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
... Said the continuity announcer as TACTICAL ASSAULT was about to be broadcast . After seeing the first two minutes I started thinking Rutger might want to get a new agent . After seeing the next ten minutes I started thinking Rutger might want to retire thereby saving a potential audience from any more of his performances
Yup this is a truly terrible movie . I wasn't expecting much and why should I if the name Rutget Hauer appeared in the credits , but within seconds of the opening title credits that featured NATO warplanes with USSR markings bombing Bosnia I realised I was going to be force fed inedible turkey three months after Christmas .
The attention to detail is non existent . NATO planes carry USSR markings then were told Hauer's character spent six years in an Iraqi prison which would make the setting 1997 . What NATO were bombing the Serbs in 1997 ! I guess the producers didn't think the audience would have noticed this ridiculous inaccuracy but I know I did . The producers also probably hoped the audience wouldn't notice the lack of continuity such as dogfights with Iraqi jets that suddenly turned from Migs to F-4 Phantoms then back again but I did . Even stranger characters would take off in F-16s then when they arrive back at base there jet has changed into a Soviet built Mig
Oh and if you're expecting a dumb action movie you're only half right because it's dumb but most of the plot centres around a BASIC INSTINCT revenge plot . I'll give the producers some credit ( Maybe credit is too strong a word ) because after seeing plots featuring nannies from hell , policemen from hell , flat mates from hell we now have a fighter pilot from hell which means every single occupation of the 20th century has featured in a from hell type plot with perhaps TATICAL ASSUALT being the worst movie of the lot


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


user
It's as if the Stay-Puffed Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters had been reincarnated in Rutger Hauer's body and is taking revenge upon a rival's pregnant wife! If seeing an obese Hauer chase a very pregnant Isabel Glaser (imagine the spine-tingling thrills in that contest) sounds good to you, see this film! Seriously, if Hauer is what an Iraqi POW looks like after six years in prison, then hungry people everywhere should make a bee line to a jail in Baghdad. Overall "Tactical Assault" rates 2 stars instead of 1 because Mike Mitchell as Hawk is terrific. Mitchell burns up the screen as a NATO pilot until his plane is burned up itself (by an enemy missle), whereupon the film loses what little verve it had to begin with.


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 astonishingly poor. It was on television when I tuned in during an action scene and was chuckling away at the cheesy macho dialogue, waiting for Leslie Nielsen to appear. It took me a couple of minutes to realise that it wasn't actually a comedy, it was meant to be taken seriously. What has to be remembered is that somebody actually sat down and wrote this movie, and worse still - other people funded it and gave it the green light.
Rutger Hauer obviously doesn't read movie scripts before he signs up, either that or he has some seriously bad debts to pay.
Strangely, this film is so poor, that you find yourself staring at it, wondering how it actually got funded, and how a TV channel must have paid money for the rights to air it. The dialogue between hero and baddie whilst trying to shoot each other out of the sky is particularly painful, with dialogue sounding like it was generated by a Texas Intruments "Speak & Spell".
The Hollywood money machine at it's worst. Funny though.


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


user
My Caddy Limo was destroyed!!! Well, I had one just like it - Drove the hoi polloi and many of the Chosen Ones around Manhattan for a few years.
That was a whole lot more entertaining than this movie I can tell you. Lordy, what a bomb - as in RPG go boom. I also drove a lot more stars in my white Caddy than appeared in this dud of a flick.
Robert Patrick is a very serious actor and did a credible job with the nonsense he had to work with. Unfortunately, Rutger Hauer played his part like a red-nosed circus clown. If he couldn't take it serious why should his audience? The director should have kicked his butt off the set in the first hour of filming.
The dialog was written by 10 yr old's for 8 yrs old's. Surprised there wasn't a whole lot more cracking up on the sets. Oh well, I am a movie fanatic - ergo - you must take the bad to get to the good.


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


user
Well, this movie shows us that Mark Griffiths and producers think we all are idiots. If not how should we understand this:
American pilots take off on Mig-29s. Suddenly all aircrafts turn to F-16s. Ha, a magic! After an action... Migs land. The magic again!
Oh, did I mention that F-16s had Israel markings?
Another magic: obviously unarmed L-39 trainers are bombing enemies.
And more magic: while all movie is situated in Europe, we can see a desert in almost any flying scene.
Maybe the director wasted all his magic on things above, because action scenes are incredibly chaotic and also explosions look awfully as if pilots bombarded with molotovs.
OK, OK, this is a movie. I should write about its story... wait. A story? Yes there is SOME story in this film. And its horrible as well.


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


user
Well, you know... Rutger Hauer and Robert Patrick both are really good actors. But WTF with this movie? The story was lame and the script was just terrible. The poor actors didn't have material to work with!
The DVD cover invited you to a flight action flick. You would expect something like Top Gun... Huge disappointment! The flight action in this movie is so cheap that makes you puke. The aerial scenes are clearly taken from documentaries and some other footage sources, not made for this movie. And they didn't even care about the marks or the fighters models, taking for granted the audience will not notice it.
As I said the story was lame. With a little effort from the writer and director it could have been very interesting. In short, it seems a B-movie made in the 70's.
I feel very sorry for these actors who put their names here. They sure must be ashamed.


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


user
(Warning: Some spoilers ahead.)
What an incredibly crappy movie. It makes Iron Eagle 2 seem good.
The story is as follows: Captain Holiday (Rutger Hauer) gets shot down by his friend Banning (Robert Patrick) to stop him from shooting down a iraqi airliner filled with innocent civilians. Six years later Holiday returns to take his revenge. Among other things he, sitting in a tank, chases Banning (now a colonel) and his pregnant wife over a field. He manages to fire shells and drive the tank at the same time. After getting the tank blown up by a bazooka, he miraculously survives and steals a fighter jet. With it he shoots down a number of allied fighters before attacking the NATO headquarters in an attempt to kill Banning's wife.
An extra bonus is that major Baxter (who Holiday hangs in her office) has put the rank insignia on her right shoulder on backwards. Elegant.


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


user
Sorry to disagree with you, but I found the DKC series to be quite engaging. So much so that I invested in the SNES system and my own copies of the games. This is, mind you, almost ten years after the initial release of DKC 1. The graphics were ground-breaking for their time, the first vector graphics games for home systems. The music and characters are all memorable, and the games brought myself and my girlfriend dozens of hours of entertainment. True, the second game was better than the first, and the third was perhaps lacking the 'edge' of the second installment. But all three offered different play, and I enjoy them to this day. By the way, I'm old enough to remember when there were NO video games whatsoever (and TVs were black and white!).


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


user
*** Possable spoiler but probably not ***
The game is called donkey kong but donkey kong is not even in it
anymore! Diddy is gone aswell!
The 1st Donkey Kong Country was one of my two all time favorite
Super Nintendo games. (The other being Super Mario World)
The 2nd Donkey Kong at least had diddy kong and good levels,
although it felt more like a game based on pirates at times.
However this one is the worst of the lot! It does not have the feel of
the original or 2nd, The enemy's look stupid and the levels are
even worse. It does not look realistic anymore! I did not enjoy his game unlike the last two, the first had great
background music and the 2nd was not bad but the music in this
game is horrible!
It happens a lot these days that movies, shows and sometimes
video games that start out fantastic, end up with it being ruined by
a stupid sequel! I am sad to say I feel that donkey kong as a saga is not as good
now that it has Donkey Kong 3!
They should have left it at the original or MAYBE the 2nd 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 your typical junk comedy.
There are almost no laughs. No genuine moments. No memorable lines. No scenes where you think to yourself, "that was clever". Nothing. The plot is embarrassingly bad.
It's ugly to look at and boring as hell! There is no substance here. This movie has nothing. It doesn't matter if Farely was in this or not. A crap movie is a crap movie no matter who's involved.
Also, David Spade is a terribly unfunny comedian who plays the same lousy character in ever movie/TV show that he's in.
This movie was dead on arrival. There is no life here. No fun. No intelligence. There are plenty of other "dumb" comedies more enjoyable that this one. This film is just pathetic.
2/10


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


user
Most Lorne Michaels films seem to fail because they're essentially just extended versions of skits that barely managed to make people laugh in five-minute segments. "Tommy Boy" is a character right from "SNL" - a big fat lovable (in their opinion) goof who doesn't know anything.
David Spade gets the Thankless Overwhelmed Everyman role. He's paired with the Annoying Overweight Slob and they endure Miserable Misfortunes as they travel cross country to Save Daddy's Business.
The plot, for starters, is really faulty. The whole premise - daddy dies and rich stupid son has to save the family biz - can be traced back to just about any movie you want. Like any SNL style film it is reduced to a simple motivation - empty, shallow; just a reason to see a fat guy and a thin guy be "funny" together.
The movie's biggest "influence" is the 1987 comedy classic "Planes, Trains & Automobiles." That movie is great because the plot isn't stale and recycled. It's basic, yeah - a guy traveling home for Thanksgiving gets stuck with a slob. But it's real, dammit. It makes all the difference. The characters are real, the situations are far more real. "Tommy Boy" is pure slapstick and its ridiculous situations undermine the characters - we feel nothing for them, and we don't care about what's happening on-screen. "PTA" walked the careful line between outrageous and utterly believable and relate-able - "Tommy Boy" is simply absurd, with jokes like a simple deer-in-the-headlights turning into a crash turning into a struggle with a dead deer that really isn't dead, then awakens and wrecks their car.
The whole wrecked car thing is stolen completely from "PTA" and it's eerie how much stuff in this film actually does resemble the Steve Martin/John Candy movie.
Farley is simply way too obnoxious to find likable - I've never enjoyed watching him in any movies and this hasn't changed my mind. Spade's given very little to do, serving as the movie's most thankless character.
Dan Aykroyd is wasted as the Evil Baddie who plans to destroy Daddy's Business. The ending is a joke, and not in a "har-har funny" way. More like a "oh god are they serious?!" way.
Some people dig it, that's cool. But I just can't get into it, nor do I appreciate all the stuff it "borrows" from - not just counting "PT&A" - without any credit whatsoever.


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


user
Physical Evidence is one of those films that you want to like but really should be a lot better than it actually is. Developed as a sequel to Jagged Edge for Glenn Close and Robert Loggia, it gives the impression that all involved only made it while they were waiting for something better to come along. The premise is perfectly serviceable, it's mostly technically efficient if horribly uninspired with even Henry Mancini's musacky score surprisingly pleasant, but you can't help feeling that things would have turned out better if one of the leads had turned out to be the killer (as is rumoured was originally the case). As the opening scene of his little-seen, personally disastrous Heat (1986) showed, Reynolds has all the makings of a great screen villain. As is, there are few surprises and a feeling of half-hearted filming by numbers as it builds up a head of intertia as it ambles disinterestedly towards a less than grand will-this-do? finale.
Reynolds is fine, sailing through on charisma in what is clearly a star vehicle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Theresa Russell. An impressive and fearless actress in husband Nic Roeg's films which allow her to delve into the darker side of human nature, she's trapped in a part that requires star quality rather than depth, and she ain't got it in spades. She doesn't fluff her lines or bump into the other actors, but that's about all that can be said in favour of her astonishingly stilted and often amateurish performance that lets the film down badly. Aside from Ned Beatty's prosecutor the supporting cast add only a slightly surreal presence in a Boston where everyone seems to have a badly disguised Canadian accent and the streets bear a startling resemblance to Toronto and Montreal.
Likewise, director Michael Crichton, who in Westworld, Coma and The First Great Train Robbery showed that he knew how to lean an audience to the edge of their seats, seems to handle the action in a purely perfunctory fashion - indeed, in one brief chase the shots don't even match and seem thrown together almost arbitrarily. The climax itself has no flair and is completely bereft of threat or danger, and many scenes are played for far less than they are worth. It's no great surprise that, aside from uncredited reshoots on The 13th Warrior, Crichton hasn't directed since.
Its watchable enough in an 80s TV movie sort of way, even if it never lives up to the promise of its opening. Whether that's enough of a reason to see it is down to individual taste.


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


user
I got a kick out of Reynolds saying to his attorney, "look,I've done a lot of shi%ty thing in my life, but I never killed anyone." Obviously he forgot about his career which slid down hill after he started making stupid movies like 'Cannonball Run.' Physical Evidence was originally supposed to be a sequel to 'The Jagged Edge' that Glen Close sanely rejected. The verdict is in, avoid Physical Evidence.


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


user
This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.
The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.
Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.
Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted.


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


user
Honestly I am not THAT impressed by it, it's not a bad movie, but it's not great one either. There's a story to tell, but it's told in a very incoherent way which kinds of makes it loose it's full meaning and ability to intrigue. This movie could of been made in another way with an outstanding result, the story is just so interesting yet somehow I'm not intrigued when watching it.
It definitely isn't an amateur movie, rather the opposite and some of the scenes are really emotional. The actors and actresses does quite a good job and so does the director but there's just something so unfinished by the whole movie that I cant quite put my finger on. Perhaps if you had gotten to know the characters abit more, all the 'messiness' of the movie could of been better clarified and put more 'action' throughout it cause as it was, it became abit slow from time to 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 watched this episode with high hopes after seeing it on so many people's "Favourite episodes" list. I'm not boasting in any way, but from the start, I realised they were in some sort of toybox/can, with the huge eye looking down on them, to the type of characters in there. Even though throughout the episode, the questions of "Who are we?", "Where are we?", "What's outside?" carry the suspense of the episode (which I unfortunately already figured out), I must say that different types of characters and the interaction between them did make the episode interesting enough. Although the twist of the story may have been harder to guess if ALL of them were (toy) soldiers.


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


user
"Five Characters in Search of an Exit" has to be one of the most boring "Zones" ever made. It was on Sci-Fi this morning, and, as usual, I changed the channel. I put it in my Top Five list of the worst "Zones" ever produced. Dull and predictable, and not worth watching. Serling worked this theme to death (earthlings in the hands of aliens, who often were giants), and in this particular version, it just doesn't work. Anyone who hasn't seen it before, will quickly figure it out. This is another Serling philosophical mood piece, perhaps paralleling the plight of those in prisoner of war or concentration camps, where the imprisoned may lose interest in finding out where they are or fighting their captors. William Windom, as the soldier who is the last to "drop in" is the only one curious to make the effort, and it doesn't take long to figure the outcome.


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


user
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.
Now I was very surprised when I saw reviews for this bland episode that described it as being "among the best" and gave it scores of 10. If this is the case, then why is it that everyone I know who has seen this episode hates it as much as I do? It's possible that me and my family and friends are all cranks but it's also possible this is yet another case of rabid fans rabidly inflating the rating on an average or below average episode.
The episode itself stars William Windom and others as various archetypes--a soldier, a dancer, etc. They are all stuck in a cylindrical room with no escape and only at the end do you realize the "shocking truth"--which isn't at all shocking and is in fact majorly lame. No, this is a badly written and unengaging episode. Yes, there were plenty of episodes of the series that deserved a 10, but few as undeserving as this one due to a shallow script and an unappealing resolution.


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


user
I saw this movie previewed before something else I rented a while back...and it looked decent. I've seen some good stuff from Full Moon video, and thought it was worth a shot... Unfortunately, this was not good stuff.
The story is about a possessed bed. A couple moves into a new apartment, discovers the bed, and odd things start happening. Odd things like the woman discovers kinky sex. And the man discovers kinky sex. And the woman draws pictures of kinky sex. And the man photographs kinky sex. And they both start having dreams about dead people having kinky sex. You'd think a movie with so much kinky sex would be good, right?
Well.... No. The problem is that this is supposed to be a scary movie, or at least a thriller, and it just doesn't deliver. There is little tension, no suspense, and no fear. Aside from some troubling dreams and visions, there really isn't anything for this couple to be worried about. The whole movie is basically the two of them having these visions and playing around in bed. Sure, you get a monster fight at the end...and some bloodshed...but nothing spectacular... There's only one murder, and one good scare, and that's it.
And the kinky sex? Don't get your hopes up (or anything else for that matter). Their idea of kinky sex is woman on top, fully clothed, trying to strangle her mate with a necktie. Not exactly my idea of a good time.


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


user
Karen and her boyfriend Jerry move into their new Los Angeles apartment.They discover an old brass bed that Karen takes a liking to,unfortunately it has a really sinister history involving kinky sex murders."Deathbed" tries to be a creepy supernatural tale,but fails miserably.The action is slow,the acting is nothing special and there is no suspense whatsoever.Even the sex scenes are lame.The climax is pretty gory and violent,so fans of splatter should be pleased.However the first hour of "Deathbed" is deadly dull and offers some tired horror movie conventions and cheap scares.Definitely one to avoid.My rating: 4 out of 10 and that's being generous.Watch "Re-Animator" or "Castle Freak" instead.


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


user
Rented this one by mistake thinking it was another film with the same title, and realizing that I had rented it some time before.
Quick plot line. A couple consisting of an artist and photographer rent a studio apartment in Los Angeles from Joe Estevez, still cursing the fact his brother Martin Sheen could actually ACT! They find a bed in a forgotten room, but the bed is haunted by a nasty looking serial killer from the 1930's and his last victim. Their ghosts inhabit the couple, first enhancing their sex life, but eventually becoming more menacing.
What ensues is cheap R-rated sex scenes, cheaper thrills and kind of a 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 mistakenly thought this was the 70's art film about the bed that eats people, which sounded interesting. It isn't. Interesting, I mean, let alone about a man-eating bed.
I assume Stuart Gordon put his name on this in the same spirit that Lloyd Kaufman puts "Troma" on just about anything that's been shot with a video camera, in the interest of building up a franchise library. Little more can be said about this opus other than the running time is less than 90 minutes. It is, of course, about a bed that is haunted by the spirit of a man, or something, that once killed a woman with a wig and long false eyelashes. Along the way we get **a five minute opening credit sequence (is the one for "Lawrence Of Arabia" even as long?) **a murderer with Marylin Manson contacts who kills using the same technique as the troll in "Cat's Eye" **demonstrations of a sexual practice Michael Hutchence may have employed **a preview of what Emilio Estevez will soon look and act like **soft core porn even Cinemax would pass on **manbutt and one topless scene **a wacky (or is it "whack"-ee?) ending involving unintentionally hilarious hammer hits and leftover strawberry pie (well, it looked that way to me) **and a rudimentary surprise ending apros pos of nothing much. It's like the screenwriter even fell asleep on the "Deathbed" before finishing the last draft.
It's not scary, it's not sexy, it's shot on hi-def video and doesn't look bad but doesn't look good either, the acting is just good enough to not be bad enough to be fun and so is everything else. No one would probably have even seen or heard of it unless it was on a disc with another movie, the modern day "double feature." I wasn't paying attention for parts of it so I may have missed something. But for some reason I doubt it. Rating: PASS


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


user
Made it through the first half an hour and deserved a medal for getting that far. Lots of excuses for scantily clad women but no real plot to speak of emerged in that time. What sounded like a good idea for a movie was badly executed.


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 seemed to be interesting, but this film is a great dissapointment. Bad actors, a camera moving like in the hands of an amateur. If there was C-movies, this would be a perfect example. A plus for a nice DVD cover though and a great looking female actor.


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


user
Unless you're interested in seeing 2 hours worth of scenic mountain footage featuring hysterical characters, lots of histrionics and cheap 70s gore (not much of it either), I would advise to avoid this movie. It is long winded, overlong and has a rather annoying amateurish feel to it. Masterpiece? No, an average thriller, shot in an average fashion, in a gorgeous Italian landscape.
I'm a huge fan of slow paced 1970 movies, when there is a plot to delight and entertain you. In this case, it didn't work out for me. The plot is trite, interlaced with superficial and stereotypical characters, backed by hilarious angry mobs and your typical Italian widow dressed all in black, sobbing.
If you are not acquainted and familiar with the Italy country side, the movie might be worth seeing as the scenery itself is spectacular and rather breathtaking. This movie isn't however, nothing out of the ordinary, there are much better Italian horror flicks than this. Not much else than a yawn fest. 5/10


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


user
Try as I might, I just simply couldn't get into this one. Perhaps it was the washed out tones; perhaps it was the drawn-out approach--I'm not really sure, but though this was by no means a "bad" movie, I didn't really find it to be very much of an "effective" movie (words that I understand are so much more arbitrary than their common uses).
So, basically, the deal here is that a series of adolescent boys' deaths sets off an investigation and anxiety in a small provincial town, triggering a witch hunt. What do the boys' death have to do with the mysterious, sexy woman who has appeared in town? Is the crazy hermit woman involved? Is it voodoo? The story is a mixture of crime drama and horror as the various townspeople are all suspect and corpses keep appearing while bloody violence ensues.
Good enough, but to me, most of it fell a little flat. Oh, it had it's moments... the one boy walking in on a beautiful naked seductress was pretty good, and the scene where the fathers beat the hermit was a bitter commentary (even if the effects themselves failed, considering her skin seemed to peel off as if they were whipping her with red-hot irons).
My biggest issue was the ending. I've already put spoiler tags on this review, but BE WARNED, HERE'S THE BIG SPOILER: I don't believe it. I don't believe that a priest could convince himself to kill young boys for becoming sexually aware without some hint of that psychosis appearing earlier, with other boys, with a history, or some other personal affect. The movie didn't really earn its ending. END SPOILERS.
Nonetheless, Fulci is a big name and I'm more than certain there's an audience out there for this. I definitely need to check out more that he's done, because this may have been a poor introduction. Most Italian giallo is hit-or-miss anyway, so I'm waiting to see what else this guy can do before writing him off.
--PolarisDiB


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


user
Some ugly weirdo who had three families, cheated on and neglected all of them, built ugly useless buildings all over which are now unappreciated and crumbling. His bastard half-Jew son runs around interviewing random Jewish senile people who we care nothing about and shows his dreadful narrating and writing skills while tragic piano music plays. This goes on for almost two boring hours and amounts to nothing.
All you shallow hippie people who watch these stupid documentaries, eating salads and yogurt, think all this crap is so important. It's not. Save the whales. No one cares.


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


user
I love documentaries. The Andy Goldsworthy doc was great.I looked forward to this one - but was very disappointed. I knew of Kahn and was intrigued by the idea of his lonely death in a Penn Station men's room. There must be a story here, I mistakenly believed.The only story here is of sadly deluded women who had affairs with an ugly little famous married man. In the absence of anything like an explanation for this guy's horrible behavior, we're given endlessly repeated clips of Kahn walking around and painfully long - supposedly contemplative - shots of his soulless buildings.Actually, some of the buildings are interesting but the thrust of the film asks us to think about the guy himself. The overwrought soundtrack references an emotional tug that is entirely absent from the film. Kahn's apparent gifts do not excuse his behavior or martyr his mistresses. This film seems to want to give Kahn the great artiste's free pass and thus make the director and his mother sympathetic figures - I don't buy it.


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


user
Although the figures are higher in proportion to other areas of society, I don't object to the extremely high salaries for many of today's entertainers and athletes.
A-Rod, LeBron or Brady all have deals either well with 8 figures, or the low-9 area. Ray Romano and Jerry Seinfeld could actually become billionaires from their shows, huge residuals and fees they currently demand. Even their cast members, and all of the "Friends" group reached near or over 7 figures per episode. Letterman's earnings for one show could solve most people's financial problems, and a week or two's take care of many for life.
But all of these are based upon sound supply/demand principals, and the financial benefits they bring to their employers. And all perform their crafts ably.
But then comes along someone like Rachel Ray, who reaches a level of earnings far beyond any apparent level of talent or skill. I find her shrill, annoying, and with a forced "perkiness" that's as phony as the proverbial "3-dollar bill."
A friend of mine is responsible for special meetings, events and convention plans for her firm and its affiliates. One of the major talent sources has hundreds of clients available from the $5-10K level, to a handful who get $200K and up per appearance. (This area includes Trump, Seinfeld, Lance Armstrong, Robin Williams, and, no kidding, Larry the Cable Guy.)
There are a greater number in the $100,001 - 200,000 range; list included the likes of Bill Cosby, Steve Martin and even cable guy Larry's benefactor, Jeff Foxworthy.
This category includes Rachael Ray. I suppose I have to admit there may be sufficient demand for her "talent" and offerings to justify her talk show and there may be some out there who'll pay more than $100K, + first class air, hotel suite, all expenses and limos door-to-door, for just a couple of hours of her whiny prattle at their organization's event.
I just can't figure how-in-the-hell this could be possible.


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


user
Here is a rundown of a typical Rachael Ray Show:
1. The awful theme song begins to play, and Rachael descends wearing her Snapcrotch outfit in this bizarre cargo elevator. 2. She begins running around screaming and/or insulting the audience, then yells at them sit down. 3. An awkward monologue.
(The next are in any order) 4. A segment tooting Rachael's own horn (i.e. "I Lost 500 Pounds with Rach's Recipes, "Rachael Ray Saved my Life," "Rachael's Fashion Tips.") 5. A totally useless D.I.Y. tip (i.e. how to engrave words into casserole dishes, how to use your washing machine as a salad spinner, how to build a tube of lipstick with a light on it.) 6. The unleashing of horrible recipe on the unsuspecting audience (reaction shots of first bites are never shown). 7. A celebrity guest with an awkward interview, followed by some obviously scripted questions from the audience. 8. A person who gets help from one of Rachael's cronies (i.e. the I say yes to everything woman, the I own nothing but overalls lady, and the I can't find time to put on makeup housewife). What would they do without you Rachael. *gasp*
Reasons that this show should be avoided like the plague: 1. Fakeness: Rachael Ray claims that entire show is unscripted. Many people who have attended tapings of the show have claimed that the entire show is scripted. Many of these same people have also mentioned that there is even a very strict dress code for the show.
2. Her show jumps around too much: Where as Oprah, who is the highest rated talk show host of all time has a definite theme for her show, Rachael's jumps around like an ADHD soda child on crack. Her show averages perhaps 10, short, worthless segments a show. On second you will be getting fashion tips from Kojo, and the next Rachael will be making gross stuffed "Spanish" peppers with manchego cheese, and the next their will be a giant anaconda up on stage, and the next, well you get the picture.
3. Rachael is a poor host with bad ideas: Aside from her grating personality, Rachael's hosting ability is terrible, at best. Her questions for her celebrity guests are poor, and often times not even relevant to the interview, and her segments are unappealing and offer little educational, or humorous value.
In conclusion, you need not waste your time with this schlock. It will be canceled soon anyways.


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


user
it seems like if you are going to post here it going to be a 10 star rating ,nobody ever seems to dislike anything ,well i am honest, some don't like that but here we go, rachel ray show is just plain awful.!!!!!!, this show reminds me of the snl character linda whatever if she had a cooking -whatever show.i must say i liked rachel on the food network on $35-$40 a day but i am sorry she does not have enough life experience to make her interesting day in and day out,give me ham on the street, anthony bourdain , interesting folks,but most of all i find her annoying, she actually told a member of the studio audience to "shut up" yes in a kidding way but shut up is shut up, and who cares about her pet stories, sorry rachel you been cancelled!!!!


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


user
It's hard to believe that oprah winfrey produced this piece of junk, the show couldn't even hold a candle to cooking shows of the past, including emeril lagasse, rachael ray is the most annoying talk show and cooking show host in TV history, not since ainsley harriott has had a terrible cooking show host I've watched, at least ainsley harriott has some good moments and some style, this one has no style at all, she's terrible as host, the kitchen looks atrocious, the writing is horrible, the teleplay is over the top and the opening credits are so bad, it makes me sick. Now I Enjoy cooking shows that had a cool sense of style, but this has absolutely none of that
This is one of the worst TV of the year.


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


user
I guess only a selected number of audience members really had any interest in watching how a male hustler in New York operates but I'd be willing to bet that even these brave souls were turned off by the irritating patchwork technique and deliberately muffled sound recording on display here; the fact that these inherent 'defects' were a direct result of the film's low-budget/underground/experimental nature is, I'd say, beside the point. Anyway, for those so inclined, the film features extensive male nudity and Joe Dallesandro, understandably, became an underground  and gay  icon!
The episodic structure showing the day-to-day routine of the hustler protagonist offers a couple of mildly interesting scenes: his meeting with (and eventually posing for) an eccentric elderly artist; the one where Dallesandro expresses his views on his unusual line of work and delineates his particular modus operandi to a couple of prospective 'colleagues' including perhaps the unlikeliest of hustlers  a bespectacled nerd! Perhaps mercifully, the film ran for only 89 minutes against the IMDb's claim that its complete length is 105 (but the latter could well be a mistake)!
I had watched a few other of Warhol's 'movies' and this one is decidedly not as satisfying as the most tolerable example I've run into yet, BAD (1977), and only slightly better than the likes of MY HUSTLER (1965) which were mostly a strain to sit through. The fact that this was only the first part of a trilogy did not augur well but, as the saying goes, you gotta to do what you gotta do and the other two 'chapters' had to follow in quick succession...
Despite my generally negative reaction to it, FLESH is nevertheless still valuable as a 1960s time capsule and as a prototype of the Underground scene of that era, both cinematically and in real life. For the record, an image of Dallesandro from this film adorns the sleeve of The Smiths' self-titled 1984 debut album and transsexual Candy Darling (who appears here rather unremarkably) was immortalized in "Candy Says", the opening track of The Velvet Underground's eponymous 1969 album. Although the latter band is my all-time favorite, and one of the reasons for this is that, through their sheerly unique and ground-breaking music, they described a lifestyle so utterly different from my own, this is truly a case where I'd much rather experience something aurally instead of visually!


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


user
Technically abominable (with audible "pops" between scenes)and awesomely amateurish, "Flesh" requires a lot of patience to sit through and will probably turn off most viewers; but the dialogue rings amazingly true and Joe Dallesandro, who exposes his body in almost every scene, also gives an utterly convincing performance. A curio, to be sure, but the more polished "Trash", made two years later, is a definite step forward. I suggest you watch that instead. (*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
Although there is very little plot and whatever exists is just all improvisational, still it was a good start from a new director with no previous financial back up and also a smart move from Andy Warhol to make his cimematic productions more marketable and viewer-friendly. In any case this story of a street hustler relies too much on showing Joe buck naked (almost all the time!). And the creative use of a flashy editing really wears off after the hundredth time and the cutting off the dialog thing gets really annoying half-way. This would have been a much more entertaining or even dramatic if they made a documentary of the daily of an actual male prostitute or hustler, instead of letting the actors make up some nonesensical plot and dialog of their own.


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


user
Although not a big Coen brothers fan, I am an admirer of their dark humor films like 'Fargo' and 'Miller's Crossing.' I have been much less impressed by their other comic mode, goofy-camp (or is that Camp Goofy?) Unfortunately, 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' falls into the latter category and isn't even as good as 'The Big Lebowski' or 'The Hudsucker Proxy.'
'O Brother' is basically an episodic series of in-jokes without much point, and not all that much humor or cleverness either. As most reviewers have noted, the film's plot is very loosely  and, as far as I could tell, quite arbitrarily  based on The Odyssey. Its main character, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), is an 'adventurer' like his Homeric namesake and has as his 'real' goal the return home to prevent the marriage of his wife Penny to a suitor. Of course, we don't discover that this is what the Clooney/Ulysses character really wants until long after we've stopped caring. And what does Homer have to do with "Cool Hand Luke" chain gangs, Ku Klux Klan meetings a la "Indiana Jones" cult gatherings, a disbarred lawyer's vocabulary, a talent for blue-grass country music singing, an association with Baby Face Nelson, a Clark Gable lookalike hairdo, and other random and sundry character traits and encounters? I leave that for others to discern.
The allusion to Preston Sturges' 'Sullivan's Travels' in 'O Brother's' title is equally pointless. Yes, viewers familiar with the Sturges minor screwball comedy classic might find it mildly rewarding to recognize the title of the socially conscious Depression movie Sullivan abandons Hollywood and comedy hoping to make. And they might even be mildly amused by a couple of shot/scene riffs (e.g. hopping freight cars, and the chain gang shuffle into view a movie). But so what? The Coen brothers don't seem to have anything to add to the art-for-art's-sake versus moral high seriousness critical debate about the function of art. They obviously fall into the former school, but that doesn't seem to motivate the reference in the slightest. Is it an homage? If so, why make it? I like post-modern pop culture reference and textual play as much as the next person, but it's a lot nicer when it amounts to something at least tonally, if not thematically, consistent  and not just an arbitrary concoction.
This screenplay is simply a silly mess. The only consistent, and consistently pleasing, element is the folk/country music soundtrack. It doesn't have much to do with Homer or Preston Sturges, but, considering the rest of the film, that's probably a good thing. On the other hand, I'd recommend using the price of admission on the soundtrack CD.


assistant
0