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


user
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. If you're looking for a nice theatrical effect, skip it and watch something else.
But if you're looking for camp-value, this is it. Here's my advice: Gather a few sarcastic friends and watch the movie strictly for the purpose of making fun of it.


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


user
This is a movie that was probably made to entertain the middle school, early high school age kids. Maybe to them it's funny, they may possibly even see something scary in it. To me, the acting is poor, and plot is poor, there's just not much value at all for the adult viewer. I saw this film as weak and boring. At times there was the possibility that the movie could become interesting but it never really materialized. The creatures look pretty good but after seeing them for a few seconds, they don't seem to have any substance other than the look. At times I wasn't sure if the movie was trying to make another attempt at comedy or was it just another attempt at horror that failed again. This movie just wasn't good 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
One night on an independent channel famous for showing off-the-wall films was aired this monstrosity. Though tempted to turn it off, we watched it to the bitter end, hoping to see some semblance of redeeming value. Alas, there was none. Absolutely nothing. The film quality was cheap; the soundtrack was muddy; the editing was ridiculous. Then again, there was precious little to salvage. After a few minutes of Cameron Mitchell's doctor character narrating about some patient of his, the viewer is tortured by no plot, pathetic writing, abysmally terrible acting, and an utter lack of cohesion and continuity. The rotting cherry on top of this fetid mess was the most horrendous "special effects" and "makeup" to ever disgrace the screen, even for television. The main character stumbles through his role in a dimestore rubber mask and a pair of dishwashing gloves which appear to have been dipped in glue and rolled in beads. Perhaps the poor lighting and gag-worthy film quality were attempting to cover up how bad-to-the-tenth-power the makeup was. One can only hope that at least one deliberate decision was made in the course of this hopelessly amateurish video. Seriously, a handful of three-year-old kids could've produced a better project. At the end, poor Mr. Mitchell returns (how desperate he must've been for money!) and drones out some nonsense that's supposed to connect this pile of crap with the AIDS epidemic. Please spare you and your loved ones the inhuman cruelty of sitting through this. It was so bad, even Mystery Science Theater 3000 couldn't have salvaged it.


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


user
I remember watching this movie on TV a few years back. It was so bad, I can only remember the scenes that just made me die laughing. The only plot summary I can give you (without any spoilers) is picture a home movie made by college kids who were high.
(Spoiler alert starts here...) When the movie starts, a guy's running, being chased by the "Demon Cop", when in fact, the man was really being chased by a Halloween costume gone wrong. A car pops out of nowhere, hitting the guy who was running. It sends him flying over the top of it, and what does the driver do??? Watches the man as he falls, gets back in his car and drives away. What kind of hair-brained dolt would do that? I would've at least asked if the guy was okay.
Then, some black guy stares the Demon Cop straight in the face, then, later tells reporters, "I didn't get a good look at him." My sisters and I, by then, were almost choking ourselves to death with laughter.
Then, there's some scene in an alley, where this girl with an afro, pulls a machine gun out of her teeny-weeny little purse. It couldn't have possibly FIT!! I can hardly remember certain scenes. Maybe it's because they were just that bad.
Cops in the film can't even jump a fence, and the acting is so wooden, it makes planks of wood look like better actors.
All in all, this movie brings shame to Hollywood, way more than any other flop could. You have to see it to believe its sappy cheesy plot, which it has none of, as far as I can tell.


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


user
As I was flipping through the channel I came to a channel 124. It is an urban channel. I saw this movie on and decided to give it a try. I almost became a mass murderer due to this film. I have done home movies and they are oscar quality compared to this huge mass of Dookie. The lighting was terrible and the acting was absolutely unrelentlessly bad. I would rather watch Star Crystal....... Holy cow maybe that is not a good example. The main question I have about this film is... Was it to be a morality film? the reason why I ask is because ther was one line where this lady in a wheelchair says " I would have been another gang statistic" Oh my head is starting to hurt. After hearing that line I went into the kitchen and pulled out a knife ready to stab anyone who dared watch this movie. But some sense kicked in and I just changed the channel to watch the man with the afro paint. Well that is all I have to say about this movie. If you want to endure this pain go ahead but not recommended for those with short fuses or a bad case of tourettes


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


user
^^contains spoilers^^
This movie is utter crap. Do not watch.
There is no one in this movie to root for, or even like, except for the wife, and she wins by default. Everyone is selfish, and many things happen that make no sense.
The acting is mediocre at best and everyone breathes too heavily about everything. No one can even cry believably.
If you leave the room for even a second, then something totally out of left field will happen, and it will make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
For example, I left the room for a second, while Jennie Garth's character was sleeping with her manager. I come back, seriously about 4 minutes later, (also I'm pretty sure there was a commercial somewhere in there) and she's sleeping with that Berko guy.
I gave up on this movie around the time that Berko was being an ass to his fiancé in the car, because she didn't want to call off the wedding.
I wasted 2 hours of my life. You shouldn't.


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


user
It's schmaltzy, but then what else did you expect? The heroine is Cinderella's younger sister complete with wicked mother, sister, and brother-in-law; the hero (if you can call him that) is an ineffectual putz; and the rival love interests are full of melodramatic villainy.
The cast, settings, and wardrobe were all very attractive, and I thought the actors did a superb job considering how weak the material was. The movie was prettily filmed and boasted a soundtrack that was carefully crafted to cue the viewer about what emotions he should be experiencing throughout. Megon McDonough sang sweetly and provided the film with some of its best moments.
If you love Danielle Steel, you will love this film. If you love archetypal romance, you will love this film. I did not. I was able to sit through it, but it was close.


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


user
The movie is great for Venezuelan tourism, birds, birds and more birds. Only 1 piranha. Nice scenery. The only highlight was the alligator seen during a very long and boring motorcycle race. The end when Caribe drowns is a definite Hollywood prop. There is no definite storyline. It goes from Venezuelan scenery to a rip off of easy rider to diamond mining and a ruthless hunter going crazy for some reason who gets it in the end. A very low budget movie that could have been filmed anywhere with outtakes of Venezuela. William Smith is a very talented actor that has made some very good movies. Like all actors they all need to have at least one bad film Don't waste the $5.00 on the DVD.


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


user
"Two wildlife photographers are traveling through the Amazon River basin on their latest assignment. While trying to capture the wildlife of the area on film, our photographers cross paths with a game hunter, who is stalking the animals for another reason. Looking to eliminate the witnesses to his illegal activities, the hunter decides to" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
Handsome guide Peter Brown (as Jim Pendrake) takes pretty blonde Ahna Capri (as Terry Greene) and her good-looking brother Tom Simcox (as Art Greene) into the Venezuelan jungle, to admire the view, and take wildlife pictures. After they hook up with hunky big-game hunter William Smith (as Caribe), psychological dramatics surface.
A pivotal scene, with Mr. Brown reposing in the "vee" of a tree, and sharing a cigarette with Mr. Simcox, is nicely staged. The circular direction reappears in the later "fight" between Brown and Mr. Smith; and, it is effective. Simcox' early sex romp adds nothing to the story; it could have been cut, to take advantage of what seems like flirting between the Brown and Simcox characters. An attraction between Brown and Ms. Capri could have been played up, also.
The music, including Jim Stein's "Love All Things That Love the Sun", is fine; but the film needs to be re-tracked, to cut out animals which do not appear on screen. And, there is far too much superfluous footage on display. "Piranha" is a case where less would have been more.


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


user
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.
If you plan on watching this movie DON'T! I warn you... this movie is TERRIBLY boring and basically horrifying, not in the Horror movie kind of way, to watch. I mistook this Piranha movie for another Piranha movie and when I had noticed I made a mistake I decided to watch this one anyway. I wish I wouldn't have. This movie is so horrendous and so intolerable in every piece of material that I couldn't bare to let anyone say this movie was halfway decent. For one thing, this movie should be called A Boring Talk About Wilderness instead of Piranha. They only show piranhas ONCE! At the same time, the way this film sounds so poorly heard, I got sleepy only 20 minutes into the thing. At the end my mouth was hung wide open and I stared gloomily at the blank TV screen. It is a VERY poorly directed and badly filmed piece of junk that I was afraid I brain dysfunction after watching it...


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


user
Obviously, this is not the "Piranha" directed by Joe Dante and produced by Roger Corman. It wasn't so obvious, when I bought the DVD for only $2.95, as the DVD cover art matched that of the Corman produced comedy/horror "Piranha", even the DVD menu (no features of course) matched the cover. Half way through watching this odd movie, my girlfriend and I started thinking, where are the PIRANHAS? Once the movie reached the climax we realised that we must have been watching the wrong movie as we had seen the trailer, which had completely different footage, the blurb on the back of the DVD did not match the story we were watching and the credits (actors, producer, director) were also completely different. Instead, we got some jungle melodrama about a a girl and two guys who go searching for diamonds and end up confronting a vicious animal hunter. This tame, exploitation thriller is boring and pointless and is only mildly amusing for old-school, camp value. Strange that a DVD can be manufactured with the wrong film in tact, but I suppose it is an easy mistake to make seeing as though they are both B-grade movies of the same name made in the 70's. Reading other posts made on this film, I noticed that I'm not the only one with the wrong movie on the DVD. How could this be an INTERNATIONAL error? Is there perhaps, some sort of DVD phenomena where unsuccessful films try to get recognition by being put on the wrong DVDs? WHAT IS GOING ON???


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


user
I got seriously ripped off with this purchase. The other posters pretty well cover the failings of this poor poor film. My DVD that I purchased actually had the 1978 Piranha poster art on the cover with the credits for that film on the front 'Directed by Joe Dante', etc. I was really disappointed to find the wrong film on the disc. I am actually a fan of lots of bad movies. There is always something funny or at least amusing on most of them somewhere. NOt this film! I am actually going to spend the three dollars in gas money to return this two dollar DVD just for the principle of the thing. Blatant false packaging here. Easily the worst movie of all time. No redeeming factors at all. BORING!!!Not even worth checking out just to see how bad it is. Seriously.


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


user
Let's see: what are the advantages to watching Piranha, Piranha? Well, if you've never seen anything to do with Venezuela, there's a lot of travelogue footage of both Caracas and the countryside (and jungle-side), and of the various native peoples at work and play, as well as plenty of indigenous wildlife. If you like William Smith, he plays a bit of a git (as he has always been wont to do).
And that's about it. If it wasn't for William Smith, this could probably pass as a fund-raising film for Save the Children or some other organization that benefits the "third world". The only time you really see the fish of the title is during the opening credits. No mutant killer fish like in Roger Corman's singly-named Piranha. You'd figure with twice the fish in the title there would be twice as many monster fish preying on the characters, but alas, this is not the case.
The story starts with a photojournalist and her brother coming to Venezuela to do a story on one of the last untouched places on the planet, but their motivation quickly changes to one of wanting to find diamonds, which are apparently fairly plentiful there.
There's not a lot of real action or danger in this movie. What could've been an exciting motorcycle race is dulled by the mass of landscape and animal footage that is inserted in it to draw out the films running time. There's not a whole lot more action until the last fifteen minutes or so of the movie (which is probably about how long the movie would last without all the traveloguery).
In my view, the only ways that a movie can really be a BAD movie is to be boring or incredibly stupid. Piranha, Piranha certainly qualifies for that former badge, and is pretty damn close to the second. The only reason I won't rate it a "1" is that the added footage is more interesting than the rest of the movie.


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


user
Piranha starts out as expected, stupid white people going to discover new lands and exploit them. I thought for a while it might be a cannibal film. It starts off like so many others, showing nothing but shots off untouched Amazon rain forest. For all I know it could be Florida. At this point you figure some animal mutilation or natives will pop up. Instead you get the acting talents of William Smith, who starred in L.A. Vice and Angels Die Hard. He plays Caribe, an acclaimed hunter, who I would describe him as Jack Palance Light. He is bigger in stature, but not quite the Jack Palance goodness. As for natives, you don't really get that many. Where's the piranha? Should I even ask that question? Caribe now hunts humans, I guess. He doesn't really pursue anyone till the end of the movie though, just stares at them. Caribe does race one of the tourists on a motorcycle in a over-dramatic Smokey and the Bandit kind of way. The motorcycle challenge happens for no real reason other than an action sequence. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a tourist challenge a stranger to a motorcycle race in the jungle. Never actually. Do they live, do they die? Will you care? Anybody wanna race on motorcycles? Caution: this film contains extreme dry look. My advice is to rent a Jack Palance classic like Craze.


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


user
this was absolutely the most tragic pile of cinema to which i have ever born witness. not only was the name a complete misnomer--since the film has next to nothing to do with piranhas--but the acting is as hollow and stale as the attempt to actually make some kind of plot. when you watch this film you cannot help but spend every waking second questioning when you've had enough and it's time to turn it off. unfortunately i waited until the end in my case. that's two hours of my life that i will never be able to reclaim.


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


user
I picked up this DVD for $4.99. They had put spiffy cover art on the package, along with a plot summary that had nothing to do with the movie. The acting is terrible, and the writing is worse. The only possible way this movie could be redeemed would be as MST3K fodder. I paid too much.


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


user
The sound is terrible, the picture is worse than worse, the acting is awful, the female leading actress is chubby, and the story is... wait a minute... There is no story...! The plot is really bad and the title of the movie is misleading. If you expect to to see Piranhas, you might be disappointed. This movie has nothing to do with the Piranha movies from 1978 and 1981. Actually, I can only think of one scene involving Piranhas.
The only thing that I liked about this movie, besides the fact that it runs for only about 85 minutes, is the song at the end. It's written and sung by Jim Stein and it's called "Love all things that love the sun".
I don't recommend this movie. It is so bad it's not even funny to watch. I fell asleep after the first 20 minutes and I am the kind of person who watches anything.


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


user
This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of "Caribe," a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in "The Ultimate Warrior" (1975), and "The Frisco Kid" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on "Mystery Science Theatre" it would have been hilarious.


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


user
One of the greatest lessons I ever had in how to watch a movie happened this way:
I was working in Roger Corman's offices, like so many other wanabees before and since, I was interning and trying to figure out how it all worked and how to make myself indispensable (hah!). One afternoon Julie Corman, Roger Corman's wife and a producer in her own right, asked me to load up a tape. I'm not sure why she wanted to watch it. I got the impression it was a student film or a show reel, something like that, some sort of calling card. Whatever the reasons she had to see it, the only free video machine in the offices at the time happened to be in the room I was working in, and I was the nearest person to the machine. I started the tape.
Fade in: On screen a figure sat at a desk facing the camera. Behind him, screen left, was a door that opened into the room. Against the far wall was a coat rack. A second character entered through the door and started talking. The first character, the guy at the desk, turned round to reply, (this is all one take, static camera, there are no cuts pans or dolly shots. Just one locked off camera). The second character turned to hang his coat on the coat rack and delivered his next line. Julie Corman said "I've seen enough." and left the room.
What she had seen in the ten seconds of footage she had watched was that the director was an idiot. Opening with two characters who immediately turned their backs to the camera delivering lines? Nope, sorry. Next! That's how long you've got. Ten seconds. Cock it up in the opening shot and you are dead.
I was reminded of that moment while I watched the opening of this piece of crap. After an interminably long travelogue of jungle we see several monkeys apparently throwing themselves into cages. A man carrying a gun laughs. A jet liner lands and we see it taxi the whole way to the terminal. God this is boring! Cut to the interior of the Airport. Two men meet. Aha! Something is happening! They shake hands. Cut to a different angle of the two men -
- and the director crosses the line.
The first two shots of the movie that have any kind of spatial relationship with each other and the guy has cocked up. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those basic rules of movie grammar that keeps the characters from jumping about from side to side on the screen and confusing the audience. Audiences don't like to be confused. Mystified? Baffled? Puzzled and intrigued? Yes. Audiences love all of those. Confused? No. You loose them. They walk out. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those things they pound into you at film school, or should. It's basic stuff. It's not an inviolable rule (there are no inviolable rules) directors break it all the time - but not on the first real cut of the movie.
I thought, "I've seen enough". And switched off.


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


user
And one of 'em are bad movies. The title, as it turns out, refers to a killer of the human male variety, not fish. This is not the Dante-directed "Piranha" of '78 (which did have the fish) and is also known as "Piranha, Piranha." A trio of photographers, 2 men and a woman, hook up with a local hunter/trapper named Caribe somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Unfortunately, they are not familiar with the film resume of William Smith, who plays Caribe; otherwise, they would have known immediately he is the villain of the piece. Smith may have also refused to film the ending or cut out before they finished filming (see end of this comment).
As mentioned elsewhere, this pic has a lot of filler - lengthy shots of the local wildlife (birds) - and the central set piece, a motorcycle race, which goes on too long. The reason this gets a second star from me is, of course, William Smith, who can't really save this sludge, but once again proves why he was the 'go to' guy 30-35 years ago if you needed a really nasty villain; at his best, Smith could be really terrifying. He's the type who enjoys killing, possibly in sadistic fashion, and you get that sense from the evil grin he usually puts on when a mood strikes him. Physically, he's very imposing, and you know the other 3 characters are pretty much doomed within the first half-hour. This was what Smith brought to most of his roles; it seems hopeless for the other characters against this manlike monster. Unfortunately, the movie continues to muddy things up to the very end, as if a minute of footage was lost - a confusing, incomplete climax.


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 seen a lot of movies in my time and this one really stands out as being the absolute worst movie ever made in the history of film making anywhere in the world. It took me 3 efforts to watch this movie. The first time I fell asleep after 15 minutes from boredom, possibly because I was already tired as it was late at night. The second effort I managed to get through 35 minutes but yet again I found myself asleep. I can go on and on like this but I think you're getting the point......nothing happens ever in this movie. A complete waste of time and money. This movie really sucks. Watch it and you will know what I am talking about. If you can get 40 minutes into this movie without shaking your head and wondering what the hell is the point of it all then you are indeed a masochist. The only reason I gave this movie a 1 out of 10 is because 0 was not provided as an option. I just thought the world needed to be warned before either hiring or worse yet...buying this trash. LATER!


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


user
An art teacher comes across an antique wooden bed made from gingko trees and puts it in his apartment, but it has a terrible history and he becomes hunted by a ancient spirit who sustains his human form by ripping the hearts out of people.
This beautifully crafted horror well, actually it's more fantasy/romance than anything else does raise some chills and provide some stunning visuals, but the plot was hardly interesting enough and the formulaic script lacked any sort of life. Problem was that I spent most of the time trying to keep my finger away from the fast forward button. It sure would have sped up the film's slow pacing, but then again I wouldn't know about too much that was going on, which was reasonably hard to figure out or keep interest in the first place. The performances ranged from too melodramatic or just plain dull, and that's probably because these characters are unconvincing, stale and coma inducing. The actual back-story of the old bed and the spirits is incredibly boring and messily put together, with too much focus on a flimsy romance, being laughable when it shouldn't be and overall it's constructed in an ordinary manner that just lacks the oomph or conviction to carry the film. What compensates for the story's shortcomings are really arty images, which looked grand, but the use of some images had me somewhat dumbfounded to what they actually mean towards the film. What catches your eye is the faded colour scheme, but sometimes the actual screen would look real grainy, or snowy. Although, from that it shows the raw intensity of the production valves, but also add some nice polished effects that goes well with the soothing but sometimes edgy score. The camera work was pretty diverse (although it didn't add too much to the feature), but during some of the more upbeat scenes there were too many close ups or dark lighting which made it hard to understand what you are seeing. Also on show are some nice moments of blood and gore, but not overtly grand or distinguishable from most other films.
Lethargically odd film, with luminous images that look like something out of a painting, but still it isn't particularly enticing. Watch out, it might put you in a deep trance!


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


user
GINGKO BED is a strange movie. It's very convoluted, as if it had a lot of ideas but lacked the ability to bring them all into one coherent story. Instead, we get various plotlines that diverges into their own separate little movies. Oh sure, they eventually meet up in the end, but it all seems rather...superfluous. Of note is the girlfriend and her troubles at the hospital. Was this...interesting? Then there were the "we are spirits, thus we have no physicality" elements, which leads to the same problem that people had with GHOST, namely: If the characters have no physicality (i.e. no corporeal form) and they can phase through walls and what not, how exactly do they keep from falling through the floor, or float up the ceiling for that matter?
GINGKO BED was highly touted as a new breed of South Korean film. There's plenty of special effects, but the movie itself is hollow and its faux melodrama will only "touch" those who are easy to, well, touch to begin with.
4 out of 10
(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films)


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


user
I remember watching this mini-series the first time in 1984 with a growing sense of anger and indignation. Having read the comments on this title, I must agree with those from the people in Greece. This was produced to coincide with the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games and, to me, it seemed like nothing more than an exercise in jingoistic, flag-waving American nationalism in which the American athletes are glorified at everyone else's expense. Some other nationalities would have every right to feel deeply insulted at the way they were portrayed in this series. It may, however, help to explain the way in which many American spectators behaved at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics and the TV coverage which seemed only interested in events that Americans were likely to win.


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


user
"Disappointing" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.
One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.
What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.
In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere.


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


user
Historically awful. Scarcely an accurate moment in 4 hours of ridiculosity. One cannot keep track of the inconsistencies while watching. As with all track and filed movies, nobody bothers to ask for any track consultants. Events and techniques that weren't even created until the next century are shown. From the shots of runners jogging in a 400 meters to the highly overweight actor portraying the high jump and long jump winner, one would have to know absolutely nothing about track to even be mildly entertained. Likely thrown together in 1984 as a tribute to the games just prior to the LA Olympics.


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


user
I sat last night to see this film being played in Greek television because of the upcoming Olympic Games hosted by my city.Knowing that it is an American film, i had already expected it to focus more on the American athletes story.And i was really ready for it. But what i saw was..., too much!I mean, when a movie has such a title ("First Olympics: Athens 1896"), even being of American origin, you would not expect it to be so propagandizing and, on the same time, ignorant towards other countries' athletes and efforts.The American athletes seem to have all the gifts of nature (strength, smartness, generosity, kindness, politeness...), in contrast to their "sin-athletes" in the Games, who seem being unable even to... speak their thoughts or express feelings.The number of times the American anthem is played during the film must be an all time record in filmography.Megalomania at it's best!It even uses fictionalized facts which ridicules the Greek nation, such as Greek citizens serving the foreign Marathon athletes with wine, in order to help the domestic ones win the race.So much for the Olympic spirit.
Think of it.Being a Greek and putting a bad mark to a movie whose title is also Greek is something that doesn't make me happy at all.But according to what i have seen, i cannot give it more than 4 out of 10 (being pretty generous actually).


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


user
That's all I can really say about this film. It's DBZ...like Tree of Might and The World's Strongest, it really...doesn't fit into the timeline for the show at all, though it is supposedly placed just before the beginning of the TV series. The action is pretty nice in general. The plot has a nice enough base, with a good background establishing why these guys hate each other and all. Pretty good in general, there... The problem is...there's a lot of really weird stuff. I mean, really weird stuff. Like The World's Strongest, there's a really, really odd song in this one that could only have been created in a drug induced haze...disturbing is the fact that Gohan, while singing, is pretty much drugged out himself. Creepy. The villains are odd and rather comical...moreso than the usual DBZ type--this seems more like it was made as a Dragon Ball movie rather than a Dragon Ball Z movie. In general, its entertaining enough, but...just...strange.


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


user
After reading so many glowing reports of 'To Serve Them All My Days' I went out and bought it for Christmas. A waste of money, I'm afraid. I was looking forward to something in the same league as 'Brideshead Revisited' and some of the few other great productions from British television but this is decidedly not among them.
The characters are all too good to be true, swathed in a very predictable plot and with the most trite and eye-rolling script I've heard in years. Yes, it has its moments, but they are very thin on the ground. The lead actor is interesting, mostly because of his uncanny resemblance to Anthony Andrews (Sebastian in 'Brideshead'), only dark. But his undoubted talents are wasted on a character who is insufferably self-important and priggish. His prickliness is attributed to the effects of his experiences in the Somme during WW1. He does the early episodes, centered around his nervous condition, better than he does playing the the squeaky clean, socialist do-gooder later on.
The women are completely unbelievable, as in un-real. His first wife is annoyingly chipper and chirpy, the girlfriend, the perfect sophisticated slut, and the last lady a hodge-podge of political bosh. The most interesting characters are Howarth (Alan MacNaughton) and one of the other masters, named Hobarth, I forget the actor's name.
The high-minded preachiness of the script is typical Andrew Davies, screen-writer, in his early years, and becomes tiresome within the first two episodes (this mini-series is 11 episodes long!). By episode 4 I just wanted to get through the blasted thing.
The music is equally tedious, limited mostly to one mawkish piano tune and a chorale sung by boys during the credits. No expense was spared on the location settings which gives some visual relief to an otherwise excruciating viewing experience.
I like stories of this sort, as a rule, and am very disappointed at the maudlin nature of this series. If you want to watch something riveting about WW1 and its after-effects there are many other far finer vehicles to rent or buy. One that comes to mind is 'The Unknown Soldier' from 1998. The characters in that Masterpiece Theater presentation are real and fascinating and move one, unlike the 2 dimensional puppets in 'To Serve Them All My Days.' As for films on boys' schools stick to 'Goodbye Mr Chips' or 'Tom Brown's Schooldays'.
I know this goes against the general favorable view of this mini-series, but I strongly recommend thinking twice before shelling out $80.00 to Acorn Media for their 4 DVD set, 2 discs of which on my set had insurmountable problems with freezing and skipping.


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


user
Forget any angst-ridden documentary! This film is really an out and out comedy about a 40-yer-old porn star whose goal in life is to sing junky circuit party songs. The only problem? Colton Ford can't sing! And the film cuts away whenever he appears to be ready to burst into song. Yet Ford and equally vapid boyfriend Blake Harper whine and primp and run around in their tank tops, determined to make dreams come true. Even funnier is "manager" Kyle who appears to have the I.Q. of a turnip and whose collagen-injected lips look like a bee stung him. How can grown men be so self-delusional? Bwa ha ha! As for the documentary, the filmmakers don't appear to have any POV and the film is poorly structured and wildly uneven. Very little background information is provided about the three leads. Such an inclusion might have made the three seem like something other than aging West Hollywood stereotypes.


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


user
So what is one to do if you are a porno star with fading looks? I know, become a pop star! This documentary - and I use the term loosely - follows the trials and tribulations of Colton as he tries to transform himself from a gay porn star into a singer of electronic (read: dance) music. I only wish Mr Ford's voice was as muscular as his arms...sorry to say his vocals are painfully thin. There isn't much interesting going on here but Mr Ford and friends are eye candy.
See him record a song that sounds exactly like every other mindless dance tune. See him travel to New York to make "connections." See him go back to L.A. with little success. See yourself look in the mirror and ask, " Why am I wasting time watching this mess?"


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


user
For the first fifteen minutes the story of NAKED FAME is interesting: two late thirties male porn stars in a seemingly healthy relationship decide to leave the Porn industry and try for the world of singing and acting. The two very buff and preening men are Colton Ford and Blake Harper. With the aid of Kevin Aviance and Marc Berkely, Colton makes a dance track that is then marketed in New York with the hopes that Colton Ford will become an instant star - a unique disco singer touting his background as a Porn Star for PR.
The remainder of the film is grumbling and in-fighting and commentary by Porn Producer ChiChi LaRue and the film slowly sinks into repetition and doldrums. Not a bad idea for a film if there were a bit more depth revealed in each character's drive to move away form a successful career (though one greatly influenced by the youth both characters have lost) into an alternative one. It is just that a one-note song wears thin quickly. Grady Harp, November 05


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


user
Dryly irreverent, but sadly unfunny satire of detective movies, with stony-faced Michael Caine playing a British author of trashy crime stories traveling to the Mediterraean to assist in writing the memoirs of a would-be gangster; soon, he realizes he's being followed and his life is in danger. Caine narrates the proceedings with considerable sly wit and low-keyed sarcasm, but his actual performance is bereft of energy (Caine's shrill bursts of anger or frustration seem to come out of nowhere, and he connects with nobody on the screen). Other cast members (particularly Mickey Rooney, a silver-haired Lionel Stander, and Lizabeth Scott) do very well in colorfully outré roles, though Al Lettieri has an insulting part as an apparent cross-dressing homosexual (Lettieri gets insulted without being able to defend himself, an unenviable position). Writer-director Mike Hodges has the germ of a good idea (satirize the detective movies of the 1940s without compromising the hard-boiled talk and milieu), but he hasn't a very sharp sense of humor. When a Bogart lookalike--asking a question about a falcon--is the best joke, what follows is anemic indeed. ** from ****


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


user
I watched this video because I like Malta and this movie was filmed in its entirety there. Very disappointing, since it fails to catch any of the flavor or beauty of the island - just the hot, dry, and barren elements. The movie was dull, boring, completely incoherent from beginning to end, pretentious, and devoid of any conceivable plot. You had to be a psychic to follow the plot line, or lack thereof. It had its moments, sure; but so does going to the dentist.
In short, I'd much rather endure another colonoscophy before viewing this horrible mess again. It was so bad, I actually couldn't fall asleep. There are quite a few "Eurotrash" movies out there that were obviously made without adult supervision. This is one of them. On the bright side, who is Nadia Cassini? Never before have I seen a more beautiful set of legs. She is the one saving grace of this movie.
Disturbing, too, was the cruel boar hunt depicted in the closing credits. A boar that was released on someone's property (Malta has very few native mammals; all of them small - rats, bats, etc.) and then set upon by dogs before it was shot. Oh, well - go visit Malta anyway despite this film - it's a beautiful, colorful island; rich in history and lots of fun.


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


user
What bird is that ? A maltese falcon. The only thing remotely funny about this movie is Michael Caines hair. Which has more depth and character than the man underneath it.
The Malta settings are as dry and as barren as the dialogue. Salutes to Raymond Chandler and Humphrey Bogart and crime fiction etc... seem obtuse and just plain silly without the salvation of any humour or pertinency. The reason this film has no 'longevity' and near forgotten is it's so vacuous, an hour and half of pointless time spent in the company of second rate actors and film makers - This film is what the title suggests...


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


user
Okay, enough. Every time I think I've seen a film that is so misbegotten, so bad in every way that I think that no one could possibly find something to praise, I just come to the IMDb where I'm greeted with the usual inane "Undiscovered masterpiece" "GREAT film" - I mean, honestly, what movie are you people watching, because it's certainly not the mess I just watched on the new Fox/MGM/UA DVD. There are about three amusing lines, and a plot that gives incoherence a new meaning. And then, after ninety-three interminable minutes, it just stops and the end credits begin. Then there's another scene. The DVD is fairly wretched, which suits the film. The source material is almost completely faded to an ugly brown. It's hard to imagine this film followed Get Carter. The critics and the public got this one right back then - it was lambasted and a box-office disaster, and rightfully so. But you pundits keep on trying. And I'll keep on trying to find a movie that DOESN'T have SOMEONE who raves about it.


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


user
This is a silly spoof of private eye thrillers as a novelist(Michael Cain)is called upon to 'ghostwrite' an autobiography of a colorful, waning Hollywood star(Mickey Rooney). At times silliness becomes obnoxious. This is not Cain at his best. Rooney is way over the top. Notable support from Lizabeth Scott, Lionel Stander and the comely Nadia Cassini. Not easy to watch.


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 hoping that Pulp would be a interesting movie, but was profoundly disappointed.
Pulp has very little storyline, and what there is never holds your interest. It was a real struggle to keep watching it. When its over you say to you self "huh? that's it?!?". This is one where you think after watching it - why did they ever bother?
Its too bad since Michael Caine is a good actor. I was also hoping to see the great Lizabeth Scott in this, but she only appears on screen for a total of perhaps one minute. Scott is one of the all time great film noir femme fatale girls and this was her last film.
Oh well...


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 a bad film but to gain any nutritional value from it I recommend watching it back to back with Rosemary's Baby.
There is a lot to learn seeing how different directors can draw different performances from the same actors playing the same characters. Observe Minnie Castevet (Ruth Gordon) and the fine work she did in the first film vs the awful rendition in this film.
It is also interesting to see how the same characters were played by different actors. Which leads me to wonder if anyone involved with the sequel were aware of the first film and did any of them watch Rosemary's Baby before making this?
If your interest in films is purely superficial then you would best avoid this one. I have a lot more to say about this film but I really don't want to go there.


assistant
0