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
Caddyshack 2 has a dreadful reputation, due only to the fact that it is a sequel to a highly-held classic. People have criticised the film on a lot of grounds, but they all ultimately hark back to the fact that this is not Caddyshack.
I would begin by saying that we should just take Caddyshack out of the equation and consider this film on its own merits, but I think that would be unfair. The movie does have a lot in common with its predecessor. The class-related themes of 'snobs versus slobs' and the desire to fit in to a class above your own are as prevalent here as they were in the first movie. The two things that are truly lacking here are Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, who are replaced with Dan Ackroyd and Jackie Mason respectively.
Now I am not about to try and argue that Ackroyd comes close to Murray in the movie, but Jackie Mason is an admirable successor to Dangerfield. He comes off as a cross between Dangerfield and Arnold Stang, but without biting too heavily on either. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere close to being as funny as Dangerfield is in Caddyshack, but there is a whole lot more point to his character and his dilemma in the film.
Chevy Chase only pops up and handful of times in the movie, which is another common complaint. Maybe these particular naysayers didn't notice that he only popped up a few times in the first movie. For my money, his scenes here are a lot funnier, if somewhat over-directed.
While I'm on the subject, it is really the over-direction of this movie that brings it down. It comes across as far more self-conscious in its attempts to get a laugh. Many of the jokes are laboured and there's far too much of the Gopher, who seems to have taken on a far more anthropomorphic personality and a voice, just in case we didn't grasp the idea that its meant to be funny.
Characters are similarly hammered home, particularly the smarmy yuppy kids. Jackie Mason rarely misses a beat, and is consistently likable and very funny, but we didn't need the tango sequence at all! The director is clearly not of the same school of thought as Harold Ramis. Not to suggest that Caddyshack was subtle, but the jokes here are just a little overcooked, and most of them are unnecessarily embellished with a quirky music cue.
All things considered, this is a fun, goofy movie with something to say about class and identity that very few movies at the time were saying. Don't be put off by the appallingly low rating on IMDb, check it out for yourself.


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


user
Seriously. If this had been the first Shack movie, it would have been passable as funny, silly and goofy. Light satire commentary on the class system would make this an enjoyable late-night rental.
However, everyone wants to compare it to the first film, and maybe that's not fair. The first film is a cult classic; what could possibly follow it up? Nothing. So take this second film as a stand alone, and it certainly has its moments.
Jackie Mason is amusing, doing his best Rodney-wannabe impersonation. Is he as good as Rodney? No. Are his lines as good? No. But he is funny. The rest of the cast falls in line as being decent, but not outstanding. You'll recognize faces amongst the cast and wonder how they got to where they are today.
The film is predictable, but aren't most in this genre? Again, it's not the best comedy you'll see, but if you like Cannonball Run-type fun, you'll enjoy this one.


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


user
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The only critic who counts is yourself. I think this is a great movie. Much better than the original.
In "Caddyshack", Rodney Dangerfield is funny, but obnoxious. He was asked to do the sequel, but things got in the way. Jackie Mason shows the saying that "less is more". He is funny, but a man with real family issues, a more rounded person. It's no drama, but a movie that makes you feel. Actually in some points, you feel sorry for Jackie Mason, especially when his daughter walks out on him.
It has a good soundtrack, and overall, a good sorry. A good end to the series.
In the TV show "Alf", Alf says that he cried in "Terms of Endearment". The wife , Kate Tanner, played by Anne Schedeen, also says he cried at "Caddyshack 2".


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


user
One of the most interesting things is that this 1988 film is highly touted as an `in-name only' sequel. There's nothing wrong with that except this: The return of Chevy Chase as Ty Webb. This connects the viewer to this character (from the original Caddyshack in 1980,) and makes fans thinking or wanting Caddyshack II to be similar to the first one.
There are rumors that Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to return. He carried a big part of the first film, so his return would have put Caddyshack 2 over the top. Jackie Mason is the `new' Rodney for this movie and does a decent job, even though their comic deliveries are way different. Dan Aykroyd was great but not in the film enough. He should have been involved to the tune of how much screen time Bill Murray got in the first one. Robert Stack (Airplane!) was good in the `new' Ted Knight/Villian role. (We miss you, Ted!) Danny Noonan should have been back. So many others could have returned to show us what happened to their characters eight years later. Bushwood should not have undergone the total makeover it did. Instead, the characters involved, rather than the club itself, should have been the main focus like they were in the first one. When you watch this film, keep in mind that it isn't a major sequel and you may think it's another good or bad eighties comedy. Fans of the first should see it but don't be shocked when the comparisons between the original and Part II are so far apart.


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


user
Like Richard Pryor, Mason never got the material he deserved. Whatever you know of him is probably wrong. Get past the accent and go see his stand-up. You'll be very surprised -- he's one of the best stand-ups I've ever seen and I have seen a lot of stand-up comedy (from Lenny Bruce to Eddie Murphy to Jerry Seinfeld to Chris Rock -- Jackie Mason is definitely up there). He's known for being a comic's comic. Even Howard Stern said he is one of the top 3 funniest comedians ever.
The accussation that Mason is no Dangerfield is ridiculous. Dangerfield is known for having been a huge Mason fan. Dangerfield's career was going nowhere for a long time until he started following Mason's shows. That is when Mason provided Dangerfield with inspiration for his, "get no respect" routine. While I think Dangerfield is great, see them both do stand-up and you'll see Mason is the better comedian.


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


user
I have no idea why everyone hates this movie to call it garbage a travesty an unexceptable sequel is just unfair i mean what else could they have made for a sequel then. Cause seriously I think it should have had a sequel (Rodney Dangerfield) says: hey everyone were all going to get laid and then a little dancing goffer and thats it thats the end of Caddyshack even though the film rating on first one was (R) and the second one was (PG) it was still lots of fun .
(7/10)


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


user
i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack, aside from the chase/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down: rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things!
stack vs. knight- both play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv/film career, kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with me.
murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the murray/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie.
i really loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is more drug/bathroom/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS 98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it! i think i will


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


user
Amazing, one of my favorite movies way down at the bottom. Guess I can take some pride in not liking what "the general populace" tends to go for. Jackie Mason is hilarious in this movie, and so's Randy Quaid. I can never get enough of his "strong-arm" tactics, just like in Moving. He was also notable in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Love that guy.


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


user
The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first. Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell, farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno, maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind 'The Stunt Man.'
Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003)


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


user
I liked this movie.
No one I know likes it, but I do.
I didn't like it as much as the first one but it was still good. The script and plot may not have changed at all, but the story was better than Caddyshack 1.
The only reason I didn't like Caddyshack 2 is...
NO RODNEY DANGERFIELD!
I think the movie would be better if Rodney Dangerfield had Jackie Mason's part. Although I did like Jackie Mason in the movie, it would be alot better if they kept Rodney Dangerfield.
Another flaw in the movie, that I didn't hate as much, was Dan Akroyd. The movie was done 8 years after the first one. Bill Murray, "Carl", could've quit his job as an assistant greenskeeper and joined the military, you know? If Warner Bros. had thought of that, it could've made the movie better, also.
This was my comment for Caddyshack II.
I give it 8.2 out of 10
It could've been better, but good nonetheless.
If you've seen Caddyshack 1 and are debating on whether or not to see Caddyshack 2, I say give it a try.


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


user
One has to take Martin & Lewis like a dash of salt & pepper. Why does Martin put up with Lewis? Then again, why do all the women in this movie like Jerry? Because he is innocently likeable! Martin sings a few good songs (lip-sync'd at least once) and Jerry manages to kiss more girls than in all his other movies combined. I generally find that I can take just so much of Jerry's antics before they become aggravating. BUT.... in this film, watch when Jerry gets stuck outside on a submerging Navy submarine! EXCELLENT! Buster Keaton should have been proud. I give the film a 7.


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


user
This is not especially well written. The songs are not memorable. The cast, however, squeezes a lot out of this Martin and Lewis in the Navy situation. They both look great as young sailors. They are believable. The scenes on the submarine show how cramped it must have been on those underwater missions in the 1950s and before.
Lots of sailors in many scenes. Hundreds perhaps, in a big outdoor exercise field, and again in a boxing arena.
You will see James Dean in his scene. He does stand out even though he is an extra here. In a scene where Jerry walks across a busy street we see some of his "almost accident" comedy which he would bring into play years later in The Patsy.
Dean giving Jerry boxing instructions is a good comedy skit to watch for. Jerry in the boxing ring shows his high energy that was his trademark in the late '40s and early '50s. Dean and Jerry dancing is a bit of a treat. Not great, but better than most non dancing movies.
Worth seeing if you don't mind black and white. Good ending.
Tom Willett


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


user
This B&W film reached the spartan movie house of my Frisian village about 18 months after its release. In those days much of our full-length comedy fare hailed from Denmark (Nils Poppe anyone?) so this movie struck like a thunderbolt -- it had me weeping with helpless mirth, ROTFL as we'd now put it. OK, so some of the sight gags were in fact recycled vaudeville 'schtick', but how was this 'barefoot boy with cheeks of brass' to know that at the time? In any case, my favorite scenes had Jerry's unique brand of frantic clowning, like that Hawaii boxing match.
Seeing "Sailor Beware" again fifty years later I still guffawed loudly at the goings-on. Granted, without the nostalgia component it would probably be just another fair-to-middling comedy. But then, another movie that once had me in stitches even more helplessly, the Spike Jones outing "Fireman Save My Child", now seems dated and stilted apart from some too-short orchestra bits and Doodles Weaver scenes. Must be some special ingredient that makes Martin & Lewis product stay fresher longer. To me this one at least rates eight out of ten.


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


user
I went to see this film because Joaquim de Almeida was in it. Joaquim had a fairly small part, so it was good that I liked the film on it's own. In fact, I liked it a lot!
The film centers around two characters, Albert and Louie. Albert is a shy, retiring sort, and Louie... well Louie is not. The story revolves around Louie's request to Albert to let him come over to Albert's place for just a little while. Louie has just gotten out of prison.
Albert and Louie have known each other since childhood, and of course whenver they do something together there is trouble and it's Albert who always takes the fall.
The action of the film is based on the adventures that ensue from Louie's visit. On The Run is a chronicle of mad-cap, zany, situations. However, Bruno de Almeida and scriptwriter, Joseph Minion (After Hours), don't always take you where you expect to go. There are twists and turns that add depth to this film. Of course there is plenty of outright comedy, but there is much subtle humor here as well.
There are some downright good performances here as well. Albert is played delightfully by Michael Imperioli. He's getting fairly well-knownthese days from the HBO series, The Sopranos.
Louie is played by John Ventimiglia, who imbues his character with a lovable, child-like quality. (no matter what he does, you just gotta love Louie!).
Both these actors are excellent in their individual characters. With Imperioli, you'll want to hug him and bring him home to Mom. Ventimiglia, well, you won't know whether you should slap him or bring him home (and NOT to Mom!).

There are other stand-out performances as well. The character of Rita is played by Drena DeNiro (yes, Robert's daughter). The audience adored her. In talking with the others who saw the film it was fun to discuss whether it was Albert or Louie who was their favorite of those two. But, everyone loved Rita!
Is this film perfect? No, I can't say that it is. There were many times I wished the director had had a bigger budget to work with. There were some scenes that cried out for more budgetary freedom. (Give this guy a decent budget to work with and I believe you are going to see a film that will make you stand up and notice.)
The ending sequence was a bit of a victim of budget. Yet, budget or no budget, the ending screen shot, in my opinion, brought together the talent of actor and director into a memorable, emotionally effective scene.



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


user
Just watched this movie over the weekend, and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. The 2 Italo American actors are excellent as usual (Michael Imperioli and John Ventimiglia). It is obvious that the director was influenced by 2 great films of the past directed by Italians. Primarily he was influenced by Dino Risi and his film IL SORPASSO. It is the story of 2 young men who meet by chance and become friends. One is extroverted and the other is introverted. They enjoy the whole day together and by the end of the day, the shy one learns that there is more to life than his usual routine monotony. The same thing happens to Albert De Santi. Unfortunately, IL SORPASSO has a very similar ending and this apparently influenced the director of ON THE RUN because he uses the same technique but with a twist. I had expected something but was surprised to see that it turned out to be the opposite. If you watch both movies you will understand. The other film that influenced the director is AFTER HOURS directed by the great Italian American Scorsese. I highly recommend all 3 movies !!


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


user
Don't let the rating of 5.9 (as of this writing on 12-8-02) fool you, this is one excellent film.
I cannot fathom how this got such a rating considering being so solid at all levels. The direction, acting, cinematography--all good. The story is interesting and original and my only inkling as far as understanding why the rating is such, sits in the fact that it is probably the type of movie that people rating might not normally see.
I equate it to playing modern rock for an 80 year old. You might be young, brought up on it and love it, but he or she has not been and as a product of a different time and taste--doesn't care for it.
If you like films and can handle movies based more on real people versus those comprised of mindless action, enormous flashy budgets and mediocre talent, give this one a try next time you see it on...



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


user
I caught "On the Run" at the Screening Room in New York and was immediately seduced by its true independent spirit. Starring Michael Imperioli and John Ventimiglia from The Sopranos cast, "On the Run" sets us up in a 24-hour wild ride in the city that never sleeps, as we follow the meanderings of an introspective sales agent who is suddenly dragged by his long-gone school companion, just out of jail. In fact he has escaped from it and is "on the run" looking for some action and a glimpse of life amidst the great metropolis. Powered by great performances, this movie gives us back the old feeling of 70's pics, with both characters rediscovering themselves as they blaze across town bumping into wild events and locals. An elegy to a certain side of New York that seems to be disappearing, "On the Run" displays great sensitivity and humour. I predict it to be a cult classic that urges to be discovered: future viewers should definitely surrender to this nocturnal trip.


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


user
This movie deserves the 10 I'm giving it.
But it's not the 10 that you'd give to movies like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas' or 'Psycho'. This is the kind of 10 you give to a movie which just makes you laugh,over and over again! It's the most horribly written and directed movie, yet it doesn't fail to entertain. It has the most amateur effects, yet you enjoy every moment! I saw this movie today on TV, and I didn't want to move away! Read the following dialogue to know why!
(Whole college is standing around Manisha,who has just undergone a rape attempt and the guys who attempted the rape are asking for forgiveness)
Bad Guy 1: Please forgive us!
Bad guy 2: Yes,we won't do it again.
(No response from Manisha)
Akshay: Come on,forgive them!
Manisha: I don't know...
Akshay: You are a beautiful woman, and even dead men can get aroused by you! And these are living young males! Don't blame them!
Pancholi: Yeah Manisha..
Manisha(To Suniel): What if they tried to rape your girlfriend???
Suniel: I'd break their hands,legs and kill them.But anyways,just forgive them..
Akshay: Yeah if you don't forgive them then it will be as though you are too arrogant about your beauty!
Now that is a true masterpiece of a dialogue! This movie never fails to entertain, mainly because there are so many goofs and unrealistic situations! The bad guy (Munish) can do basically anything..He can blow a sandstorm from his mouth, or he can get a motorcycle from his backside and just as easily make it disappear again.
Every actor takes turns to speak..One line from Akshay,then from Suniel, then from Arshad, then Aftab, then Nigam. It's the main rule followed by the director, so that equal screen time is given to each guy. And then there's the all powerful pendant, which can cause even a speeding car to go right through you without you being harmed! All these things make it an enjoyable movie, and I can watch it over and over again. I think this movie can go into the comedy hall of fame if there is one..
The only problem is that it wasn't trying to be funny.


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


user
All the people who voted a meager 1 on this movie, this is all I have to say: You guys have not matured enough to enjoy cinema of this kind. It takes a certain amount of dedication to reach that level of appreciation. And that is the segment of people this movie was aimed at. Not you average movie-goers by any chance! . Back to the movie. This one was a gem all right and definitely an inclusion in the Bollywood hall of fame. I'd give it an all time rank of no # 2, surpassed only by Kanti Shah's legendary Gunda. This movie had an impeccable story line and created a beautiful blend between a fantasy and sci-fi. Pan's Labyrinth would have in fact been ashamed of the balance created between the parallel stories. And now do i really need to mention the stellar cast and even stellar-er (that is a word from NOW) performances from them (a special mention goes to Mr. Nigam for the best debut ever in any movie on this earth). Every actor in this movie had been very carefully chosen and the role were tailor made for them (and for their age too, I must add). Manisha Koirala still looks like she's 18 and wow man, with that figure I would have raped her too. Are you wondering where did this rape thing come in suddenly? Yes, a rape is what the premises of this movie is based on. And that is so not like your average Bollywood type movies. If you are an atheist or an agnostic by any chance, this movie is again a must for you. Because this movie can heal your faith. I don't think it'd even be going too far saying that this movie can cure cancer. Only the people who need it the most fail to appreciate its power, charm and undying beauty. Tchch, so unfortunate!
Only flaw in this movie: In your dreams, baby! This was flawless.
Only minor complain: The director failed to star Mithun Da as well.
I won't ruin it for you any further. Just go and watch it. TODAY. And if you like it, here are some more recommendation from me. Gunda, Desh Drohi, Aparichit, the old Ramsay Brothers horror movies, Loha, Indra the tiger and Sivaji.


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


user
This movie is without a doubt the best I have seen in my entire life. The stellar star cast is only an added bonus over the amazing special effects, and profound story and sublime choreography. The movie is about an ancient love affair that folds down into the modern world. Two lovers in heaven incur the wrath of a great sage and are cursed. Subsequently the woman is born again on earth. While she is in college, she is raped and commits suicide. The rest of the movie basically focuses on the hunting down of the people who were associated with the rape, by her lover who possesses superhuman strength and the mastery of several languages. Sonu Nigam delivers a very mature and deep performance in this film, and all the other actors do almost as well. Te action scenes with Akshay Kumar are mind-blowing, and must not be missed. You simply HAVE to watch this movie!!!


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


user
If you want to have a great time then this is THE movie to watch.
Take the premise - There is this college which admits people with minimum qualifications of BA, B.Com, M.Com, MA, MBA, MCA, B.E., M.Tech and BCA. So you have to take into account the time consumed and thus it is obvious that all students are 40+ Also the school admits students of a 'heavier' dispensation and has a course of P.Hd in weight loss and the only student who failed this course is Manisha Koirala. Only she was a snake in the past life. Still not convinced? OK read on.
Here's a scene. Akshay Kumar, a college student, is chased by Arman and he takes out a bazooka and shoots him! Then throws grenades. Then one of the grenades hits Akshay. But doesn't die and continues to fight, Arman, the snake, plunges a half foot dagger into Akshay and stomps on it but Akshay is still there. Then Akshay gets on a jet ski and follows Arman. They fight and Arman chokes Akshay underwater and finally Akshay is dead. So we think, as soon as Arman is out of the picture Akshay swims away to Raj Babbar, Principal of this college + Boxing Refree + Parapsychology ka professor + mumbling priest.
But no one, I repeat no one takes the cake but a certain Mr. Nigam. You gotto watch to learn more. :-)


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


user
I would consider myself a fan of Dean Koontz; having read a number of his novels and liked them all, but unfortunately I never got around to reading Watchers so I'm left with no choice but to rate this film on it's own merits rather than comparing it to the book that I haven't read. I went into this expecting something awful, and while I didn't exactly get a brilliant horror film; I am lead to believe that it's fans of the book that are rating it down because as a film in it's own right, Watchers is an entertaining and somewhat original little horror movie. The plot obviously takes some influence from Predator and begins with an explosion at a research lab. It's not long before a rancher is killed by some strange beast and the boyfriend of the dead man's daughter has picked up an ultra-intelligent runaway dog. A secret Government agency is soon on the case, as the murders continue. The boy continues to be fascinated by the dog's intelligence, but it somehow ties in with the murders and the agency is soon on his tail too.
The script for this film was originally written by Paul Haggis, who later disowned it. I don't know why  the writing here is nowhere near as ridiculous as his 2004 hit Crash! Anyway, the main reason this film works is undoubtedly the dog, who aside from being rather cute, is also the best actor in the film. Corey Haim, hot off the success of The Lost Boys is the human lead and actually has a rather good chemistry with the dog, although it is a little bit ridiculous seeing him talk to it most of the way through the film. The plot is rather convoluted and as such the film is more than a little bit messy; but the ridiculousness of it all pulls it through during the more awkward moments. Michael Ironside also appears in the film and does well as the 'bad cop' side of the Government agents. The monster is, of course, one of the most interesting things about the film and the way it goes around killing people is always entertaining and gory; although unfortunately we don't get to see a lot of it and when we finally do it's rather disappointing - obviously the filmmakers had seen Bigfoot and the Hendersons! Still, this is the sort of film that can be easily enjoyed despite the numerous problems and I'd recommend to any undiscerning viewer of eighties horror.


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


user
Watchers is a fun movie if it's not taken too seriously, the novel written by Dean R. Koontz is obviously a lot better but the movie itself is entertaining in it's own way. The film has a lot of changes for the novel Watchers, the one difference is the main character Travis. In the book he was an adult and an retired Delta Force soldier while in the film he's a teenager. Watchers has it's good points, the film does have some gory scenes in parts. I'm a fan of Micheal Ironside and it was cool to see him in this film, he always does a great performance in all his films. The OXCOM costume looks kind of cheesy but the camera never really shows the creature fully until near the end of the film. The dog Einstien was impressive since it was well trained.
The film sees two genetic experiments escaping from a lab, a dog and a monster. Both experiments are linked telepathically since the two animals are part of a military project were the dog would infiltrate an enemy base then the Creature would attack and eliminate them. The Dog finds a teenager named Travis who takes him home and discovers that he's intelligent and so he names the dog Einstein, meanwhile the OXCOM is roaming around killing people and gouging out their eyes, two Government agents are sent to find the two experiments before this incident gets out of hand. Soon Travis learns that his not safe as the OXCOM is drawn to the dog and will stop at nothing to kill him and anyone in it's way, so Travis and his mom go to rescue his girlfriend who's being held at the hospital by the two agents. They then hideout in the woods while the Government agents and the OXCOM are not far behind.
Watchers is not a great adaptation of Dean R. Koontz novel but it is a entraining 80's horror flick, some fans of the book may not want to watch this since it's not faithful to the book but fans of cheesy 80's horror movies may want to check this out.


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


user
I love dogs, and the most interesting character in this movie is a Golden Retriever. He is smarter, better looking and more interesting than any of the human characters. Like many other contributors I have not read the book but I doubt that having done so would change my opinion of the movie. It is predictable from the first five minutes on. No surprises. Mad scientists create a monster that gets loose and a teen age boy and his wonder dog collaborate to destroy it. All in all the movie is a dog. But as I said, I love dogs and will therefore give this movie a 7/10 rating. Watch it if it comes on TV, rent it if you are bored and nothing else catches your eye, but don't buy it unless it is on special.


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


user
Bears about as much resemblance to Dean Koontz's novel as Jessica Simpson does to a rocket scientist. If you've read the book, I suggest you put it as far out of your mind as possible before watching the movie.
Watchers is your typical "Boy meets dog, dog turns out to be super-intelligent government lab experiment, dog and boy are pursued by super-intelligent and emotionally disturbed monster created by same lab, and, oh yeah, did I mention the shady government agents pursuing the monster pursuing the dog?" movie.
Corey Haim is the boy, Barbara Williams is his mother, Michael Ironside is one of the evil government guys, and Sandy the dog is, well, the dog (named Furface here; Einstein in the book).
The monster effects are ridiculously cheesy, much of the dialogue is laughable, the script rarely makes sense or is believable - a good example is Haim's character's unquestioning acceptance of the dog's intelligence, as if every Fido off the street can type messages on a computer keyboard or bark once for yes and twice for no! Hmm, it's gotta be the puppy chow, right? Haim's performance is enthusiastic but shaky, as he carries off the stupid dialogue with the least amount of skill. Ironside has been the highlight of many a bad movie, and this is no exception. He easily gives the best performance of the movie, although I'm compelled to add that the dog (who's a pretty darn good actor himself!) comes in a close second.
All in all, an atrociously dumb movie, and yet . . . And yet I watched it three times within a week. And yet I can't help liking it. Hey, what can I say, I have a taste for junk - and Michael Ironside (not that I've ever actually tasted Michael Ironside- I'm sure there are laws against that). But any movie that can make me laugh that hard (yes, even unintentionally) can't be all bad. Chalk it up to a guilty pleasure, a "yes I know it's insultingly stupid but I like it anyway" movie.
It's tough for me to rate this. On a normal scale I'm forced to give it a D-, but on my own personal cheese scale, it gets bumped up to an A-.
Yeah, I know. I'm weird like that.


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


user
i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!
come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...
by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!
10/10*


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


user
Scary in places though the effects did leave something to be desired unless you have bad eyesight or are afraid of the dark. However most of the acting was convincing and most of the effects were well done. I thought the creature looked a bit too much like a man in a gorilla suit for my liking. It reminded me of the original pink panther film.


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


user
When I went to see this documentary on Communist bloc musicals, I was expecting something totally demented, along the lines of a Communist "Cop Rock." Some scenes did deliver, including a rousing clip from a Soviet film called "Tractor Drivers."
You'd think that moviemakers given the task of making ideologically correct musicals that sing, dance and espouse the Party line face insurmountable odds. And yet, one of the surprises of "East Side Story" is that some of the films presented actually looked promising. One was a mid-1950s East German effort called "My Wife Wants to Sing," in which, as the title implies, an unhappy hausfrau seeks to launch a singing career over the objections of her traditionally-minded husband.
Another genuinely interesting-looking movie, also from East Germany, was called "Midnight Revue." In this film-within-a-film, the producers spoof their own creative plight with the story of a group of filmmakers under Party orders to make a musical. (The on-screen filmmakers themselves get to do a musical number about avoiding "too hot" subjects very reminiscent in tone of the 1957 movie "Silk Stockings.")
The documentary is marred by somewhat insipid narration, but it's still a lot of fun to watch. (Look for the closing dedication to the person who made it all possible.)


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


user
"East Side Story" is a documentary of musical comedy in Stalinist Russia and later in the eastern European satellite comedies, with many clips from the films and commentary from the survivors. Although some of the Stalinist films look laughingly bad (The Bright Road (?) being a notable exception), the films from the sixties actually look pretty good. "My Wife Wants to Sing," "The White Mouse," and "Midnight Revue" look particularly entertaining. The producers had to contend with the censors, who had the power to decide what was politically correct, which led to some confusion, humorous in retrospect, since the people whom the censors were trying to appease were the very people who supported making the films to begin with! Since musical comedies were fairly rare behind the Iron Curtain--there were only something like forty made in forty years--they had a disproportionate effect upon their audiences, who made major hits of some of the films.
I notice that the sound for the sixties films was much better. The directors often had to make do with antiquated equipment, and stringent power regulations--they had to film in seven minute takes or less--and dangerous officicrats.
I also notice that "West Side Story" seems to have had a strong influence on "Hot Summer." The later films may not measure up to "Singin' in the Rain," but they certainly look like they beat the hell out of "Bye Bye Birdy"


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


user
I wonder if I could take sitting through a whole musical comedy from Russia or East Germany or other countries that for decades put out almost always propagandistic film, anti-fascist films, anti-war films (as this documentary points out) that just reflected the dark, grueling times under Stalin and life behind the Iron curtain. It's fascinating then to see the other side of the coin, the sorts of clowns and rebels with music at their side to try and please the masses more often than not stuck in the Socialist walk of life. One film actually seemed rather impressive, called Jolly Fellows by the pioneer of the very small group of musical filmmakers, Grigori Aleksandrov. From the clip(s) I saw of that film, I'd wager that it was one of the only works to actually step out of itself and go into just wild, manic, make-you-laugh kind of mode. But as this film shows, if you were a filmmaker looking to entertain, it better be with a 'message'.
Through interviews, some occasional quasi-dramatizations (of Russia/Germany/etc's sort of motion picture association) at the censorship table, and clips, one gets the full picture of what it was like- both behind the scenes and on the screen- to just make sheer entertainment for the masses. Some of the films (well, most of them, as apparently only 14 screened over 40 years in the countries mentioned) made a good chunk of change, but for what purpose really? One also gets drawn into the culture of it all, how it differs greatly from the American way of 'if it works, make em while they're hot' attitude. But at the same time, perhaps out of this repression, some interesting, funny, and (from what I saw) up-beat films were made. They might've been fairly typical of what was asked to be shown to the masses, under Stalin's fond but demanding terms, like life with tractors. It gets to be even juicier a story though as we get shown what it was like in the 60's, the last wave of musical comedies, as rock and roll and pop tunes finally hit their airwaves.
In short, some good stuff...but only if interested, really. I was shown the film in a class on documentary films, and half the class fell asleep. So be warned on the one hand, though on the other if looking for it, it can make for a really rewarding trip into European film history.


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


user
East Side Story entertains and informs about an unknown part of Cold War history. What is the purpose of any documentary? To inform the reader through commentary and footage. This one succeeds at both. You will never find many movies whose clips you get to see in here because some of them have been destroyed and some are unaccessible.
You get to see and her music from musicals made in East Germany, Russia, and other countries under Soviet Control. It shows you that the people who made these movies and the people who watched them all look for same things a Westerner would look for, which are pretty women and men singing and dancing on the streets with smiles and (hopefully) white teeth.


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


user
When one thinks of Soviet cinema, the propaganda masterpieces of Eisenstein or the somber meditations of Tarkovsky generally come to mind. They're great films sure, but generally not the most entertaining material out there. However, the countries within the Iron Curtain apparently enjoyed their escapist musicals just as much as the states had. In fact, from the 1930s up until the 70s, forty of these song-and-dance extravaganzas were released to much adoration by the public. However, they are completely unheard of in the West, so this documentary attempts to rectify that situation. It does a terrific job of both showcasing these films and putting them into the proper cultural context. Despite the fact I've never been a fan of musicals, I found this documentary to be completely compelling from beginning to end. It goes to prove that, no matter how many films you manage to see in your lifetime, you're only skimming the surface of whats out there.
As for the film clips themselves, they're very entertaining. While some of the musicals are blatant propaganda showing workers singing of how much they love working under the regime, some of the films (particularly the later ones) look quite accomplished from a production standpoint. Plus, they are all extremely campy because of how alien they are to my western eyes. There's a few similarities between them and the American musicals I'm used to, but the presence of strict government enforcing of a message gives them a surreal edge. They certainly don't resemble the musicals made in the West. This documentary is both one of the most bizarre and entertaining films I've seen in recent memory, and its an absolute must-see for any film buff. (9/10)


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


user
In the eighties, Savage Steve Holland put out three movies, two of which are classics of what seems to be a very small genre, absurdist teen comedies. The third "How I Got Into College" does not measure up to "Better Off Dead" and this one, mainly because of it's lack of John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong (Except for a tiny cameo).
One Crazy Summer is an underrated movie, with lots of great characterizations and gags. As I recall, Savage Steve's movies were vilified as being brain dead at the time and after three movies he drifted into children's TV. We could use more movies from the likes of him.


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


user
Thus starts "One Crazy Summer", the evil twin of "Better off dead..". How can any movie be bad when the opening lines are sung by David Lee Roth?
This movie is a total blast. Pairing again John Cusack with Curtis Armstrong, but this time adding Bobcat Goldwaith to the mix has great, funny results. Hyperactive Bobcat grates the nerve of everyone around, Curtis "Ak Ak" is the son of a deranged military with pacifist tendencies, and Demi Moore (with natural breasts... wow!) as the love interest of, once again, chronically depressed Cusack.
The story is, well, simple enough. The laughs are there, but both Savage Steve Holland films have a certain quality to them... they are funny, but they are also sweet. The scene where Curtis finds a blown up doll in the target practice beach, and begins musing about how a little girl won't be able to sleep was dumb, funny and touching. The animation used throughout is quite surreal. "The Boat" is hysterical (complete with Watsamatta U. sail and Odie plush doll). Overall, a fun film, though not as good as "Better off dead..."


assistant
1