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


user
This year's Eurovision was to me a big disappointment. I've watched the Eurovision Song Contest every year since 1986 (well, at least that's the earliest one I can remember, and I was only 2 at the time). As any other year this one contained both good, bad and horrible songs - nothing new there. However this year's show was the worst one I can remember. Only very few good (decent's probably more like it) songs and a lot of absolutely terrible songs.
Turkey's winner song "Every Way That I Can" sounded to me like a rip-off of Turkish singer Tarkan's hit "Simarik", just sounding a lot worse. It didn't deserve to win from my point of view. Belgium's song "Sanomi", coming in second, was a no-language song. Wonder what's next? Animals singing? Nevertheless the music for the song was quite catchy, giving the song a kind of dreamy feeling, to which the "lyrics" seemed appropriate. One of the better songs, but that's not saying much.
After one of the closest races in Eurovision history Russian duo t.A.T.u. ended in third place just three points behind Turkey and behind Belgium, with "Ne Ver', Ne Boisia" ("Don't Trust, Don't Be Afraid"). To me t.A.T.u. was one of the very few highlights of the show, surprising just about everyone by being some of the most covered up girls of all the female contestants. They let their song do the talking and if we ignore the fact that they failed to pitch a few times in the first chorus, they let the song speak very well indeed.
The biggest surprise when looking at the scoreboard was Austria. The bookmakers here in Denmark had the biggest odds on that song - a song that indeed was beyond horrible - but ended up in 8th place. Could it be that bum of his being shaken to the rhythm of the song? That performance was the one that made me and my family laugh the most, not because it looked good, but because it looked so stupid that it was actually fun.
Sweden did what they do the best; ABBA. In 1999 they won with "Take Me To Your Heaven", by sounding like ABBA. In 2001 they made the top 10 with "Listen To Your Heartbeat", again sounding like ABBA, and once again this year they did it ABBA-style, again ending in the top 10.
England was finally punished for making those absolutely horrible, non-catching songs, that they've been the past years.
Ireland ripped off the winner from 2000, "Fly On The Wings Of Love". And I could go on and on about how bad the songs were.
I feel a bit sorry for the Aussies, who this year finally got the chance to see the Eurovision Song Contest. They deserved better than this.
I wasn't surprised by the show though. The Eurovision from 2000 to me stands out as one of the best in recent years. 2001 was quite good, but not as good. 2002 was okay, but certainly no more. This year was quite simply disappointing.
Let's hope it'll get better next year. If not for us, then at least for the Aussies.
4/10. One for t.A.T.u., one for the close race, one for the butt-shaking and one for all the rest.


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


user
Tom is about to tuck into a delicious Jerry sandwich when a huge bird of prey swoops down and flies off with his snack. Not at all happy with having his sarnie stolen right from under his nose, Tom takes off in hot pursuit, determined to retrieve his mousy morsel.
As much as I love Tom and Jerry, I have got to say that this one is a bit of a stinker: the story is rather mundane; it introduces a badly conceived peripheral character that lacks charm; and it flogs the old 'dress the cartoon character up as a woman' gag to death.
In my opinion, 'Flirty Birdy' rivals 'Fraidy Cat' and 'Mouse in Manhattan' for the title of weakest Tom and Jerry caper thus far.


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


user
When I heard the film was to be released and the theme of what it was about, I felt very curious. But when I saw it was the biggest deception of my life. Technically speaking, the sound is poor, you can tell about man dialogs that were remade on studio that are poorly achieved in the final mix. Secondo of all, the photography is mediocre, some part of the films show some soldiers with night vision goggles, and the way the cinematographer achieves that "dark night" is by illuminated everything like if they were in an actual military base with lights, there's no reference used of the moonlight, my god! Thir but not least, most of the ac tings are really poor, it's totally not believable the roll of the wife of one of the soldier, her performance it's pretty poor.
Great disappointing, shame of the jury who chose to send this movie to represent Colombia on the Oscars.


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 mess of a movie! If it wasnt for Eric Roberts and Susan Sarandon's performances ,this movie would be a total waste! A very muddled plot and phony dialogue.Eric Roberts debut....where did his career go from this movie on?Nowhere but down!


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


user
I didn't particularly like Sliding Doors or Twice Upon a Yesterday, so I certainly didn't this poor second-rate excuse for those films. An idea that's been done to death (what would happen if...?) and the script is shoddy and unsuccessful, not to mention the obvious attempt at adding sex/nudity simply to gain an R rating and certain scenes that just weren't necessary but were there to push the boundaries (I really don't need to see a kid urinating or a struggle with a diaphragm. Especially when they have absolutely no connection to or use in the film).
The acting was also very poor, the only actor I found the least bit satisfying was her daughter; the rest were two-dimensional and quite unbelievable. The people I watched this with left the room about halfway through; I managed to finish it, but not without fast forwarding through part of it.
Overall: Nothing new here, it's a generic and boring film. The few rather amusing moments are far outweighed by the silly or stupid ones. This would be dull even if it hadn't been done before. If it weren't such a rehash I'd rate it a five, but even for an Indie film this was severely lacking, and as a rehash it loses on originality as well: 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
Well, this movie wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I was expecting to give it one star. I chose to give it three. Why? Well, for a cheesy horror/sci-fi movie, it's not all that bad. Sure the characters are tacky (as is their acting - including a young Leonardo DiCaprio), the effects cheap looking, and the monsters...well let's just say that I've seen some more effective Halloween costumes in Elementary Schools... But there was something about this movie that made me watch it till the end. A little bit of humor helped out a bit I guess. And if you ever wanted to see an alien pass gas, this movie will let you live your dream. 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
Basically the first two Critters movie were already silly ones but in a good and entertaining way. This movie is way more of a B-movie, that is silly but for all of the wrong reasons.
This is the first sequel that doesn't really follows the plot of the first two movies. Basically all of the characters are new and there are no bounty hunters this time (well, as good as none, since the bounty hunter in this movie shows up far too late) and the budget for this one obviously went down again. To save even more costs, the movie got shot back-to-back with part 4, which I imaging will be just as bad, since it directly follows this movie and got made by the same people involved as with this one.
It's just a typical B-genre movie, that doesn't really have any originality in it or brings entertainment. It makes "Critters 3" a real redundant sequel, you can easily do without. Granted that things could had been way worse for this movie but it just ain't exactly a good one either. The movie just falls flat as a science-fiction/horror/comedy.
Also kind of strange to notice how the Critters has suddenly changed in this one. They are about double their usual size this time, without giving an explanation for that and they are even more Gremlins like in this movie than was the case in the previous one.
The movie is only made interesting because this was the feature film debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. He was about 17 in this movie and of course looking baby-faced like he still does now. I like watching this well known actors in their early roles. It's fun to see how they act and if their style has improved and changed over the years. Of course DiCaprio got only better but he already was kind of delivering his lines in the same way as he does these days.
Really a too silly and lame movie.
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
Sadly, this movie is not very good. But does it really matter ? We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fic camp classics ... so I forgive this one. About thew only thing that anyone remember from this movie, is that little Leonardo DiCaprio made his debut in it.
He did OK. The part didn't ask for great acting skills, and the direction probably never gave him any chance of providing one anyway ... Little Leonardo DiCaprio was very cute ... and so was the girl. The movie is fun, if you like horror & sci fic camp classics and are experienced in watching them.


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


user
*Spoilers - sorry!* The first word that sprung to mind whilst watching the film is 'Gremlins'. It's the only critters movie I have seen from the four movies, but I enjoyed it. It wasn't too complicated as I hadn't seen the past two, but I thought it was quite a good movie all the same.
Critters starts with a man, his son and daughter stopping off on the way to a vacation (although it turns out that they end up at their own home - which I have no idea what the hell went on) The girl meets up with a boy (played by Leo DiCaprio) and they go hang out in a nearby forest. They meet this weird guy who tells them to be careful and stuff because of the critters. He seems a bit psychotic and if I was in that situation, I would not speak to him. The critters steal a ride of the girl and boy's car and end up in their flat thing. They hide out in the basement and end up killing this lazy jerk. They then nearly kill this fat woman and the girl's dad. They are chased higher and higher up the flat until they hide in the attic. The critters eat stuff in the kitchen (Spoof of the gremlins kitchen scene???!) And I can't remember (not a good thing) but I'm sure they have to go back for something/someone. Anyway they end up getting out and saved. The psychotic guy comes back and before he kills the last two critters he is told he can't because they are endangered and so he sends them home.
The ending was disappointing and I was annoyed that only the lazy guy died as there were quite a few annoying characters I would personally have killed off. It's a thrilling, exciting movie worth a watch. But, if you're looking for a better version of this genre I recommend the gremlins movies. Sorry!


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


user
As a fan of bad movies (and MST3K, and a member of MFT3K), I must say I've seen my share of them. But geez! Even the worst I've seen at least had a soundtrack. As George Lazenby stiffly wanders around Hong Kong, doing who knows what, you can guarantee that you won't be distracted by any of that background music that fills todays cinema. Or any of that music that fills elevators. I don't think anyone in this film even hums.
Now, this isn't entirely true -- there *is* a sound track. if you listen closely, you will hear it chime in about a half-dozen times through the course of the film. Of course, the timing will be entirely inappropriate, and it doesn't last very long, but something that could be classified as "music" does occur. Your best bet, though, is to sit your toddler armed with a wooden spoon down in front of the TV with a collection of pots and pans while you watch. The rhythm and flow would be better than anything the film offers.
Keep an eye out for Sammo Hung as a minor villian in this film. Aren't we all glad he found Jackie Chan to work with?


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


user
My first question, is NOT about the horrible acting, NOT about the horrendous writing, it is the directing. The choices that were made about the cinematography are some of this worst decisions I have ever seen. Why does EVERY single bad guy have to die in slow motion? I was about to beat myself with a rubber hose. The camera shots make it so that you can't see whats going on. I was JUST about to turn the movie off because of Jalal Merhi's accent, when it made it to the sex scene, so I thought it might get better, well it did not. If you rate special effects on an A,B,C rating scale, I would have to put it around a W or so, and did I mention the acting? Wow, was it bad!!! And the WORST part of the entire "Expect to DIE" experience, is the blatant misuse of the phrase on the cover, which is: "THE MATRIX JUST GOT DEADLIER". comparing this movie to the Matrix is easily the WORST comparison I have EVER seen. If you haven't seen this movie, Don't, unless you are looking for a good reason to beat your head against the wall.


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


user
In the wake of the matrix this travesty of a film with loose connections to VR has been reissued with the tag-line "The Matrix just got Deadler!", in a box with a very Matrix inspired cover (still called "Expect to Die" though). Due to the choice of font however the tag-line looks to all the world like it says "Beablier". Anyway.
To complete the transformation to Matrix wannabe they have mocked up a VR fight scene with a Morpheus-a-like on the back of the box. It may be important to know that this character DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE FILM.
Overall this film is a travesty on every level. Jalal Mehri is an awful actor and does not impress with his martial arts. However his partner Stone is played by Evan Lurie, who in this film is simply the worst actor I have ever seen. Clearly he was chosen to make Jalal look good in comparison. Worst film I have seen for a long long time.


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


user
Wow, Jeez, I don't even know where to begin commenting on this thing they called a movie. I seriously don't know what the hell David Bradley began smoking after making Hard Justice, which in my opinion, was quite a good movie after the American Ninja features. I hadn't seen any of this guy's latter movies after Cyborg Cop. Lucky I saw them on Amazon for like 5 pounds each and I can safely say the following: if I had thrown down the drain the 5 pounds I spent on Total Reality, Crisis and Expect to Die, I would have ended up happier than having to sit through the 90 minutes that each of them lasted. My God, how the HECK can anybody label these as "movies" ??? And why do action/martial arts actors fall knee-deep into the smelliest horse-dung when they've like reached their peak?? I mean, David Bradley's no Oscar deserver but his first movies were pretty entertaining. Tough, cool guy with pretty good martial expertise who delivered corny lines but at least entertained action and martial arts fans to a certain extent. But I seriously would love to know what went through this guy's head after making Hard Justice. His final 3 movies have to frankly be the WORST I have ever had to sit through. As I mentioned before, I'd love to get my money back on the 3 DVDs I bought. Crisis was the epitome of sleepiness, Total Reality was harsh but this Expect to Die is just utter nonsense. I bet the director was either mega-stoned when he made this or he was just taking the pee out of every David Bradley fan who would sit through this heap of crap. The plot circles around a doctor (Bradley) who develops some type of Virtual Reality game in which he's just killing different people off one by one. Sorry but I just couldn't take this guy seriously playing a baddie with that posh hair-do, glasses and gray slacks and doing absolutely NO physical fighting whatsoever (frankly, his best asset). The film is even worse than any of those Saturday afternoon B-movies because the acting is laughable, the directing is horrendous and the few fights in the movie, well, what can I say... The actors look like they're training with their gym buddy. We get a dumb muscular cop who starts to show off his fighting stuff like one hour into the movie and fails heavily... a french hairy version of Van Damme who just can't fight, act or speak to save his freaking life and Bradley, the supposed protagonist, playing the evil doctor who I was really happy for when he stopped making this type of expendable rubbish. I even reckon he didn't throw a kick in this movie probably due to his heart condition already playing up on him. For a B-actor, I must admit I really liked this guy, his style, physique, fighting skills... But I'm really, really glad he stopped acting after this monstrosity because I honestly wouldn't have been able to sit through another ninety minutes of pee-taking material like this one. Avoid at all costs even if you're family of David Bradley, you'll be glad you did, word.


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


user
Purchased this film for one dollar and figured I could never go wrong, my big mistake was watching it. Enjoyed the acting of Ice-T and the rapping which gave lots of class to this film about Los Angeles and the world of pimps. There is a boxer who kills one of his opponents in a practice ring and who has a career, but because of mental problems from childhood and the killing of this other boxer he retires. He gets hired by a pimp who is looking for a bodyguard to protect the girls that work for him at their trade and make sure they are not beaten up. This boxer falls in love with the boss's girlfriend and all kinds of trouble starts. This is entertaining and it then becomes a big laughing comedy.


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


user
I rented this movie from my local library and thought it might be good considering I like this type of movie and considering who was in it but boy was I wrong. The acting stunk, the fight scenes were just as bad and they got a couple of known people to be in it but didn't cast anyone with acting ability to play the lead? I noticed some people gave it a 10. Why would you ever consider giving this pile of horse **** a 10. You can say it's worth a 10 for the sheer comedy of it but when you vote on a movie that's not supposed to be a comedy you can't give it a 10 for comedy. You have to rate it on what it was supposed to actually be like and not for something the director wasn't intending. Maybe some of you voted 10 cause you thought it would be funny to have this crappy movie have a high rating so that people would go out and rent or buy it cause you think it's fun to mislead people. You're playing with peoples time and money which you have no right to do. If the movie sucked give it a bad rating if it was good give it a good rating but don't lie. I gave this movie a 4 and am glad that I was able to check this out for free from my library cause this movie sucked and really isn't worth paying a cent to see.


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


user
If you would like to watch an example of how not to make a film, then you need to watch this. I, myself, with no film making experience could do better. The script is laughable with a weak plot and there is no effort to be seen for any intelligent structure. In order to make up for this flaw, you would think the action would be decent, wouldn't you?
As the acting, editing and overall piecing together of the film is appalling the only saving grace is the dreadful performance by the lead actor. The reason why he is the saving grace, is because he is so genuinely bad at acting, that he should win an Oscar for it. At least some recognition for making me laugh at him so much.
Toss in a dead woman's body after an all male shoot out (where did she come from?), pull the semi automatic trigger tens of times while the soundman pulls off two gunshot effects, reflection of the camera crew in Kool Mo Dee's shades, one and only ONE music track for the WHOLE film, an unoriginal script that has no logic; is a perfect recipe for a really, really bad film. Its actually more fun spotting the errors than actually trying to find something positive. 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
Last night, I got bored and decided to watch a movie called 'out kold' which I had once bought with a whole lot of other cheap movies from a videostore. Seemed like a good old action movie, so I took out the chips and coke and was ready for a relaxing evening. Well, the pain started right from the beginning. The main character is a boxer who is the nicest guy I have ever seen. As the good person he has to be nice of course, but he is just a pussy! That totally doesn't fit with a boxer that has 28 KO's and starts working for a pimp to earn some extra money. Even nice guys can still be cool. Well, then came his first fight while he was working for this pimp. Every punch was clearly missed and that became even more annoying because the sound effect weren't synchronised with the punches. Then there is this totally worthless acting of the whole cast, and you have enough reasons to leave this movie for what it is. I gave it a 1 because I have never seen such a bad movie.


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


user
Bad, a lot a crap. It copied simone, also a bad movie! Them flips when "loretta modern" sang was lame. That internet scenes made it worse. And Roscoe loves a "hologram"! Thats plain stupid! I give 0 stars! Because they copied, the plot was stupid, THE WHOLE MOVIE WAS THUMBS DOWN ALL THE WAY!


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 the worst movies I've ever seen. Completely ridiculous. The story is bad. The animations are completely childish and displaced. The physics of the holograms are hilarious from how much they are completely wrong. OMG, I even wanna believe that this film has Disney label on it. Yuck. The actresses are somewhat beautiful, but there are so many good films with astonishing actresses that are far more valuable to see than this one. Final remark, bad film. Don't bother to watch it. If you're looking for films to see with your kids consider other alternatives like Ratattuile, Monster Inc or an Enchanted Story (on theaters). Seriously.


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


user
I'm not sure who should be blamed for this debacle - in truth, the acting isn't too bad and the story isn't as terrible as some made-for-Disney movies have been. The story itself is shallow and undeveloped but that isn't surprising in a film of this type. The acting is more than a bit two-dimensional, but I give the actors credit for managing to do anything with the material that they had to work with.
However, it's inexcusable, in my book, to base an entire storyline on the theory that they've created a 'perfect' pop star and then cast an actress who can't sing to save her life. If the girl can't sing, have someone who can record the music!
This actress is a TERRIBLE singer - she was so flat she was usually singing in a totally different key!


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


user
This pathetic excuse for a movie doesn't have a decent structure or a sensible closure. The characters were confusing and the entire plot kept getting off track. I'd have to say that Pixel Perfect was a disgrace. This is what happens when you let Disney channel make movies.


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


user
I know these types of films sell tickets and make a profit for the film makers but it just won't do as a film about Vietnam. Viet Nam was filled with horrors for the men who lived it day in and day out.
This film stars Gene Hackman who is Korean war vet assigned to train a group of rag-tag Viet Nam Vets for a return trip to that country to rescue a group of American POW's held at a camp there. These men include a former tunnel rat, a crazy acid dropping sailor, a blond tanned surfer from California and some inexperienced kid (Patrick Swayze) who just so happens had a dad that was killed in Nam. They train first at some camp in Texas and once in Nam they are found out and lose all their weapons. They are able to find replacement weapons and continue on their way to free the captured men. Most of the men are found and saved but the rag-tag group is mostly wiped out.
This movie played like a video game in which you could figure out what was going to happen next and who would pop out of behind what bush, and who was going to die and who was going to live. Viet Nam I'm guessing was not like a video game....


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


user
But to be a little more precise I do not think that it is as bad as it actually could be. Eventhough the actors (famous to semi-famous) didn't do a very great job. Directors fault? Could be the script as well hard for me to say? Anyway, if you are after a lot of cool guns and action this is not the movie for you but they do run around with a lot of ww2 vintage guns. Sort of fun :) Well I guess I could say more but it just doesn't feel as if it's worth it. If you are desperate enough or a Hackman freak see it otherwise don't!
Live well and prosper


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


user
Maybe our standards for Vientam movies have increased since Born on the Fourth Of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. This movie has a predictable plot, bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, bad special effects, etc. Compared with other Vietnam movies this one is completely unbelievable.


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


user
It is sad to have to say that a film is truly awful and one tries to find ways around saying this. However, this is a dreadful film. Gene Hackman wastes time (and one suspects, many dollars) on re-playing his most famous, and oft recreated, role as "Gene Hackman". Otherwise, television actors are given the chance to become film stars, and successfully, resist the temptation. Patrick Swayze has a minor part and went on to greater things, for which he must be eternally thankful.
I watched this film, as a result of someone else's review and I felt that another point of view was merited. You may not agree with my review but now, at least, you have been warned.


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


user
Disappointing comedy-drama with sentimental coating has Michael J. Fox ideally cast as a former child star who now runs a talent agency for thespian tots; Nathan Lane and Cyndi Lauper are his assistants. This all sounds as if it can't miss, however too much of the scenario is given over to strident Christina Vidal as a streetwise tyke whom Fox believes will be the next big thing. They lock quickly lock heads, and the bantering dialogue takes them back and forth to an uninteresting, formula finish. Fox and Lane are both appealing, but the energy of the early scenes gives way to treacle. Slickly produced, but ultimately stale. *1/2 from ****


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


user
This isn't a bad movie. It's fun to watch for the first time. However it has absolutely no replay value at all. When you try to watch it again it gets so boring you have to turn it off. I give this movie a 6 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
This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie


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


user
This movie has got to be one of the all-time lows of Michael J. Fox's generally respectable career. I should have known how awful this movie was when I rented it and found the movie only half viewed and not rewound by the previous renter. Never a good sign! Fox plays a grown up child star who's now an agent for other show business kids. His character is delusional in that he still believes that everyone should love him for being Mikey. His big break comes when he meets Angie Vega, a talented child. Vega is abrasive and not at all likeable. In fact, the only likeable character in the whole movie is Cyndi Lauper as a Brooklyn accented receptionist for the agency. One of those movies that makes me want to stick a post-it note to the box warning others not to waste their time!


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 cookie-cutter movie about a hardened adult who meets an adorable, street-smart kid (Cop and 1/2, Gloria, etc). And once again, it is not funny or interesting, for anyone to watch - kids or adults. I'm sure some people might find this movie amusing, but I have no earthly idea why. Once again, I feel sorry for the poor kids who were forced to work in this movie, so that everyone else and their parents could make some bucks at the price of a cheesy cheesy movie.


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


user
Another sadistic and ultra-sleazy late 70's/early 80's revenge movie?? Wes Craven sure launched a popular trend with his "Last House on the Left" Although "Terror Express" is more like a rip-off of other rip-offs, like "I Spit on your Grave" and especially "Night Train Murders". Storywise, this movie has absolutely nothing new to offer so the only thing left to do for director Ferdinando Baldi was to multiply the sleaze-factor by a thousand! This is actually just a soft core porn flick that gets a little bit rough near the ending. On the night train from Rome are three hopelessly imbecile loser running amok. They provoke the male travelers and sexually harass the females. Things get a little out of control and a traveling convict comes to the rescue of a prostitute who keeps being screwed around by the three. This is a very tame movie and there wasn't even enough budget to buy a couple bags of fake blood. This type of movies is generally infamous for the brutal rape sequences and the discriminating behavior towards women, but the sex in "Terror Express" isn't unsettling at all. On the contrary, these 'rapists' spend more time orally pleasuring their victims then getting some themselves! The music is great, the dialogs are unintentionally hilarious and the characters are the most ridiculous ones I ever beheld. The villains are wimps and the train-passengers are so motionless they look like part of the set. If you like your exploitation as sleazy as it gets, this is your film. However, your hunger for blood and controversy will definitely not be stilled. "Terror Express" should be in the porn-section of videostores.


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


user
I've got to say, I'm a big fan of these 'Last House on the Left' rip-offs, even the ones that most people seem to hate are often held in relatively high esteem by me; but one of these sorts of films that I didn't like much was Aldo Lado's 'Night Train Murders', and unfortunately it would seem that trains and The Last House on the Left don't mix, as Terror Express is another lacklustre rip-off. Something that this sort of film really needs is a resoundingly nasty lead character; and while Terror Express offers up three potential candidates, not one of them steps up and becomes this villain, leaving the lacking in the most important area. It actually gets off to a good start as three young men on a passenger train begin slightly irritating the guests on board. This leads the audience to believe that there is more in store, but unfortunately it never really gets going once the scene has been set. From there, the trio end up 'taking over' the train and use their new found power to terrorise the guests and rape the women.
It has to be said that there's a fair amount of sleaze in this film, which will be pleasing to many viewers; but there's hardly any blood. Director Ferdinando Baldi seemed to think that he could get away with replacing the blood with sex scenes, and he may have gotten away with it too; if he could film a brutal sex scene. The idea that these men have taken the train by force goes out of the window once it gets to the sex, as the people that you would expect to be powerful and forceful seem all too keen to show their women a good time, and despite one very tame 'sandwich' sequence, none of the sex is particularly interesting. Since a lot of the film is taken up by these sex scenes, this becomes a massive problem. Films like this are often lacking in style, suspense and credibility; but you know you're watching a bad one when it's boring you. As you might expect, none of the acting is up to anything; and the central three in particular stand out for being rubbish. The direction is lacking in style, and there's very little tension or suspense; making it difficult to care what is going to happen. Overall, this is a pretty crappy example of an exploitation film, and I can't recommend it.


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 understand the people here. The film is neither as good as as bad as some people say here. Except for De Kok the acting is OK. The problem with the film is mainly the script. The characters are not believable. The sex is done okay, but the psychology behind the people makes very little sense. The film doesn't look good, but what do you expect? The film was shot for very little money on video. Off course then it doesn't look as good as a normal film, duh! The one thing I do agree on is that the music is bad. Sounds like a cheap soft erotic film from the '80's. The film is not good, okay, but you have to give some credit for pulling this of without any money.


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


user
This is not a new film. It is a re-cut of 1994's "Emmanuelle, Queen of the Galaxy", and it has been significantly truncated. Warning: Many characters appear in the credits that have been cut from the movie!
If you want to see this one in its original form, pick up "Queen" - avoid this one at all costs, as the cuts make it even choppier than it was originally.


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


user
I caught this movie on late-night TV. Honestly i saw most of it, and the whole time i was sitting in complete and utter disbelief.
Is there any genre that's more pointless than soft-core porn? If there is i don't want to know about it. Softcore porn combines all the horrors of porn (lousy production values, abominable acting, crappy scripts) with the coyness of sex-scenes in regular movies. So the end result is arousing nor entertaining. This movie also has the rather odd approach of a science-fiction setting, and it works horribly. All the sex is performed in some sort of virtual reality setting where the crew from the future learn about physical love. And yes, it's about as confused and silly as it sounds.
But there has to be some positive points though, right? Well, there is one... Krista Allen is amazingly hot. That's about the only thing that was less than awful in this movie. I don't know what it is about her, but she has an amazing sex appeal. The rest of the cast look like the standard porn-cast though. Rather unattractive women with poorly done fake breasts, and men that have spent far too much time in the gym toning themselves grotesque. Probably a gym in Germany as well judging by haircuts and clothing.
To sum things up. If you enjoy Krista Allens presence on screen you can watch this for the brief moments where she shows some of her seductive potential (most of the time she tries to articulate crappy lines of dialog though). If you don't enjoy Krista Allen then you might as well stay away altogether.
I rate this 10/10 for Krista Allens sex appeal, 1/10 for everything else and 2/10 for entertainment value since this is a unique crappy porn/science fiction hybrid that's not really like anything i've ever seen.


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


user
Okay, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.)


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


user
I just have to comment on this movie because I gave it a 4 rating, and in my opinion that's pretty high for a softporn smut movie. The actual plot is kind of hokey (who would expect otherwise) but Hafron is so incredibly funny, and he delivers everything in a cyborgish voice so it's easy for him. Whoever wrote the script had some wit definitely! I must have laughed out loud ten times, and that's not a reason anyone would pick up this movie. The only softporn movie I've seen which had any merit other than beautiful women (and believe me, Emmanuelle is drop dead gorgeous...just look at the cover!)
Any movie that can entertain me considering how poor the plot was and how bad the acting is, also considering the movie wasn't made to artistically entertain, so to speak, it gets at least a four in my book. I mean, who wouldn't watch this before Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot?


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


user
If you read the plot summary for "Mad Max," you've just ruined the first 1 hour and 10 minutes of the film. You've also found out that "Mad Max" takes place in post-apocalyptic Australia, which will be helpful because otherwise you won't have any idea what's going on. The film, made in 1979, tries really hard to be Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) only that film, in all its strangeness, actually makes sense and leaves an impact. This film does neither and ends up being a car/bike stunt-filled romp that crashes like every vehicle in the film does.
The first thing wrong with "Mad Max" is that it tries to sell itself as a revenge tale when no vigilante appears to take revenge until the final 20 minutes. If the first hour were condensed to 20-30 minutes and then the final 20 added on and then another hour added after that, "Mad Max would be a cool action film with a great vigilante protagonist. Instead, Mel Gibson has to wait around and act like a sissy for 2/3 of the film and then have a sudden epiphany to seek revenge. I've yet to watch the sequel "Road Warrior" and I have to admit I'm excited for it only because I want to know what he does next. This first film was mostly a waste of time.
George Miller does some great action stuff here, but his over-the-top symbolism is absurd and the unbearable cheesy reaction sequences every time a character discovers something horrifying like a burnt hand or what have you completely ruins those moments. Its a terribly cliché B-movie technique.
There is absolutely no thematic value or subtle critique of society in this film no matter what you might think. A great action sci-fi movie at least makes a point, but the gratuitous violence done by random, weird bikers doesn't say anything of value. Even the villain Toecutter feels modeled off Alex of "Clockwork" only uglier and completely unimposing. The PG violence just does not allow the violence of this gang to settle in and get a reaction from the viewer, it just cheeses it up if anything.
I'll give credit for the amount of stuff the film crew blew up and crashed into things and Miller does a great job making you feel the intensity of the collisions. Everything else is mediocre at best and then after an hour of mediocrity, you get something good and the film ends 20 minutes later. I'm just crossing my fingers "Road Warrior" will fulfill the expectations of where this film ends, otherwise that's more time wasted. ~Steven C
Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com


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


user
Ok, where to start. I can't believe how many good reviews I read on here. I watched this (year 2004) and I had to fight to not push the stop button, I decided to continue just because of all the good reviews I read. After watching it I felt it was my duty to let the world know about this. First of all the movie seems like it is never going to begin, the plotline doesn't actually occur until about 30 minutes before the movie ends, leaving the viewer wondering, `when is this going to start' So don't ever call this a `revenge movie' because the revenge doesn't even start until over half the movie is already gone by. Furthermore, the movie tries to make you believe this is a post-apocalyptic Australia. I am sorry if showing dusty rural roads half the movie and a crooked letter on a sign didn't quite convince me of that, even for 1979 this was not science fiction. So anyways, add this on top of randomly placed homoerotic subtext and you have got yourself one crappy movie (I have nothing against gays, there was just no need for it). The only good part was the first chase scene, good directing considering it was 1979, and another good part is how he kills the last guy. So basically I recommend you watch the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes and you will enjoy yourself much more than if you sat through all that stuff in the middle, which may lead you to gouge your own eyes out. Don't say I didn't warn you.


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


user
George Segal lives with his elderly and senile mother. There are many jokes about her Alzheimer's-like dementia and most of them aren't funny, though there were a few funny moments sprinkled in here and there (such as the nude running through the park scene and the old folks home). At first, Segal tries to kill his mother because she's tough to live with and because he's a selfish guy. Making the film sort of like a Wiley Coyote versus the Roadrunner comedy where he tries again and again to kill this indestructible gal would have been a hoot--too bad this was NOT the overall tone of the film.
I do applaud Carl Reiner's attempt to make a tasteless film that is intended to offend everyone. I have a special place in my heart for films like ED AND HIS DEAD MOTHER, EATING RAOUL and HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--all films about death that dare to offend. The problem here, though, is that WHERE'S POPPA? has some funny moments, but it also has a lot of flat ones and the overall product is amazingly bland. Plus topics such as homosexual rape, incest and the like are really difficult to make funny. I read in "THE ROUGH GUIDE TO CULT MOVIES" that it is considered a cult film, though I just can't see anyone wanting to see this more than once.


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


user
New York attorney plots to rid himself of his senile mother after meeting an attractive, available woman. Screenwriter Robert Klane, adapting his own novel (the kind of paperback kids would buy for the dirty parts), doesn't seem to have any knowledge of mental illness: to him, it's just an excuse for prurient comedy and scatological jokes. George Segal--who, in the 1960s, starred mostly in war and espionage pictures--had become, by this time, one of America's greatest sad-sack comedians; his nutty reactions and batty responses rival only his mother's inscrutabilities. Segal is paired well with Trish Van Devere, and their moments of connection (though also played for laughs) are really the only sequences one can gravitate towards. Ruth Gordon, lovable as is she, is simply around too much--and more of her amounts to less. This is one of the worst directed and edited films I have ever seen from so-called professionals. Promising scenes which ultimately don't play out for the full effect are haphazardly disconnected from other moments which flail around endlessly, causing the crass, rickety movie to self-destruct long before it's actually over. *1/2 from ****


assistant
0