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


user
I do not generally appreciate light-weight attempts at creating humourous stories, which means that "Anita no perd el Tren" cannot score very high for me. The story is good: a middle-aged but still good-looking woman finds a new love. But the attempts at making this film as a romantic comedy only managed at times to be somewhat comical.
Rosa María Sardà has ably demonstrated that she can be a serious actress in such productions as "Amic/Amat" (qv), "Todo Sobre mi Madre" (qv), "Las Amargas Lágrimas de Petra von Kant" (qv) and "El Embrujo de Shanghai" (qv). However the powers that be have over the years dished her out a lot of trivial stuff, for the cinema and for TV. Something similar could be said of José Coronado: perfectly able to produce serious performances. María Barranco belongs safely in this grouping.
Such that, in the end, I was left with the feeling that I would be real pleased to see a new making of this film, in a serious tone, which would allow the actors to really show their performing skills. And the curious thing is that it should be done with exactly the same leading actors. Wasted talent on a rather silly film that could have been very promising indeed.


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


user
I picked out this DVD out of the cheepo bin at Walmart because the cover showed one of the planes I flew during Viet-Nam (C-123k). I did not fly for Air America, but knew being a C-123 pilot, I knew a lot who did, including those who flew in my Reserve Unit back home. I am not a movie critic, but wonder about the subliminal motivation of Directors and Writers who make movies like this. The best part of this movie has to go to the cameraman. The flying shots and stunts (although totally cartoon like) are excellent. The movie begins with Hollywood's favorite fall guy in 1969. But the fact is, Nixon did not start Air America, he did not begin the lies. Johnson was responsible for Air America and Nixon inherited the lies, the war, and Air America. Its not fair or accurate to portray Nixon as a liar on the subject of Air America. All President's have inherited the lies of their predecessors. Nobody smart enough to fly a C-123 was dumb enough to not know what they were joining. That makes the Downey character unbelievable. A C-123 was a rugged airplane. It could easily fly on one engine, or the two auxiliary jet engines. The three stooges shooting a duck with one shot is more likely. Pilots who flew with Air America were civilian employees of the CIA, they were not reckless soldiers of fortune. They had a good reason to behave and believe in a future, if they survived their extremely dangerous job. They were given double time towards a retirement pension. They weren't required to sell dope or guns to get a good pension. Dope was legal and a way of life in SEA, as it still is today in Afganistan. If individual pilots tried to make money on the side, it was not CIA policy. The CIA was fighting a war on communism, not drugs. The writer based his story on "war stories". Pilots love to BS anybody who will buy them a beer and listen. The writer and Director who had an ax to grind about Viet-Nam and Nixon. See the movie, and remember how it starts - it blames Nixon for what existed for years. Remember, he didn't become President until Jan 20, 1969.
My favorite scene is the landing up hill in the jungle. Air America pilots put planes in places the aircraft designers never thought possible. Their were plenty of funny stories that could have been shown. Instead, the Director chose to use the oversize rubber scene to show how dumb the CIA was. This scene shows that the Director and writer fell for some pilot bar talk and the joke is on them.
MDS Fort Valley Virginia.


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


user
Skilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.
Nope. It's not "Only Angels Have Wings" and it's not "M*A*S*H." It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.
It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.
As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.
The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., "When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?" Replies another, guffawing, "No, it means it's night time." That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.
There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.
Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me.


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


user
Roger Spottiswoode isn't the worst director, and he did a good job on the underrated sci-fi thriller "The Sixth Day" (a.k.a. "The Box Office Downfall of Mr. Schwarzenegger"). However, "Air America" has to be one of his most inept projects.
It comes across as an amalgamation between drama, comedy and war film - it's not a very convincing mix. In fact, I found it to be overbearing.
Robert Downey, Jr. (during his heyday) stars as a pilot recruited into a top secret CIA organization operating during Laos in the Vietnam era. Mel Gibson plays his co-pilot and he stumbles upon the knowledge that they're trafficking drugs, and what not.
The movie was hyped on release because it starred two famous faces and Aerosmith had re-recorded the Doors classic "Love Me Two Times" for the soundtrack.
The redo of the song is pretty poor, which suits the film.


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


user
That this movie has been stapled to the wall of a chapel as proof that God is truly dead. Am I the only one that really saw (rather sleptwalked) through this "film"? This is the only movie I've ever seen in the theater that I regret not walking out on and demanding my money back -- it was just that dull. And I even saw "Highlander 2: The Quickening" at the local cinema. From beginning to end, Gibson and Downey have absolutely no chemistry as two unlikelies, cast together by circumstance, who eventually work together as best buddies. The action (what little there is) is goofy and as dull as the skullbone of the writer. Thank whatever deity is chortling down at us as it observes our "cinema" that there's no chance for an "Air America 2."


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 normally a fan of Mel Gibson, but in this case he did a movie with a poor script. The acting for the most part really wasn't that bad, but the story was just pointless with flaws and boring. I thought I would like the movie a little but I didn't like it at all actually. I give it a 1 1/2 out of 5!


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


user
I decided to watch this movie because it has been noted as the "scariest movie ever" so, that's what I expected. Unfortunately, what I found out is that the movie didn't have a single scary moment in it (and I'm the kind of person who jumps very easily). The movie was nothing but terrible clichés and every time there was a jump-moment it was incredibly obvious. The pros of this movie would be the music and the odd scene thats actually shot well (like the very last scene when she opens the door and you see Tun in the reflection and when it swings back to him you see the ghost on his shoulders). Overall, this movie really added nothing new to the J-Horror genre and all-around lacked creativity and scares.


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


user
I should explain that as far as this trend goes for ripping off Asian horror movies, this Shutter is a head above The Grudge, and Dark Water, while still not achieving the same amount of atmospheric creepiness that The Ring establishes.
Still though movies, like life, don't exist in a vacuum and are therefore up for comparison to other suspense/thriller/horror movies. Honestly, I'm not writing a lengthy synopsis here and will say that this movie attempts to rely on music induced "startle" scares rather than atmosphere and the "ghost" itself really isn't that remarkable. The plot is pretty basic and predictable and isn't anything to write home about either. While there are a few suspenseful scenes that border on creatively scary, most of the movie is pretty vanilla. If you enjoyed The Grudge and it's ilk then you might enjoy this.
Grade: C-


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


user
I don't know, but the movie was just too similar to other movies I've seen. The Ring, The Eye, Dark Water, they're all the same to me. Don't get me wrong, it's beautifully made, lovely camera work, great graphics, but that story is just too.. too common. In the end, it's the score that makes the suspense, you know: the screams, rumbles. The characters in the movie are also not reacting very naturally, moving very slowly, surprised by anything they see. I know some people that love this kind of film, and if you do, being a well made movie, I guess it doesn't hurt to watch it. But if you've seen the movie I've mentioned above and didn't like them, then I'd suggest you don't bother.


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


user
i have seen many Japanese horrorfilms and i have to say that some of them are really interesting but they are all pretty much the same. this one is no exception. the ghost is a black haired girl, that scares it's victims by doing nothing else than walk and look dead.. the difference is just the motive for the haunting. the rest is the same as every time: black haired girl, strange things happening with some media (photos), creepy acting. while watching this flick i constantly found myself asking why i was wasting my time watching stuff that someone else has done so much better before. some scenes where quite nice though, i'll give it 3 out of 10


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


user
One of my co-workers recommended this one, implying that it was one of the most frightening movies she ever watched. I checked it out together with my girlfriend and we gave up after 50 minutes or so.
Yesterday, I had a long talk with my co-worker (we're still friends!).
This movie is as original as the latest film starring Steven Seagal. It brings absolutely nothing original to the table. The spooky parts have been done thousand of times before.
The biggest fault however is the painfully slow pace of this movie. The periods between the scares are completely wasted with meaningless dialog and a lot of.. nothing..
1 of 10 Molotov cocktails


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


user
I absolutely positively can't believe my fellow IMDb reviewers. All the praise about how "original" this movie is, it's like they've never seen "Ring" or the million of imitations that's come out in the 10 years since that movie. And some of them claim to be horror movie buffs! I think not! "Shutter" is okay. Average, I'd say. I give it 5 out of 10, but there's just no way it's original and great and "the most frightening thing I've ever seen" as one reviewer said. Puh-leeeze, people. This one is plain. It's predictable.
I swear, if I see another ghost movie where the hero traces the past of the ghost in order to find out why she's so mad and after them, I'm going to scream.
"Original"? Give me a break. You people need to get out more. Or at least stop calling yourselves "horror movie fans".


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 has me seriously doubting again whether Armando de Ossorio was a good filmmaker or not... His BLIND DEAD films are praised by many fans. This I can understand. But wanna-be Gothic vampire trite like MALENKA doesn't show any signs from a gifted filmmaker. And that also goes for SERPIENTE DE MAR. It features horrible acting, a dumb plot, stupid events, a lot of other things you can expect from a bad monster-movie and also veteran actor Ray Milland, who does his best to mumble his way through this film while not having much of a clue about what he's doing in it. Apparently Milland was already very ill while shooting SERPIENTE DE MAR (his last theatrical feature) and going out with a ridiculous stinker like this, makes it all the more sad. One last appearance alongside Peter Cushing in a made-for-TV film directed by Roy Ward Baker (also in 1984) doesn't change much about it.
But the sock puppet/sea serpent is a hoot to behold. Watch it swirl up a lighthouse and crush it. See it destroy a harbour with miniature boats. Look at it demolish bridges and munch on charming miniature trains.
Good Badness? Yes. 3/10 and 7/10


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


user
and abysmal, over-the-top acting, you might enjoy this rubbish flick.Apparently atomic bombs makes life mutate in about a day or two (or according to other viewers, wake them up). Or so it seems. And apparently massive atomic explosions off the coast of Spain doesn't make anyone ask any questions at all. Coming to think of it, the plot doesn't make sense in any way whatsoever (why would evil sock puppets attack lighthouses?), so the nukes going off for no reason at all doesn't stand out too much.
OK, getting past this, and the fact that the "monster" is a glorified thing you make of socks in kindergarten, you may actually be able to stand this. But for once the complete lack of gore doesn't help, leaving the monster attacks in all their naked rock-bottom-budget "glory".
I doubt you'll be able to watch this though, so better stay well away.


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 the worst movie I have ever seen. A movie that is about a stupid looking monster from the ocean that threatens a small town which has to be filled with the dumbest people on earth.
SPOILERS IF YOU EVEN CARE
They can't even kill the damn thing by the end of the movie. The movie ends and they're like, "Well, some day we'll have to kill it."
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 has to be one of the most awfully scripted films I've ever seen. It's basically a remake of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953), but done with your standard snake-like puppet-monster instead of a sleek Ray Harryhausen creation. Combine the plot of that classic monster movie with the production qualities and acting level of The Creeping Terror and you have an idea of what this movie is like.
The movie is dubbed, although by the original actors (I think that the movie was originally dubbed in Italian for that countries audiences, then redubbed for US release), which just makes the movie seem weird...the sounds, like in a Japanese monster movie, just don't quite match properly to the action on the screen, even if the actors' lips are moving properly.
Poor Ray Milland...he's certainly come a long way down from The Lost Weekend or Dial M for Murder or any of the number of excellent movies he was in. Add this to his other sci-fi travesties (Panic in the Year Zero, X The Man with X-Ray Eyes) and you can see a once good actor fallen into a Boris Karloff syndrome...stuck doing really bad horror films in foreign countries just for the work.


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 a family movie set in 1950's rural America about a boy whose Uncle presses sheep killing charges against his dog Drum, starting not only a family legal feud but community discord as their town begins to take sides.
This is formula film that attempts to be very touching and sweet. Its biggest weakness is that the only people who could really act were Scott Bakula (Defense Lawyer), Ron Perlman (father/Drum's owner) and the dog. (John Shuck and Kathy Garver, "Sissy" from the original "Family Affair," as the Uncle and his wife, were okay.) The children were not that good (basically they looked like they were acting) and that's a problem when the film really revolves around them (Aaron Fors, who plays the bully Donny makes me think of what the actor Russell Crowe must have looked liked as a child, only with no talent but a lot of ham).
Favorite line (spoken by the Prosecutor after Scott Bakula's Defense closing trial speech): "We'll be lucky if they don't lynch us."
Favorite line spoken by Ron Perlman (after his son punches the bully): "Now making him your friend, that will be the hard part."
Cute enough to rent/buy used.


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


user
I like J-horror, anime and even kinda dig the pink movement, which some have claimed this a member of, but this did nothing for me. I willing to go a step further and label this one of the biggest let downs of my film watching career.
Three young rockabillies go around getting their kicks out of raping girls. One of the group starts to develop a concisions about their pass-time when his kid sister nearly catches them in the act. Invariably, the group turns on itself as the once friends begin fighting with each other. It ends on a down note befitting the film as a whole.
Aside from watching the friends yell at each other, which they do a lot, there isn't a whole lot going on here. The film is littered with LONG continual shots that only exacerbate the issue. On top of that, even when the film starts to do something interesting, it suddenly gets bogged down in ethereal philosophy that never makes any sense. For instance, after one of the buddies has his change of heart about assaulting girls, he goes out and does it again, but then stops his buddies from taking their turns. Huh? The cinematography is slow and lighting is poor. The writing is OK, as is the acting, which makes this a sub-par cinematic effort from the start. Mix the lack of technical prowess with the flimsy content and you have nothing more than a waste of time.
Oh, and one more extra note, at least one of the girls that appears in the buff does not look old enough to be doing that kinda stuff.
3/10


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


user
If I could give this movie less than a 1, I would certainly do that. I had read a review of this film in the LA Times and I found myself walking by the theater and remembered the review. My wife and I were game and we thought it can't be as bad as the critic said - you know critics. Sure enough... Give me a break with the awful acting, horrible camera work, poor use of the budget (that has been mentioned over and over again as an excuse). I've worked on films with smaller budgets that are 100 times better. It's the Director and the Producer that makes films work - they choose the teams. That's it. If they don't put it together and make it work...it simply won't. So, they didn't - and it doesn't. I don't think they can... I just had to take the time to write this review...though I'm sure the film crew doesn't appreciate this review - I hope I'm doing you all a favor with my wish for you to do well, but - in another career. Good luck.


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


user
There have been many movies, on living the American dream. And this is one of them.
First of all, on the technical side, there is a lot wrong. The audio is bad, i had trouble understanding the dialogs here and there, and the camera positions could have been better.
They really tried to come up with a good movie, but for example the part where they show, how Jonathan is loosing himself in the dream,with girls, drugs and alcohol, is done very badly. The acting is very poor as well from all the characters in the movie.
I had a hard time watching it from the beginning till end, and couldn't wait for the movie to be over.
If your expectations are low, and you're bored on a Sunday with bad weather, watch it. If you in for a deep story with action, then this is not your movie.
Normally i would not have give a score of 1, but of 4.5 for this movie. But the reason i gave it a 1 is because of the bad audio, and camera uses, not to mention the bad cut scenes with cheesy effects.


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


user
jeez, this was immensely boring. the leading man (Christian Schoyen) has got to be the worst actor i have ever seen. and another thing, if the character in the movie moved to America when he was ten or something and had been living here for over 20 years, he would speak a lot better English than what he pulls of here. or to say it in my own Language "Skikkelig gebrokkent". But it is cool to see Norwegian dudes in a movie made in Hollywood. it was just a damn shame they were talentless hacks. The storyline itself is below mediocre. I have a suspicion that Christian Schoyen did this movie just to live the dream, as he clearly does in the film by humping one beautiful babe after another.


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 a real low budget production, yet I will not say anything more on that as it already has been covered. I give this movie a low rating for the story alone, but I met the director the night I saw the film and he gave me an additional reason to dislike the movie. He asked me how I enjoyed it and I told him that it was not easy to like. My main objection was the lack of foundation for the relationship between the two main characters, I was never convinced that they were close. I also told him that the scene where the main characters were presented as children becoming friends was too late in the film.
He told me that the flashback scenes were not in the original script. That they were added because he felt like I did that the two main characters did not appear close. He went on to explain that these scenes were not filmed to his satisfaction as they were out of money. I agree that they did not do much for the film.
Another fact about the movie, that I was not aware of, is the actor who had the lead wrote the script based on his own personal experience. This is usually a bad move as some writers do not take into consideration the emotional reaction the viewer. The story is so close to home that the writer make too many assumption as to the audience's reaction to his own tragedy. And the story is tragic. However, it did not work for me as I never cared for any of the characters, least of all the lead. What was presented were two evil people out to make a buck by any means, regardless who gets hurt. When Ms. Young's character decides to give up he evil ways, it appears that she does so because she is ineffective, not because she knows she is doing wrong. If the movie has a message then I suspect that only the writer is aware of it.


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


user
How LIVING THE DREAM managed to get into the Laemmle 5 in West Hollywood is beyond me, as it is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I should have known when the first scene opened in-gasp, Eugene, Oregon-,that this dud of a film with characters that you want to like and feel sorry for from their exclusion days from high school,but can't, as they are such losers, is so wooden and atrocious with dialog that is beyond bad.
Then, cliché, the three high school losers end up in LA, and here is where the film could have been realistic if it had shown them trying to find a career in acting. But no, one works as a used car salesman, the other is a true loser in a garage call center selling magazines. Even the bastard that runs the place has more audience appeal than that dreadful actor with the horrible foreign accent. And, they fraudulently get money from an insurance scam to set up an Executive Recruitment firm with no experience, just showing "the supposed good life" in LA night spots with a cast of actors that are so wooden and bad, they better not have SAG cards...
I could go on and on about this bad film, but I ended up walking out of the theater, which had at the start six people, and when I left four men were the only ones in the audience. I wanted to like this film, but I couldn't find one merit in the story, characters, writing, dialog, nor the actors. Whoever cast this film should retire. Amen...enough...


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 the film many times, and every time I am more and more disappointed,which is shame because the films from EX YU are usually very good. The shame here is, that Holiwood tried to make film about the place and people it has no idea. My self coming from the Balkans(Macedonia) found this film disappointing.Simply that the Bosnian characters are not really understood and not truly portrayed. To understand the mentality of a person from EX YU, you need to know their background, way of live, what makes them cry and laugh.And the director of the film didn't took that as guideline. When we(EX YU) make films, lots of symbolism is build in it, which makes the characters recognisable and likable, and mostly portraying the truth(if it is based on true story) The films like "Pritty village, pretty flame", "Tito and Me', "Underground',"No mans land', "Before the Rain","Black cat, white cat","Otac na sluzbenom putu",(When father was away on business),"Ko to tamo peva"(Who sings over there?)Rare the masterpiece of the Balkan cinematography,and nothing can compare to it. Not the half baked story of and Holiwood studio. As somebody from the panel mentioned the story jumps from one end of town to the other with no real connection. I am sorry but when the film is made is not only for the American armchair variety of viewers but for the rest of the World too, and some of them live on the Balkans and Sarajevo too. And to add insult to the injury, half of the things are shoot in Bitola ,Macedonia where I come from. Imagen my shock when I saw the Broad st. of Bitola in the opening scene of the film, when the bride is shoot from the sniper.And what was that inserting real footage of the news covering in the film? Anyway very disappointing, as the truth is far away from the film. Shame that nobody consulted the real people how is to live in Sarajevo under fire, before they shoot the film. book is one thing and real life is other, and this film lets down both.


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


user
A better film could have been made to portray the tragedy of Bosnia. Some parts are very effective and the film does well to give some idea of the suffering of the people specially the children, but overall it looks less like a film and more like a documentary. Woody Harrelson is very good but the rest of the cast has performed well without being extra ordinary. Should be watched in order to get a rough idea of what the war did to the children of Bosnia. If one expects a great and gripping movie, Welcome...... will be a disappointment.


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


user
The film has no connection with the real life in Bosnia in those days. Should be more realistic and shows the viewer real traumas that were happening to common people during the war. Please see some films of Yugoslav authors (Emir Kusturica, Ljubisa Samardzic,...e.g. Bure baruta( A barrel of powder), Tito i ja (Tito and me), Lepa sela lepo gore (Beautiful Villages burn Beautiful), etc... Just this is the real way to know about so called Bosnian problem. Hollywood is definitive not th right address to make films about the Balcan peninsula. Maybe Vietnam, WW II,... but not of the Slavs living in former Yugoslavia.


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 shows me, that americans have no knowledge about the situation in the sad balkan-brother war! Please, if you want to see umpire movies with this theme, watch "Savior", and you will see that nobody is "bad"- and nobody is "good" in this land of tears and sorrows...


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 just Art house rubbish. I sat watching this trash with my Bosnian Friends they found it as boring as i did. For a more interesting and more true account watch the excellent movie Saviour. This is just a snoozefest with people talking in coffee shops.A cure for insomnia. 1 out of 10


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


user
Ken Harrison, a young sculptor in his early thirties, is seriously injured in a road accident. End of story.
"End of story", that is, in the sense of "end of any physical action". Not in the sense of "end of the film". Ken's life is saved, but he is paralysed from the neck down. When he discovers that he is unlikely ever to regain the use of his limbs he decides that he wants to die and asks the doctors to end the medical treatment which is keeping him alive. The rest of the film is essentially one long debate about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia and the right to die.
Ken's main antagonist in this debate is his doctor, Michael Emerson. Although the case against euthanasia is often presented in religious terms, here it is presented in purely secular ones. If Dr Emerson has any deep religious convictions, these are never expressed in the film. He believes passionately, however, that death is an enemy against which it is his duty as a doctor to fight; to allow a patient effectively to take his own life would represent a surrender to that enemy and a dereliction of that duty. Ken therefore finds himself in a "Catch-22" situation. He must be able to show that he is sane and rational enough to make the decision to end his life. Emerson, however, considers that a wish to die is in itself evidence of insanity and irrationality. Ken's dilemma can only be solved by hiring a lawyer to sue the hospital.
Richard Dreyfuss as Ken and John Cassavetes as Dr Emerson put across their respective points of view skilfully and with sincerity, but this cannot hide the fact that "Whose Life is it Anyway?" simply does not work as a film. At one time filmed versions of stage plays were done in a similar way to theatrical productions but by the seventies and eighties this was often seen as unsatisfactory because of the differences between the two media. When plays were filmed, therefore, the general tendency was to "open them up" by filming on location as well as on studio sets, by taking liberties with the playwright's text, often making significant changes to the plot and even introducing extra characters.
I have never seen Brian Clarke's play, but I suspect that this is a story that would work better in the theatre than in the cinema. There is very little physical action; most of the action consists of lengthy discussions around a hospital bed in which the main character lies paralysed. Such a plot does not lend itself to the "opening up" device at all, and the resulting film is very static, dominated by talk at the expense of action. Although it is well written and there is some good acting, I am surprised that a film was ever made of such an uncinematic subject. 4/10


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


user
I can't really remember any details of this movie except that the setting looked awfully familiar. Then I realized it was filmed at the Lazy Lizard Hostel in Moab, Utah. That was one of my favorite places to visit when I was younger and wandered around the country. The guy who owns/manages the hostel managed to get himself in the movie. All I remember about the plot of the movie is that it involves jeeps and naked women. It is great to watch just for the scenery (I mean the rock formations)... If you are just looking for soft-core porn, you will probably be better served elsewhere. I don't even know if this movie is available on tape or DVD.


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


user
I have never watched a movie that frustrated me more than Lord Of The Dance. Frustrated because it could have been fantastic. Frustrated because the dancing might have been astounding. Frustrated because the women could have been gorgeous. How would I know though?! By the time your eyes have moved to the area of interest on the screen and focused appropriately on the spot to be admired the insane editor has moved the shot! I completely agree with the other comments here about the crappy lighting and terrible camera/editor work. It makes me nauseous just watching ten minutes of this would be spectacular movie.
Give me an opportunity to get a front seat to the live concert and I would be there in a shot!
Nicholas T


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


user
The production values in this video are so poor that it is unwatchable. The performance took second place to the overwhelmingly creative hijinks of the studio wanks, with about thirty special effects per minute. It is filmed through a cloud of smoke, only one or two seconds duration per shot and frequently, background spotlights shine directly into the camera. The lighting was terrible for filming. There is constant zooming in and out with a total lack of visual continuity. There may have been some good dancing available to the live audience but the video viewers will never know.


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


user
No wonder so many young people have Attention Deficit Disorder. It seems that stage (dance) productions these days are all about how many cameras and camera angles a director/ editor can squeeze into a 1 hour show. Is there a special Emmy category for this feat? Try counting them sometimes for something different to do with this, otherwise, completely unwatchable show.
I tried to make out at least a few faces of some of the other dancers in the production. That was impossible. They didn't appear to have any faces, just blurs - it was just Michael Flatley's face, Michael Flatley's bare chest(nice sheen!), Michael Flatley's feet, and that patented Flatley over-the-shoulder-come-hither look repeated infinity squared. Since he was an executive producer of this cut and paste job I guess that was to be expected. One doesn't have to wonder too much as to who his target audience is.
Riverdance was a much better production, as it tried to present the show pretty much as one might see it from the audience, not the catwalk,side wings, or floor nail perspective. If I'm not mistaken,I believe Sir Michael has retired. Thank God for small blessings.


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


user
Yet another recent comedy that shows that Hollywood can't even do the basics when it comes to film-making that it used to do in its sleep for decades. If the writer/director had any brains they would have based the film around Stamp's character of tyrant boss Jack Taylor. When he's in the film early on it's nothing special but it is mildly promising and occasionally amusing. Once he departs for the majority of the film and Kutcher has his 'hilarious' adventures house-sitting with guest after boring guest dropping in, the film totally disintegrates.
As a result, what should have been a passable timewaster turns into an inept stinker.


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 about the worst I have seen in a very long time. Terence Stamp's talent is totally wasted and just about the only thing that I enjoyed was hearing a favorite song of mine, "If I Had a Million Dollars" by BNL, in the opening credits.
Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, a nice guy who gets roped into house sitting for his boss. Misadventures ensue. Blah blah blah. If you have time to kill and having nothing better to do, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, watch something else.
There are not necessarily any redeeming moments, but it is nice to see Molly Shannon and Jeffrey Tambor on the screen. They are always pleasures to watch though this film managed to dampen even these bright spots.


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 (unfortunately) because it was the only option at that time and because David Zucker was the director. I saw his previous "Naked gun" (both parts), Airplane and Top secret!, and I liked, at least I had a good time and laughed. I'm not saying that the movies I mentioned were master pieces, but were OK. I don't recall any other more stupid movie than this. It's incredible how Hollywood industry is in total decadence. If some studio spends any money to produce this awful picture, then is not a surprise that this kind of histories are more common on these days. This is a clear reflect of a decadent civilization where sex symbols and stupid plots are produced to entertain the common people. I don't have any good to say about this film. If you are planning to rent it or buy it, please don't waste your money or your time, avoid it no matter what. Even if you are fan of one of the actors, does not worth it. In fact this could be a very good example of what a Director should avoid. I won't see a Zucker movie again. (He is planning to direct the fourth sequel of Scary movie, imagine that!). Pathetic. Awful.


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


user
Anupam Kher is an excellent actor, he debuted at 28 playing a 50 yr old in SARAANSH
Now he turns director with OJJ
The film has a good plot but it's regressive
The theme has been done to death and Urmila's character looks too put on while Anil-Mahima and Abhi- Tara tracks are too sudden and then forgotten
The film moves a snail pace and begins to drag but there are several good scenes like the entire conflict between Anil-Fardeen and Abhishek where Fardeen says to sell the house
Abhishek getting caught for a crime and Anil shouting at him
The climax is too much though
Directorally Anupam shows potential, but has some way to go Music is okay
Anil Kapoor excels in his part like always Fardeen tries hard and is okay but needs to improve Abhishek is excellent, this was a turning pt, people realized he can act Urmila is okay Mahima and Tara are wasted Waheeda is good


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


user
Patsy Kensit and some random Australian bloke star as a duo of wannabe tough coppers in the middle of investigating a series of art-gallery related murders, but in between they can still find the time to shoot juvenile shoplifters and suspect the brand new wife of the male cop of being adulterous. The serial killer suddenly isn't important anymore when the supposed lover of the wife (who's basically just a co-worker of hers) is found murdered and the male cop becomes prime suspect. "Tunnel Vision" is a really dull, implausible and tension-free Aussie thriller that obviously imitates popular sex-thrillers like "Fatal Attraction", "Disclosure" and "Basic Instinct". The characters are extremely one-dimensional and pretty much every good-cop/bad-cop cliché is extendedly described in the script. The struggling position of police women in a corps full of men, the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality, alcohol problems through stress, etc etc Even the unhealthy eating habits of cops are a running gag. Yawn! Kensit really tries her best to make this film more bearable, but she lacks the credibility and talent of a real cinema heroine. The end-twist is more or less interesting (not at all original, mind you) but, by then, you stopped caring for the characters a long time already. The scenes filmed inside the sex clubs look ludicrously fake and Clive Fleury's directing is completely uninspired. What a total 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
While The Twilight Zone was a wonderful show, it was also very uneven--with some great episodes, some lousy ones and many in between. Don't believe the die-hard fans--there were some stinkers and this was definitely one of them.
In a plot that is obviously meant to be an attack on Fidel Castro, a near lookalike (Peter Falk in lots of makeup and a beard) obtains a magic mirror that allows him to realize who all his enemies are so he can liquidate them. While I do believe that Castro is a thug and dictator (and tens of thousands of refugees and political prisoners will attest to this), it's amazing how this sort of preachy episode actually makes audiences laugh at the American efforts to marginalize the creep and actually makes Castro seem okay!! Think about it--Serling and company wanted to hurt Castro but instead only seemed to be obvious, preachy and silly in the process.
It's indeed bad--almost laughably bad when seen today.


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


user
This one is a real stinker.
The story just isn't up to par with most other TZ episodes. It's pretty boring, though seeing Peter Falk made up as a Fidel Castro lookalike is kind of amusing.
Whenever Twilight Zone would be aired at an unannounced hour in my hometown, I'd grab a sandwich and a drink and settle in for some quality entertainment. 9 times out of 10, it wound up being THIS episode! Strange thing? This often happened to my mom (another TZ fan like me) as well. There were so many times that one of us would say to the other, "I was all set to watch _The Twilight Zone_ and guess which episode was on? The Cuban Dictator episode!" Obviously some people like this episode, as it gets a 6.7 rating ... how that happened, I have no idea - but THAT in and of itself would make a great Twilight Zone plot!


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


user
Almost certainly staged montage of women reading lines (very briefly) and getting naked (not very briefly) in front of a anonymous (and uncredited) panel - almost certainly including producer Charles Band. Thrown in are random scenes of Surrender Cinema's many movies (primarily lesbian scenes). Most of the women like "riding horses" (Hmmm); there is a Polish woman who seems to have no interest in acting despite going to an audition; a 'secret; camera that films actresses getting naked behind the screen...
Jacqueline Lovell (too made up but still beautiful) introduces a couple of her own movie scenes and talks in a 'sexy' Way to the camera (if you enjoy lesbian scenes the one with Lovell and Vanesa Taylor from Femalian is included and they are probably the best looking lesbian 'couple' ever). Weird excuse for a movie and aside from the obvious draw of naked women, a frankly dull and uninspiring experience.


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


user
Surrender Cinema has been known for their extremely erotic, almost explicit sci-fi films. While they generally do very well at these (Femalien 1 & 2, Virtual Encounters), this particular entry seems to be just a rehash of old tape. Any number of girls -- some recognizable and others not -- are in this film in all stages of nudity. There are also several clips from other films which are outstanding, unless you've seen those other films. There are a number of solo nude scenes doing a number of things -- some playing basketball, others talking, still others playing with themselves. The only thing of value in this tape is the very last scene -- a short but erotic girl-girl scene with a very enthusiastic and enjoyable Sandy Wasko and a more subdued Tammie Hainum. Not highly recommended.


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 the preview in Femalien and thought it could be a cool film. Turns out, it is an awful garbage. There isn't much nudity in the film, not to mention not having much sex either. There were just some dumb and corny dialogues along with some noninteresting dancing you usually expect to see during audition. In our case, you may even see it in the actual films. Conclusion: I ain't got none for it. Just leave it alone.


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


user
The "film" consists of the audition tapes of the "Surrender girls" and some footage from previous films. It's not hot or even suitable for late night viewing on Cinemax. Only an adolescent boy could be interested in Auditions from Beyond. I recommend avoiding this one.


assistant
0