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
Early 1950s Sci-Fi directed by Lesley Selander. Special effects of course are very primitive, but pretty good in comparison to what else was out there then. Drive-in Movie double feature fare; still interesting enough to watch. Two leading men, Arthur Franz the brilliant young scientist Dr. Jim Barker and straight talking and earthy newspaper reporter Steve Abbot(Cameron Mitchell)are joined on a manned flight to Mars by Carol Stafford(Virgina Huston)another scientist and two other space experts(Richard Gaines and John Litel). Upon landing on the Red Planet, the space travelers encounter inhabitants that appear friendly and mentally advanced. In actuality, the Martians are led by Ikron(Morris Ankrum), who has the idea of conquering Earth to vitalize their civilization. There is a beautiful Martian(Maruerite Chapman)that Dr. Barker intends to take back on the return trip. She is the movie's redeemable element.


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


user
Obviously influenced by the success of Pal's "Destination Moon" and Lippert's "Rocketship X-M" this one just doesn't make the cut. Limited special effects, a thin story line result in a production that even the half-decent cast can't save. Just no believability here. No one seems surprised to encounter Martians, much like earthlings, etc. etc. Pass on it!


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


user
Cheaply-made, poorly acted, and unimaginatively directed, Flight to Mars still is entertaining despite what its has going against it. A flight to Mars is planned with five people(three older gentleman, Cameron Mitchell as a newspaperman, and one female scientist/obvious love interest)"manning' the ship. The spaceship gets there and finds that very human-like Martians live there and have technological advances that would make Earth blush. But all is not rosy in the subterranean cities of the Martians(here shown as some caves and a few rooms). The Martians are a dying planet and one faction wants the Earthlings to fix the ship only to take it away at the last moment and then mobilize for an attack on Earth and another faction wants to talk peace and see if they cannot persuade Earth to give them living space. The special effects here are pretty lame even for 50's sci-fi standards complete with slow-moving rocket ship, pastel/neon alien garb where the women wear shorts that would make many blush(except the men of course), and little less offered. Cameron Mitchell is the journalist and is affable if nothing else. Marguerite Chapman is beautiful in very short shorts but adds little acting range. The rest of the cast is filled with some older sci-fi veterans like Arthur Franz and Morris Ankrum doing serviceable jobs. This isn't a premiere sci-fi film from the Golden Age by any standard, but it is very watchable and zips by at fast pace.


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


user
Square pigs as a way of efficiently utilizing cargo space is the one and only clever moment in "Space Truckers". Believe it or not, Dennis Hopper has done worse, see "The American Way", but this movie is way up there on the "cream of the crap" scale. I think the best way to describe the viewing experience is that "Space Truckers" will please no one. Too cartoon-like too be taken seriously, an almost total lack of humor, and poor character development, virtually assures disappointment. The beer and popcorn crowd might tolerate one viewing, but all others have been warned to avoid "Space Truckers" for all of the above reasons. - MERK


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


user
I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again.


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


user
Dennis Hopper must've been really hungry to do this movie. Atrocious special effects, very poor writing, cheesy dialogue, stupid-looking killer bio-robots. Never mind the blatent disregard for science. The awkward scene with the 2 young leads taking their clothes off. The best part of this movie was the pull-start cyber-penis on the wacked-out cyborg pirate captain. 2 out of 10 stars because I'm in a generous mood.


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


user
Oh dear! ohdear!ohdear!ohdear!
I love science fiction but this... er... 'movie' just puts space flicks to shame. Every sci fi film I've seen over the last YEAR has been disappointing to some degree, and I'm now seriously reconsidering what genre of movies I actually like in future!! (Maybe I'll watch romance flicks from now on!)
SPOILERS ALERT! (And thats not saying much!)
This flick is so insipidly dumb it rivals Battlefield Earth and Baby Geniuses in sheer badness. The special effects are obviously fake, the Big Mac Truck looked stoopid with its roller coaster seat restraints, the killer robots looked like a more idiotic version of the Power Rangers, a huge fat guy is sucked out of a port hole window butt first and... Space Truck School??? WTF?
Mr Hopper can do better than this. What really stunk were the two good-looking young things who accompany him and run around in nothing but their underpants (??) for an entire two thirds of the flick! The obligatory 'sex scene' (snicker!) between our young heroes was so poorly performed I nearly choked on my tonsils laughing at the TV screen.
The only character worth mentioning is the pirate ship captain/cyborg/mad scientist. He oozed the word grotesque and was predictably sleazy, but I believe he could've been much more menacing. He does and says things which are quite funny (all the best scenes involve him!) so for the captain I give this movie an extra point.
But this flick is so bad it'll make you want to hurl abuse at the TV or maybe throw your TV out the window! It may even kill off a few brain cells and put you into a catatonic state.
CONCLUSION? I like the way the captain struggles to walk around on his peg leg when its obviously a fake peg leg!! I would've given it 0 out of 10, but since he cracks me up with his stoopid antics... this flick gets 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
I'd never heard of this film before I caught it on the telly last night. I do hope it was never given a cinema release as this would be an insult to the silver screen and movie-goers alike.
Was it supposed to be serious, was it supposed to be funny? Why the outrageously basic plot? Does anyone actually care?...
Awful film.
2/10


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 realize that there are some doubting Thomas's out there...I was one of them...but then I saw this masterpiece of celluloid.
All I can say is that the scene in which George Wendt gets sucked out of the spaceship BY HIS A** left me trembling. I sometimes sit bolt upright in my bed, screaming like an old man on a proctologist's table thinking about it. If the director is reading this... I would pay to be an extra in the sequel.


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


user
You've got to be kidding. This movie sucked for the sci-fi fans. I would only recommend watching this only if you think Armageddon was good.


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


user
At one point in this waste of celluloid, Charles Dance as some sort of meant-to-be-funny, cyborg bad guy says "If I had an anus, I'd soil myself."
Quite.


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


user
There is only one word that describes this film: BAD!! I have no idea why this movie was even made, or how they got Dennis Hopper to star in this film. Stuart Gordon is a better director than this and Hopper is a much better actor. The film is plain stupid. I did like the "square pigs" idea and there was an interesting love scene involving a cyborg, other than that, avoid this film at all costs.


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


user
K, one day my father picked up a movie with a 'neat' cover. Got home with my mom and we were like yay lets watch this new movie we never saw before! .. Ok so it started ... interesting start, cool robots and disgusting gore (eek) on a strange planet (actually it was Pluto wasn't it?)... Blablabla I could tell the whole story but I rather not point, WTF NEVER EVER pick up a movie with a lame ass name, and seriously don't EVER I mean EVER judge a book by its cover (err tape..) it looked like an interesting movie HOWEVER it was a slap to the face for sci-fi movies, its DISGUSTING. I mean it was so bad I just started laughing (I swear it tryed to be serious) I CANT DESCRIBE THE STUPIDITY! It killed more then a million brain cells of mine I can't even write a descent critique. ITS THAT BAD! Argh and I wana prepare you for something "strange' *COUGH COUGH* mechanical p3n1$ *COUGH COUGH* Sorry just had to say it, its so funny, think of it as a commedy or a parody of sorts for sci-fi movies. Its classic batman laughs but in a new packaging. What the hell was this director thinking?


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


user
If you're one of those people who doesn't really like Sci-fi because of their sometimes far-fetched ideas and surreal world perspectives, you better stay away as far as you can from Stuart Gordon's Space Truckers! It truly is an absurd space adventure, stuffed with eccentric characters, colorful kitsch and ludicrous plot-twists. In all honestyI probably never would have cared for this film, if it wasn't for Gordon's name on the credits. This guy comes pretty close to being a genius in the horror genre, with undeniable milestones like From Beyond' and Re-Animator' on his résumé. Apparently, Stuart Gordon likes his humor as twisted as possible! He already went completely over the comedy-top once (with Re-Animator) but, with the slight difference that the bizarre humor was effective there. Something that isn't really the case for Space Truckersmost of the gags lead nowhere and the entirely exaggerated atmosphere only works in small doses. In the end, all that remains is an occasionally amusing but completely unnecessary mess. Dennis Hopper and Charles Dance (or at least a semi Charles Dance) are always a joy to look at and the still stunning Barbara Crampton has a small role near the end of the film. Crampton was Stuart Gordon's regular heroine in previous horror films. The story of Space Truckers is as silly as they come. Dennis Hopper plays the self-made loner who's fed up with his job. Who wouldn't be when you're transporting pigs across the galaxy for a company named Interpork? He sees his change to flee while bringing his muse to earth. They float into Space-pirates and find out their cargo is meant to wipe out half the universe! Stuart Gordon wisely returned to making horror again after this little escapade. Since Space Truckers, he already made the sublime `King of the Ants' and the absolutely brilliant `Dagon'


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


user
About five years ago, my friend and I went to the video rental store to get something to watch. My friend saw Space Truckers on the shelf, and so we got it. Once we got home and started watching it, we realized what an absolute piece of crap it was! A beer can floating in space? A guy taking a dump in a toilet? A guy with a mechanical dick who tries to arouse a women by saying, "Whizz, whizz!"? WTF!!! The dumbest, stupidest, most retarded, horribly throne together piece of trash my eyes have ever been exposed to. My friend and I still refer to it as THE worst movie we have ever seen. Only one other movie has come close to its crappiness (and that would be the stupid Jackie Chan flick, "The Medalion"). If you eyes ever see this piece of junk on the shelf at your video store, proceed to do the following: 1. Take it off the shelf and throw it to the ground. 2. Stomp on it for at least 30 seconds. 3. Proceed to set it on fire in a contained facility (bathroom stall). 4. Lastly, take it to your local hazardous waste management facility immediately so that it may be properly dealt with.
STAY AWAY FROM "SPACE TRUCKERS"!!!!!!!!


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


user
How do stories this bad get made. That's not a question. It is a statement.
Here are my problems with the film.
1) Much of the story development was predictable and boring. My emotions ran pretty much in a flat line throughout. There wasn't really much to draw the viewer into the film.
2) The characters were decidedly uncharismatic. One was a loon, another was confusing, and the third was pretty damned boring. There was absolutely zero reason to be drawn to these people. Even though I knew it wouldn't happen, I kept hoping that they would run into someone else, someone more interesting.
3) The physical environment was uncomfortable for me. A trailer??? In the desert??? The desert is a place that most people would prefer not to visit. How is it that these three people end up in the desert???
4) And in the same desert. Did the writer really expect me to believe that the last three people on Earth would manage to find each other within the span of a few weeks out in that desert?
5) Was it really necessary for Ms. Ryan to be in two scenes that required a swimsuit? Hey, she looks great, but it was pretty gratuitous.
Okay, so if I thought it was so bad, why did I give it a 3? I am trying to be as objective as possible. Even though I found Alan annoying, I have to say that David Arnott did a very credible job of portraying a neurotic nerd (the character reminded me of a few of Albert Brooks more annoying roles). Jeri Ryan tried to do something with Sarah, but it just wasn't written very well. Okay, so she was supposed to be a confused, dysfunctional woman. But why? What did it add to the story? Her mood swings left me feeling like I was being jerked (hard!) one way and then another and then another.
I don't often walk out on films, but this one had me contemplating it several times. Stiff, predictable, boring. Proceed at your own risk.
My 2 cents.


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


user
I saw this movie in part because of some positive comments here on IMDb. After wishing I had those 90 minutes of my life back, I feel it's my duty to get on here myself and say...Please don't bother watching this movie.
I can't argue with the actors efforts - they did what they could given the material, but that material is dreadful. The pace was deadly - slow, meandering, and you saw everything coming about an hour away, and then it took forever to happen. The dialogue was boring, pointless, not funny at all. The characters were all completely unsympathetic. And the cinematography was, in my opinion, very low quality - the cliché of "character uses home video machine!" was used to very bad effect.
Yes, Jeri Ryan is a cool person. Don't let that sucker you into wasting your time on this film.


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


user
After wasting 2 hours of my life watching this movie on late night television, I went back and reread some of the IMDb material, to remind myself of why I watched it in the first place. In hindsight, the only thing that I can think of is that the genre generally appeals to me. But this movie was a total waste of effort. It fails on every level, and to see that it's described on IMDb as a comedy really leaves me at a loss. I don't recall more than a couple of chuckles. There are more laughs in any episode of Law and Order than in The Last Man. Seriously.
Too much of the characters' interaction just didn't seem to me to have any foundation, and was therefore very unlikely/unbelievable.
If it hadn't been for the almost-gratuitous bikini shots, well, what can I say? Avoid this movie like the plague. Or tape it and just fast forward to the bikini shots. Do not spend even $1 to rent it though.


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


user
The only reason I rented the movie was to see Jeri Ryan in it! OMG that was the most boring, pointless movie I've ever seen!!! HOW LAME!!! I mean really, give me a break! After Voyager, I'd hope she'd be offered better roles!!
If I were one of the last people on earth, I would NOT still be living in a travel trailer in the dessert!! This is just such a bad movie!! The thing about the indian tribe and how he compared it every 10 seconds really, really got old. Poor Jeri, better luck next time!


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


user
Wow, umm this was a very, how to say it, different type of movie. It calls itself a comedy...but it wasnt really laught out loud funny at all. It was insane. If you are willing to accept that 3 people survive a calamity of a global scale, why not 4? or 5?.....and why did it suddenly end without anything happening??? They could have made this much better by simply having another element in the plot such as a dumpy female for the ugly dude or something.......zinc, riduculous....ahh
i dunno..watch it...it wasnt that bad.....sorta funny at times....i guess...
schneider


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


user
Don't be fooled by the other reviewers. Although this film contains an impressive array of talent, the material they present leaves a great deal to be desired. Nat King Cole's 3 numbers are pretty lame and not even close to his later efforts, though he does impress with his piano playing. 'Moms' Mabley is not a bit funny, though I remember her as a very entertaining talk show guest from my youth. Actually, the best performances are from a couple of fat guys who impress with a lively tap dance and a Four Tops takeoff, and the jazz band itself, especially in the number featuring the bass player. The print itself is pretty poor quality, and the wonderful Butterfly McQueen is totally wasted in the wraparound plot.


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


user
When I started watching this, I instantly noticed that I couldn't understand what anyone was saying. I turned up the volume. With background noises now booming out, I could hear the voices. Just what are the actors saying? Is the movie not dubbed? Are they speaking Spanish? After some confusion, I realize that it was English. At least, I think so... The Amazing Jess Franco has placed the microphones too far away from the actors. As a result, we cannot completely hear what they are saying. He's done this before. But maybe this is Mr. Franco's intention? By not knowing what people are saying, we are thrown into some mystery about what is going on, and are left with more visual clues... Maybe it's just me, but I would have liked to know what was going on! How about a few hints? The basic premise (I refuse to call it a "plot") concerns a young American exotic dancer named Paula (played by Amber Newman) who has a boyfriend who gets her invited to a small island owned by some sleazy rich people. It is somewhere off the coast of Spain. For this visit, a large cash payment is promised to Paula, which the boyfriend gets. He then escapes from the island, only to return later. Why? Pay close attention to the scene where the boyfriend opens Paula's US passport. Though his hand tried to cover it up, you can see the actress' REAL name, Amber Newman, printed below the photo on the bottom of the passport!! Anyway, back to the "story": There are some other sleazy, rich, beautiful characters visiting the island, all with ambiguous motives. We witness sadistic games (are they real or fake?) and unappealing dining scenes. But the food must be good, as a phony French chef prepared it! There is a young woman servant who runs around naked and never speaks. Is she really mute? And do we care? Of course all the women are mostly naked throughout this film... Oh well, we can at least be thankful that the (50+ and overweight) men remain clothed! In addition to the abysmal sound quality, what I have always marveled at about Jess Franco is his amazing ability to film beautiful naked women in such a way that leaves the viewer completely turned off. This film is no exception  I needed fresh air after watching it!
In conclusion: I am happy to report that regardless of what Mr. Franco can dream up, I am still attracted to women.


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


user
I know Jesse Franco is responsible for a wide variety of films, and I mainly go for his horror films, as lousy as they are at times. I guess it was morbid curiousity that drew me to this, and I wasn't even curious enough to finish it. Maybe it got better towards the end but unless you're into lesbian sex scenes (of which there's plenty) then you may want to take a pass. So what exactly can you say about a movie that features a woman that pees in a bowl on the kitchen counter (while standing up)? Just never you mind what that's used for later, you probably don't want to know. If this sounds intriguing to you, then that's your problem but then again you might just like this movie. I myself, am no prude, I've seen plenty of disgusting movies in my day but at least they were done well, and this isn't. Sometimes too much is just too much. Bleah.


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


user
I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport!
What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.


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


user
The opening scene of the beach at Fircombe while amusing in itself, unfortunately provides a suitable metaphor for the film - insipid and washed out. It is actually not as corny as most of the others in the Carry On series, but maybe because of that doesn't really deliver much fun. It's a fair bet that the title will appeal to fans of the Benny Hill show but those looking for attractive females in bikinis and miniskirts, while they will see some in this, will probably enjoy some of the other titles in the series, such as "Carry On Abroad" or "Carry On Up the Jungle" more. The emergence of early 1970s feminism is used as a plot device which seems rather self-defeating.


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 definitely one of the weaker of the series of Carry On films. It lacks the usual fun and sparkle and even the cast seem embarrassed by the poor dialogue. By the time this came out, the series was in terminal decline and boy does it show! If you're coming fresh to this series, avoid this one till near the end.


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


user
I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically local councillor Sidney Fiddler (Sid James) persuades the incompetent Mayor Frederick Bumble (Kenneth Connor) of Firecombe to hold a beauty contest, to improve the town's image. They face opposition from women's liberationist Augusta Prodworthy (June Whitfield) trying to sabotage the contest, but they do have publicity agent Peter Potter (Bernard Bresslaw) and Palace Hotel owner Connie Philpotts (Joan Sims). Soon enough the young, beautiful wannabe models show up, including Hope Springs (Barbara Windsor), Paula Perkins (Valerie Leon), Dawn Brakes (Goldfinger's Margaret Nolan), Debra (Sally Geeson) and Ida Downs (EastEnders' Wendy Richard). When the girls have cat fights, it does draw away regular residents, but after quite a while of some plodding not that funny innuendos and William (Jack Douglas) having over-active twitches, it does finally reach the competition, and it's just afterwards I couldn't be bothered. Also starring Patsy Rowlands as Mildred Bumble, Peter Butterworth as Admiral, Joan Hickson as Mrs. Dukes, David Lodge as Police inspector, Angela Grant as Miss Bangor, Arnold Ridley as Councillor Pratt, Robin Askwith as Larry, Patricia Franklin as Rosemary, Jimmy Logan as Cecil Gaybody and Dad's Army's Bill Pertwee as Fire brigade chief, Charles Hawtrey had obviously quit the Carry Ons, but where's Kenneth Williams? I suppose seeing Babs and young, beautiful looking Pauline Fowler in bikinis, but for comedy value, this fails miserably, and the overuse of the swanny whistle just gets on your nerves. Pretty poor!


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


user
I have seen this movie twice, once a few years ago in college, and again this past weekend. Although I absolutely despised it the first time, I decided to give it another chance. Terrence Malick is clearly a well-respected director, and it seems that the IMDb viewers, at least, think very highly of the film. But, unfortunately, it seems my tastes haven't changed at all.
Where to start? For one thing, Linda Manz's narration is horrific. Her voice is so irritating with that horrendous New York accent (please don't try and convince me that Chicagoans talk that way - they don't). She herself admitted to just sitting down and talking about random things, which does not make her a talented actress. She's not even acting! I came on IMDb expecting to see her ripped apart, since her performance is just so utterly laughable, but people actually seemed to like it! She's simply unappealing in every way - I kept hoping Malick would just kill her off.
The other actors were fine, but certainly nothing special. Adams was probably the strongest in the cast, but she also had the only decent part. Except the old guy - he was pretty good.
Speaking of acting, how could Shepard's character be so ridiculously stupid?? He bought the "brother and sister" act because...uh, why would he buy that? Bill and Abby took every single opportunity to be touchy-feely, as though they didn't realize that their lives depended on acting in a very platonic way. It was just completely unbelievable. And finally, after a considerable amount of time, the Farmer suddenly realizes that, "Oh my god, they're together!" Then he goes after Bill with a gun, but instead seems to trip into Bill's hand and ends up with a mortal stab wound.
Speaking of which, the fate of the characters was similarly stupid (and, dare I say, lazy). Of course Bill has to die - could it be more boring than getting shot in a pond by a pack of cops? Abby goes on with her happy life, getting on a train and feeling really content about the way things worked out. And the irksome narrator randomly finds her deadbeat friend and they wander off into the sunset. But it's okay, because Malick never gave me any reason to care about the characters anyway.
As for the plot, this film drags along endlessly with no real plot twists or development. I can't believe it's only 94 minutes long - I could have sworn I was sitting in my seat for a solid 3 hours. The sudden locust disaster was like throwing the Bible in my face; I'm totally fine with metaphors and allusions, but this was completely over the top. Clearly the message was, "Don't marry for money or bad things will happen to you." Very original.
I understand that "Days of Heaven," like all of Terrence Malick's films, is meant to be a piece of art. And I will certainly agree that the cinematography is simply stunning, and the magic hour shots add a unique aura to the film. But I need more than nice pictures to enjoy a film, and this one just didn't do it 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
Now don't get me wrong, i love a good film and after watching The Thin Red Line (and loving it) I was eager to track down Terrence Malicks two earlier films, and, having just watched Days of Heaven, my enthusiasm to see Badlands has virtually disappeared.
I have noted much rave about the beautiful photography, but i saw this film on a terribly old vhs tape which made it look pretty awful. All i can say is i hope the photography was superb, because it would have been one of the only things of interest in this film. Not since the Replacement Killers have i fallen asleep during a film. This film felt so long (and it wasn't!), the editing was choppy and disjointed, the storyline non-existent, the voice over was an incoherent ramble, the characters weakly developed, and the whole thing was uninvolving. I know that Malick was uncertain of how to do the film. He consequently shot a heck of a lot of footage then spent around two years editing in an attempt to piece it all together. This is very apparent on screen. Everything looks chopped up, every time a scene seemed to gain some momentum (or some character development) it would obtrusively cut to boring scenes of people doing boring things. It was as if someone had tried to cut together a story out of stock footage of people farming. The few good points are the music and the chase scene near the end, but those things are no where near enough to maintain interest. I would normally let a bad film pass by without being too vocal but when it is so highly over-rated something must be said.
Maybe a farmer would like it...?


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


user
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!
I had to see why all the critics fawn over this movie. I have seen it and still don't get it. The Plot is thin, very thin. After the movie was over, I still did not know the female lead characters name and one of the two male characters did not even have a name in the credits, he is credited as "the farmer". I did not care about the characters, so I did not care about the movie.
The scenery and cinematography were brilliant, but so is the stuff on National Geographic or The Discovery Channel.
I can not recommend this movie to anyone.


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


user
Lovely music. Beautiful photography, some of scenes are breathtaking and affecting. But the dramatic tension is lost in a film that is so poorly edited it is hard to know what exactly is going on. At times, the dialogue is incomprehensible. Then there is Richard Gere. He's supposed to be a factory worker who gets into trouble and gets work on a farm. We see dozens of farmhands sweaty and dirty in the hot sun. Then we see Gere, looking like he just wandered away from a Calvin Klein ad. Sam Shepard, another glamour guy, is supposed to be terminally ill. But he looks great. Nice try, but it just doesn't work. Brook Adams try hard but she gets lost in the scenery.The real star is the girl.


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


user
Before I begin, a "little" correction: IMDb states that Richard Gere is 180 cm tall. Wrong! I passed by him 10 years ago, and he can't be an ant's a** bigger than 165. I'm 183, and he looked like a child next to me.
Should have been called "Wheatlands"; an appropriate title to complement Malick's previous (and much better) movie "Badlands". This movie shows that not all directors have as their prime objective to entertain. In fact, some of them have as their main objective to show wheat in all its splendour.
The movie is depressing and relatively uninvolving, with the obligatory tragic ending. Nothing more than an average and predictable love triangle drama, with the male two-thirds of the triangle not surviving the movie. Praised for its visual quality; while it does have that realistic 70s feel to it, there are limits to how spellbinding wheat fields can be. You can shoot them with 1500 mm cameras, for all I care, but they are still wheat fields.
Gere, who at first seems miscast as some kind of lower-class factory-worker-turned-Wheatfield-worker, is quite solid, while Brooke Adams appears distant and cool for most of the movie, making one wonder just how much she loved either of the two hunks. But for those looking for a movie that displays all the glorious colours of a field of wheat, look no further: you've found your dream!
If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Richard Gere and other Hollywood intellectual heavyweights, contact me by e-mail.


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


user
Days of Heaven is one of the most painfully boring and pointless films I have ever seen. In no way, shape, or form would I recommend it to anyone...unless you're trying to put your kids to sleep or, God forbid, give someone an aneurysm. If I could go back in time and do one thing, I would set fire to the reels before they were sent to theaters. Why? Days of Heaven's plot is simple, but extremely vague. Long sequences devoid of dialogue compose much of the film. The characters are too shallow and ridiculously stupid to relate with. The climax of the story does not touch you: by this time your brain has worked so hard to figure out the plot and the array of hidden metaphors that your ability to think is gone. The only things working are your eyes, and unfortunately, your ears, who must listen to the sound of Linda, the little girl in the story, who talks like a man. I am now dumber for seeing this movie. Don't let it happen to you.


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 shocked to read all these wonderful comments about this movie because I hated it. I stuck it out to the end, but it was painful-- especially having to listen to that voice of the child. As Socact-1 remarked, even though the girl claimed to be from Chicago, she didn't have a Chicago accent-- It sounded more like she was trying to imitate a NY accent--but failed at that as well. I was so confused that I was waiting for the punchline. Of all the wonderful actors who could have played that child, why did they select this one? And why force her to talk like that? It wasn't even just the accent, it was the script, the monologue created for her. The reason I even selected this movie was that the plot idea appealed to me-- this era in history, the type of characters that are poor and uneducated, the setting --and the love triangle. As far as I'm concerned it could have and should have been much better. I was just soooo relieved to read that at least one other person felt the same way that I did about this movie.


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


user
Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.
A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.
So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.
Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.
There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.


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


user
With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.


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


user
After three hours in the Cinema hall,the strongest impression garnered was that their is something amiss. What was clear was that the Directors forgot to direct, the actors to act and most importantly the script writer to write. Evervbody shouted without reason and made one cringe. The script moved on and on with lots of avoidable twists and turns ending in now, too familiar Priyadarshan theory of Converging actors at a single point. This theory worked well in Hera-Pheri and Hungama but somehow managed to irritate this time, so did the habit of every actor's incapacity to answer asked of them directly. Simplest questions such as " what is your name would be repeated N times".
Finally what was amiss was that the director forgot that his audience have something called intelligence.


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


user
I saw this with high expectations. Come on, it is Akshay Kumar, Govinda, and Paresh Rawal, who are all amazing at their comedy, I was really hoping for a laugh riot. Sadly, that is not what I got at all...
Unfortunately, nothing in this movie really made me laugh out loud. There were times when I chuckled at one or two things, but nothing really made me laugh. In short, it was badly attempted comedy, and in a way, a bit of a Hera Pheri wannabe.
Out of the three main guys, I think Paresh Rawal's role was the most powerful. It wasn't the biggest role, but it certainly stood out more than Govinda or Akshay. Their performances were okay I guess. Nothing special, just mediocre. Though Govinda stole the limelight from Akshay in more than a few scenes. Lara Dutta and Tanushree Dutta also make appearances in this film, and both of them were pretty bad. Lara's role did not move me, or make me laugh, and Tanushree Dutta's character just got on my nerves! The music seems to be the only good thing about Bhagam Bhag. My favourite song is "Tere Bin", followed by "Afreen", which I really liked. "Signal" and the title song "Bhagam Bhag" are also worth a listen.
You either will like it or you won't. And judging by the poor comedy and lack of direction, I don't think you will.


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 all in awe of the film looking at the promos and went to watch it FDFS The film was horrible to say the least
The first scene is good and till they go to London things are funny but slowly the pace slackens and they is nothing funny about it
The Manoj Joshi subplot is funny at places but is unwanted and adds to the boredom
The drugs part is funny especially the monologue of Govinda
The film goes on and on aimlessly just like a small kid has written it
The interval brings a twist in the story but by then i lost hope
The second half starts okay but the way things are handled makes a mockery The entire Arbaaz- Jackie angle is half baked Also how come people don't identify them?
The climax is quite funny though stupid
Priyadarshan is not at all in his elements, from this film he started doing craps and his films got bad and bad Music is good, SIGNAL, TERE BIN stand out and AFREEN too Camera-work is good
Akshay Kumar has white in his stubble and looks old but he acts well though this role he has done many times yet thanks to his natural comedy acting things look bearable Govinda looks out of shape, bad and his act except monologue is boring too surprising from Govinda seems too much pressure on him to comeback and Priyan fails to utilize him Paresh is okay in parts but overall just repeat act Manoj Joshi is funny at places Sharat Saxena is okay Shakti Kapoor is great Jackie Shroff looks overweight and acts in his sleep Arbaaz Khan is bad Lara Dutta shrieks to glory but fails to act


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


user
If you're a sane person and you have seen films before then you cannot tolerate this piece of idiocity for more than 20 minutes. And if you do stay there longer then it won't be because you'd expect akshay or paresh (not govinda please!) but because you value your money too much and you want at least a short nap on the plush seating in the multiplex in return of the money they robbed you off! Its hard to believe that the director who gave us a cult film like HeraPheri can fall to such levels.. alright he's repetitive but now he's coming out of all third rate storied and expects us to laugh because he's brought in Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar...!No sir this ain't going to work now.. especially with this stupid script of yours!Even comedy films can have meaningful scripts (Lage Raho Munnabhai anyone?).
Govinda doesn't have much to do so can't comment..Akshay Kumar was boring, Paresh Rawal cracked some of the worst joke possible.Lara Dutta had real scope for acting in this one but she fails miserably...the only high point of the film (possibly) is Tanushree's acting!But she's there only for the first 10 minutes.
I don't think this film is worth any more space... (probably not even this much!). So final warning- don't 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
Rs.30/- is all I paid as rent for the DVD of the movie and believe me it is not worth it.
Bollywood directors think that showing fools is funny? well it is not. Please grow up.
Here goes a dialog from the movie -'AGAR TUM LADKEE KO IJJAT DOGE TO LADKEE TUMHE APNI IJJAT DEGI'.
Plot is useless, criminals and police alike running after fools. That is it. BHAGAM BHAG.
Well it lived the title, I had to run away from it. :) I switched over to Star Movies and watched Home Alone 2 instead, and had a good laugh.


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


user
Bhagam Bhag was a waste of money and time big time! I wonder y Govinda did this movie? Govinda...dude...m your big fan, u have to make right decisions now in choosing movie? i wonder he had any role in that movie.Govinda's role could be given to Johnny Lever. Akshay Kumar steals the show here! Akshay...dud u rock! u have created space in everybody's heart all over the world! Lara Dutta, Tansuhree ....u guys deserve better. Paresh Rawal is good at his witty! overall there were few scene where i laughed...otherwise i was just wondering "y the hell did Priyadarshan made such a stupid movie?" Anyways, lets wait and watch upcoming movie.


assistant
0