma. I admit, this show does have it's moments. Another problem is the fact that Yzma looks younger and Pacha looks....weird. Also, no one can replace David Spade and John Goodman! Their the ones who made Kuzco and Pacha Kuzco and Pacha! Sorry, but i give this show two thumbs down.


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


user
Awful, awful, awful...
I loved the original film. It was funny, charming, and had heart... this piece of junk has NONE of those things.
Reused jokes from the original film, stupid plots, bad animation, different voices (with the exception of Kronk and Yzma) that sound NOTHING like the ones in the original (especially Pacha... *shudder*).
The characters are off model, the animation is flat and boring, it's just a bad job all around.
And why is Kuzco a jerk again? I thought he had reformed... but since when are these TV spin offs loyal to the original *rolls eyes*.
I'm sorry, but there is nothing redeemable about this... at all.
Avoid at all costs.


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


user
OK from the point of view of an American, who i assume do not know much about rugby this would be an amazing film for them.First of all its got heart, good morals the typical good coach trying to change the bad boy. HOWEVER to us where I come from rugby is the number one sport, it is a way of life it is a game played only by the bravest and the victorious are hailed like heroes as though Americans do for their baseball/basketball stars. Am not really sure if it was the cheap budget or the maybe the director or actors knew very little about rugby and being a rugby fan my whole life i can see than some of the actors didn't even knew rugby existed before acting in this movie. In summing up to me this movie was terrible. If you watch it and thought it was great please make time to go online and maybe Google "All Blacks" this is new Zealand's national team and the ones who made the haka famous. Believe me they will make the Highlands boys look like school girls.


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 horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it.


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


user
First off just let me say that I live in South Africa where rugby is our biggest sport by far, and our national side, the Springboks, have won the Rugby World Cup twice, so it's quite a big deal over here. I've played all my life and I'm shocked at the poor attention to detail in this movie! At first I thought it had the potential to be a great movie considering the cast of Neal McDonough, Nick Ferris, Gary Cole and Sean Astin for goodness sake, but it turned out to be a mockery of the sport. They basically mashed it together with your normal everyday American Football movie.
My first problem is that this movie supposedly captures the values of rugby, but the discipline or should I say the total lack thereof during the games are contradictory to this. In the final it looks more like an NFL game with Penning being tackled of the ball numerous times, in front of the referee...that would've immediately led to a couple of red cards, because foul play like that would never go unpunished in by a referee, of that I can assure you! You'd also not be able to find a coach in world rugby who would have so little control over his team. Any coach would take a dump on a players head if he intentionally stiff arms an opposing player or double teams him like they did in the final...red card and certain suspension, full stop.
Secondly, it's absurd that a coach would take a brand new player, who has played wing all of his life I gather, move him to hooker which is a highly specialized position and say that it's for the good of the TEAM?! What?! Hooker is a highly specialized position in the front row where you have to be able to scrum extremely well and preferably be able to throw the ball in at line-out time, which Penning NEVER does for some or other reason. By moving a wing to hooker without any extensive long term training it would firstly lead to your team's demise at scrum time & secondly the poor kid would probably break his neck! How is that good for the team I ask you? Finally, the overall high emotional pitch of the movie is way too much, because even though rugby is a great sport, and it builds great friendships & team spirit, it rarely gets that out of hand & corny. I've seen true-life football drama's with less emotion than this movie & it turned out great, but in this one Sean's (Penning) acting skills is dragged way too far and the movie attempts too force an emotional response out of the audience, which ends up being boring and hard to watch at times.
Hollywood have made some great sports movies over the years, but next time they venture into a sport which has just recently picked up in the states, they should try and do their homework & maybe get some experts into the fray.
DO IT RIGHT OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL!


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, like so many others (Remember the Titans, Miracle), follows the basic sports-movie formula: There's a guy, he's a jerk. Jerk does bad. Jerk must play by someone else's rules. Someone else's rules change Jerk, Jerk becomes good. Insert tragedy (Death, drugs, riots, etc.). Tragedy effects Jerk, makes him totally change. Jerk must now play championship game. Lots of close-ups on the sweating players and the balls. Jerk wins. Quote from coach or news or something that explains title. Credits. Weren't you touched? These movies can now be used to sort out the morons of society. Anyone who pays to see this in theatres must be slapped.


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


user
Coach Preachy or Straight Sappy. It's bad writing combined w/even worse acting. You can choose to drink the Gatorade of this after school special, but I didn't, not even on it's 20th Toby Robbins/Islander philosophy, motivational moment. It's too much posturing to be entertaining and not substantive enough to be informative. I have respect for the coach and the program this movie is inspired by, but the move itself is awful. As someone who has played rugby for nearly 20 years in the States I had hoped for a better rugby movie (even one that has something loosely to do with rugby). And I can tell you that the Haka performed by a bunch of Haoles and Islanders is not intimidating (much like when it's performed today by the All Blacks, seriously boys, everyone has seen it,it's time to put it away). If you want real intimidation, line up across from a bunch of South Africans (the real eye gouging convicts of rugby). This is a fake and badly done movie about being a genuine and good person.


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 probably the worst movie I have watched in a very long time. The acting is so wooden a door could have done a better job. The plot is laughable and shallow and the actual "rugby" shown is a far cry from reality. I still don't get the "haka" as portrayed in this poor excuse for entertainment. I am not a Kiwi but I do know that the Haka can only be performed by someone of Maori origin and not by an all-American white boy.
I am assuming that this was made for the American audience so the shallowness and "Disney end'" is excusable but there was hardly any attempt to point out the basic rules of the game apart from the prison side where the main character suddenly takes charge of an American Football game and gets everyone playing rugby instead. The only thing good about this film were the end credits. It would be less painful to spend ninety minutes inserting toothpicks into your eyeballs.


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 from Australia and have watched with respect the extraordinary culture surrounding rugby union in New Zealand. I can totally appreciate the comments made by Kiwis in relation to this movie. It was a total insult to a race of people and their beloved sport.
Whoever was involved in the making of this atrocious movie should be made to formally apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of watching it. Note: people do NOT kneel down and cry while slowly reciting the Hakka. What a pitiful scene this was.
Are we supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for this idiot who nearly killed his girlfriend, who refused to listen to any advice from anyone with half a brain, then apparently saw the light? What a thoroughly dislikable character (with the visits to children's hospitals doing nothing to redeem his despicable personality).
And why are people even making a movie about Americans playing rugby? They barely even feature in the sport on the world stage, not so much as to even warrant an attempt at making a movie about it (yes, Rugby's a 'world' sport, unlike gridiron and baseball)?


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


user
Awful film. Terrible acting, cheesy, totally unrealistic, embarrassing to anyone who has played the game. For a start that guy is not a hooker, he would be snapped in two. As for ''I score, that's my job'' well no it's not. For the the uneducated American audience it might come across as a good film. For me, well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back. I read through the reviews and came across one where the guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Then I read -
''And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about''
All I can say is, LMFAO!
Keep playing your American football and baseball, leave the real sports to the big boys.


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


user
If the directors/producers/publicists wish to promote a film as "based on actual events" and make a film that is meant to inspire and have meaning then, for a start, to maintain any sort of creditability and integrity, you would want to keep a film as honest as you possibly can.
A team wearing "all black" jumpers and doing the haka in America is just plain dumb. Any half intelligent person would know that the "All Blacks" are the National Rugby Union team of New Zealand and their jumpers are all black and the Haka is performed by them as a part of a traditional Maori dance.
Having such stupidity in a movie, without explanation, merely reduces the credibility of the movie to zero and negates the message and inspiration that the movie is trying to achieve.
The question is "Why"? Why would you do such a stupid thing and for what possible gain?
I can only conclude that the writers or director or producers have seen it on TV before a international Rugby union match and thought "wow, that would be great in our movie, no one will know that it never happened, they're all too dumb to know about NZ nd the all blacks, this will be great."
How would an Americian audience react to a movie made in NZ about Americain grid iron, with a team wearing an American Indian costumes and war paint, doing a native American Indian war dance, running round in circles shouting "oh woo woo woo, oh woo woo woo" react? They'd laugh their heads off!
The people that made this movie and the industry that spawned it really should have their heads read. For some reason the industry thinks that they can "fool all the people all the time".
It's just dumb!


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


user
Where to begin? This film is very entertaining if you are new to the wonderful game of rugby, however, if you live outside the US and do follow the game, it is laughable. Various rugby traditions such as the "Haka" which is preformed by the New Zealand "All Blacks" and only by the All Blacks. The leader of the Haka is usually the member of the team with the best Maori pedigree. This is one of the most important conventions of the modern game and has been misused and represented by the writer. The film itself is quite well directed however it is the poor script and over-all execution that lets it down, heavily. Taking into account is is based on a real story, it does posses a great deal of clichés in the storyline. I would strongly suggest that any American interested in rugby watch this film then watch what rugby actually is on Youtube because the rugby portrayed in this film has been distorted and skewed so far from what it really is.


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


user
If you`re not old enough to remember Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan here`s the rundown : They`re a couple of film producers and finaciers from Israel who set up the Cannon film company in the early 1980s . The only Israeli to get a worse press than these two was Menachim Begin . Begin probably deserved the bad press but Globus and Golan were a god send to film makers because no matter how bad your script was they`d happily fund your movie and would normally employ directors who couldn`t direct and actors who couldn`t act . In fact you often got the impression that people would just walk up to Yoram and Menahem ask them for some money and they`d oblige without seeing the film maker`s resume . If only producers nowadays were so trusting.
THE YOUNG WARRIORS isn`t a Cannon film but Globus and Golan did finance it and it has their signature all over it . It`s badly directed , badly acted , badly edited but it`s the script that jumps out and attacks you with its awfulness . It starts with a bunch of high school jocks getting involved in all sorts of zany pranks , in fact the first 20 minutes of the movie plays out like a sex comedy and it`s something of a shock when THE YOUNG WARRIORS turns into a vigilante movie . But it`s not just any type of vigilante movie like EXTERMINATOR 2 or DEATH WISH 3 ( Notice a connection ? They`re both sequels and they`re both vigilante movies made by Cannon films ) , no siree this is a laughably bad vigilante movie about pretty boy high school jocks and their poodle going on a mission to wipe out scumbags . This film is proof that Globus and Golan were giving money to people regardless of their film making abilities and you have to worry about people who seem to spend their entire reserves on making movies set entirely around vigilantes


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


user
There are good-bad movies and bad-bad-movies and enjoyably bad movies...this isn't one of them. This is a movie that doesn't realize just how bad it is.
I saw this at a screening on November 14, 2006 at the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles as part of the "Grindhouse Cinema" this theater puts on every month. Hopefully presenters Eric Caiden & co. will think twice before letting writer/director Lawrenece Foldes anywhere near them again. What a con man. The guy got up to speak before the film -- you would think he was Orson Welles talking about "Touch of Evil" or some other lost classic. Hardly. Nice of him to take up 20 minutes of the audiences' time with his incoherent rambling.
"Young Warriors" has been described as a cross between "Animal House" and "Death Wish" but if you are expecting something along the lines of imitations like "Revenge of the Nerds" or "The Exterminator" you will be in for one sad disappointment. The script makes zero sense. The direction is so poor the actors looked embarrassed and what can you say when the best thing about the movie is watching a car blow up?
Poor Richard "shaft" Roundtree. In this movie he plays another character with the first name of "John" but that's about the only similarity his character here has to the aforementioned classic. I hope this film allowed him to pay the rent for another month. Other actors who look like they wished they could be anywhere else included Ernest Borgnine and Linda Day George.
This is a complete waste of time. Even the audience did not seem that into it (except for the one spazz-boy sitting in the back who yelled "whoa" every five minutes and his girlfriend who giggled with the fervor of a lobotomized talking Barbie every time he opened his mouth).
For real films about vigilantes, I would suggest the following:
Death Wish I, II, III, Exterminator I, Vigilante Force, Ms. 45, Rolling Thunder, the No-Mercy Man (the latter two being a pair of films presented at this theater a couple of years ago -- probably the same budget as "Young Warriors" but both were a million times better!)


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


user
A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.
SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.
This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).
MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality.


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


user
It begins with a couple of disgusting sex-comedy gags, but soon it reveals its true colors: it wants to be a "Death Wish" clone. I say "wants to" because the script gets so increasingly laughable by the minute that it ends up looking like an absurdist "Death Wish" spoof! From a love scene in a room inexplicably filled with candles, to "heroes" who dress up as commandoes and wave their machine guns because they don't want to attract attention to themselves(!), to bad guys who drive around the city in a black van long after it has been recognized as their vehicle, this film has too many ludicrous points to fit in a list. The other major problem is that you can't tell most of the characters apart; of course, you know who Borgnine and Roundtree and even James Van Patten are, but all the other roles could have been played by different actors in various scenes, and you wouldn't know the difference. (*1/2)


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


user
So I give it one star for true quality, but I'd give it an eight and a half for sheer enjoyability. An incredibly strange hybrid of sex comedy and vigilante thriller, "Young Warriors" is just the sort of bad movie you usually hope to find when poking around the video fringe, yet so rarely do. It starts off with about half an hour of wacky hi-jinx, sex jokes, and juvenile shenanigans (including an olive in the martini joke that has to be seen not to be believed). Then the main character's younger sister gets gang raped by a bunch of swarthy bikers (an objectionable scene that keeps me from giving this a 10 for entertainment value - rape is not entertainment!), and the main character gets the rest of his sex crazed frat brothers to help him in a quest to clean up the city, find the responsible bikers, and kill anybody slightly criminal they run into along the way.
It's hilarious, non-stop fun, apart from the very unpleasant rape scene, and is essential viewing to any serious bad movie fan. Trust me - I've put my time in on these things, and this is one of the best. Highlights include a wonderful visit to the library, a great flickering slo-mo shootout in a sleazy bar (with a shot of a guy blowing his own foot off that's pretty impressive), a couple of decent slumming actors (Richard Roundtree, Ernest Borgnine), a couple of semi-famous recognizable faces (Lynda Day George, scream queen Linnea Quigley), and a couple of relatives of famous people (Chuck Norris' brother Mike, Van Patten clan member James). It even has one of those great "What have we become?" type morality lesson endings, although the turning point comes when the vigilante fratboys gun down a couple of kids robbing a store with a toy gun. I've always wondered why that was the catalyst that got the hero thinking; after all, whether they were kids and not hardened criminals, and whether they had a real gun or not, they were in fact still robbing a store, so as far as I can tell, it was just another job well done for our vigilante frat boys, right? Wonderful stuff. Highly recommended, just don't blame me when you enjoy it despite yourself.


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 thing good about this movie is the artwork on the promotion poster by H. R. Geiger. Anti-nuke protesters who all looked like punk rockers of the late 1970s, and somehow became non-violent, (except for their leader, "Splatter") occupy the cities. Fraternity boys descend on the punkers to do some violence on them and turn them into victims. Bad acting and bad plot then descends on the real victim, you, the viewer. I gave this a "2" because a few sexual scenes at least give it MST3K potential.



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


user
I'm sure I saw FUTURE KILL for the same reason as most people: the awesome poster by HR Giger. And like everyone else, I was disappointed to find that the movie could not live up to the poster (Giger said that director Moore actually begged him to do it). When I first saw this, at the age of 14, I thought it was the worst movie ever made. I'd still think that if I hadn't seen certain movies on MST3K since then.
The plot has a bunch of annoying college boys driving into the "mutant city" to kidnap a gang-leader for their fraternity. That's when they meet Splatter (Ed Neal), a mutant/cyborg/psycho who kills the gang leader and blames it on the frats as an excuse to hunt them down and seize power. The rest of the movie consists mostly of chases. A hand-full of frats try to battle their way out of mutant city (which I think is supposed to be LA, even though it was made in Texas). There's some pseudo-political stuff about the frat boys' society being pro-nuclear weapons and the mutant-society being anti-nuke. There's talk of how Splatter became a freak due to radiation. Most people develop cancer from radiation, but splatter just shoots spikes and slaughters girls. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. At one point, our heroes rescue a mutant girl from two pro-nuke police, and she shows them "how the other half lives." The other half, it turns out, are all punk kids who dance around to a bad 80s pop-band. So our little epic is both dumb and dated. That's really all there is to it. Frat boys running around in messed up buildings while guys who look like bikers try to kill them... Oh, and it's the future.
I don't think you'll have any doubt about why Ron W. Moore never made another movie. This thing is a real stinker. If you like Giger, buy his books (they have the poster without the horrors of the movie), or just watch ALIEN again. FUTURE KILL is a waste of time that nobody needs.
If this description makes the picture sound good, there's another crappy movie that does the same thing, only bigger and better: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. It's crap, but it blows FUTURE KILL off the screen.


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


user
I didn't really know what to expect from "Future-Kill", but I certainly hoped it would be a little better than what I got. I knew the rating was bad and the reviews were unfavorable, but the Subversive DVD-cover illustration looks beyond cool and I can't resist that. For a very long (too long, in fact) time, this film raised the impression of being an unofficial sequel to Porky's with lame, vulgar and offensive fraternity pranks. Five mega-dorks, one of them resembling an exact young clone of Jim Carrey, desperately want to become members of a frat house but their ultimate initiation might just be a tad bit far-fetched and dangerous. They are dropped in the city center with provocative marks painted on their faces, simultaneously with the outbreak of a violent gang war. It doesn't take too long before they are confronted with Splatter, a seemingly half-man and half-machine warrior, who leads a gang of which I never really figured out who or what they were. Were they a government experiment? Cyborgs? Terminator imitations from a distant future? Does anyone care? "Future-Kill" is a bizarre amateur flick with a scenario that leaps from one subject onto the other without any form of logical connection or narrative. The plot borrows vital elements from great cinematic cult classics like "The Warriors", "Escape from New York" and "The Terminator", but the end result is one gigantic Sci-Fi monstrosity. The costumes and special effects are quite pitiable and there's a truckload of cheap and gratuitous nudity. The acting is terrible, but I'm willing to blame the retarded dialogs instead of the cast members. One to avoid at all costs, in spite of really cool DVD-cover art. Resist it!


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


user
If you tried to make a bad film, you could not make one worst that this one. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to see trash like this in a theater. The thing that really gets you is being mesmerized in looking at the entire thing just for the amazement of seeing how lousy it could get. The redeeming facet of this film was seeing the words "The End"


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


user
During my struggle to stay awake during this borefest, I fought through my near-dosing off to discover some silly plot regarding fraternity schmucks, quite incredibly obnoxiously annoying, running into trouble with a psychotic , radioactively damaged half-human/half cyborg named Splatter who sends his soldiers after them for the murder of their prestigious, politically vocal leader(..for whom Splatter killed himself, setting them up to take the blame so he could become the leader). These face-painted freaks form a group who express their feelings anarchically, though non-violently, living on dilapidated streets abandoned by the "civilized world" voicing their concerns regarding nuclear disarmament. Anyways, most of the film has these five frat goons running throughout darkened streets with graffiti walls, as Splatter and his punks pursue them. Thankfully for these guys, they find a punk chic to assist them on their journey out of this rather ugly terrain with which they're unfamiliarized. This territory the frat guys are immersed is a veritable labyrinth of streets and alleys with the idea of an exit out most difficult particularly when crazies and Splatter's bunch occupy nearly every turn.
Yeah, I was duped like others thanks to the HR Giger poster which is most excellent. If only he had been the designer of this dreck..this is not the case and we, the viewer, are left a film modeled after, of all movies it seems, Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, except this film doesn't have the style or grit that film has. The film has a plethora of unfunny bits and lame confrontations between the frats and the punks with hand to hand combats often laughable. The setting is rather interesting, and there are some atmospheric uses of neon light, but it's not the environment that's the problem..it's the plot and characters within the environment that grow tiresome. The saddlebags under my eyes weighed heavier every minute this movie continued. Yes, Texas CHAINSAW stars Edwin Neal(..quite a funny voice-man, who has an entertaining interview on the DVD I rented for this flaming turd of a film)and Marilyn Burns have "key" roles as opposing members of their faction against the government resulting in the final conclusion within a building complex at the end. Neal's character Splatter uses these metal spikes which emerge from his metal arm to kill his victims.


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


user
Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.


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 worse than Cat People, which I saw during the same week. It has all the 80's style. MTV punk rockers, the real ones who are anti social, not todays PC commercial type, frat boys, and a bad guy called Splater. I really like Splater, and the film does that blue lighting 80's feel, but the rest of it looks like low budget Canadian schlop. I have seen so much of this while living in this great country, and realize these type of movies were made because of Tax breaks. Avoid at all costs.


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 the distinction of being the worst movie I have ever seen, and the only film I have ever given a 1 out of 10 on imdb as of yet. I was fooled into renting it because of the cool H.R. Giger cover art on the box. This cover art is the only thing the least bit good about this steaming pile of...
It was about frat boys fighting "freaks" in a strange but not the least bit interesting post apocalyptic world where the cities are in ruins/chaos, but apparently the suburbs are still a safe and wonderful place for young men to haze other men into braindead frat organizations. The most uninspiring performances by boring characters, not so special effects, dreary, un-original scenery and just generally extremely poor quality in all production aspects make this lemon the all time loser on my list.
FINAL RATING: 1/10 I wish I could give it a zero.
Noob Aalox


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


user
Very curious that Nichols and Hanks would team up for this, obviously they believe it. Strange because it should carry the title "Charlie Wilson's War the Lie.
How could the time frame leave out the real history that while ridding Afganistan of the Russians the CIA was providing support for the Taliban, and today's World of Terrorism. In 1990, Bin Laden went home to Saudi Arabia as a hero of jihad, who along with his Arab legion, "had brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
To avoid any connection to Osama Bin Laden is to say again, Hollywood cares little for Historical Truth. Charlie Wilson, a patriot, hardly, more like a congressman gone amok.


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


user
Russians never dropped children's toys filled with explosives over Afghanistan, that never happened!!! Who did invention of that?? Hollywood portrays Russian army as horrible, dreadful troops of evil! That is disgusting!! United States President Jimmy Carter had accepted the view that "Soviet aggression" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to the Persian Gulf region. The uncertain scope of the final objective of Moscow in its sudden southward plunge made the American stake in an independent Pakistan all the more important. A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines.


assistant
0