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
without a doubt, one of the most racially prejudiced films i've ever seen, with the prejudice being levelled against Hayden Panettiere as she has to move into a tough inner city school. She is constantly called "white girl" and other slurs based on her colour. Firstly would this be allowed the other way around if a black girl was the butt of all the abuse? and secondly the stereotyping of the ethnic kids from the inner city school is also a disgrace. The writers apparent desire to show they were "hip" also extended to missing the point that the inner city school win the cheerleading competition, not through talent but by intimidating their white opponents!! these overtones to the film took it away from it's expected direction of a harmless lighthearted comedy suitable for a family audience into a vehicle that does none of the participants any credit. Hayden Panettiere has star quality but I would be surprised if any of the rest of the class ever get much further. All in all a charmless film that was 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
Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.
Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.
Incredible.


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


user
There was a lot of hype of this movie and the commercials made it seem like it would be great. Sadly, like Bring It On 2, Bring It On 3 shamed glory of the original Bring It On. There is shameless stereotyping throughout the film. The lines given to the actors were humiliating for all the races involved in the film. The performance of Hayden Panattiere was sub-par both in terms of acting and cheerleading. There were several scenes in which I literally cringed because I was embarrassed for the cast because the scene (lines, plot, etc) were just so stupid. My recommendation to the makers of any future Bring It On films is that you should hire good cheerleaders and teach them to act because the "acting" of the cast was horrendous and their lack of cheerleading ability made them completely useless to the film. Only great character: Kirresha.


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


user
What a nasty cynical film. Apparently this sad excuse for a dramatic urban look at what 20 year olds do whilst crawling through the gutter of Sydney nightlife is supposed to be somehow connecting with its target market. Made by some Industry nobody and pals who seemingly thought they could cobble together any sleazy behavior with a young cast and pour it into multiplexes, SAMPLE PEOPLE deservedly failed miserably at the Australian box office. It is so offensive in its clichéd depictions of obvious and easy targets it was fully rejected by the very audience it was intended. Shoddy and cruel and with no attempt to offer quality or resonance to the young audience who might have been attracted by the marketing or casting SAMPLE PEOPLE might have been interesting or even informative if not botched by its exploitive view of 'what teens want to see in a movie'. The character played by Ben Mendelsohn is particularly offensive and Kylie Minogue is again wasted by poor material and untalented film makers. It is as if the producers thought teens would watch any ugly trash and just slung-together scenes and characters who were shallow and soul less. Well the were very wrong. A mini budget film made in 1983 called GOING DOWN got this topic right and is an excellent antidote to this poison.


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


user
First: The recent campaigning of this movie is a huge hoax. Judging from the cover you'd think this was some kind of scandal movie about Kylie playing a character having sex, taking drugs and whatever. This is just a cheap market-scheme. She's barely in it and does neither of the things. The marketing here is unbelievable, and I'm surprised the filmmakers hasn't objected.
The movie itself was to me a huge disappointment. It seemed like a Sunset Beach episode directed sloppy-handed by a teenage Quentin Tarantino. And thats not meant as a compliment, mind you.
I think the weakness of the movie first of all is the story. It seems to be about nothing. Just about cool teenagers tripping around living 'on the edge'. The characters themselves does have some personality though, but the movie doesn't use its potential. As said, there's no story of any substance here. It seems to elaborate too much on cool dialog and ends up looking like a colorful MTV ad. It definitely has that feeling.
Still though, I guess some people might enjoy it, but I'd say there's far better movies like this around.


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


user
Missed it at the cinema, but was always slightly compelled. Found it in the throw-out bin at my local video shop for a measly two bucks! Will I now give it away to anyone who wants it? Probably! No purposeful plot, one dimensional characters, plastic world ripped off from many far better films, no decent dialogue to speak of. You know that empty feeling when you come down off ecstasy? Its that feeling right here. Sad thing is, the Australia I know is heading in this direction, minus the melodrama and simple answers. Interesting only to see the older Aussie actors (who had to ACT back in their day to get by) vs the newer Aussie actors (who have to LOOK GOOD to get by). Like some horribly garish narrative introduction to a film clip that never actually starts... Poor Kylie, started her career as an actress 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
This was a first feature for Clinton, I was there, while he shot this mess back in Adelaide around 98...
Although I wasn't involved directly in the production, I was witness to the typically delusional behavior, post set, that went down,: the parties, the drugs, the illusionary glamor, really an example of what not to do when making a film, but also a byproduct of young, talented people getting caught up in classic ideologies of fame & worldly position.
I like Clinton, we had a curious friendship, he deserves to have another crack with a more mature script...there the problems lay, and I'm sure a much better job will be done, if there's a next time round.! Because, frankly, he certainly didn't do himself any favours with this on his CV and neither did the cast...but hey, it was a paying job, in country where actors regularly starve to death
In summary, fascinating to watch 'the making of' basically, not so much fun to experience (alas!).


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 interested in this movie because somebody had made a beautiful video for Björks "Bachelorette" with clips from it. So I watched the movie. And it is indeed stuningly beautiful. A masterpiece of animation.
Unfortunately, the story doesn't keep up. It starts out well, with interesting plotlines about people fencing for the possession of the Rose Bride, but suddenly elevators fill up with water and looses their walls, people float away, and finally for no reason whatsoever, Utena is tranformed into a car, and a highspeed chase ensues.
I like much Anime for it's ability to make alternative universes, but this universe is just stupid. If you are gonna watch this movie, turn of the sound, it's better that way.


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


user
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.
The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clichéd, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. **


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


user
Unlike what one reviewer said this is NOT a ripoff of Magnum Force. In that one Lieutenant Hal Holbrook put together his own little squad from Academy rookies to dispatch repeat offenders. In Extreme Justice this operation has the sanction from the higher ups of the LAPD. Just how far they sanction the exact methods used is open to question.
This Special Investigations Squad seems to be quite the haven for the misfits of the LAPD, those that have forgotten their first duty is protection and service. Which is why Scott Glenn thinks Lou Diamond Phillips, a detective with more than his share of beefs with Internal Affairs for excessive use of force, is perfect for the squad.
What should have sent him running from Phillips is the fact he's got a nice live-in relationship with a reporter, Chelsea Field. That one certainly threw me in this film, you'd think that Lou would be the last guy he'd try to recruit for his team.
And what his team is, is a death squad. They target perpetrators follow them and wait to catch them in the act. Then it's open season.
Extreme Justice went very overboard in trying to make a point. There sure would have been no harm in waiting for a gang of bank robbers to finish the robbery and taking them down outside. No civilians got hurt when the citizens of Coffeyville did that to the Daltons. Or waiting until three rapists finish the job before moving in. That's what were asked to believe here.
And frankly I couldn't buy it. A lot of good players get really wasted in this one.


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


user
Jeff Powers (Lou Diamond Phillips, "Young Guns 1&2"), a cop with a history of roughing up criminals, is recruited into an elite clandestine LAPD division. This doesn't sit well with Jeff's newspaper reporter girlfriend, Kelly (Chelsea Field) who's looking for a story on the squad. Soon enough Jeff's conscience gets the better of him which puts him at odds with Dan Vaughn (Scott Glenn, "the Hunt for Red October" & "Backdraft"), the leader of the unit.
This is a fairly routine, dare I say mundane, cop-action/drama that holds no surprises thanks to a cookie-cutter plot that's content to go strictly from point A to point B. The acting is all right for what the actors were given to work with however that's no real reason to watch the film. Kinda sad seeing as the six previous Mark L. Lester directed films right before this one (from Class of 1984 to Showdown in Little Tokyo) were all highly entertaining vehicles.
Eye Candy: Chelsea Field gets briefly topless
My Grade: D+


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


user
Okay, so maybe the acting wasn't bad, but I am typing this review as a public service to prevent anyone else who happens upon the intriguing beginning of this telefilm from throwing away two hours of their life waiting for some plot development that will never come. The chief investigator has a gut feeling who did away with the missing marine officer (Guy), and few people other than uninvolved bystanders and the accusee seem to dispute her. So what is the point of staying with this drama? Beats the heck out of me. I kept thinking (or hoping) there would be some sort of plot twist or new revelation, but none was forthcoming. In summary, I cannot think of a single reason to sit and watch this pointless TV movie, based on a true story or not.


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


user
Czech cinematography is traveling through dark times... this movie is a tangible evidence. Slama obviously wanted to make a mediocre documentary about fictive people, characteristic of their stupidity. A young and healthy boy who doesn't want to work and prefer to live in a decaying shack with a feckless alcoholic aunt. Because of the idiocy of Tonik, who's just able to announce "Dad, I'll not work in the factory" (I'd really like to know WHY); I understand the condition of his "house", but I'm really not able to digest the horrible mess around. Cramped sentimentality everywhere. Why didn't Monika escort her boy to work abroad? Young Czech couples do it very often. And take someone else's children to live in a devastated barn... that's too much.
Irresponsible mother (badly acted by Geislerová), naive & stupid boy (Tonik), silly and confused girl (Monika)... Yes, somebody has already told it - badly directed and acted soap opera. Actors like Martin Huba, Bolek Polivka, Tatiana Wilhelmova and Simona Stasova did their best, but unfortunately it couldn't save the whole piece.


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


user
Well acted, yes. Very well, I must say, even though I don't speak Chezck. Nice cinematography. But the script is lame, really lame. A predictable soap opera, in which you know exactly everything that is going to happen. OK, maybe the ending isn't as predictable, but is it any good? It is one of those films that you have the feeling that have seen already, and forget about the day after.
I just got a note from IMDb saying that my comment was not long enough. That's really sad, because I have no idea of what else to say about this movie, which actually says a a lot about it, don't you think? The thing is.. .It has no soul and no originality. Compare this movie with Barrio, or Riff Raff, shot more than ten years ago (or the extraordinary recently shot The Child). It's sad to see that this is a much worse film.


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


user
Norman Wisdom's final starring vehicle was a departure from his previous outings  bringing his accident-prone milquetoast up-to-date, this being a product of the Swinging Sixties! The end result is an uneasy and occasionally embarrassing comedy which mixes the star's typical slapstick (and sentimentality) with mild sexuality and even milder satire; the plot has to do with an executive on a trip for a banking conference falling for teenager Sally Geeson (who doesn't mind getting involved with him but doesn't take their relationship all that seriously either); Sarah Atkinson appears as Geeson's friend who warns Norman of her fickle character.
The film is nowhere near as bad as Leonard Maltin's BOMB rating would have it and, if anything, is interesting for its treatment of mid-life crisis (being in many ways similar to Hoffman [1970] and 10 [1979]  both of which, incidentally, I've only just watched); towards the end, Norman even tries to bring his wife round to his new way of thinking! The Pretty Things appear as themselves performing a number of good tunes in a nightclub and Norm himself sings the catchy title track!


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


user
As I write this, Norman Wisdom is a very confused old man who spends most of his waking hours cackling and yelping old catch-phrases at his increasingly suicidal nurse.
Indeed, by the time you read this he will probably have joined the hereafter and the obituaries will record a near 80 year career of hysterical mirth-making from the lovable funster with the crooked chequered cap. What most of these obituaries won't recall is how Norman Wisdom had already committed a form of suicide back in the late 1960s with this staggeringly poor, yet strangely compelling endpaper to his movie career.
The signs are ominous from the off  "Tony Tenser Presents" go the titles. You scratch your head  "Where have I seen that name before..?" Well, on the titles of a lot of the cheapest, crappiest British films of the 1970s so just take your pick.
Then it says  "A Menahem Golan Production". Oh dear.
From what I could make out what follows is a combination of Confessions from a Holiday Camp and Last Tango in Paris. Sponsored by the Southport Tourist Board.
Norman Wisdom is very versatile at being Norman Wisdom (or a variation of such) here. Even in trash like this, he's never off form and somehow keeps you watching through parted fingers as he paws and dribbles all over a (clearly insane) Sally Geeson. Tony Tenser and Menahem Golan were, between them, responsible for some true cinematic horrors but the bedroom scene in filmic atrocity reborn. Sally plays the role of a lobotomised sex toy very well, by the way.
I wonder if any of the crazy young cats who populate this movie's party scenes maybe thought to themselves in a quiet moment "Ummold Norman+sex+hippies. Get me outta this mess!!" I guess it was a payday for them.
A do feel sorry for The Pretty Things though. They probably thought "Yeah! This'll do for us what Blow Up did for the Yardbirds"
And so old Norman's leading man career ended. Freezing his little balls off in Southport.
I went there once. It was a depressing place.


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 a shame that someone so idolised by many kids as well as parents should demean himself in appearing in this exploitative, bandwagon-jumping tripe. I often wonder if Mr Wisdom in his later years looked back at his excuse for a film with any pride. At least Sally Geeson had the decency to retire to doing something worthwhile after appearing in this low budget rubbish. A cameo by some long forgotten pop called the Pretty Things cannot rescue the film from it's awfulness. If you want 60's nostalgia invest in 'Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush' instead, starring Barry Evans and Sally's sister Judy instead.


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


user
I felt I had to add a comment after seeing the breathless gushing of the other comment. I was taken to see this film as a child by my unknowing parents, expecting a normal Norman Wisdom jolly romp comedy. Instead, what you get is this insipid British sex comedy of the worst kind where Norman (Norman!) plays a swinger aiming to get off with as many 'birds' as possible. Absolutely typical of the genre - poorly filmed and acted, no semblance of a script beyond the worst kind of double-entendre, and very vague hints of 'naughtiness'. And all seemingly on that special grainy film stock that is reserved for 1960's-1970's British low budget films. About the only memorable thing is the annoyingly catchy theme tune, which still pops up in my brain after 30-odd years.
Finally, in the last scene you also get to see Norman naked - running across the sand and looking frozen. I think so anyway- at that point my mother hauled me out of the cinema. I saw it again, many years later, and guess what, it was still dire.
If you're any fan or take any interest in the little man and his career, you'll apply the '10-foot-bargepole' rule to this. Believe me, you do not need to see Norman Wisdom's backside.


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 gives a look at the suffering a family experiences at the death of a child, and the healing that can finally come to them.
The family learns of the death of their son on Christmas Eve, 1991, ruining the Christmas season for them. They do not celebrate it again for many years. There is an interesting comment by the daughter that will remind viewers to consider the needs of surviving children in such a situation.
The Matthew character makes a reference to Jesus, but I suspect that other comments he makes come from non-Christian sources. I wonder if any other viewers would recognize those comments. If so, it would be an interesting addition to the data on this movie.


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


user
I bought the DVD of this movie because I am a fan of William Devane and I was really disappointed about "A Christmas Visitor". The story of the movie is so boring and slow in the development that you just want to turn off your TV or DVD player after about the half of it. The dialogues are really bad and belong to a daily soap opera but not in a TV movie. William Devane was alright in his part and he was acting quite good, but he did so much better in other movies and projects. Meredith Baxter was horrible and couldn't really bring the warm hearted mother to the viewers. Instead she was playing very cool and wasn't better than a middle-class actress. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie. Spare your time and your money for this one.


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


user
There are so many logical errors in this show it's barely worth me stating. 1) Mystic Gohan is non existent 2) Uub is as powerful as MAJIN BUU yet plays absolutely no role in the show, somehow he is easily overpowered by every bad guy 3) The whole Super Saiyan 4 idea is retarded and it's appalling that he loses to super 17 (which is the worst idea for a DB villain EVER) 4) Super Saiyan 4 Goku is no match for Super 17 but non transformed Goku using a move he learned in a movie that wasn't supposed to happen, kills him with ease 5) Vegeta is utterly useless 6) No character other than Goku has any impact to the outcome of the battles 7) The series ends with a spirit bomb...come on 8) Goku invincible? absorbs dragonballs? lame 9) Gotenks?...better yet Goten??? Trunks??? they both suck 10) Super Saiyan 4 involves a magical transformation into an adult 11) Goku is a kid 12) Goku is a kid 13) No super saiyan level 2 (characterized by electricity) 14) No imagination with the animation of Gogeta 15) Gogeta utterly useless 16) Big Bang Kamehameha is the biggest let down in anime history (not really logical but I'm going off on a tangent) 17) Shortest character fights ever
I could go on longer if I hadn't repressed the majority of memories associated with this show. When I make enough money I am going to fund the remaking of this series.


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


user
Eh it's not really as good as the other Dragonballs. The villains are actually rip-offs of other Z villains like Cell, Frieza, and even Majin Buu. With Baby being Frieza's clone, Super 17 being Cell's clone, and the Shadow Dragons being Buu's clone(s). The story is also very bad as it deals with Goku shrinking. SHRINKING!! It deals with him SHRINKING to like the size of an eight year old just to get it going. Let us not forget how weak the characters become. Gohan can't go mystic anymore and is even weaker than Pan.(It's sad I know). Speaking of Pan she was so cute at the end of Z now she's lost all that cuteness and become an irritating,whiny little girl whose sole purpose in this series is to get in the way. Goten doesn't even have a purpose in the series and Trunks... well I don't know what to say about Trunks. GT is just an attempt to milk the popular Dragonball franchise. If you really like Dragonball then avoid this series. It doesn't even feel like Dragonball. I will be fair though as the ending however was really good and is actually pretty sad (At least to me) and the theme songs both ending and opening are better (Japanese, not American). Might've been better if Toriyama san worked on it.


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


user
While traveling by train, a woman (Stéphane Excoffier) mistakenly gets out in a remote station when the train stops in the middle of the night. Sooner she finds that a weird lonely pointsman (Jim van der Woude) that does not speak her language is the only person in that area and that that was the last train in that track. The man lodges her in his house and they develop an unusual wordless relationship between them.
"De Wisselwachter" is an overrated boredom, with a different but uninteresting story that goes nowhere. I like movies Off-Hollywood, but this story is too absurd and has no message in the end. The sexual tension between the two lead characters is funny in a moment but too repetitive. I saw this movie in an old VHS and the image is too dark; I do not know whether on DVD the image would be of better quality. In the end, I was absolutely disappointed with this feature. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "O Homem da Linha" ("The Man of the Line")


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


user
I understand the draw and appeal to such a different type of movie and I am a huge admirer of movies with little dialog but all the same this one absolutely terrible. I've been to the Scottish highlands and found the lack of Scottish accents in the characters disappointing. This plot was strong enough in theory but the cheap sets and lack of a single realistic character kept this film from getting off the ground. I feel the use of silence to create atmosphere only works when you have actors who can exude some sort of presence without speaking and these actors certainly cant. If you want a silent movie that captures that presence try (Le Dernier Combat). There have been very few movies that I couldn't even manage to finish and this was one of them. Absolute dribble!


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 "Gristle" primarily for the presence of Michael Dorn, as I enjoyed his Worf portrayal on Star Trek TNG, but had never seen him out of his makeup. Dorn appears to have a nice presence, and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. This movie, however, gave him little dramatic challenge, except to prove that he can, indeed, use the "F" word.
It appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward-thinking type, with a social conscience. Yeah--- for 1965. Today, the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even Spike Lee's dreadful "Bamboozled" looks good in comparison.
This crime-caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double-, triple-, and quadruple-crosses, but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. Mostly, after that point, I simply watched out of momentum, and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. There is a great cast here-- you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. Why are they all in this? I suspect it was 1) The work, and some money, even if modest. 2) Perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around LA--- you know, perhaps they participated to support him, as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the Hollywood scene. Dunno... but the movie was half-baked--- not really "finished." I gave it a 3, although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. Let's hope everybody has moved on to more professional, more carefully done, and more thorough projects since.


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


user
Words can scarcely describe this movie. Loaded with ridiculous stereotypes, a silly plot, and poor music, this movie lacks in just about every category.
Don't be fooled by the IMDB credits. This is not a Michael Dorn movie. He's a secondary character in the grand scheme.
Also listed in the Credit's is an actor named "Prince" - which makes me wonder if it's the same artist formerly known as.... Then again, I'm not sure this movie is worth watching just for that.
Big summary... bunch of teams... one has kidneys... one has $35,000.... one has an "Illegal Substance".... and one has $350,000. Add some confusion and mixups as to who needs to meet who, revenge on being taken, and such, and you end up with this mess of a movie.
Given a choice, I'd pass on this movie.


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


user
Exceptionally bad! I don't expect much from Garcia since he is one of the most overrated actors today but Keaton really should have known this movie would suck and gotten out while he could (not that I'm especially fond of him but hey, he did batman).
In one scene Keaton is transported to a hospital chained down and wearing a Hannibal Lecter kind of face mask when two attack dogs bark at him (dogs can sense evil you know (puke)) and Keaton growls back at them making them back off and whine with their tails between their legs. Did the movie turn comedy right there? Garcia makes a fool out of himself in an interrogation scene with dialogue only a complete retard could find plausible and the kid is too annoying to feel sorry for..
If you are gonna make a movie with as poor a plot as this you need some charm, humour, some solid action. Take Die Hard for example which is great despite its rather crappy plot.
Even though Keatons character was a joke i routed for him all the way. I wanted to see Garcia cry over his dead kid and Keaton sipping martinis on some paradise island, however! This movie makes for a good laugh.. Watch it with a witty friend and you can have some fun as this movie begs for wisecracks in almost every scene.
All in all its an insult to one's intelligence and a huge waste of money. Greed made this movie and thank god it bit its own ass.


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, "Desperate Measures", was.... I'm not quite sure how to even put it into words. Was this supposed to be a comedy? I couldn't stop laughing at how absolutely ridiculous it was. I love Michael Keaton, and I cannot actually comprehend that he did this. They did a good job at keeping my attention because I couldn't wait to see how much more ridiculous it was going to get minute by minute. I actually just registered on this site so that I could get this out. I don't review movies. I don't have time for this, but I cannot let this go knowing I haven't done my civil duty by letting people (those who have an IQ of 85 and above) know that this is no action/thriller, It is honest to goodness funny. You people that actually got thrills off of this scare me. Go watch a good movie like Million Dollar Baby. Clint Eastwood's acting is not superb, but I was balling at the end. Exercise your brain America!


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


user
This plot had more holes in it than an OJ Simpson alibi!
I noticed two Star Trek references in the movie and, yet,
ironically we have a lead character played by Andy Garcia
who is the antithesis of the Vulcan philosophy of, "The
needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one."
Let's just say that while trying to save his son from cancer he puts most of the rest of San Francisco at incredible risk. Michael Keaton's character is almost as
unrealistic as well. He neglects to kill at numerous opportunities and yet is angered when Garcia foils his
attempt to kill a bunch of cops at once. The child's doctor remains in charge of her faculties even after been
held hostage several times in a short expanse of time but
put her on a wide walkway 5 stories up and she loses it.
Andy Garcia's child is something of an anathema in this
movie. He is the most sympathetic and real character, one of the movie's bright spots. He furthermore utters a line, that must have been the result of serendipity, regarding fighting cancer that parallels Keaton's motivation to escape. All in all, the movie was not a
complete waste (see From Dusk to Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money
for that) but disappointing considering the talent on hand.


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


user
I haven't seen Ishtar, but I did have the misfortune of seeing Kevin Costner's Postman, This is worse. Maybe the absolute worse piece of garbage I have ever seen, and if you look at my review for Moulin Rouge? that is saying something. Bad plot, acting was substandard and even wasted (even though, yes, Michael Keaton has been in some of the worst movies I have ever seen), and this movie has no redeeming value to anybody with more than half a brain. DO NOT SEE IF YOU HAVE GRADUATED THE 4TH GRADE as you will find this an insult to your intelligence.


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


user
There seems to be a whole sub genre of cheap, tired old sex "comedies" out there, that say the same old things about middle class couples. Sort of like Friends, but with more soft porn and no wit. This film is no exception- it had situations so familiar I died from deja vu. People sat on couches, spinning out clichés about sex and relationships? Check. Monogamy versus cheating with some woman/man who would never look twice in reality at some other woman/man? Check. PORN The BADDIES!!!!111? Check. Some guy/girl in it who happens to be the only reason you're watching this rubbish? Check. The lesson seems to be- when it doubt, make a tired old sex "comedy" about people no one cares anything about, in order to make some statement that everybody has already heard three thousand times before. That'll get your film made. It'll even attract some sitcom nobody in a bad wig!


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


user
This series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.
For example, in the episode "The Shot Heard Around the World" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely "whited out". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.
Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's "The Patriot". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock.


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


user
My boyfriend and I decided to go see this movie after we heard on the radio that it was a good movie worth seeing, even up there with "Cars". Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I was horrified. For starters, the cows, which should be females, had male voices. Then I realized they really are supposed to be guys. I put the transvestite cows aside for a bit and tried to keep watching the movie with an open mind, but it was just so corny I couldn't help but shake my head. I probably checked my phone about ten times to see if it was almost over. The plot was decent, if not predictable, but it took way to long to reach its point. I was having trouble sitting through it, and I'm 19. The children in the theater were actually getting up and running up and down the aisles. I felt like joining them. But my biggest problem with the movie was that it was loaded with drinking references, not to mention that the cows/bulls actually hot wired and stole a car, then drank and drive, broke into a boy's house to push him out of bed (he deserved it though), then ran away from the cops, whom the writers of the movie made look like terrible people. This isn't the kind of thing I would want my kid to be exposed to. There's way too much of that in the real world, if I wanted my child to watch guys drink and drive and lead cops on a chase, I'd pop them in front of the 10 o'clock news. Children's movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, not an escape into ridiculousness. What happened to the good morals and happy endings that children's movies used to boast? That's why Disney's old movies, like Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, The Little Mermaid, etc. are classics. If you want your kids to see a great cartoon with basically the same plot as "Barnyard", rent "The Lion King". You can get a great story without the awful drinking and driving and grand theft auto references. The writers of "Barnyard" were obviously trying to continue the great trend of making a children's movie that a parent could enjoy as well, but they did so in very bad taste. I would never take my kids to see this, and I suggest you save your money and watch something else.


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


user
Hello - I normally love movies. I'm 19, I have seen many and dislike only one or two. This one though, the second it finished, I had to pull my sister (who had wanted to see it) out by the arm and I burst into tears of laughter as soon as I got out because it was such a ridiculously awful movie.
Why it was awful: - all the cows had udders, especially bothersome were the MALE ones with udders - none of the characters were unique or engaging, except perhaps the main Coyote Dag - the idea of cows keeping watch against coyotes is just ridiculous - the 'funny' moments are repetitive and become simply a sequence to out-do the last one - the themes of working together, which should have been present at the end, were nonexistent. Instead, people get the impression: Well, I'll take this all upon myself, and in this case I was lucky that my friends decided to back me up without my knowledge - all the moments similar to the lion king (as mentioned below) were beyond corniness, even for a kid's movie
and...the worst of all... IT PARALLELS THE LION KING IN EVERY SINGLE WAY Responsible father figure who is killed by Coyotes (the Coyotes are essentially the Hyenas, with Dag, the lead Coyote, being the equivalent of Scar) The farm falls into chaos, Odis (the cow, though basically Simba) wants to play around, and is shocked that his dad died, believes it was his fault (even though in this movie, it WAS his fault), confronts the Coyotes and gets an ass whooping, after which Dag tells him to leave, and on the verge of leaving, Odis somehow decides to go and save some chickens and his friends back him up (by complete surprise of course, he leaves without knowing they will come help him).
Other things taken from Lion King: stars moving around as signs, father figures referring to stars/signs in a mystical loving way, the obviously circularness of how the father Ben found Odis and took care of him, and how at the end Odis' love interest gives birth and he has a similar experience. Birth at the end? GOOD GOD, what the hell... and even similar type music, which seems completely tacked on at the end because it is completely different from all the previous music.
Honestly, this is the first movie I have ever seen where I really WAS rooting for the bad guys - I never understood what other people were saying, until now.
BOTTOM LINE: Don't waste your time to go see this. Convince the kids not to see it, and re-watch the Lion King. Either that, or take them to see the Ant Bully, which was creative and artistic.


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


user
I cannot believe the number of people referring to the lead characters as 'boy cows'!! there is no such thing people!!!! There are cows and bulls and all males in the bovine species are bulls and do not have udders!!!! There was even an actual bull but it was like it was another type of animal completely! my god this is like drawing human ears on a cat, boobs on superman, or mickey mouse with blond shirley temple curls - even in animation it just doesn't work! giving human qualities to the animals is nothing new & to be expected, but changing their actual bodies into basically a transsexual figure is bizarre for a family cartoon - how many people- editors, writers, producers, animators saw this and didn't know any better or didn't say anything- it is completely astounding! i'm no snob & I luv animation- simpsons, beavis & butthead, south park, even ice age & all the other new ones out there - over the hedge was great- but this is nuts - totally nuts- i could not accept that that many people are that ignorant & i kept hoping for a reason for the udders in the film - an explanation - none came - and at the end when they hold up this little newborn calf & half its belly is udder & they pronounce 'its a boy' i nearly choked!!!! please, writer/creator let us in on the joke!


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


user
I took my 4 year old twins to see this movie today and I would NOT recommend it for children their age.
This movie had many fighting scenes throughout it, which I found too violent and my children found scary.
The subject matter was way over my kids heads and the death scene was too scary for a cartoon geared towards children.
I was disappointed because we were all looking forward to seeing this, but it just did not cut it. If you have children under 7 years old, I would not recommend this movie.
Also, the utter thing made me crazy during the entire movie.


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


user
Words cannot describe how horrible this movie is. Well, maybe they can. I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Pitiful. Hollywood makes more talking animals set in graphics. Apparently script and storyline aren't needed anymore.
2 - Violent. Kids movie but yet one of the characters is viciously attacked and killed.
3 - Blatantly stupid. The movie is actually depicting the farm animals as having human abilities. In Nemo, the fish could talk, but for the most part, they are still fish. We only hear the English as a translation. In Barnyard, the animals are actually speaking English that other people can understand.
4 - Unintelligent - No smart story line or even any smart humor. (Ok, the 13 year old dog on crutches was funny).
5 - Culturally insensitive - The "black" cow is actually played by a black actress. The pink cow is played by a white actress. The black cow was playing a stereotypical black person.
6 - Ignorant - No such thing as a male cow that I'm aware of. I believe we call them bulls? If we are going to expose our children to drek, it might as well have the simplest facts correct.
7 - Boring and Borish. My 4 year old had us leave after 45 minutes. He practically fell asleep.
I'm sure this movie will make millions, which is unfortunate, because it only proves to Hollywood producers that the American public at large is just filled with suckers waiting to pay 8 bucks just to get some peace and quiet from the kids for an hour or two. An unfortunate circumstance. Why should the producers spend real money when the returns will be the same either way.


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


user
Let's see... a couple dozen Gary Larson gags, as well as his illustration style, a possibly legally difficult wholesale appropriation of an Aardman character, a more than generous sprinkling of art direction from various Pixar films, positively Lion King-esquire villains living in what amounts to an elephant's graveyard IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY, oh, and a stinking' Riverdance joke ten years after any possible relevance. The kids (three and five) liked it, but boy, it was a haul for dad. Just another weak attempt from Nickelodean Films to hitch on to the animation explosion. I really, really wish they had spent a little more money on character design, on rendering, on a script, on a director.


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


user
It was so BORING! No plot whatsoever! Basically a watered-down version of the Lion King mixed in with Animal Farm. Again, no plot at all. Horrible! Worst hour and a half of my life!Oh my gosh! I had to walk out of the theatre for a few minutes just to get some relief! I maybe chuckled twice. All of the semi-funny parts are in the previews. I hate movies like that. Yeah, the movie pretty much sucked. I don't know how it got such good ratings and reviews. THERE IS NO PLOT OR STORYLINE!! If you do go see this movie, bring a pillow or a girlfriend/boyfriend to keep you occupied through out. Awful. I don't think I've ever gone to a movie and disliked it as much. It was a good thing that the tickets only cost five dollars because I would be mad if I'd have paid $7.50 to see this crap.


assistant
0