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 person is a so-called entertainer who has to resort to profanity, vulgarity, and slander to try and make others believe he has talent. I have often seen comics use a little of each with effect but when all you can say is laced with it, it is a sign of a drug affected warped mind. Makes me wonder where his twisted and fried brain will be in a few more years of abuse. Poor man!!! I admit I could not watch all of it - too stupid for words. The amazing part of this is that somebody actually believes he is a philosopher!!! No wonder self respect and decency are dwindling and perversity is rising. Could it be that the UFC might have been a factor in his deadened brain?


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


user
Joe Rogan's whole act is profanity laced with bile. He is a pot smoker who entered Fear Factor, thinking it was a joke. He said he would egg people on because he did not know how stupid people were going to be. The producers of the show he explained were going on the premise of playing pranks on unsuspecting contestants to see how far they will go. The level of evil involved is a little twisted. Mr. Rogan's special is just filled with the rants of someone who is too good for regular human beings. I found him to be offensive and his stuff can be heard by more talented comedians such as Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock. Rogan even does a five minute set on the N word. Overall, ignore this special.


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 truly awful movie. The jokes are few and far between and the pacing is a down right endurance test. The only thing funny to come out of this production is it's comparison to the classic film "This Is Spinal Tap."
Avoid this film as if it were one of the plagues of the Bible itself.



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


user
If Jacqueline McKenzie and John Lynch weren't such talented actors this film would probably be even worse than it actually is.The story of two mentally disturbed people who fall in love and have a baby is an interesting one,and well worth exploring.However on the negative side,the plot becomes increasingly over the top as the story progresses,and the music choices more and more bizarre,so that by the end I found myself laughing when I know the director intended for me to be crying.


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


user
On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 "The Wind" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is "unknown and underrated": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no "Battleship Potemkin", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.


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


user
I have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.
What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named "Aelita"... Why would someone want to name his/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???
The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as "The cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.
I give it 4/10 for the great looking design...


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


user
A dedicated Russian Scientist dreams of going to Mars. He eventually gets there but it takes the whole film before we are able to have a laugh at the Russian style of Revolution in Mars.


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 strange, even for a silent movie. Essentially, it follows the adventures about a engineer in post-revolutionary Russia who daydreams about going to Mars. In this movie, it seems like the producers KNOW the Communists have truly screwed up the country, but also seems to want to make it look like they've accomplished something good.
Then we get to the "Martian" scenes, where everyone on Mars wears goofy hats. They have a revolution after being inspired by the Earth Men, but are quickly betrayed by the Queen who sides with them. Except it's all a dream, or is it. (And given that the Russian Revolution eventually lead to the Stalin dictatorship, it makes you wonder if it was all allegory.)
Now, I've seen GOOD Russian cinema. For instance, Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin is a good movie. This is just, well, silly.


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


user
After watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the "Panzer Cop" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series.


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


user
Red spectacles
I loved Avalon, I think This director has made some awesome demented visions of the future. This film however was boring pretentious crap. The opening scene showed great promise for what the cover art and description promise a surreal live action amimae style future noir. I feel I got that with Avalon.
With Red Spectacles I was only driven to feel a uncomfortable to desire to what the hell the point was. The film barely made sense to me and I could not care less about the people in it. This would all be ok if the film was effective art. While the opening scene looked interesting and the scene with the giant robot-suit person holding the giant machine gun in the rain looked cool, it did not watch the film worth watching.
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
I guess this is in the public domain as its out on DVD. First off, this is a feel good propaganda movie to be shown to a wartime Aussie audience, so its not to be considered a serious retelling of Tobruk. The first half to 3/4 is very dry stuff set in Australia, I guess like many American war films where the recruits are getting together, oh man its soooo long. Than we get to Africa and Tobruk, pretty bad, low budget stuff. The battle scenes on the DVD copy I watched were almost completely black. See it if you must, but be prepared to use the fast forward as I doubt you can take it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the cheesy Italian "Battle of El Alamien" a whole lot more, also Richard Burton did an African theater war flick that was good "The Desert Rats", this movie is just a real period piece and should have stayed in that time, does not hold up well today (I doubt it was highly regarded back then either). I say the same thing about my American counterpart war flicks so don't take it personally Aussies (I love Australia, been there twice!).


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


user
What You Need In the run up to 'What You Need', every episode since 'The Lonely' had been a winner to some extent. This episode is the first major failure since 'Escape Clause'. The Serling script is again based on someone else's materiel, a short story by Lewis Padgett. As with 'And When the Sky Was Opened', Serling altered the content significantly, removing a scientist and his machine and inserting an elderly peddler.
'What You Need' works best when it is being sweet. The opening half, in which the peddler provides customers in a bar with objects they will need in the near future, has a gentle charm about it that may have worn thin throughout an entire episode but works well in the time frame it is allotted. Sadly, the main plot which it sets up is full of gaping holes. The minute Steve Cochran's performance as a two-bit thug becomes the main focus the episode falls apart. Cochran's part is an underwritten stereotype and his flat performance highlights this flaw. His exploitation of the old peddler is dull and predictable and the revelation that he will murder the old man is totally unconvincing, making the whole slippery shoes scene seem completely false. Ernest Truex is good as the peddler, bringing a magical, mysterious but warm edge to the character, but he's not good enough to help the floundering script.
To make matters worse, the weak script is also full of inconsistencies. For instance, we learn that the peddler's power to provide people with what they need stems from an ability to see into the future. So how exactly does this allow him to produce a pen that will magically pick winning horses. That seems like it should be a little outside his realms of power. Also, for a man who can see the future, the peddler certainly acts surprised to find the thug waiting for him in his flat. There are many more holes that can be picked in 'What You Need' but it's hardly worth it when the episode is so thin that you can see through it anyway.


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


user
I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.
If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an "old-fashioned" type, then don't bother.


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


user
This may not be the worst movie to ever win best picture but its up there. Well on second thought this is probably the worst film to ever win best picture. Still though you would expect it to be a worth while film. That in fact though if questionable as well. The film contains almost no depth and is just "fun" after "fun" if you want to call it that. At first its very interesting but it seems as if everything is exaggerated on so many levels.
The acting was not spectacular to watch but it was quite interesting seeing Charlton Heston in his first lead role. I found many of the characters like the tone of the movie annoying after awhile. Who I did like a lot was James Stewart as the philosophical clown. He to me saved the film in that he gave it a much needed extra layer. Sadly though after Stewart there was not much else.
The directing of the much respected Cecil DeMille was non existent to me. I found the movie corny at times and his use of Betty Hutton was a mistake. The look of the movie was very good at times but it did not generate that magical feeling that classics need to have. The writing was actually pretty good considering how shallow much of the movie was.
From movies like this did the term "Hollywood Trash" come up. There is no depth, no valid attempt at drawing emotions out of the audience and simply no artistic value to the film. Then of course the many holes in the plot throughout. This movie was consistently annoying and frustrating. I even had a sense through this film that much of what I was watching was not only and inaccurate depiction of circus life but instead the opposite of how it really is. Why this won best picture is beyond me but its not like the first or the last time the Oscars will and have made a mistake.


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


user
In a year when "Singin' in the Rain" and "High Noon" were released, this overstuffed turkey somehow won the Oscar for Best Picture. Half the film is nothing more than circus performances. The other half is soap opera and melodrama. Heston and Wilde both overact, although they are models of restraint compared to the annoying Hutton. Playing a self-centered trapeze artist, Hutton acts like an overzealous high school student in a badly produced school play. Grahame is the only cast member to turn in a decent performance. DeMille has no interest in telling a good story, only in creating an overlong spectacle, not matter how dull.


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


user
OK, here's the short of it... this movie is full of corny dialogue, over the top acting, and a threadbare script.
There are moments that intended to be very dramatic but simply come off humorous because of the over the top acting and poorly written lines. I couldn't help laughing at moments that were meant to be very serious. The bright spot in this movie is the circus. Seeing the circus in its heyday was certainly a treat.
There are moments that come through as good. But then it nosedives right back into B-movie territory. I was tempted to stop watching it several times.
I certainly don't know how it won best picture, however. It must have been a slow year!


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


user
I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.
As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.
Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.
Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10


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


user
Ravi Chopra wrote this film 40 years back, wanted to cast Dilip Kumar in the lead
The film finally was re-written and made in 2003 and hence the subject looks dated and too superficial at times
Like the reason Amitabh-Hema separate is too superficial even the way the youth are shown is too bad like Gulshan in AVTAAR
The message though comes well but things are presented in a clichéd manner Salman's character is the worst, looks straight out of a storybook while the climax speech of Bachchan is good and also the final of not forgiving the sons is good
Ravi Chopra does a good job Music is decent, the songs sung by Bachchan stand out
Amitabh excels like always, he has played an elder stern father earlier but here he plays a victim and portrays it well His last speech is great Hema is good in her part Aman Verma stands out Samir Soni is okay, Naseer and the rest sons and wives are decent though Divya Dutta stands out Salman Khan is fake, Mahima is okay Paresh and Lillete are lovable


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


user
Two days ago I got a chance to watch this movie on Cable (TV-Asia). I have been very disturbed since then. The movie "Baghban" has been very successful in portraying only one side of the real life. It is highly partial towards parents. Have you ever thought of other side (kids)?? There are few parents in this world who just give birth to their kids but don't give right parental care. I am a victim of that. Why do you (parents) want to have 5 kids in your life if you are merely making only Rs 2000 per month? I was made to work on streets along with my siblings. I have no idea how I managed to reach IIT from there. It has been a long time since then but still I don't believe. Now I am a research scientist here in USA. I have provided all the necessities to my parents along with care by my two brothers who stay along with them. They could not provide basic things to us when we were kids. I find this movie very resentful. Its very partial. It has hurt my sentiments very deeply. I strongly urge the producer/director of this movie to look at the Indian society in other point of view also and make another movie. I can be reached at john_simension@yahoo.com


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 truly shows the farce and hypocrisy of Indian society. What it tries to show you is only ONE side of the story. The other side of the story is the hidden emotional and mental abuse of Indian children which this movie does not show.
"Indian Parents" are culpable for the following: a. Destroying the individuality of the children by making them completely dependent on the parents at a very early age. Such children grow up to be Adults only in physical looks but remain children in minds. Since everything has been provided to them by their great Indian parents, They children automatically do not feel the need to work hard at something or learn the basics of human communication with other human beings apart from their parents.
B. I can show you so many Indian parents who try to prevent their kids making friends, going out or prevent them to do anything which starts making them to grow into adults.
The reason why they do is the same selfishness. Indian parents "expect" their children to take care of them when they grow old. They do no savings for themselves and once they reach the age of 50...They cry out LOUD......We have grown old now and so we are dependent on you children since we have done the GREAT SERVICE of bringing you to this world and taking care of you and making you intellectually weak.
Most of the Indian parents at the age of 50 have dilapidated bodies and health and are financially completely insecure. Most feel that they ABSOLUTELY have no need to take care of themselves since they "expect" their kids to take care of them.
In the west the opposite of that happens. People start planning at the age of 20 about their retirement and once they retire they are financially secure.
Indian parents do NOTHING of that sort since like I said they have brought the kids in the world and what better investment at that?.
I am a victim of my Indian parents (i am sure there are countless other Indian kids like me), who have grown up physically but are still struggling with their lives on THEIR OWN and they continue to have pestering 50 year olds who cry out loud for HELP all the time.
This movie shows only ONE side of the story.....UTTER piece of JUNK


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 which reminds me of avatar- starring rajesh khanna from the 80's. the issue of parents-kids divide is interesting but was handled in a rather unoriginal manner.. the characters were not developed fully and the kids seemed to go from being extermely loving ( in the first 15mts of the movie) to being totally unconcerned about the parents,, this transformation was not credible to say the least..they sld have explored this a little more. amitabh and jaya were miscast as this helpless old couple.. firstly amit was not too convincing in this role,because he just did not look like he should be helpless, i mean why not just go back to work where he is wanted instead of being w/ kids who didnt want them.. hema was not convincing as a 60 yr old either... she didnt look a day over 50.. then the whole isssue of the book baghban winning the booker prize begged credibility.. all in all, a movie that handles an important issue but cld have been made better, i give it 5/10


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 hard to make a bad movie with the "underdog finally succeeds" sport theme, but this movie succeeds admirably. My mind boggles at how pointless and boring this film is.
I guess the director couldn't decide whether this was about the runner or the coach. It ends up being about neither. Ultimately, who cares? Neither character has a likable personality. There is nothing in the movie to make you care about anyone. Even the "bad guy" isn't really bad. (I think he's in two scenes, and seemingly is on some kind of barbituate. ) I think he asks her, once and politely, to leave the coach and train with him. Then later he kinda' sorta' asks her to move in with him. that's it. Conflict! Tension! What will she do? !!
-And what's with the depiction of running? Has the director ever SEEN an actual marathon? Christine's form is so incorrect it's absurd, as is the form of the supposed "champion" she competes with (A character with no lines. -Maybe they could have hired, you know, an actual RUNNER?)
-And the speed the run at is beyond comprehension. Were they running or speed walking? It's actually laughable. I can literally walk backwards faster then they were running in the big race. Maybe it was too hard to move the cameras at real speed?
Another absurdity: (spoiler, I guess) At one point in the big race, the two women in the lead inexplicably fall, at the same time. What they fell on is a mystery. Maybe they both just got exhausted and fell down? -And then they get up, but don't start running again for maybe 30 seconds. Oh yeah, very realistic. This ridiculous event doesn't even add any tension, since the other runners are not close, and besides at this point you have been numbed into a state of catatonia.
-I especially enjoyed how all four of her male teammates, highly trained athletes all, drop out of the big race due to charlie-horses, or pulled tendons, or something just as improbable.
But who cares? This movie has almost no tension, no resolution, nothing. Some woman runner with absolutely no personality is discovered by an old, boring coach with some past failure that is barely hinted at. They train a lot. She is not happy. They train some more. She wins da big race. Woopie.
My description is actually more interesting than the actual movie. I just saved you 90 minutes. Avoid this one like the plague.


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


user
Well, I only caught the tail end of this film on HBO, just the final 10 minutes or so, but I must say that it contains probably the most laughable depiction of distance running EVER put on film! I'm a serious distance runner and a dedicated fan of the sport, and I've sat through many painful demonstrations in movies before. However, nothing could have ever prepared me for what is shown on screen in the final 10 minutes of this movie, it literally defies belief! The depiction of the runners is even more ironic considering that African runners completely dominate the sport, and they are elegant and graceful. The female protagonist shuffles along like an overweight pregnant woman, and her "highly trained" male supporters are no better. Well into the race this alleged world class runner is surrounded by pudgy, overweight people, many of whom are WALKING! I find it interesting that the director decided to have her lead the female competition, yet near the end she is shown passing people who look like they're staggering along on two broken legs! Are we to believe that this amazing stellar athlete has only overtaken a crippled person at the very end of the race? Maybe the director just thinks that female runners can't run faster than 12 minute miles, and he has obviously never heard of athletes like Paula Radcliffe or Tirunesh Dibaba.
Even if you aren't a running fan you'll be astonished by the insanely inaccurate portrayal of running, and this movie is only watchable as unintentional comedy. Here is a note to the director: The next time you decide to make a movie about a sport, it might be worth it to hire at least one person who actually has observed that sport in action.


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


user
I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.
Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several "student films," I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed.
All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.
2/10


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


user
Where to begin.... This hideous excuse for a motion picture makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look well thought out. The music? It's culled from every single overwrought piece of PD shlock in existence. The focus? Hell, doesn't matter if in one shot there are thirty people standing in the road; the new angle shows a lone Packard with a waitress posing for Argosy Mag shots. Paul Le Mat, Diana Scarwid, Louise Fletcher, Wallace Shawn: fine actors who must have all been starving to death at that point in their lives and the director lured them to sign on with tempting bits of cat food. The production budget must have skyrocketed to well over fifty cents with the addition of The Space Alien Phallic Transportation Machine which, for a time, must have meant that the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile was not available. When Bad Movies Happen to Good Actors


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 somewhere in here the makings of a decent if routine SF story. It is thwarted by several factors. First, the actor is just awful. Even the competent actors are awful. The dialog is wooden and stilted. The plot plods along predictably. This seems less like a finished movie than actors going through a walk through. Extremely disappointing.


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


user
I must say, I found this movie very disappointing. Yes, I know Maltin gave it 3 1/2 and others think very highly of it. But, well, the opera sequences were god-awful. I take it Jeannete MacDonald is an acquired taste. Yes, in the short sequences I have seen her with Nelson Eddy, she is immensely preferable to him. But on her own...God, I dislike opera and despise operetta, and she is basically intolerable. At one point I had to cover my ears. Gable is just OK, and Tracy is thrown away. The plot is annoying in the JM never simply tells Gable she loves him and the opera and why can't she do both? Instead she suffers silently (or not so) with the compromises she makes. The supporting cast is distinctly unmemorable. Besides the star three and Jack Holt (and I suppose his mother), they all are just background and forgettable. The EQ sequence is the only thing that saves the movie. And just. Yes, it is fairly spectacular and moving. But the "oh God is great" seems very contrived. I immensely prefer "In Old Chicago" as far as old time disaster spectaculars go. Spare yourself on this one.


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 features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the "Jeanette MacDonald picture;" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good.
The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..


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 expecting to view a more exploitation style of film but unfortunately this turned out to be just a badly made low budget action flick that just doesn't have the talent for that. Story is about a very beautiful woman named Teri Marshall (Heather Thomas) who's boyfriend Rick (Jeffrey Combs) works for a secret agency and he has invented a motorcycle that is bullet proof and can shoot lasers and rockets and has a helmet that can shoot lasers as well. The head of the agency Bosarian (Martin Landau) has made a 5 million dollar deal to sell it and sends two hired thugs to kill Rick and Teri and collect the bike. A tall blond thug named Rolf (Dar Robinson) and his partner Hanna (Dawn Wildsmith) manage to kill Rick but Teri survives. While at home she discovers a video tape that Rick left describing his invention that helps Teri on what to do next.
*****SPOILER ALERT*****
Teri is being chased by several agents and she gets caught and tortured but doesn't talk about where a piece of the motorcycle that is needed but she gets help from a federal agent named Waters (Martine Beswick) where they end up using the motorcycle for a bloody shoot-out.
This film is directed by Fred Olen Ray who has made his career out of making ultra-low budget exploitation films but he made a dire mistake here by leaving out the exploitation aspect and trying to make an action film. Aside from a quick shower scene at the beginning there is no nudity and the usual titillation that viewers are accustomed to seeing in a Ray film is no where to be found. I don't think anyone was expecting Thomas to get naked but she doesn't wear one sexy outfit. Not that it stopped me from ogling her in those tight jeans and admiring her near perfect form but Ray really blew it in this case. Like all of his films the cast is fun to watch and many familiar faces have roles like Robert Quarry, Huntz Hall, Troy Donahue, Tim Conway Jr., Michael Reagan, and Russ Tamblyn. Stuntman Dar Robinson died shortly after this was made and it's his last acting effort and the film is dedicated to him. You have to wonder why Landau would waste him time with such junk like this but I was interested in the casting of Combs in a very rare romantic role. Is Thomas any good in this film? Who cares! I think she showed that she could have become a popular "B" movie starlet if she wanted but it never did happen. Ray wastes everyone's time with this effort although the cast is fun to watch but he left out the elements that make him an enjoyable filmmaker.


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


user
Although I am a fan of Heather Thomas and I have a few of her old bikini posters around here somewhere, I can honestly say that if the only movie I had ever seen her in was "Cyclone", I would never be able to guess why she had made it as far as she had in show business.
Directed by Fred Olen Ray (about as good an omen as seeing buzzards circle over head in the desert), this tale of a woman (Thomas) who must protect a high-tech motorcycle from unscrupulous types is about as "B" movie as it gets (or in Fred Olen's case, "B minus").
The cast itself should tell you something. It's not every movie that combines Thomas with actors the calibre of Beswick, Hall, Combs, Donahue, Tamblyn and Landau (!!). If you're lucky, very few movies do. And even though they seem to be having fun, shouldn't some of that fun be passed on to the audience? I vote yes, seems they voted no.
Of course, if you ever wanted to see Heather deliver an uppercut to another woman, use the "F" word and get hooked up to battery cables, you've probably been looking for this one. Myself, I'll be content with old "Fall Guy" reruns.
One star, given in hopes that when another "Cyclone" hits town, Heather runs for shelter. I know I will.


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


user
Rarely does one find a movie so bad that it achieves the often-sought paradigm of having so little redeeming value that that alone makes it worth watching. "Cyclone," I am happy to report, is such a film.
I knew I was in for something good as soon as I found the videotape. I am at least its fourth owner: It has a "Used Movie Sale! $9.95" sticker on the front, and a yard-sale sticker for one dollar. I picked it up at a thrift store for fifty cents.
The Used Movie Sale! sticker covers much of the front cover artwork, meaning that what I see is a truly odd blended still of the front of the Cyclone super bike, a car flipping over on fire, and Heather Thomas, wearing Flouncy Eighties Hair with her mouth open in an expression that says, "I 'ave a 'ooth ache." I saw that and thought, "All RIGHT." The case, honestly, was enough ("with nowhere to turn and no one to trust, Teri is plunged headlong into a maze of danger and deceit"), but I surprised myself by actually getting around to watching it. I always make time for the really bad films. That "Fight Club" tape can wait.
Meet Teri. Teri is a stunningly well-crafted character, as we can tell from her introduction, in which she and her friend do exercises that highlight her breasts and, later, her legwarmers. Then Teri goes off to hook up with her boyfriend for the evening that goes horribly wrong. Before she knows it, Teri is driven "straight into a web of deadly double-crosses in CYCLONE." The VHS box tells it like it is.
Left out of the box summary - perhaps out of some faint hope that actual copies of this film would be sold - is how awful the acting is. It might have been just me, but I kept thinking I could read the characters' thoughts through their eyes. "This is dumb," thinks Heather Thomas. "I know," thinks Bad Guy with Too-Wide Mouth.
A driving force (no pun intended) for the second half of this epic picture are the car chases. Those were actually pretty good, although I'm inclined that gasoline doesn't need coaching on how to explode. What really impressed me is that, in all the chases, the streets were pretty much empty. It's like there are only twenty people in this huge city.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Gee Wilikers! I have to see this movie!" The sad thing, though, is that you can't find it. Oh no. "Cyclone" is a film that finds YOU. Just wait. Some day - perhaps during lunch, perhaps late in the evening, perhaps "when military scientist Jeffery Combs ('Re-Animator')is murdered by hired assassins" - you will hear the rustle of legwarmers, and know that it is time.


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 was in a box set with 20 others, with varying quality, & I can safely say that this title was right at the bottom of the heap.
It is pointless to go through the plot, what there was of it, picking out what was wrong, as I haven't got all day & life is to short, which reminds me, I have just lost around 85 minutes of mine watching this tripe.
The acting was diabolically bad in a way that made it funny, though only just, whilst the comedy elements like the two idiotic cops must have made any Laurel & Hardy fans groan. One of the only barely funny moments was when the leading lady made a joke about her former friends plastic T*ts, which would have been okay if I hadn't had to watch them bob around whenever she waddled on the screen.
The lowest I can give is one, & it probably deserves that for having Heather Thomas in it, as she was certainly sexy & shapely, though her acting was as bad as everyone else.


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


user
The only thing I expected that this film didn't have was an intelligent, talking motorcycle.
This film is just plain awful. I gave it 1 star, which of course, means I enjoyed it tremendously. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad fight choreography. The only real actor in this movie is Martin Landau, who of course does a good job playing the villain, although the character is your standard cardboard cutout evil CEO/Villain. Even the so-called "plot twist" at the end was no shock.
There was so much to make fun of in this movie, I enjoyed it a lot. And it did have a few impressive car wreck stunts.
Like bad movies? Check this one out, ouch. Want a good movie? Not here.


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


user
Cyclone is a piece of dreck with little redeeming value, even on the so bad its entertaining front. A friend of mine took the tape from an overflowing St. Vincent DePaul clothes bin. Okay, that may be a little bit dodgy but it was meant to be a clothes bin, not a crappy old VHS bin, something the less fortunate members of our society don't really need to make their lives better. It could be considered a mercy. Watching a movie like Cyclone would really only add to their problems. Anyway the basic premise of a woman with a super-powerful motorcycle that it armed to the teeth with rockets and lasers isn't even properly exploited. The two 'high speed' chase sequences involve vehicles travelling at less than hair raising speeds of around 40 KMPH and a super-fast motorcycle that is in danger of being overtaken by a crappy old station wagon is not that awe inspiring when you get down to it. There is only one scene where the bikes goofy weaponry is used, at the film's climax, and it is laughably ineffectual, or just laughable, when it is. This includes laser beams that look like they should be coming out of the hands of an evil wizard in a cheesy eighties sword and sorcery that produced large bursts of flame which seem to have no noticeable effect on their targets even when they hit directly. The rest of the movie is just tedious hard to watch filler. Lots of bad actors, yes even Combs and Landau suck in this, most of whom seem like they have been lifted from the set of a porno movie stand around exchanging really bad dialogue in a desperate attempt to pus forward the barely coherent plot. There are a few badly staged fight sequences and some excruciatingly unfunny comic relief scenes with some cops and the owner of the motor cycle repair shop. Comedy of the sub Benny Hill horny old man can't stop staring at the female leads chest variety. Basically the 'money' scenes involving the bike actually doing stuff are few and lame and the rest is clunky filler material. Skip it.


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


user
Being (somewhat) an independent filmmaker myself, I really understand what these guys were trying to do and it sounds like a good idea. On paper. On 16mm film, however, it's awful. I didn't realize the thing was made in the mid 90's because the film was so grainy and bad I would have sworn this was one of those 30 year old flicks where a porn producer tried to go mainstream. And the sound! Ugh, I don't know what kind of mic they were using to record but it sounds like someone is walking over dead leaves throughout the entire thing. I guess I shouldn't judge too harshly, after all, how many feature films has MY company put out? None, but I'd like to think that we'd at least have good picture and sound quality to go with our poor acting, writing, and directing. A+ for idea, F-- for execution.


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


user
Gave it two stars because the DVD cover was good enough to make me buy this piece of horse manure. I paid a dollar for it at the local DVD exchange and I want my money back. I have a couple of good movies(at least I think they're good) that have never seen the inside of a video store. After seeing this, I'm really insulted by that. Light years worse than anything I've ever seen, I can't even recommend this as a campy joke movie. It is so bad, instead of making you laugh it makes you angry. How did this awful film find any kind of distro? I can only believe it was self distributed as the amateurish DVD authoring would suggest. To the producers of this "movie" get out of the business, it's obvious you have no talent for it.


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


user
This movie has one or two slightly interesting gags but they are NOT worth the wait. After an unexplained argument between two guys picking up litter in a drive-in movie theatre we cut to a family leaving! Hollywood and driving driving driving driving their camper van across the screen again and again as inane dialogue is voiced over. At least I think it's inane, the terrible song that accompanies this montage is mixed so loud it renders the dialogue at times almost inaudible.
Finally the camper van arrives, at night, at a gas station where the family get out, have another inane conversation, before driving off. The camera then pans across to reveal the actor we have just seen drive away. He talks straight to camera and we realise he is the director of the movie we are watching which is about him, and how he came to make the movie.
A nice idea which ALMOST (but not quite) makes the previous sequences worth the pain.
As the movie unfolds he encounters the two characters we met picking litter at the start of the movie and they all form a motion picture company.
All sorts of not very funny and clumsy comedy ensues as they put together a crew and attempt to raise the cash needed to start filming.
This movie was obviously put together on a shoe string and a promise and there is a nice little idea in here struggling to get out but the execution is so inept that the idea gets lost. Comedy is more than things just falling over and everyone talking (or shouting) at once. So much of the dialogue here is shouted by several actors simultaneously - Robert Altman can do this sort of thing well because he has a script, rehearsals, decent sound techies, and editing facilities. Everyone shouting at the one mike which, by the sound of it, was hidden in a dustbin in the next room, does not make for clarity.


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


user
With the little respect it deserves, I would like to state that this movie was horrible. The filmmakers had good intentions, but the overall quality of the direction and production value was obviously lacking a great deal. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good hard laugh and then wasting two more hours of their life enduring a truly painful experience. I'm surprised I even found this movie on the $1 DVD rack where it was aptly placed. I thought maybe it was going to be good and that I might discover some amazing independent film - I was wrong. I wish I had never seen this movie. My 3-year-old cousin couldn't make a worse film. I'm glad I saw the film because I can finally tell people I've seen the worst movie ever made, and be sure of it.


assistant
0