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
If you are a Catalan nationalist anarcho-socialist with unnuanced reverence for the mythologies of the Spanish republic, this movie may be for you. Two brothers, real-life ones (one of them being Marc Recha himself), re-enact a fictional version of a real-life journey they had made through the spectacular Catalan countryside, and history is evoked (pans of bullet-holed walls, artillery booms on the soundtrack) but not shown. There is very little dialog, and most of it is incidental: the story is told in a third-person voice-over, the voice being that of an actress impersonating the real-life sister of the real-life brothers. The images have little to do with what story line there is, which isn't much. Many are stunning, brooding pans across stark semi-arid mountains and rivers (think Terrence Malick or Gus Van Sant -- there's not a little of both "Gerry" and "Last Days" here), interspersed with some stunning still images and motionless frames. These are best enjoyed within the film's superb natural sound environment and without the ultimately tedious narration or even the occasional background music (some quite good, some rather odd, but all gratuitous). The best of what this movie has to say is said in these sequences, with their occasional comment-less inclusion of power stations and dams.
The relationship between the brothers is left sketchy and generic; a major character is a man-biting catfish, never shown. The more the Catalano-nationalist anarcho-whateverist commitments of the director are suggested, the more the film's richer, unspoken message is subverted and the more irritatingly narcissistic the experience becomes. Though the director said at the NYFF screening that the film was conceived from the beginning with its third-person narrative, I'd like to see a version of it without the narrative or the music and with only the natural soundtrack and minimalist dialog -- the result might be more moving, and would in any case not be that much less baffling.
Meantime, this is most likely the only film you will see this year in which a guy strides into the frame with a cloth object (the bathing suit he had been wearing?) dangling from his penis. This is one of the few moments in the whole movie in which your interest is (sorry) pricked by something that's actually happening on screen (what is that? why's it hanging there?), but, as usual, no answers are provided. Very Warholian, very sixties, and a not a little tiresome.


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


user
The most irritating thing about "Dies d'agost" (August Days) is not simply that NOTHING HAPPENS in this film but that director Marc Recha has the nerve to pretend that this film is some sort of homage to leftist Catalan journalist Ramon Barnils. Unless mentioning Barnils' name a few times constitutes an "homage," this pretense is an utter fraud. You will learn virtually nothing about Barnils in this film nor about the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) nor about the special role of Catalunya in that war. You also will not learn about the collective punishment inflicted on the heroic Catalan people for years afterward by the victorious and vindictive Franco.
The footage of the Catalan countryside is very beautiful, of course, but "Dies d'agost" does not have an extensive and varied enough collection of such scenes to qualify as a travelogue. The large number of stills shown -- not very illuminating images of the forest floor, for example -- is the clearest indication of the paucity of ideas here. The aimless drift of brothers Marc and David during their camping trip does not produce compelling cinema. On the contrary, one's strongest impression is of a film made by and for spaced-out, middle-aged hippies. Don't waste your time. Read a good book about the Spanish Civil War instead. (I recommend Felix Morrow's scathingly anti-Stalinist "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain," which contains a gripping account of the 1937 Barcelona Uprising.)
Barry Freed


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


user
Forced, cloying, formulaic. Do these adjectives make you want to run to rent his? Miriam Hopkins was brilliant in the original "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde." A few other early movies of hers, notably "The Story of Temple Drake," are never shown but said to be excellent.
Here, she is cutesy, bossy, and thoroughly unappealing. Ray Milland as a Greeniwch Village bohemian not at all convincing.
The two child performers are creepy and also bear no relation to the Village as it was then.
Speaking as a native of Greenwich Village, I find the setting ersatz, generic, and phony. Not that I was around for a couple generations but my relatives were there in 1937. It isn't funny. It isn't remotely authentic. We don't care about the characters.
So many movies were made about the struggling masses vs the capitalists at this time, and done with elan. "Easy Living" comes to mind. It didn't take place in the Village. But it rings very true. This rings with a thudding knell.


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


user
Pat O'Brien portrays Knute Rockne, the All-American Notre Dame football coach. No doubt, this film will be considerably more appealing to those interested in some aspect of "Knute Rockne All-American Notre Dame Football" - probably, it's most interesting to serious followers of football and/or Notre Dame football. You will see some good documentary-style film footage.
Otherwise, it's difficult to recommend this as a FILM. It's not much more than an historical document. You'll "know" the end is near when Gale Page gets a chill - and, don't blink or you'll miss Ronald Reagan doing, of all things, "Camille"!
*** Knute Rockne - All-American (1940) Lloyd Bacon ~ Pat O'Brien, Gale Page, Ronald Reagan


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


user
Maybe this wowed them in the 50's, but this is one of those flicks that doesn't age well. It's got that preachy, earnest, downtrodden working man vibe of a 2nd rate Rod Serling live TV "Playhouse" broadcast. The "plot" is by the book, the Cassevetes character's troubled background seems tacked-on, and the love interest is unconvincing and half-hearted.
Sidney Portier gives an OK performance, but man he sure was an annoying, haughty snot. If I had to work with this guy in a warehouse I'd probably want to hit him with a grappling hook too. Jack Warden is good, because as usual, he plays Jack Warden.
Like 90% of the films rated on IMDb (whether they are classics, mediocre or crapola) somehow this one gets rated with 7-point-some-stars. It is in no way deserving of that. Save your time


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


user
a real hoot, unintentionally. sidney portier's character is so sweet and lovable you want to smack him. nothing about this movie rings true. and it's boring to boot.


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


user
Very resistible but ultimately harmless film version of the children's literary classic which incorporates an animated portion in the style of MARY POPPINS (1964) and BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS (1971). The human cast is very distinguished - James Mason, Billie Whitelaw, David Tomlinson, Joan Greenwood, Bernard Cribbins - but their roles range from the miscast (a 69 year-old Mason as a thieving chimney-sweep!) to the inconsequential (Greenwood as a befuddled aristocrat) to the bizarre (Whitelaw plays several 'exotic' characters - including a circus performer, an old hag, a maid and a fairy - for no apparent reason).
The animated segment of the film, handled by a group of East-European animators, is hardly inspired but mildly enjoyable in itself and, as usual, with this type of thing, there is an assortment of songs one has to put up with, one of which in particular is reprised far too often for its own good. The film was directed by noted character actor Jeffries who had previously directed (far more successfully) other children's films namely THE RAILWAY CHILDREN (1970) and THE AMAZING MR. BLUNDEN (1972; which I've yet to watch myself but which was released some time ago on R2 DVD by Anchor Bay UK).


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


user
I was 12 when this film was released and adored it. The song's were inspiring and it made me feel good, watching it several time's at the cinema. I actually had the soundtrack album and played the song's over and over.
26 years later...I'm ashamed. Just sat and watched it with my 2 daughters who enjoyed it lot's but my cynical older grown up eyes hated it. It's very poorly directed in many places and considering it was Lionel Jeffries directing I really wanted to enjoy it. The character animation was so rough yet the backgrounds were quite good. I remember the critics at the time saying that it was a poor film and was horrified but now I agree.
It is an old film yes, compared to what can be achieved now, maybe that's why I thought it was good then. But that does not excuse it for it's poor acting, directing and sloppiness. The main child actor's voice seem's dubbed which is very distracting too. Can't quite see what they were trying achieve when it was being made, all that it become was a weak film.


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


user
Classic author C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay stating that no children's story is worth the reading, viewing etcetera if it can only be enjoyed by children. I'd say this film is an easy one to hold up as a defence of his argument.
Around the age of five or six, I loved it, tracked it down only three or four years later and found it to be wet, poorly animated, dully and confusingly written, and with distressingly repetitive and awful songs (I'm looking t you, hi-cockalorum), showing a production aiming at joyful silliness and whimsy, but resulting with an ugly, twee, frustrating mess.
By all means, show this to your infant, but I would heartily recommend that you don't buy a copy or attempt to sit in on the viewing. If you want something set in the same era but with genuine charm and wit, go after 'Oliver Twist' or the BBC's brilliant adaptation of 'The Box of Delights'.


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


user
this is a dreadful adaption of Charles Kingsley's story. The animation is, to put it bluntly, awful. And the songs are a disgrace to film songs, epsecially the "high cockororim" song, which they keep repeating. I feel sorry for Jon Pertwee and David Jason, 2 of Britain's finest talents, providing the voice for the depressing animation sequence. Bernerd Cirbbins tries his best to perform in this awful production ,but fails.
Avoid this film at all costs, even if it is the last film on this planet!


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


user
I loathe, despise, and hate this film with a passion that makes the red hot gates of hell look cold by comparison. it's nothing but a campy, frightening, and completly shoddy trip down memory lane to that oh-so-nasty time, the 70's, a decade im glad i wasnt a part of if this absolute trite is all that was on offer!
the animation is sickeningly dated, not least of all with it's tacky, missing frames, and characters with huge, bulbous heads, this film is an eye-sore. from the knowing, snide nod to the parents with the freakily gay sea horse, and it's camp hand motions and kenneth williams-esque voice, to the overtly, unsubtly druggy anthem, High Cockalorum, this film, im sad to say, is one that was forced upon me as a child and i have never fully recovered from the terror it caused me....
This ghastly display of complete terribleness should carry an R rated certificate, so disturbing it is in it's contents!


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


user
This is a painfully slow story about the last days of 1999 when a strange disease breaks out and... I stopped caring. This is suppose to be about two people who live over or under each other in an apartment complex. There's a leak and a plumber put a hole in the man's floor so you can see into the woman's below apartment. Also since there is a crisis going on much of the dialog is actually news reports...
Sounds promising?
Not really.
I became distracted and started doing other things which is deadly in a subtitled film. Basically I started not watching, which made events seem even more surreal when I did look up.
It may work for you, it didn't for me.


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


user
My Wife and Kids was billed as the 00s very own Cosby show- but unlike the latter, it was unfunny and unwatchable. In fact, it is so poorly written and some of the jokes revolve around Michael mickey taking Michael Jr's dumbness and the fact that he is such a loser- which got more and more tedious and annoying as the show went on.
What was supposed to have been a promising hit, eventually turned into a dumb, silly show later on where the ideas became so OTT and ridiculous. And as for the second Claire, i ended up disliking this character so much: she became a spoilt, childish and moaning teenage brat, in most of the later episodes.
MWAK was no Cosby show trend setter, rather it was just a poor black sitcom by general standards.


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


user
I never really started watching the show until it was canceled and started showing re-runs. I actually enjoyed it for the first to third season. Once I saw the fourth and fifth one I was beginning to get irate. The first problem was that they did that irrelevant, scenario of history repeating itself (Jr having a kid like his parents did). The second had to be the one where they had everyone paired up with someone (ex: Katie and franklin) . The third one was when they made Jr even more idiotic than before which was beginning to be tedious and vexing to the point where I wanted to go into the T.V. and beat the stupidity out of him until he's unconscious . The fourth one had to be that zealous dork that Clarie claimed as a boyfriend. The fifth one had to be Katie, she was beginning to be too good for herself and was treated her "boyfriend" Franklin like the pushover he was. The last but not least was Noah Gray-Cabey!! Franklin, Franklin was just scary. It was like watching a terrible combination of Urkle and TJ Henderson only more annoying!!! They seriously jumped the shark when came he to the show. There was little to no realism to his character and the way he laughed was a sign of obvious force showing that Noah can't act. Eveytime I saw that kid just made me want slap he silly. However, B.F.(before frank) this show was funny and very entertaining.


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


user
Lets be realistic here. This is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. My Wife and Kids showed real promise in its first season and only went down hill after that. It is so bad that words do not describe. The acting and writing are so dreadful on a consistent basis I wonder if Damon Wayans was producing such an atrocious show on purpose. From top to bottom every performance is ridiculous. Damon Wayans completely phones it in and George Gore II is so horrible I cringe at every over-acted line. Can anyone really watch this show and find it to be entertaining let alone funny? Please I implore you. Do not watch this show. As soon as TV affiliates stop picking this up in syndication we can finally be rid of this absolute garbage.


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 probably the most irritating show I have ever seen in my entire life. It is indescribably the most annoying and idiotic show I have ever seen. Everything about it is just bad.
Synopsis: Different situation comes up each week for the parent to handle their kids.
I could not understand, what kind of idiot would produce this mess in the first place not to mention several season. The script is bad, very bad  it contains both cheesiness and unethical joke that you normally see in rated R or NC-17 movie. Especially for the young boy character where all he does is pleasuring himself, is that what one called family show humor? The casting is also horrible, cause all you see is a really really BAD Actors, period.
Final Word: This Show is a real torture!! This show provides an image of how irresponsible parent can be (using power wrongly rather than understanding). It is zillion times away from reality. Listen to Kenny G would be a god sends compare to this. Watching washing machine twirling around wouldn't hurt your eyes as much as this show.
Rating: 0/10 (Grade: Z)
Note: The Show Is So Bad That Even Mother Of The Cast Pull Her Daughter Out Of The Show.


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


user
I jumped for joy to learn this show ended. This show's characters were extremely irritating. None of them had one singing redeeming quality. Damon Wayans is probably the most standable one. Kisha Campbell is... Kisha Campbell. She's just as annoying as she was in Martin.
The kids are all very annoying as well. The oldest is an idiot, the oldest girl is a stuck up brat, and the youngest is frustrating to listen to.
I guess I did like the intelligent little boy. But that's about it.
It did the world a favor by ending.
Let's pray that a Wayan never stars in another show... EVER.


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


user
I give the show a six because of the fact that the show was in fact a platform for Damon Wayans as the Cosby Show was for Bill Cosby, it dealt with a lot of issues with humor and I felt that it in fact tailored to getting a laugh as opposed to letting the jokes come from the character.
Michael Kyle An interesting patriarch and a wisecracking person. He is PHENOMENAL in movies, but in the show he was there for the wisecrack and though I loved it, I felt that the laugh was more important than plausibility.
Jay Kyle I have loved her since House Party and have enjoyed her in School Daze and Martin, this was a great role for her and she made a great choice in picking this sitcom to co-star in. I also feel that Jay and Michael were more like equals in the show but Jay was more the woman who fed her crazy husbands the lines and went along with his way of unorthodox discipline because she may have felt that it worked
Jr Just plain stupid, his character should have been well developed and even though he does have his moments of greatness, we are returned to the stupidity as if he learned nothing, which drives me nuts!!!!!!!! Not to mention that most of the situations (in episodes I've seen) seems to center around him
Clair The attractive sister who dated a Christian, I found her boyfriend's character to be more interesting than she was (she'd be better off sticking to movies, the writers should have done more to show her intelligence but it's not stereotypical enough)
Kady Lovable and the youngest daughter. I think the writers established her character most on the show aside from the parents and Franklin
Franklin I LOVE this character and I think they derived it from Smart Guy (T.J. Mowry) which only lasted one season. They did a great job of casting for this little genius (the effort would have been made if Jr would have been the smart one but show the down sides also)
All in all, this sitcom is a wonderful thing and it's homage to the Cosby Show is well done, I love the show and wished it would have stayed on longer than that. I can't wait to see the series finale


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


user
Dull one-note characters with next to no development, unimpressive performances by people who sound like they're simply reading lines, and ludicrous special effects combine to make this a genuine stinker. The story begins with eminently bland commando Russo and his fellow soldiers attacking an Al-Qaeda training base. The scene tells us that Al-Qaeda has recently come to seek an ultimate weapon, and also serves to illustrate Russo's only character trait, a tendency to eschew teamwork. With the help of a collection of blank slates and walking stereotypes, including a Russian spy, Russo travels to Chechnyan territory to catch a mad scientist working for the terrorists. Along the way, they encounter vast hordes of flesh-eating bats that fly in broad daylight for some reason. From there, the movie becomes nothing more than a dragging morass of ridiculous action, including a scene in which a swarm of bats slices a soldier's arm off!


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


user
An elite American military team which of course happens to include two good looking women and a guy who can't quite grasp teamwork, lots of bats, some terrorists, and a Spetznaz team that acts like the gang that can't shoot straight -- all thrown together in a jumbled plot with mediocre acting. This one has nothing much going for it. The characters are not compelling. Even the setting, which has great possibilities, looks like something out of the middle of rural Pennsylvania, not an exotic Boreal forest in Eastern Europe.
The bats are certainly ferocious looking. They can even pick up a man and fly with him for a few feet (harpies?) or chop off an arm. You see Delta force surrounded by hundreds of bats with a guys shooting assault rifles and pistols at them and bat flopping to the ground. It would be like trying to shoot skeet with a rifle from a distance of 3 feet. Utterly clueless. The dialogue is rancidly unrealistic, with boy/girl jokes and flirts in the middle of tense parts of the mission. One of the team is blown up by a mine and the first one on the scene just stares sadly at his body, stunned, not even bothering to take cover or secure the area. In fact AFTER the rest of the group shows up he talks about how the area is laid out like a minefield -- thanks for the heads up bub.
If you want a contrast in how a horror movie involving a small military group can be done well on a low budget check out Outpost. Harvest is not the movie you want to see. In fact I think I'm going to give it a two instead of a three if I can make it through the second half. Seems unlikely at this point.


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


user
I have yet to watch the first entry in this series, however, fortunately, I was still able to follow the complex and intricate plot, with all its unexpected twists and turns, and I applaud them for the utter originality of the concepts herein. In case there is any confusion, let me leave no doubt as to the fact that everything I've just said is coated in pure, carefully nurtured sarcasm, the kind that flourishes and grows exponentially when exposed to crap like this flick. A clear sign that this is unimpressive is that it was directed by a visual effects creator, whose only other credit in that field is a Henry Rooker film that wasn't well received. The acting is average at best, and I defy anyone to not find... Scottish computer-woman(come on, seriously, what is with that last name?)'s Russian accent laughable and/or irritating. There is an attempt or two at stylization in this, and they are reasonable. The action isn't terrible. Cinematography and editing are fine. The music is cool enough. Language is infrequent, if even that. Violence is fairly bloody. I recommend this solely to fans of B-movies, and I will say that you can do worse than this. 1/10


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


user
Okay, I can sit through almost any movie, and I tend to get a real kick out of Sci Fi Originals, but there was a major flaw in this movie that made me have to turn it off half an hour into it.
Having served in the US Army, there are certain expectations in a movie including the military. At least some semblance of attention to proper military rank, uniform, and terminology is necessary if you expect a viewer to actually enjoy the experience. "Bats: Human Harvest" had characters wearing rank that was facing the wrong direction on the lapel and, later in the movie, the time was listed as 11:00 hours, but it was full dark outside. Even if the script was perfectly done, and the dialogue spectacular, and the acting Oscar-worthy, if the people making the movie don't care enough about the movie to even bother to look up the proper way to display military time, why should anybody bother to attempt to watch it?


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 over does it on the cgi i mean sci-fi really they over did it the original '' BATS'' is better it does not use cgi like the sequel. in this movie its the simple people running from mutated killer bats. and really bats in Afghanistan?! the plot involves u.s army soldiers finding a terrorist and being attack by bats and dying<_< but the reason i gave this movie 3 stars is because the way the camera zooms in on the soldiers. the acting is bad and this doesn't even look like a horror movie. in all this movie is a fairly good TV movie for sci-fi channel. but if like sci-fi's movies you'll like this movie because you just like channel 43 oh and if you fall asleep during the movie don't be surprised. oh sorry i think i give it 2 stars instead.


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


user
A child-like puppeteer, for a public access children's show, goes over the deep end when he discovers kids he entertains at a hospital were victims of horrible abuse. This movie has some of the worst indescribably monstrous parents you could ever come across. Not an exploitation film as much as an afterschool special on the dangers of child abuse. Seemingly harmless, Mr. Rabby takes matters into his own hands when it seems the police are neutered by lack of evidence to convict loathsome parents of their terrible abuse towards their children. The children are emotionless and zombie-like(..due to the amount of abuse inflicted upon them), the parents loud, inconceivably harsh, contemptible, and belligerent. The mothers, in particular, are so obscene, you'll root for their execution. They are essentially miserable people taking out their frustrations on the kids. Our detectives are a tired lot, frustrated with the whole judicial process, how police procedure is often unable to prosecute those who beat their kids into submission. While the crimes themselves are heinous, the film doesn't explicitly elaborate the grisly activity on screen. I'd say the reason to see this is for Tom Basham's performance as the unbalanced man-child who slips into psychosis. There's quite a weird dinner table sequence between Basham's Mr. Rabbey and his guardian shortly after he murdered the parents responsible for the death of their child, regarding how he lives in a fantasy and how what he had just done has left an indelible mark(..notice the changes in behavior, pretty impressive work, going from innocent to creepy). Peter Renaday is Lt. Hayes, the detective in charge of the homicides cases, expressing on his face the strain that is taking it's toll on him. There's an early performance by John Ashton as detective Matthews, always raising the ire of Hayes because of his inability to follow directions, not to mention how opinionated he is regarding the parents abusing their kids. Awkward laid-back bluesy score that seems improper for a film such as this. Controversial conclusion establishing that even kids can only tolerate so much. A bit too slow moving for my tastes, but there's an effective use, I felt, of Basham's eyes before he takes care of business, waiting patiently as he prepares to strike.


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


user
When this movie was made in 1980, I was a teenager in the football stands playing as part of the audience. This was done at Mooseheart, Illinois. The big letters spelling out "MOOSEHEART" at the top of the stands were covered up with a banner in the movie. The director would tell us to cheer loudly at certain points, as if a touchdown was being made. St. Charles juvenile correction center is a real place less than 30 miles from Mooseheart, although I think it may have closed down recently. During one scene, they show a black woman and a white man in the audience watching the game. Right below them, you can see my sister Noel's head (she was 11 at the time). In the VHS version, I can only see the top of her head, but when I saw it on TV in 1981 I could see her whole head and my sister Jacqui as well.
I thought the movie itself was OK for a made for TV movie. Since there's already a description of the movie here, I need not repeat it. It's worth seeing at least once.


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


user
I don't know if this type of movie was as cliché then as it seems to be now.
Considering how many "Bad News Bears" films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.
A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year!
Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.
Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. "Coach Of The Year" should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1/10


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


user
Like another reviewer, my wife bought this movie as part of a 20 movie family pack. I guess you could say that this was a decent made-for-TV movie for 1980, but it is super-predictable and the acting, except for Robert Conrad, is generally sub-par. The football scenes are nothing special and seem to mainly act as filler for the movie. The movie is very dated now, but a decent remake could probably make this into a good movie. However, is that really necessary? I mean, how many "underdog sports team works together for the big game with the undefeated guys" movies do we really need? This is probably a good movie for your younger kids if you find it in the bargain bin, but a sports movie buff will find it lacking.


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


user
I received this movie in a pack called "50 all-star Movies" for $18 (45 cents each). Many are good. This one was terrible. It was a hackneyed retread done 1000 times before and each time better. A crippled ex-jock is dared to coach a team made up of juvenile delinquents. They learn from him that they can make it if they play by the rules. I'm sure the kids and the locals were thrilled to be included in a "real TV movie", but I can't imagine what the folks that launched and produced this project figured they could bring to this already over beaten subject. I kept waiting to see that 'new twist' or 'new angle' but, honest, it doesn't come. Avoid this movie. Forget about the 45 cents, I want the 96 minutes of my life back.


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 truly moronic movie, all I can say is the writer must be very fond of magic mushrooms and LSD because this must be the result of one of his 'trips'.
You follow the whole movie thinking alright this is very weird but hey I'm sure at the end there will be a perfectly good explanation for all of this... Only to be disappointed to find erm no there's no explanation at all and the twist at the end makes it even more confusing. At the end of the movie you'll probably have the same facial expression as if you were standing in a Que paying for you groceries and the merchant told you, that'll be 11.95 please and proceeded to elbow you in the balls for no apparent reason. There are so many factors in this movie that go unexplained and I think it leaves it to the imagination of the viewer in an entirely bizarre way. Don't get me wrong I like weird movies, 'The Cell' could easily be described as weird and twisted but in my eyes it's a brilliant movie (despite casting J-Lo who I dislike to the maximum even that didn't manage to sway my opinion). This isn't one of those movies, and I think you should take in to consideration the characters of those who praise this movie. I can tell you they are probably the sort of people that would go to an art exhibition, see a splat of pigeon excrement on a white board and say "Oooooh what a masterpiece, the artist has truly found a unique way to portray eternity" when in actual fact all it is, is bird excrement on a board.
Keep that last bit in mind when watching this movie,
Thanks for reading!


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 seems a little clunky around the edges, like not quite enough zaniness was thrown it when it should have been. But I mostly enjoyed it.
The storyline is more than a little bit preposterous, so no expectation of "something real" should be included in your viewing experience. Check your brain in at the door. It will not be needed and might be an impediment otherwise.
I quite enjoyed Clennon's performance as the real Dr. Baird. His role was spot on for giving Aykroyd's character a protagonist. What a putz the real Dr. Baird was.
And Matthau was quite good as the lead character's sidekick. Annoying at first, but ultimately lovable. Sort of. Kind of. Or at least something the use of a bar of soap and a lot of water would have been more than helpful.
Actually worth watching? If you're in the mood for a spoof on the psychiatric profession, sure, why not.


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 an 1970s-type irreverent comedy, poking fun at the psychiatric profession and at Beverly Hills. I didn't mind that but I did object to more that irreverence regarding marriage and religion: two topics which secular filmmakers (meaning about everyone in Hollywood and elsewhere) just can't stop trashing.
Walter Matthau plays a scuzzy character, "Donald Becker," who walks around with a cleric's collar on, which offends me but when has Hollywood ever been worried about offending Christians?
Anyway, despite that nonsense the film has its entertaining moments and even some charm to it. Dan Aykroyd is good at paying a nut-case and Donna Dixon ("Laura Rollins") is a knockout. I am sorry she didn't have a bigger role.


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


user
I should have known better..the clues were all over IMDB.com. This flick was written and directed by the same guy who has no track record. The cast is a bunch of unknowns with the possible exception of Joe Estevez who seems to specialize in bad movies. Etc. Suffice it to say, I can't see any reason why anyone would want to see this awful, amateurish attempt at film making. Turn on any broadcast channel at 3am and you'll see better movies. Nuff said.


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


user
Tommy Lee Jones was the best Woodroe and no one can play Woodroe F. Call better than he. Not only was he the first and best, he was the only person that could portray his grief and confusion. It was a bad let-down and I'm surprised I even made myself watch it. I can even begin how how pitiful they made Woodroe. I understand he would be old by that time, but everyone knows that he would NEVER let that pull him down. The first movie was the best and the only one that I'll ever watch. I hope to God that no more directors plan on continuing or remaking the wonderful classic without Tommy or Duval. Without them, the movies are pointless wastes of time and money for everyone, including the director. IF YOU PLAN ON MAKING ANOTHER LONESOME DOVE MOVIE OF ANY KIND, take mine and billions of others, don't waste time. Continuing the movies is just grinding the first one into the ground. Thanks.


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 probably my least favorite episode. I lived in Cape Girardeau for quite some time. I can tell you there is no ocean or shrimp boats, fresh crab or scallops anywhere near Missouri. Cape Girardeau is the only inland Cape, it's on the Mississippi River. It looked like the license plates were from Mississippi, which may explain why there was so much racial tension. Missouri and Mississippi are 2 completely different states that don't touch one another. There are many roads in and out of town and none of them are Route 6 or Route 666. This whole inaccuracy was very distracting. Also, Cassie did not seem like someone who would want to hang around Dean if she was well educated. I did not buy them as a couple and didn't enjoy the lengthy love scene. Jo was more Dean's style.


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


user
André Roussin was a specialist of what the French call "Theatre de Boulevard" : plays where you find the eternal triangle:man/wife/(male or female)lover .Many of his plays gave Elvire Popesco some of her best parts on stage....and the great actress was the main reason to watch them,for Roussin is not Sacha Guitry ,by a long shot.The French audience remembers "Au Theatre Ce Soir' .
Still with me? Roussin's plays were not made to be filmed.And this one is pretty mediocre material ,even if the screenwriters call Lewis Carroll to their rescue .I like Stewart Granger and David Niven ,and Ava Gardner is eye candy .But this might be their worst film ,being crude, predictable -even the native's (Bola -Bola )intervention is ludicrous- a knockabout farce around a Menage à Trois on a desert island where Granger would be some kind of Robinson,Niven ,his Friday and Gardner his girl Friday.


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


user
Linda Arvidson (as Jennie) and Harry Solter (as Frank) are enjoying a romantic tryst, when in walks her father Charles Inslee; furious, he chases Mr. Solter out of the house. Undaunted, he goes to her balcony and begs her to elope. Ms. Arvidson is agreeable, and goes to pack. Then, burglar George Gebhardt arrives to rob the place. Though he doesn't get much in the way of booty, thieving Gebhardt manages to use Arvidson's trunk to escape from the police
A Contrived Comedy. Note, during the balcony scene, Solter goes off-camera, so burglar Gebhardt can enter the house undetected. And, Arvidson travels very light, since there appears to be nothing in her heavy trunk; perhaps she just wanted to buff up beau Solter? Director D.W. Griffith, Robert Harron, and Florence Lawrence are illustrious extras.
** A Calamitous Elopement (8/7/08) D.W. Griffith ~ George Gebhardt, Linda Arvidson, Harry Solter


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


user
Where to start, where to start....hmmm...well how about some of the stiffest, most unnatural, unbelievable and camped-up performances one can imagine? How about stereotypical "characters", situations and locations? Or what about a manipulative, cloying, utterly wretched script? I can't think of one element in this movie that was original, worthy of watching or interesting.
Note to all you Josh Hartnett/Chris Klein/LeeLee Sobieski fans - enjoy their collective fifteen minutes, folks, because they're not going to be famous much longer...


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


user
Life is too short to waste on two hours of Hollywood nonsense like this, unless you're a clueless naiive 16 year old girl with no sense of reality and nothing better to do. Dull characters, poor acting (artificial emotion), weak story, slow pace, and most important to this films flawed existence-no one cares about the overly dramatic relationship.


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


user
******************SPOILER********************SPOILER******************** This movie stunk. Just let me say now that I totally agree with what carissaphillips had to say about this. What was Sam thinking? She was with a guy who told her he loved her (3 times in total), was EXTREMELY HOT, and stuck with her though her trying times (Josh Hartnett). But, she decided to break up with him, no, cheat on him with a snobby,ugly, spoiled, rich-brat jerk loser who never said he loved her in the entire movie(oh wait, he wrote it on the wall, does that count?), and left her in her time of need because he was scared (Chris LOSER Klein). Who would you want to be with? The only reason I sat through the entire movie was because it had Josh Hartnett in it and hoping that maybe she would die at the end. I wanted Jasper to get another girlfriend who was actually worthy of him. The whole "your mom" thing was funny. I enjoyed it. I hate it when people around here say it but I think that Kelley deserved it. Jasper should have said it to Sam as well, she needed a good slap. How the romance started is a mystery to me. They never said anything to each other anyway so I don't understand how they got together. "I was thinking about the cheese sandwich you gave me...did it have mustard or mayonnaise or....." Oh what a come on. The supposedly romantic lines were so stupid. Plus he's sosososososososo UGLY! I must admit, I did cry in this movie. For a long time, really hard. Not because she died, but because she broke Jasper's heart. He cried in this movie so many times...he tried to smile for her but he couldn't stop the tears. He cried when 1) He told her he loved her 2) She got sick 3) Chris Klein came back and he saw how happy she was w/ him 4) she died. I cried when he cried because he loved her her entire life, and told her, and yet she was dumb enough to not care and love a guy who left her in her time of need, and who DID NOT CRY at the funeral. 1 1/2 stars only because I LOVE JOSH HARTNETT! Oh by the way Chris Klein, YOUR MOM! -Wiley's sis


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


user
This comes close to the worst movie I've ever seen. The writer starts you out in a way that you'll side with Jasper (Josh Hartnett). When he did absolutely nothing wrong, Sam (Leelee Sobiesky) leaves him for Kelley (Chris Klein), in a way that leaves you mad at Sam. You aren't let in on what she feels, so her feelings with Kelley aren't real to you, and their relationship is phony. It drags you in either direction, and it gets rather exhausting and annoying. The only good thing about this movie that I saw was the cast.



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 why I disliked this film so much. Maybe I'm too old or too male or too something. Just who was the target audience here? If you're it and you liked it, then I'm happy for you. Personally, I found it a bit of a pill. The characters were uninteresting and unlikeable, the script was just plain embarrassing and some, though not all, of the acting was uninspired. Mawkish, tedious and occasionally nauseating -- Surely there's something better on.
On a related issue: Why is it that whenever I see Chris Klein in a film I get an urge to slap him silly? Does anyone else get that?


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


user
I watched this on cable because I was a big Leelee fan. Big mistake. What a horrible film. You don't care one bit for any of the characters in the movie. Chris Klein plays a guy who is a complete jerk in the film, and steals away Josh Hartnett's longtime girlfriend. If the writer knew what they were doing, this film would have followed the proven formula, and made Hartnett an ass, and Leelee as the girlfriend trapped in a bad relationship, from which she's saved by Klein. But Hartnett is a really cool guy, who shows a lot of emotion and love for Leelee.
You then hate leelee, because she cheats on Hartnett with Klein, who is a jerk to everyone in the town that's trying to help him and really stuck up.
It's also really campy, and the characters do everything but run around the kitchen dancing and lip synching, and using hairbrushes and spoons and fake microphones (although they come very close).
What a horrible horrible movie. You don't even care what happens in the end because the director never lets you care about the characters.


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 the other day b/c I love romance stories, but this has got to be the worst one I have ever seen in my life. I find it hard to believe that Sam would fall in love with Kelley after they've said hardly no more than 2 words to each other when she has a great long-time boyfriend who's devoted to her completely. I thought Kelley was a major jerk throughout the movie, and he never changed at all. The only good thing about the movie was Josh Hartnett. I thought he did a wonderful acting job, and I'm going to start watching more movies of his.


assistant
0