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
Strained and humorless (especially in light of its rather dubious psychology), but well-paced and comfortably lurid, this genteel body count movie highlights the unusually hypnotic presence of Angharad Rees as a young woman periodically possessed by Jack the Ripper, thus allowing for some nasty gore effects amidst the Edwardian propriety. It's all pretty standard stuff for Hammer, but is handled with a good deal of visual elan, even if the central relationship, between psychoanalyst Porter and Rees, drives the narrative without ever being satisfactorily explained.


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


user
I've watched this film a few times and I never really liked it. I'm not a fan so termed "nu horror", so I can't be dismissed on that account. I found it a little sleazy, I think the thing that irks me about Hammers is the sexploitation aspect, not sex mind you, but Sexploitation. I'm surprised at how many people have rated this film so highly, so I'll have another look at it. But for me, it wasn't creepy, it had no atmosphere, just a bit of "omigod, look at those bad/stupid London prostitute women and that little innocent Anna about to get raped by yet another nasty man, ooherh!" I suppose ultimately for me, the film had no depth whatsoever, just a bunch of nasty priggish men and women only there for the titillation value. This no doubt was to some degree what Victorian England was like, but the sets are even too clunky and dull impart a sense of Victorian menace. Roger Corman's horrors on the other hand, now that's style, atmosphere and elegant horror. For me, this was just exploitative, flat footed trash.


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


user
By 1971 it was becoming more and more obvious that Hammer film studios were on the way out . HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a case in point where even the idea smacks of desperation - The spirit of Jack The Ripper posses his own daughter ! Yeah okay no one was expecting a documentary but this plot seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupid premise and you do find yourself questioning why on earth the producers brought Jack The Ripper into the story . Was this to give the movie a snappy title ?
The production values are unimpressive and the cinematography gives the whole movie a cheap TVM feel but you know you're not going to be watching a classic Hammer horror as soon as the title starts because the music is laughably inappropriate . I think the composer was trying to make the theme tune haunting and touching but the music resembles something out of a soppy romantic movie . I will give the cast some credit as they do take their roles seriously in what's a far from serious movie
I didn't enjoy this film much and it instantly reminded me of the Phantom Raspberry Blower Of London Town from The Two Ronnies which I'd been laughing at in the weeks before I saw this


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


user
There are no saving graces in this dreadful, stagey, boring snooze-fest, which brings to mind "The Ransom Of Red Chief"!
Even though there are some big stars in this film, the acting is almost uniformly terrible.
Glenn Ford, normally a laid-back kind of guy, hams it up with forced emotion.
Donna Reed is so over-the-top as to prove laughable.
Leslie Nielson is woefully miscast and is terrible.
The son is such a repulsive little brat, I found myself rooting for the kidnappers.
The only decent performance in this mish-mash is the relatively minor role of the butler.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh on the actors, after all, all they did were to read the lines given them in the script. Ah, the script, that turgid piece of contrived dreck that would like to tug on your heart strings but merely turns your stomach.


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


user
I didn't really HATE Mirrormask. I just really wanted more from a movie than pretty visuals. The movie begins with a young girl named Helana who works in a circus. But while other children (supposedly) want to run away to the circus she only wants to run away FROM the circus. During a heated argument with her mother, Helana wishes she would drop dead. Bad move. The mother gets ill with...something (presumably cancer) and needs surgery. On the night before surgery she dreams she travels to a wonderful world composed of her her dreams and nightmares where she "finds herself". Personally the movie got crap for me as soon as she started dreaming. The early scenes show the weird and wonderful world of the circus and then contrast it with the bleakness of the hospital and the filth of an apartment block. But a soon as she dreams the whole films shifts to CGI land where nearly everything is a computer image. The problem is that this dream world has none of the mystery and wonder it should have. while films like the Wizard of Oz seemed enticing to explore Mirrormask shoves images in our faces and then snatches them away to give us another image. There's little rhyme or reason to the design in this film and even though some things are very pretty (the librarian is a masterpiece) they just disappear so quickly that they're soon forgotten. Helana and her sidekick Valentine are annoying at best and unbearable at worst. Overall Mirrormask is like a pretty stake that you bite and find out is actually ash. Stick to the real world kids.


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 "Mirrormask" last night and it was an unsatisfactory experience.
It is a film that is visually rich but with slow direction, poor plot line and 2-dimensional characterisation.
I did, however, know this when I went in. I was willing to trust the two gentleman that I went with (knowledgable comic buffs) that the visuals would be out of the ordinary and so they were. Unfortunately, inexperience of direction meant that scene after scene passed with little in the way of dramatic tension or conflict. Though, this is a comment that could be made of many artists whose work is transferred to screen and who are given charge of direction. The pace of the story is lost as the camera lovingly dwells on the pretty pictures.
I would not have gone at all without that reassurance that the style of the film would be worth seeing. I have tried with Neil Gaiman's work but am always left with the "emperor's new clothes" feeling. I live in hope but last night was no exception.
I do not think I can continue with an analysis of Gaiman's work without losing the will to live. Read the rest of the comments and all his faults are eloquently described. I cannot comprehend, however, how he imagined that he had any understanding of the mind of a fifteen year old girl, Nor that what he had to say added anything to the sum total of human knowledge on growing up and assuming adult responsibility, or the changing relationship that a girl might have with her mother. These are the central themes of the film and they are handled ineptly, stereotypically and with no depth of imagination. All the pretty pictures in the world cannot make up for a piece of work that is flawed at the core.


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


user
Wow, what exciting visual effects. I also loved the costumes and artwork, the circus and ethereal feel to the film was sublime. It just required the need for the viewer to worry about the fate of our protagonist. As she is trapped in her imagination, there is never a sense of peril unlike, say, David Lynch's films which haunt every time. This also draws attention to which age group this film is aimed at. Who would this engage?
Mirrormask is obviously going to draw comparisons with Labyrinth with the teen- angst/ fantasy theme, but unfortunately it doesn't really come close to delivering the same Henson essence. The ill mother theme is never fully explained and certainly not something that you care about while lapping up the eye candy.
Not agonisingly awful a la The Cell, nor as engagingly dreamlike as Labyrinth - a forgettable but good-looking fantasy.


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


user
Well, that was sure a waste of Dave McKean's talents, wasn't it? Don't get me wrong: when it comes to graphic design, Dave McKean may be the best in the world right now. The layered, textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil lines on rough paper make the efforts of people like Peter Greenaway and David Fincher look like what they are: hackwork. McKean has been the godfather of a revolution in the look of comics, film, even magazine ads which borrow the distinctive collage effect he has pioneered.
But this movie? It's junk. Complete junk. The story, from Neil Gaiman, is, unfortunately, exactly what Gaiman has been giving us ever since he ripped off Clive Barker for the first time: a pseudo-mythic, overblown dreamscape, populated by characters which have Titles in All Capital Letters rather than names. Everything is allegory, to the point that it is impossible to get any human drama, emotion, or empathy from anyone involved. People make pithy postulations, speaking in riddles which bring to mind what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead might have sounded like if Tom Stoppard had suffered a debilitating stroke halfway through its composition. Really, Gaiman, get over yourself. You're not a prophet. You're a poser.
McKean's directing doesn't help - his pacing is poor, taking fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot, and then simply providing a disconnected sequence of events, none of them given any weight. The monsters don't menace because they're not foreshadowed, simply thrown at the screen. The plot doesn't engage because we don't really care about the rancid little protagonists. Half the dialogue, muttered into into shirt fronts and ubiquitous masks, is unintelligible.
Some of the visuals are pretty, and I'm sure the fanboys will lick it up. Pity. Think of the amount of really good work McKean could have produced if he hadn't been stuck with this lame project.
Grade: D/D-


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


user
This film is really really bad, it is not very well done and is a lack lustre attempt at something but I am not sure what. I watched it and was very disappointed. It promised a lot, but delivered nothing at all. The characters are shallow and wooden, and the music, if you can call it that, is dreadful. There are of course all the creatures and animated beings, but they are so poorly done that it does not come across as anything other than a third rate movie. It is a real shame that more attention could not have been spent to the special effects, not the be all and end all of a movie I agree, but in a movie that is based around them, it's a very important factor. For me, a very sad attempt, and should be avoided.


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


user
Having enjoyed Neil Gaiman's writing (especially his collaboration with Yoshitaka Amano in "The Dream Hunters") in the past, I figured Mirrormask to be a sure thing and was very disappointed. The beginning, live-action section of the movie was intriguing enough. The relationships between the characters was believable and easy to empathize with, and I loved the sets, the costuming, and Helena's artwork. The subsequent computer-generated scenes, however, were excruciating. The dialogue was awkward and pretentious, the interaction between the live actors and the CGI horrifying. Events occurred for the flimsiest reasons, and most events seemed superfluous to whatever plot may have existed. I only watched the first twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, so I'm not exactly an authority, but I strongly recommend that you don't watch any of it at all and stick with Gaiman's strong written work.


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


user
I'm trying to understand what people liked about MirrorMask. I am an avid film viewer and hobbyist film maker. As I was telling friends during my lunch hour, MirrorMask may well be my biggest movie disappointment of the year. Just like the short Moongirl, the film missed its marks. Several times during the movie it made attempts at humor. It sets you up for the laugh. Instead of making you laugh, it leaves you feeling empty. The jokes reminded one of the recent Star Wars films. They weren't funny unless you were five. And the acting felt similarly terrible. I've seen actors actually act in front of a blue screen. And I've believed it. But not in this film. Not for a second.
This film takes a formula and tries to apply it with pretty artwork And though the script is totally workable and the special effects quite beautiful, it has no heart to it and fails miserably. I left the film shaking my head and considered leaving the theater. I felt hallow and miserable and still haven't gotten the sour taste out of my mouth from it. I love independent film. I encourage people to view independent films to support them. But not this film. This film shouldn't have been made. At least, not like this. Why did the director miss the marks so clearly? They were clearly setup Not just the humor. But the emotions. The drama. Even the lines were poorly timed and delivered. It was like the film walked on three legs instead of four. Its steps are awkward and miss timed. And it could fall over with the slightest push Don't see this film. I don't care who you are. It isn't worth your time.


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


user
"MirrorMask" was a terribly disappointing film for me. I had expected much from a Jim Henson production and had found favourable reviews comparing it to "The Labyrinth" and "Alice In Wonderland". Unfortunately, the film ended up in one of those "style over substance" pile of movies.
Whereas most kids dream about running away from home to join a circus, Helena is a kid who has grown up in a circus (child labour, anyone?) who wishes to run away to join Real Life. Helena wishes that her mother drop dead, which is a bad move for a spoiled brat with a princess complex in a kid's fantasy movie. Next thing you know, Helena's mother flops over, and for some reason, she is suddenly transported to another world.
Meanwhile, I felt as if I was transported to the Museum of Contemporary Art with a pair of foggy sepia-tinted glasses.
The showcase of CGI-generated creatures and backdrop was interesting at first, and I liked the Orbiting Giants. It got a little too tiresome after a few minutes though, and I felt my mind wandering ...
With no sense of narrative and MTV-style clips and soundtrack (the sphinxes reminded me of Basement Jaxx's "Where's Your Head At"), I did not feel involved in the plight of the protagonist and also frustrated, as we waited for the film to lead us wherever it wanted, hopefully towards the "Exit" signs of the theatre ...


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 film when it premiered in LA. I think I laughed 2 or three times. The rest of the time I was in shock at how ridiculous/poorly shot and poorly written it was. Kirby is in fact the only saving grace in the film. I was disappointed at the performance of Larry Bagby , whom I usually find entertaining. If you enjoy watching your friend's crappy homemade short films that they shot on their mom's 8mm video camera then there's a slight chance you might enjoy this film. Then again part of what makes those movies enjoyable is that it's your buddies playing all the parts. You don't know these people so you'll probably find it as dull and stupid as I did. Dear Mr. Nelson, go back to film school, intern for a while as a PA or a grip or some low level job so you can see how things are properly done in film . Then look for as long as you must to find a Director of Photography who knows what f. stop means, make sure he has ND filter on hand. Then try again. Repeat as many times as needed.


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


user
The old man mouse in this cartoon would have you believe that all men are created equally EVIL............so if we have to kill men in order to stop Hitler..........we are just as bad as Hitler was killing the Jews........ Well.....I don't buy it Mr. Mouse............but I guess it paints a pretty picture and makes a cute cartoon.......but it wasn't the reality then and it ain't reality now.


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


user
The DVD version released by Crash Cinema was very poorly done. The mastering engineer must have been either drunk, asleep or not even in the room while it was being done. It looks like it was mastered from about a tenth generation copy and about halfway through the film, the audio synchronization disappears. The dialog is about 10 or 15 seconds behind the audio. If you're thinking about purchasing this DVD, please save your money. I remember seeing this film at the theater back in 1973. Also, the VHS copy of this film under the title of "When Taekwondo Strikes" looks better than the DVD, but the remaining several minutes of the movie are "missing". Where is the original camera negative?


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


user
I won't waste your time by describing the plot for this, the other reviewer already did this quite well. I will however give you my opinion of this movie. This movie is basically anti japanese propoganda. The japanese are portrayed as incredably evil b**tards who have respect for nothing, as well as having very poor martial arts skills (groups of japanese men get there asses kicked by single women on more than one occasion.) The fact that the japanese fighters lose almost every (if not every) fight in the movie kind of takes away the suspense. The plot is actually quite solid and perfect for a kung fu movie though. The problem lies in the fact that there's not much fighting. When there are fights some of the fighting is quite good, but other scenes are choreographed badly. One scene angela mao takes on six japanese in a church and kicks all their asses. The problem is they show her fighting them one by one when they're all supposed to be attacking at the same time. I gather this movie was incredably cheap considering how cheap some of the sets are. They use the same village set for when they are in korea and when they are in china without changing it at all. Some scenes are filmed at real locations though, and they look good. Overall the only real problem with the movie is it's slow moving and uninteresting plot. Since there are few fight scenes we have to rely on the plot for entertainment and, well, I wasn't entertained.
one and a half stars out of four


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


user
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** What's going on here ?
Barbara Hershey, looking decidedly unsexy - as if she'd stolen her granny's spare wig - puts in an unconvincing performance as a woman who kills the wife of a man she has had an affair with 'in self defence' after hitting her forty odd times with an axe.
Like Lizzy Borden, she is acquitted but after the most unconvincing argument ever presented to a jury by the representative of a supposedly 'innocent' defendant I have ever seen.
Lizzy Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks When she saw what she'd done - she pleaded self defence
I don't think so
I find the defendants guilty of screening an unconvincing portrayal and have no alternative but to award this film a sentence of 4 out of 10 (which would have been lower but for the previous good behaviour of some of those involved)



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 - quite how Alfred Hitchcock (North by Northwest, Spellbound, the 39 Steps) could turn out this nasty, cheapjack shocker is beyond me. Don't bother looking for hidden depths or deep meanings - there aren't any. This is just horrid, seedy and cheap. The one redeeming feature is the home-life of the inspector who leads the investigation - his wife fancies herself as a gourmet cook and constantly serves up her revolting culinary experiments to her poor husband. This is amusing, and just about saved me putting the film in the 'awful' bracket, but the film as a whole is one of the most unpleasant I've ever seen. I believe this was Hitchcock's next-to-last film - perhaps someone was trying to tell him something.


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


user
Not even 'lesser' Hitch, but simply a bad movie. The cinematic equivalent of a dirty-old-man. Ugly in every way: unimaginative script, static point of view, putrid clothing, ghastly hair, unlikable actors, and one truly gratuitous rape-and-strangulation scene. The director's perverse sense of humor is present, but it is not applied consistently; the movie comes alive only in its cruelty. The women fare especially badly; 'Frenzy' could be used as proof the director was a misogynist, though a better explanation to me is that perhaps beginning with his TV series and 'Psycho'- which he himself described as an exercise in thrift, an experiment to see if a television crew could shoot a passable feature -Alfred Hitchcock had pretty much abandoned art and settled for commerce. In 'Frenzy' the great master seems to be bowing to convention, trying to go with the times and give audiences what he thinks they want- in the form of unappealing nudity, nudge-nudge winks, and general nastiness. I don't begrudge an old man his rest, but I don't want to remember him tired and lazy and pandering- time to watch 'Vertigo' again!


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


user
Greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared, 'Frenzy' has recently done the rounds of UK TV. I remember seeing it on its original release, and thinking then that if Hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism, he couldn't have found a nastier little vehicle to do so.
But Time alters perspective, and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might, all these years later, be worthy of upward re-evaluation.
Might. . . but not. 'Frenzy' is dross. The dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations -- notably, the need to bring integrity to one's work.
There's none here. And not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance, either -- the switch from spine-tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor, for a supreme stylist, stylish: it's just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that: prolonged, without pace, without reason, without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as, say, that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze, Michael Winner).
And it goes from bad to worse, with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the Home Life of Our Dear Wooden Inspector, and his wife's cooking).
Perhaps the scene that best sums up 'Frenzy' (and endures as the most explicit indictment of Hitchcock's persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar, where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped.
I remember my revulsion at that scene back in '72, and it's still undimmed, because this wasn't Hitchcock being clever, or sardonic, or trying to make some universal point (big themes, big truths, were not Hitchcock's forte, nor personal preference.) It was just Hitchcock, allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie.
Calling 'Frenzy' Hitchcock's last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what Hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery, cinematic thrills, and dazzling cinematic mastery.
'Frenzy' is therefore now what it always was: a cheap, nasty, and ham-fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved, or to the memory of a film-maker who really was, in his Hollywood days, one of the greatest there has ever been.


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


user
What ever happened to shows with united parental figures? The parents in this show are nearly as irresponsible as the children. Instead of punishing the youngest child for being manipulative, they let her get away with murder. They can't ever agree on a course of action when it comes to dealing with the children, and instead they do nothing. Yeah, great plan. Just ignore their behavior because they're "cute." This show tells the already manipulative preteens that watch it that the "divide and conquer" technique is the best way to get their parents to "cave." The oldest children are constantly running amok and getting themselves into all sorts of impossible situations, but there are no consequences for their actions. Yeah, great television all right.


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


user
Based on what little i have seen of this show I don't think I will ever watch it again. Its not even remotely believable and frankly the Derek character just makes me angry.
Sorry but seeing such a spoiled brat get his way time and again? Why would i want to watch that?!? No thanks, there are plenty of other shows that involve devious characters (Phil of the Future's Pim for example) where the evil one doesn't win or if they do not in the way they though.
Not to mention that I think this is a terrible picture to paint about living with step-siblings. Yes life isn't rosy but one could attempt to portray a character that wasn't outright evil and wins.
My suggestion is that you watch this only if you like seeing the villain win.


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 so much not to like about this show it's hard to know where to start. Unlikeable characters, horrible plot lines, terrible writing, AND terrible acting. Don't even get me started on the obnoxious theme music.
On top of all that the show is out of touch with U.S. audiences due to the heavy Canadian references all throughout it. "Oh say Derek, will you be going to Queens College in the Fall! How have you bean? We should go oot."
Granted, other shows are filmed in Canada for financial reasons like Stargate: Atlantis, but while those shows may have suffered from some annoyances (like Rodney calling a Z-P-M a "Zed-P-M") the show didn't focus on life in Canada.
MTV is running Degrassi (another show based on the experiences of the Canadian teenager) during daytime hours when no one is watching to fill time (most teens are at school when it airs). I'd wager it's for the same reason. Shows that focus on teenage life in Canada don't translate well to a U.S. audience.
This show should be canceled and the remaining masters burned in a furnace.


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


user
It is really a shame that IMDb doesn't let you give negative votes. This is the most hideously awful show ever foisted on the American public by our usually-likable neighbors to the north. The parents are a troglodyte and a neurotic hag. He is as charming as a well-used fire hydrant, with the same hygiene standards. She is a wax museum mannequin programmed with more neuroses than the entire cast of THE VIEW. The kids are non-entities if female and repulsive beyond belief if male, especially the title character. The boy is a serious contender for most insanely smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, and vain male character on Disney, which is saying something. This show was obviously conceived as the anti-BRADY BUNCH, but it comes off as the anti-Christ. And why is the photography so dark?


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


user
As a parent of two girls(14 and 11) I have grave doubts about this show and all the shows aimed at tweens. First, I am always amazed that the living conditions of Drake/Josh, Zac/Cody, Hanna, Carly, Derek, Sunny etc. always make most houses look tiny and cramped. Most people work hard all day to pay for living quarters less than half the size yet on these shows nobody is going or coming from work, paying utility,rent, mortgage or insurance bills, mopping, sweeping, changing lightbulbs, fixing toilets,etc. Just walking in and out(and down the ubiquitous wide stairs that only exist on TV sets) cracking jokes(most of which involve lying and the hilarious results) and shirking work. I think kids watching these will have unrealistic expectations on how hard they will work and how luxurious their lives will be. Second, there is never an intact family, always a Mom or Dad but never both, who are always going on sexless dates but never seem to have any of the downside of divorce(alimony, support, arguments). Again, kids may get the impression that if mom/dad get divorced there will be fun fun fun(actually mom or dad are often not around if that helps the plot). Needless to say there is no mention of spirituality(forget specific religion). Finally there is a theme that troubles me. There are "nerds" that are good in school, "jocks" good in sports, "goody two shoes" as well. The protagonists are not good at school, sports, or charitable but make wisecracks about those who are. The message is don't be good at anything, just be one of the "nothings" who blend in cracking jokes. Needless to say I give all these shows a zero and turn them off all the time and am just short of forbidding them in my house.


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


user
I tried to give this show a chance, but it really doesn't sit well with me. Although the performances are good, the writing isn't. The two oldest step-siblings, Derek and Casey, are equally annoying; I get the impression that we're supposed to side with Casey, given that she's the protagonist, but I don't find her at all likable. The parents are continually portrayed as utterly clueless. The three younger children are the most watchable things on the show; Lizzie and Edwin are sweet the way they team up, and Marti is adorable. The plot lines are a bit far-fetched and the whole premise is mostly hard to swallow -- blended families are common, yes, but this family isn't really trying all that hard to blend. On the whole, I think it grades thumbs-down.


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


user
Normally I don't bother wasting my time writing comments for junk like this that I forget almost as soon as I see it, but since I saw this movie just yesterday on one of the comcast Showtime channels (346, I think) I decided to make an exception.
Besides the fact that I enjoyed watching Carol Alt, I can't give any rational reason why I watched this movie through to the end. I'm always amazed that good-looking women are willing to appear in awful movies like this, but I suppose she thought this movie would lead to something better. I hope she was right, for her sake.
Otherwise, this is an all-too-typical straight-to-video laugh riot, or just a piece of garbage, depending on your point of view. While there are a few decent moments of action in this movie, they don't really connect well with the story, such as it is.
The setup, as I recall, involved Carol Alt as a depressed housewife who believes her husband, a cop, is cheating on her. There was also something about their child dying in an accident, and she blaming him for it, but before that storyline went anywhere she shot and killed him.
On the same fateful night, a wounded stranger comes to her door and she tends to him, and almost immediately her house is under siege by government stooges and mercenaries intent on capturing the stranger, who appears to have almost superhuman fighting skills.
This same kind of material has yielded decent entertainment plenty of times before, most notably in Matt Damon's The Bourne Identity, and could have done so this time as well but this particular movie was let down by poor production values and a lousy script.
This movie really falls apart at the end, when the mysterious stranger turns out to be a cyborg (!) who was programmed to be a policeman, and after discovering that Carol Alt killed her husband he tries to kill her! The movie wasn't particularly good up until this point, but the ending really ruins it by trying to turn a modest action-thriller into a lumpy Terminator/Robocop wannabe.
I also thought that the violence in the movie was a bit excessive at the end, with the demented cyborg gouging out poor Carol Alt's eye before it finally bit the dust. What was the point of that? For that matter, what was the point of anything in this movie? It held my attention and entertained me for about an hour, until the end, when it reminded me that I wasn't watching a first-rate movie. It wasn't even really a second-rate movie, for that matter.
The final scenes seem to hint at a sequel, which I don't think ever happened, although I haven't carefully checked the web for it. Needless to say that I'm not in any hurry to see any sequel to 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
Alright! A sci-fi/horror/action B-hybrid directed by Jim Wynorski and in the final scenes we get to see a cyborg with a defleshed metal head killing off multiple people! As with any Wynorski-flick, he throws in a whole bunch of crazy ideas and subplots that mostly don't lead to anywhere. But "Storm Trooper" is more like a two-movies-for-the-price-of-one kind of deal. On the one hand we got the drama/thriller part (as such the film opens) with Carol Alt killing her incredibly annoying & ungrateful husband (a plot that simply leads to nowhere). And on the other hand we got the 'escaped cyborg on a rampage' part, "Night of the Living Dead"-style. With Carol and the Cyborg being the ones trapped inside the house and a bunch of special OPs/bounty hunters playing the role of the zombies, trying to break into the house. Needless to say this flick is not up there with the greatest. Zach Galligan (of "Gremlins"-fame) especially is painfully bad and Corey Feldman (in a small supporting roll) is once again completely wasted on this movie. Wynorski even rips off one of his own movies here, since I am 99% sure he used some stock footage of his previous film "976 EVIL II" (the scene with the exploding truck and the motorcycle). Yes, it's so not good and so much fun. This is strictly for Wynorski-fans only. And I am one of them, in case you didn't know already.


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


user
Normally for movie reviews, I try to be constructive and objective, but there is only one word for this, uh, "film" : SUCKS!!!!!!! The dialogue, acting, special effects, plot, set, and characters all seem as if they were made up by, well, my potted plants. Don't see this, for the sake of all that is good and right in this world! :)


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


user
I think this is the worst movie I have seen since "Mortal Kombat 2". The action (including the effects) is like in a cheap Glen A. Larson TV show, the acting is terrible and the dialogs are even more stupid than in MK2. Avoid at all cost.


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


user
Anyone who thinks Kool Moe Dee, Carol Alt, and Corey Feldman comprise a list of good actors must be smoking something I'd love to try sometime. Where to begin: lousy soundtrack, hammy acting, "action" in places. This is the typical amateurishly written hack fodder that washed-up has-been and never-was's love to star in. I actually felt embarrassed for the "stars" in this "film". The only thespian missing to top this turd was Gary Coleman, who if he would have been in the movie, would have made it at least somewhat howlingly bad, rather than just plain bad.
There was one part in the film where Carol Alt screamed, "DO YOU THINK I'M AN IDIOT?!?" Yes, Carol, I do, your agent does, and PLEASE for the love of all that is decent and holy... GO AWAY and stop degrading yourself like this! This film is something Anna Nicole Smith would take part in.
I would tell you what the plot was, but that would be one more sentence fragment to this article, plus my mind drifted many times during the movie anyway, so I barely paid attention.


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


user
I am a lover of bad movies. I own "R.O.T.O.R." and "Boa vs. Python" and am working to build up my collection to such great titles as "Troll 2" and "What's up Superdoc?" But "Storm Trooper" is not even bad enough to make it to the list of wonderfully terrible movies. It's just lame. The guy who said he's had better dialogue with his potted plants has it right. Everything about this movie is stupid. When the robot guy runs into the car it seems almost as if he knew it was going to blow up, there was just no reason he would ever run in that direction. "Judge, Jury, and Executioner," "The perfect cop...but they went too far," I mean, come on, why do people bother making these movies anymore? R.O.T.O.R. makes it because it is hysterically awful, but Storm Trooper is just a waste of cinema because it isn't even bad enough to be so bad it's worth watching. This belongs in someone's home movies collection, something they can be sort of proud of, but that is all. I am p*ssed off it was on an HBO channel (with only 1-star, which is why I watched it) because it didn't belong there. Even if you love bad movies, do not watch this movie. It is shameful.


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


user
In watching Enterprise for the first time, as we all no doubt do with all shows, I went into it with an open mind, enjoying about half of the past Star Trek efforts and disliking the other half.
Enterprise has fallen short, but this episode "A Night In Sickbay" made me seriously question why I bother tivoing the shows from Monday night on Sci Fi.
Masking some idea that it is one of those 'A Day In The Life' episodes, in which we learn about what makes certain characters operate as humanoids, the writers seemed to forget that this was supposed to be a starship vessel, not the Ricardoes and the Mertzes.
A planet, especially one whose people had been offended previously by the Enterprise crew (for eating in public), was no place for a dog. As an animal lover myself, I would have never taken one of my pets into an environment that had proved in the past to be tense.
But what made this episode even more ridiculous was the endless problem with all of these ST shows, constantly depicting things that are sacred and insulting to other cultures, as tho they are offering some insight into American religious zealots.
The aliens were now offended when the dog urinated on a sacred tree, yet the aliens were quite capable of taking the dog urinating as an insult.
Strange how the dog's urinating wasn't regarded as some form of worship. I wonder how that one got by the show's writers.
From there, we are subjected to a captain who was misguided by his duties. In watching the episode, I found it very easy to forget that Bakula was supposed to be the ship's captain.
He chose to sleep in sickbay and from there we are given more inanities of behavior (sigh) that we aren't supposed to understand and that causes us to furrow brows.
The doctor non-chalantly clips long, hairy toenails and feeds them to hungry caged animals. Ewwwwww! Then a white bat creature escapes.
Oh, how is anyone supposed to sleep with all of this going on! Toenail clipping, for crying out loud! I was waiting for something that feeds on vomit to be presented.
Then we were inexplicably given some idea that the captain was in love with T'pol, and that perhaps he was masking those feelings with his concern over the dog.
Endless amounts of rubbish.
"your dog is ill, so go have sex. You'll feel better." And of course, the captain had to apologize and we humans had to regard his apology as completely ridiculous, because we are so (everyone smile very sarcastically) narrow-minded! Saw depictions such as this endlessly droned out on TNG.
Oddly enough, the only thing missing from this awful episode was that Trip person offering his smirks and downhome boyisms, tho Bakula seemed to be covering all of that with the silly dog.
Oh, the dog survived, so now go play fetch.


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


user
I thought this series was going to be another fun, action series with some dynamic plots and great performances. I was wrong. While I like Jamie Denton, this show is hardly worth watching at all, unless you enjoy watching some people brutalized and the actions of the agents supposedly warranted under the theme of "national security." The show is great propaganda for the current government, and spews out jingoism as though we talk that way every day. After a couple of episodes, it was boring the hell out of me, and I started watching reruns of House Invaders on BBCAmerica instead. Rather watch CSI and Without a Trace, without a doubt.


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


user
Now we were chosen to be tortured with this disgusting piece of blatant American propaganda. It came no wonder for me that this is admired by most American viewers and hated by Europeans. This show is made for Americans - it is too stupid and full with hatred and clichés to be admitted elsewhere. Almost everyone involved must be return to school, acting is utterly predictable and bad, script is pile of garbage all round. operator work is ground zero etc. etc.
You have been warned. It doesn't even have "guilty pleasure" entertainment for those brainwashed iq=0 human beings.
I wish I could enter negative values, admins? Anyone?


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


user
The TV show was slow moving and the 'offbeat' characters were sometimes irritating. Only through the miracle of fast forward was I able to make it through the first 2 hours.
The write-up indicates that it's some kind of comedy/mystery but I didn't see much of either.
If it really picks up after the first 2 hours, please let me know, because I doubt that I will watch the rest without a recommendation.
This review is supposed to be without spoilers so I will continue in a vague, non-spoiler, fashion. I found the two main characters uninteresting and unsympathetic. I found myself asking 'Would a normal adult do that?' The man with the hedge trimmer looking out the window was irritating and when the male lead interacted with him, he looked pathetic. Would a normal adult put up with someone as irritating as him?


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


user
Ah, the classic genre of 80s sex comedies. This is set on two beaches; one a nude beach featuring myriad (fully) unclothed women. The plot? Something about a bunch of dimwits attempting to get laid. The usual. Fans of gratuitous T&A (and P) should hunt this one down.


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 one of a rarity of movies, where instead of a bowl of popcorn one should watch it with a bottle of vodka. To be completely honest we are a group of people who actually know the man, Mo Ogrodnik, and decided to drink ourselves stupid to this film.
The cinematic aspect of Wolfgang Something's photography seems to have left out both close-ups and breasts. Mo and Wolfgang's collaborative effort revealed the passion of the two actresses, plastic peens holding passion. There's also beetle banging. As Violet would have put it: "This (plastic peen) goes up your butt". The rat porn and subsequent rat smashing is awesome.
Alright. So if you are still reading, let us explain who we are. Mo Ogrodnik teaches at NYU and we are a group of her students, who, finishing a film class with her, decided to get poop- faced and watch here directorial debut. She also wrote Uptown Girls. I can't tell you how much that's been hammered into our skulls. So this movie is quite the experience. At the very bottom of this post will be a drinking game we created for this movie.
About 13 minutes into this game, none of us could see straight. The sheer amount of Dido's in the first thirty minutes created enough reasons to drink to pacify an elephant.There was something secretly pleasurable about seeing two underage girls hit on a Kurt Cobain lookalike with absolutely no context, save for his mysterious scene at the convenience store where he was oh-so-naturally reading a local newspaper. Because that's what we all do. The heart-shaped glasses were delightfully derivative of Lolita. And something about that provocative scene of the nude chin-up boy suggests the director's history of homosexual pornographic experiments. We wish we were kidding.
Enough intellectual contemplation. ON TO THE DRINKING GAME! This will ensure that the viewing experience is a positive one. It's very simple, and very likely to send at least one member of your party to immediate care.
The Mo Ogrodnik/Ripe Drinking Game: 1. Every time you see anything related to pornography, take a drink. 2. Every time you see auteur Mo Ogrodnik's name appear, take a drink. 3. Sex. 4. (plastic peen) require two drinks. 5. Any time somebody points a gun at another character, take a drink. -At this point you will probably need to refill/pee pee any remaining sobriety from your body.- 6. Any time there is blood (INCLUDING "LADY BLOOD"), please take a sip! 7. The underused hula-hoop girl requires one drink per second. 8. Gratuitous use of the "magic black man" requires one drink. 9. If you can't figure out the through-line, KEEP DRINKING, Beyotch. 10. Whenever you are able to predict a line, take a drink. Trust us. It's easy.
That's it, internet! Keep drinking, and try not to get riped.
-Hawaiian Smirnoff Punch, Jr.


assistant
0