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
ANDY HARDY MEETS DEBUTANTE (1940) is the ninth (9th) film of the series and it shows the direction it was inevitably headed into. Characters ANDY HARDY (Mickey Rooney) and JUDGE HARDY (Lewis Stone) were going to be front and center. The rest of the cast was going too just punch the clock and collect their checks. The series would rise to the occasion again and have its moments but a fatal decline had set in.
Lewis Stone throughout the series would continue too portray the character of JUDGE HARDY in a sympathetic manner. The rest of the cast would be professional even though given less and less to do. Mickey Rooney on the other hand would continue his character as if there was no learning curve. ANDYs' reaction to any situation was in a naive and unbelievable way. Even after he returned as a veteran of World War II service in LOVE LAUGHS AT ANDY HARDY (1946) his reaction to any 'teapot tempest' was the same, juvenile.
In this film it is clearly illustrated. ANDY gets himself into several unbelievable situations that with a simple explanation would have been resolved. This screen writing device was known as the 'idiot plot'. A means of stretching a poorly written scenario. Maybe it was less Mickey Rooneys' fault then the Director and the Writers. Most likely George B. Seitz had directed one too many and a firmer hand was needed too control Rooneys' excesses. To see our overview of the entire series go to YOU'RE ONLY YOUNG ONCE (1937).


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


user
I always thought people were a little too cynical about these old Andy Hardy films. A couple of them weren't bad. Modern film critics are not ones who usually prefer nice to nasty, so goody-two shoes movies like these rarely get praise
Nonetheless, I can't defend this movie either. You can still have an dated dialog but still laugh and cry over the story. Watching this, you just shake your head ask yourself, "how stupid can you get?" This is cornier than corny, if you know what I mean. It is so corny I cannot fathom too many people actually sitting through the entire hour-and-a-half.
The story basically is "Andy" (Mickey Rooney) trying to get out of jam because he makes up some story about involved with some débutante from New York City as if that was the ultimate. People were a lot more social-conscious in the old days. You'd hear the term "social-climber" as if knowing rich or beautiful people was the highest achievement you could make it life. It's all utter nonsense, of course, and looks even more so today.
However, it's about as innocent and clean a story and series (there were a half dozen of these Andy Hardy films made) as you could find. Also, if you like to hear Judy Garland sing, then this is your ticket, as she sings a couple of songs in here and she croons her way into Andy's heart. Oh man, I almost throw up even writing about this!


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


user
I am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.
You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.
The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part 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
Matt Cordell is back from the dead for a third go-round, although I'm not sure anyone cared at this point except for rabid MANICA COP fans. Cordell, who died in the last flick, is resurrected through voodoo, and is now hot on the trail of several miscreants involved in the shooting of a fellow officer Cordell is very fond of. I missed part of this early '90s low-budget quickie, but it was pleasing to see Cordell wracking up the body count in various, gruesome ways. Problem is, the overall film is pretty static, and Cordell simply ain't Jason or Freddy. The interest wanes pretty fast, even with that grand B-movie master Robert Forster as a doctor who ends up with his brains scrambled. Stick with the first film in the series, which is funny and scary and exciting, all at the same time.


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


user
The supernatural, vengeful police officer is back for a third installment, this time acting as guardian angel for a wrongfully accused female cop. Standard stalk and slash picture, yet well acted and directed, thus making it oddly interesting and watchable, though the violence isn't for the squeamish (especially the director's cut which was originally given an "NC-17" rating).
*1/2 out of ****


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


user
Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And "Maniac Cop" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.
When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, "What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death."
1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. "A black rainbow of death" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.
This is what you're in for.


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


user
I read somewhere where this film was supposed to be a remake of the 1949 film noir, "Criss Cross." I found the latter to be disappointing but it was still better than this film.
This movie is a "neo-noir" since it's modern-day and it's in color, two things that purists would make it be disqualified for film noir status.
The biggest negative to it, however, wasn't the cinematography (that was fine) but the muddled storyline. Hey, some of '40s Dashiell Hammett stories were similar but I didn't care for some of those either. The filmmakers here did not help the situation by placing flashbacks into the story what seemed like every three minutes. No wonder it was the keep up with this story. It was ridiculous! What happens is that by the 45-minute mark, their is so much confusion nobody cares anymore. I know I didn't.


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


user
There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.
It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.


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


user
When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.
Just your average movie.


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


user
Ben Masters,(Kyd Thomas),"Dream Lover",'86 plays a sort of Mike Hammer character, a private eye who does any old job for a buck and never misses out on all the sexy curves of good looking gals. Kyd makes one big mistake when he stops Morgan Fairchild,(Laura Cassidy/Eva Bomberg),"Arizona Summer",'73 from getting beaten up and raped. Kyd takes Laura home to his pad and when he wakes up, she is out on his patio eating his eggs and orange juice and making herself right at home. By the way, Kyd sleep in his bed and Laura slept on the couch for this particular scene. Laura is mixed up with all kinds of hoods and there are some hot scenes between Kyd and Laura. All said and done, this is a lousy picture and I purchased the DVD for only $1.50 and I really got ripped OFF !


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


user
Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer?
The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.
It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.


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


user
After seeing a heavily censored version of this movie on television years ago, I was curious to see the unedited version. I was surprised that it was more believable and well acted than I remembered, but one thing really stood out. I think other reviewers have mentioned this also, namely, what exactly is the nature and motivation of the Chris Sarandon character? Has he raped other victims before? Is he completely psychotic or an "average" sociopath? How did he expect to get away with his attack on the younger sister? Is this character at all credible, or is it just a matter of more background being necessary? He seems almost simultaneously to be an uncomfortably believable character, and too crazy to actually be able to hold on to a teaching job that puts him in contact with young, vulnerable girls. This seems to to be the biggest complaint of viewers in general. It has nothing to do with his performance, which is terrifyingly convincing.The movie occupies an uneasy position between sheer exploitation and a half way serious treatment of the subject, without quite settling into either mode. Not the worst movie ever made, but not all that good, either.


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


user
Model Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!
Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.
Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.
I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the way.


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


user
**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**
If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.
Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned.


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


user
Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time 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
It is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.
I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead.


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 so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade).


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


user
If you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it.


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


user
While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly.


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


user
Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn would roll over in their graves if they knew this Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Rip Off was actually in theaters. Along with Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton these four brilliant actors made a great cultural statement with Director Stanley Kramer's 1967 master piece. This present day rip off is a joke. So a white guy from an overly stereotyped Italian family in Rhode Island brings his African American girlfriend home (Insert GASP here) to his grand father's funeral. His family members reactions were of course....predictable. This movie was so painfully telegraphed from start to finish my girlfriend actually started fake snoring to signal to me that she wanted to leave. Do yourself a favor and rent the original. Take a pass on Wake.


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


user
This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this.


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


user
The creativeness of this movie was lost from the beginning when the writers and directors left out a good story line, only to substitute with horrible special affects. This movie seemed to be focused on amusing children, but couldn't even accomplish that. Many small low budget films have the potential to become great movies, but this movie is no where near that. Fortunately this will be another film easily made, and easily forgotten. This movie was probably a chance for the actors to make a little money on the side until their chance came along for a real role in a good movie. Anyone who has a shred of respect for films, should avoid seeing this movie at all costs.


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


user
Relying on the positive reviews above, we saw a free screening of this last night. Now I KNOW that filmmakers plant positive reviews, because there is no way an objective individual could have written these. "Destined to become a 'cult classic'"?? The theater was packed, apparently with friends and families of the production crew, because only a few of us walked out by the first hour.
The songs were the most literal I've ever heard in a musical  "don't take the short cut, honey, there's a wolf in the woods..". Debi Mazar's eyes blinked furiously as she struggled to sing. Fortunately, most of the tunes lasted for only a few lines.
Now, whoever plays the wolf in this tale should be charming and seductive. Instead, we get Joey Fatone, ex N'Syncer, living up to his last name as he's not aged well. He's not exactly lithe with his extra 50 pounds and junior high school-quality makeup and out-of-tune singing. Seriously, this guy was in vocal group? The rest of the actors are semi-adequate, but can't do much about the unimaginative script. You know, it is possible to write for adults and children at the same time  see under "Pixar".
On the positive side, the virtual sets looked nice and were well-integrated with the actors. And it wasn't as offensive as "Crash".


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


user
Creepy & lascivious wolf. The young "Red" is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The "up-beat" music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a "special effects spectacular"??? The effects do look low budget, gawd awful.


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


user
Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This "film" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.
The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.


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


user
This collection really sucks!
I rented it, thinking I´d really would enjoy some good fighting. Man this sucked! Quick flashy cuts, an extremely annoying speaker, and the fights them selves were heavily edited and shortened (I´m thinking especially of Jet Li´s fight in Fists of legend and Jackie Chan´s fight from drunken master 2).
And what´s the deal with those brawling streetfighters?! What´s so "cool" about that? I´ve seen more interesting fights on Martial Law!
This a stupid collection of cuts for stupid people.
Do not ever buy this film! Do not encourage the people who made this crap to make more of this crap!
Instead, go buy the movies the fights were from and wath the fights in their uncut glory!


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


user
The good thing about this that's at least fresh: Almost no movies about dance music and the club scene (if even made) hit the cinemas. And it radiates lots of energy too, from the music to the portrayal of Ibiza.
But the main problem is that it can't decide what it wants to be. Although it definitely likes to be a mockumentary in the line of This is Spinal Tap, the makers also realized they wouldn't want to play copycat. However, it fails grossly on the jokes because it's not very well written and most characters are underdeveloped. And it has no arc in its script and directing to make it to 90 minutes, so why not edit it down to 75? The production department and cinematography still try to save the day (e.g. Paul's home).
In a strange way and unexpectedly so It's all gone Pete Tong works much better as a simple drama in the line of Almost Famous. Especially the scenes with Beatriz Batarda offer some acting power.
Conclusion: it's a mess, it somewhat entertains at a basic level, but you better spend a night in your favorite club.


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 remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.
So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.
Grade F


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


user
The script is so so laughable... this in turn, makes the actors' lines sound stiff and unrealistic and not to be believed. There's repetition of phrases -- "my sweet little god daughter" and minor variations of that line which comes to mind... and it's just sloppy soap opera dialog.
Worse yet, the music is so WRONG! Plus, the main bluesy "theme" is horribly quaint and entirely wrong for this. And it feels overused mostly because the instrumentation, texture and arrangement of this theme never changes, even when the scene's emotional context does.
Subsequently, whenever it appears, it sticks out like a sore thumb as the main transition from one scene to another.
The music's corny, and it's as if the writer were writing music for a soap or a sitcom -- a low budget 80's Canadian sitcom at that -- and this makes it feel as if we're always on the brink of throwing to a commercial.
This is so miscast, there's a lot of overacting and it's a real stretch that so many of these characters are employing only ONE type of NY accent -- a thick Bronx accent. I don't know if it's a question of the actors' limited capacity in only knowing *one* NY accent -- or whether it's a question of the director's ability to notice such an glaring anomaly.
In the end, it's the amateur script with it's leaden lines which makes this entire "movie"... blow. When any foundation is shaky and unstable, it's impossible to build upon it without it's flaws revealing themselves in exponentially more damaging and unflattering ways.


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


user
I had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is "How We Get Rid of the Others"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called "the common good", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).
Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.
The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.
Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).
In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.
3 out of 10.


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 could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this


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


user
They probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood.


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


user
There will be a time where kids will have grown up without ever seeing the one and only Bugs Bunny kiss (technically) another man on the lips. There will be a time where it won't be Duck or Rabbit season. There will be a time where the Tazmanian Devil will be dubbed politically incorrect.
But so help me now is not that time.
Nobody really wants an 'EXTREME' version of our beloved Loony characters. Whoever it is in marketing who comes up with "Corn Nuts: Corn gone wrong" and "Extreme Doritos" and evidently this festering turd should know that just because they have a degree in business or advertising or whatever doesn't mean they know jack about kids.
I think that they're doing a disservice to children, depriving them of one of the greatest and most iconic shows of all time. This show disgusts me, and it's not just the dated artwork or terrible dialogue. They misuse good voice talent, like Phil Lamarr, Michael Clarke Duncan, Candi Milo, and so many others. It lacks style, humor, character development, and most importantly, heart.
The show, like it's repackaged characters (Slam Tasmanian, Rev Runner, Ace Bunny) is but a shadow of it's former, timeless and beautiful self.


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


user
"Well Chuck Jones is dead, lets soil his characters by adding cheap explosions, an American drawn anime knock off style, and give them superpowers". "but sir?, don't we all ready have several shows in the works that are already like this? much less don't dump all over their original creators dreams". "yes! and those shows make us a bunch of cash, and we need more!". "but won't every man women and child, who grew up with these time less characters, be annoyed?". "hay you're right! set it in the future, make them all descendent's of the original characters, and change all the names slightly...but not too much though, we still need to be able to milk the success of the classics".
Well that's the only reason I can think of why this even exists. If you look past the horrible desecration of our beloved Looney Toons, then it looks like an OK show. But then there is already the teen titan's, which is the same bloody thing. All the characters are dressed like batman, they drive around in some sort of ship fighting super villains, they have superpowers, only difference is they sort of talk like the Looney tunes and have similar names and character traits.
This kind of thing falls into the "it's so ridiculous it's good" kind of category. Think of the Super Mario brother's movie, and Batman and Robin. If you want to laugh for all the wrong reasons, check this out. If you are of the younger generation (what this thing is actually intended for), and can look pass the greedy executives shamelessness, then run with it and enjoy.
If you enjoy this cartoon I don't have a problem with you, it's the people who calculated this thing together that I am mad at. You know how they say piracy is like stealing a car; this show is like grave robbing. They might as well of dug up all the people involved with the original cartoon, shoved them on a display, dressed them up inerr pirate costumes, and charged money. If this show wasn't using characters (ones that didn't resemble the Looney Toons in anyway whatsoever) that have already made the studios millions, then this would be fine. But no! For shame Warner brothers, for shame.
If I saw this thing as a 30 second gag on an episode of the Simpson's or Family Guy, I would love it. As it is I just can't believe this was ever made. I would bet anyone that 80% of the people who work on this show hate it. But whatever it doesn't really matter, in 10 years this show will have been forgotten, while the originals will live on foreveror at least until the world ends.
"Coming 2008, Snoopy and the peanut gang are back, and now they have freaking lasers and can turn invisible! Can Charley Brown defeat the evil alien warlord Zapar? Tune in and see."


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


user
Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny "Duck Dodgers". The latter time was with this  um  effort. "Loonatics Unleashed" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.
The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the "city-planet" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.
In each episode, the super sextet  amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter  fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh  the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always  ALWAYS  laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.
In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as "Bugs-like". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish "Teen Titans", including its overly "modern" animation "look", but with animals. Feh.
The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam  as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits  as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain  and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities.
Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers.


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


user
"Loonatics Unleashed " is the worst thing that could happen to the classic characters created by Chuck Jones . The "Loony Tunes" have many spin -offs and different versions , some were good ,others not very much .But "Loonatics " it's the worst .The concept is stupid and derivative of shows as "The Power Rangers " and "Teen Titans " . There wasn't any similarity with the original characters and the stories are boring and poorly made . The new designs are ugly and the animation is pathetic . This show just doesn't work .This horrible waste of animation is a complete failure and this shouldn't have be nothing more than a bad joke . Lame ! Zero stars


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


user
I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose.


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


user
God, I am so sick of the crap that comes out of America called "Cartoons"!
Since anime became popular, the USA animators either produce a cartoon with a 5-year-old-lazy-ass style of drawing (Kappa Mikey) or some cheep Japanese animation rip-off. (Usually messing up classic characters) No wonder anime is beating American cartoons!
They are not even trying anymore!
Oh, I just heard of this last night; I live in the UK and when I found out this show first came out in 2005,well, I never knew the UK was so up-to-date with current shows.


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


user
This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.


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


user
I saw this movie in NEW York city. I was waiting for a bus the next morning, so it was 2 or 3 in the morning. It was raining, and did not want to wait at the PORT AUTHORTY. So I went across the street and saw the worst film of my life. It was so bad, that I chose to stay and see the whole movie,I have yet to see anything else that bad since. The year was 69,so call me crazy. I stayed only because I could not belive it.........


assistant
0