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
Tashan - the title itself explains the nature of the movie.
This type of movies are actually made for flop. What a shame that Yash Raj Films produces such movies those are worthless than C-grade movies. Or even some C-grade movies have better and pleasing story than Tashan. The much hyped and over-confidently promoted Tashan poorly bombed at the box-office which it certainly deserved.
In my view, this is the worst movie ever made from honourable Yash Raj Films' banner. How come they handled such a heavy project to new Vijay Krishna Acharya who has no actual sense of making action flick? He tried to imitate Sanjay Gadhvi's ways of making like Dhoom but he suffered at last. The action scenes are more like than comics or cartoon movies made for exhausting the audiences.
The story also loses in its meaning and substances to tenderly win the audiences' hearts. In most scenes Anil Kapoor reminds me of southern Tamil star Rajnikant in his body languages and wordly expressions. I am not a fan of neither Saif nor Akshay, but the award of Kareena should have finally gone to Saif''s hand instead of Akshay. Just from the starting point I expected of it, but at the end it displeased me with the climax truth. Saif is the main behind the whole adventure, while Akshay joins in the midst. In any movie, the final should be judged with the whole characters of the entire story and the award or say reward should be given to the one who deserves credit. And Tashan loses in this way, and unexpectedly failed to become a hit.
Akshay's has nothing new to show off his comedian talent here but still reminds of his previous movies. He seriously need to form a new image to his fans that would impress them again and again. In between Saif did a great job in Race, and now he returned again in his hilarious nature through this movie. But he has fully developed himself in the acting field. And last but not the least about Kareena. She looks really hot with bikini dress of which some complain as she became too lean. But I myself don't think so, instead she became slim. Yes slim!!! it is a good factor for a female to attract the major people (or say, male). Beside them it is nice that Saif's son Ibrahim appears in the beginning & last as young Saif. I hope now he too will lean forward in target of making acting as his career.
Those who like this Tashan they are either mentally immatured or still want to go back to childhood, or say want to be admitted in an asylum. Thumbs down to debutante director Vijay Krishna Acharya who mishandled the project offered by Yash Raj Films. In future he should experiment and study the script minimum of 5 years before going into practical directions.
Sorry, I don't like to rate good stars to this type of junk movies.


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 no idea what the film is about before I saw it because Tashan only had teaser trailers while it was being promoted. So I asked my friends if they knew anything about it and they said that "It is the directorial debut of Vijay Krishna Acharya who wrote the screenplays for Dhoom 1 & 2 and Saif Ali Khan's son Ibrahim makes his debut in the film by playing him as a child in his flashback".
After watching it, I understood that why their wasn't a proper trailer because there wasn't anything in the film to show. The story was extremely dum and even a 10 year old child can come up with a better story-line. There was hardly any action and the camera shook at every possible angle there is and it's difficult to figure out that who is killing who. Also the action was daft & unrealistic e.g. 1 man with a handgun managed to kill about 100 men with machine guns.
While I was watching Tashan it reminded me of 3 films:
Sin City: During the opening credits.
Koyla: Anil Kapoor's terrible English like Amrish Puri in Koyla.
Jhoom Barabar Jhoom: The outrageously ridiculous jokes that are not even a jot funny.
I also heard the budget is 40 crores which is the same amount as Dhoom 2 and I don't know where all the money went to. Anyway if you did not like Dhoom 2 then there is absolutely no chance that you will like Tashan. Race was hot on heels and that is a million times better.
The only 2 good songs are Dil Haara & Challiya and both songs are shot in Greece at good locations but what is the use of it in a rubbish film? Even Anil Kapoor's terrible English couldn't save this discomfiture.


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 a lot of expectations from this movie and more so since it was a Yashraj Film.
Jimmy operates a call centre and one day he is invited by Pooja Singh to teach her boss, Lakhan Singh, English. The two fall in love and decide to run away but Pooja tells Jimmy that she can't do this as she owes a debt to Lakhan Singh, who is also known as Bhaiyyaji. But they decide and steal money from him and its only then that Jimmy finds out that Bhaiyyaji / Lakhan Singh is a Don. In the meantime, Bhaiyyaji hires a man, Bachchan Pandey, to track down Jimmy and Pooja.
Starring Saif Ali Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Anil Kapoor and Akshaye Kumar, the movie is directed by first time director Viay Krishna Acharya and is produced by both Aditya Chopra and Yash Chopra.
"Tashan" has to be one of the worse films that I have ever watched. Yes! The scenery is good and Kareena Kapoor (and her much publicised weight loss) looks good. But plot is extremely thin on story and at times makes no sense from one scene to the other - hence why I have said at the beginning that I had expected more from this film as it was a Yashraj Production. With reference to songs, unfortunately, there is not one song that I can remember now.
There are moments where one can laugh and that is mainly thanks to Akshaye Kumar and Saif could have definitely done better while Kareena Kapoor played her part well. But this cannot be said for Anil Kapoor - it did not suit him at all as a villain. Lastly,never mind Aditya Chopra, who in the past has produced and directed good films such as "Mohabbatein," what was Yash Chopra doing by producing such a trash movie?
Conclusion: Bad movie, not worth wasting your time and that is my first and last impression.


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


user
The action in this movie beats Sunny bhai in Gadar. Akshay Kumar possess the superpowers of Leonidus in 300, Neo in Matrix along with Spiderman and Superman. It is hilarious. Except for the typical Akshay Kumar and Anil Kapoor comedy I cannot see anything positive in this film. The story looks like the writer told his 10yr old son to write. The movie is so unreal that Anil Kapoors long range shooting with a shotgun is the least most mistake by the director. Except for the directors Tashan to make this movie there is no other Tashan. I regret wasting my money on this movie and I would not recommend it to anybody. 1/10 is the least I can give on IMDb or I would give it a zero.


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 some expectation for the movie, since it had a nice star cast and it is the return of the duo of Akshay and Saif. Well, I was hesitant to watch the movie because this was done by the same man who wrote the story for Dhoom franchise because I hated Dhoom 2; but if Dhoom 2 is compared to Tashan, I would say Dhoom 2 is very realistic.
When I saw the credits at the beginning, I felt nice because it was put up in a nice way. Well, the very first scene itself pis*ed me off. Then, the major drawback of the movie is the action sequences. Me and my friends were laughing our guts off watching this crappy fights. It was like Akshay against some 30 thugs and all and the thugs even got machine guns! Phew...you got to see this to understand how bad the action sequences are.
The other thing about the movie is the far too predictable story. It reminded me of some of the early 80's movies.
Well, the only thing the movie is worth is of sexy Kareena, who looked really hot in this one.And for that, I give a rating of 2 out of 10.
Guys, please..please...don't see this one thinking that it is a real gangster movie. Well, you can watch this to have some laughs at the terrible fight scenes.
Thats all.


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


user
If this is a 2008 product from one of the biggest production houses of Indian Film Industry (Yash Raj) then I am afraid it is a very long ahead for us to reach the right standards.
If you can go wrong to this length with such an enormous star cast of Anil, Akshay, Saif and Kareena, then movie making is still to be studied much harder by everyone associated with this film. The film lacks in almost all departments except cinematography and Akshay Kumar. He has a few good dialogues to render but that alone cannot make you enjoy a flick with huge expectations.
The first scene of a car going down into a river from the mountain has very cheap graphics like that of a cartoon film. That itself was a clear indicator of the director's vision. Every actor who otherwise is an asset to a movie is simply wasted. Anil Kapoor's gimmick of attempting good English falls flat most of the times. And Saif will surely hit himself thinking why he signed this movie.
In short IT'S THE BIGGEST WASTE OF RESOURSES AFTER "JHOOM BARABAR JHOOM". I would say that even "Aaja Nachle" was a better enjoyable movie than this.
One cannot understand how and why this kind of script was written and approved. The most unwanted was the flashback sequence of Akshay's love story. After the faulty script the weakest point of the movie is its music. Vishal Shekhar have given just some filler tunes to each song. The songs start off very well and suddenly the tunes drop drastically. Only one song "Falak Tak Chal" is somehow good of all in the lot. An opportunity wasted by Vishal Shekhar.
Regarding the continuity intelligence of the makers just sample this : Akshay and Saif are on the road in the hilly area of a foreign Location (probably Ladakh). In the next scene they are searching for Kareena in Haridwar and then back in the hills with Kareena in the dicky of their car. I am still thinking who wrote this.
If you manage to sit till the last then the climax is too long with silly and unnecessary stunts. You can see all the heroes walking through the storm of bullets not hurt as if they are GOD. Are we still seeing a 2008 movie with all these technical heights achieved? So no more words on this pathetic and downgrade movie but a sincere request to senior actors from their fan.
Dear Anil Kapoor & Akshay Kumar, If possible please ask for a preview of your movies after their first copy is out. As artists of such stature, you have certain responsibilities towards your fans and viewers. People still clap for you as you enter the screen in your first scenes respectively. I think this kind of movie should not see the daylight as it hampers the reputation of all associated with the movie, the actors and the production house both.


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


user
First lesson that some film makers (particularly those inspired by Hollywood) need to know - just 'style' does not sell. I guess Tashan when translated will mean style. Second, if you are hell bent on selling style, that does not spare you from having a decent story.
Tashan has some story which could have sufficed with some better director. But it is not slick. For example, all three - Saif, Kareena and Akshay - are narrators at different points in the story. But this setup is not utilized to properly. There could have been a better mix and match of their narrations. Actions sequences are from the seventies.
Cheoreography of the film is awful. I think Vaibhavi Merchant just sleep walked through this film. Vishal-Shekhar have put up a good score but it does not belong to this film. Why is there a sufi song (Dil Haara) in Tashan? Why is the cool Hinglish song (Dil Dance Maare) not on Anil Kapoor when he is the one who is English crazy?
Akshay Kumar is the saving grace of the film. But he is in his stereotyped self. You won't mind missing this film.


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


user
Shame on Yash Raj films and Aditya Chopra who seems to have lost their intelligence over the years and providing steady fare of tripe in this piece of cinematic crap thats not even worth You Tube standards. I was gritting my teeth throughout the whole flick start to finish with the schizophrenic direction, plot line that never quite materialized and on the last scene I just felt ashamed that my country and its crorepati film makers can "THROW AWAY" crores on such stupidity. Shame on the actors for taking this work and even commenting on it as some piece of work they can own up to. Saif Ali Khan -completely disappointed in your choice of film. Kareen shows enough skin for the puberty stricken and Akshay comes up as the dim-wit. Anil another retard with a pubescent fascination for English. His cronies were commendable in their acting and with the bizarre cinematography scattered in the last 15 minutes, it was enough to pop a blood vessel. DON'T WASTe any brain cells, energy or your money to go see this- Go SEE / Rent AMU -with Konkana Sensharma instead- a beautiful piece of independent film thats ever come out of India.Intelligent, poignant and a wonderful story-tale that will touch everyone with intelligent actors and gave me hope that all is not lost in Indian cinema making.


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


user
The worst movie I have seen since Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya. There is no story, no humor, no nothing! The action sequences seem more like a series of haphazard Akshay Kumar Thumbs-Up advertisements stitched together. Heavily influenced from The Matrix and Kung-Fu Hustle but very poorly executed.
I did not go a lot of expectations, but watching this movie is an exasperating experience which makes you wonder "What were these guys thinking??!!".
The only thing you might remember after watching it is an anorexic Kareena in a bikini.
The reason why I did not give a rating of '1' is that every time I think I have seen the worst, Bollywood proves me wrong.


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


user
Vijay Krishna Acharya's 'Tashan' is a over-hyped, stylized, product. Sure its a one of the most stylish films, but when it comes to content, even the masses will reject this one. Why? The films script is as amateur as a 2 year old baby. Script is king, without a good script even the greatest director of all-time cannot do anything. Tashan is produced by the most successful production banner 'Yash Raj Films' and Mega Stars appearing in it. But nothing on earth can save you if you script is bland. Thumbs down!
Performances: Anil Kapoor, is a veteran actor. But how could he okay a role like this? Akshay Kumar is great actor, in fact he's the sole saving grace. Kareena Kapoor has never looked so hot. She looks stunning and leaves you, all stand up. Saif Ali Khan doesn't get his due in here. Sanjay Mishra, Manoj Phawa and Yashpal Sharma are wasted.
'Tashan' is a boring film. The films failure at the box office, should you keep away.


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


user
Kareena Kapoor in a bikini hmmmmmmmm.
Akshay Kumar...
Anil Kapoor....
Maybe Saif....
Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....
Good Banner..
Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....
Not one good reason not to see this movie....
Or so i thought ........Didnt these people make JBJ...
Why o Why did i forget that.
For all the criticism the first half of the movie isn't that bad...
There is some intrigue and YOU FEEL A SORT OF IRRITATION MIXED WITH EXCITEMENT THAT I FELT WHEN SEEING GUY RITCHIE MOVIES LIKE LOCK STOCK AND SNATCH.
Kareena Kapoor is sizzling in a very skinny model sort of way.
Akshay Kumar is Akshay Kumar as only he can be.
Anil Kapoor is annoying but kind of funny, YOU ALMOST FORGET THAT MOST OF THE TIME YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HIM.
Saif is sidey ala Main Khiladi.. once again.
There is the occasional laugh and a few chuckles, and a few goosebumps during the kareena-saif love story (kareena in the rain, behind me on my bike hmmmmmmm).
BUT MOSTLY THIS HALF PROMISES MORE THAN IT DELIVERS.....
WHICH MAKES THE SECOND HALF ALL THE MORE UNBEARABLE....
There was almost a cheer when the interval came not only because because of the wet kareena because of what people thought were the things to come.
INSTEAD WE WERE TREATED TO MIND NUMBING TORTURE WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO PUT IN WORDS.
Saif suddenly seam like a comic sidekick...
SUDDENLY THE SEXY KAREENA LOOKS ANOREXIC, YOU REALISE THAT THE SECOND LAST FLOOR IS NOW EMPTY AND HER FACE LOOKS TO BIG FOR HER BODY ( only girls can notice this and make other guys notice the second last floor was my observation).
ANIL KAPOOR AND HIS SIDEKICKS GET ON YOUR NERVES.
Akshay Kumar is the only one who carries off the madness to some extent but even he become intolerable after a while.
ALL THE WHILE YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO ONE ABSURDITY AFTER THE OTHER.
WHY??!! WHAT??!!! WHEN?!!! WHERE?!!! WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS...
A collective gasp went trough the audience before every song in the second half, which were ordinary even without the movie around it.
Cannot relieve the trauma anymore....
CONCLUSION.
THIS MOVIE STARTS OF AS A BUZZ WHICH YOU FEEL COULD EVEN TURN OUT TO A HIGH BUT ENDS UP SLOWLY MOVING TOWARDS A HEADACHE AND THEN RAPIDLY TURNS INTO A FULL BLOWN MIGRAINE ATTACK.
Please don't watch this movie for any reason other than academic interest.
+s Cast, Akshay Kumar, first half.
+/-s what, when, how, who to much confusion.(need a book to fill this).
+s cast, the whole second half (need many pages to fill this).
total 3/10 (im trying to avoid the 1s and 2s too not seem to extreme but make no mistake this movie is unwatchable no matter how decent the first half is).


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


user
The characters are unlikeable and the script is awful. It's a waste of the talents of Deneuve and Auteuil.


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


user
"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow" appears to take place in a spotless netherworld, an era long gone by, where the biggest sin a kid could commit would be in defying the law and getting a traffic ticket. It opens with a young female auto fanatic getting the business from her arch rival, who pressures her into a car race. That's about it for the drag-racing--this B-flick is mostly concerned with rock 'n roll, man! The folks at American International were obviously fond of decent, square teens who liked to party and yet didn't mind an adult chaperone. There are a few amusing double entendres and fruity exchanges (Necking Kid: "We thought we'd come out for some fresh air"...Dad: "Where did you think you'd find it, down her throat?"), but the ghost is a little late in arriving. Brief at 65 minutes, the movie cheats us with a climactic car race that actually takes place off-screen and a pre-"Scooby Doo"-styled unmasking which makes no sense. However, for nostalgia buffs, some mindless fun. ** from ****


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


user
"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow" was one of the many '50s movies about hot-rodding teens encountering the supernatural. In this case, the teens can't pay the rent for their hangout and get evicted. With nowhere else to go, they decide on an apparently haunted house. As you may have guessed, once they arrive, some weird things start happening. And there's a twist at the end.
There's nothing in this movie that you haven't seen in other movies, but it's nice entertainment nonetheless. My favorite character was the foul-mouthed parrot. Well, let me rephrase that: he didn't talk like a character in a Quentin Tarantino movie, but he said things that we don't expect out of a bird. The movie's pure hokum, but harmless.


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


user
Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow is a typical 1950's teens in turmoil movie. It is not a horror or science fiction movie. Plot concerns a group of teens who are about to get kicked out of their "hot rod" club because they cannot meet the rent. Once kicked out, they decide to try an old Haunted House. The only saving grace for the film is that the "ghost" (Paul Blaisdell in the She Creature suit) turns out to be an out of work movie monster played by Blaisdell.


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 at a drive-in in 1959. Until "Howard the Duck" I considered this the worst movie I had ever seen. This movie tried to combine all the genera in one; comedy, horror, teenage angst, and the hot rod that must have sired "My Mother, The Car." Maybe it deserves a second viewing to see if it is an accurate reflection of it's time.


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


user
A worn-out plot of a man who takes the rap for a woman in a murder case + the equally worn-out plot of an outsider on the inside who eventually is shut out.
With such an outstanding case, one would think the film would rise above its hackneyed origins. But scene after scene drones by with no change in intensity, no character arcs, and inexplicable behavior.
The homosexuality theme was completely unnecessary -- or on the other hand, completely unexplored. It seemed to be included only to titillate the viewers. When will Hollywood learn that having gay characters does not automatically make a more compelling picture?
A regrettably dreadful movie. When will Lauren Bacall pick a good one? I expected better of her and Kristin Scott Thomas. This one is definitely one to miss.


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 must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.
The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining
The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)
If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning


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 about a male escort getting involved in a murder investigation that happened in the circle of powerful men's wives.
I thought "The Walker" would be thrilling and engaging, but I was so wrong. The pacing is painfully and excruciatingly slow, that even after 40 minutes of the film nothing happens much. Seriously, the first hour could be condensed into ten minutes. That's how slow it is.
The fact that it lacks any thrills or action scenes aggravates the boredom. It's almost shocking that even argument scenes are so plain and devoid of emotion. Maybe it is because of the stiff upper lip of the higher social class?
It's sad that "The Walker" becomes such a boring mess, despite such a strong cast. Blame it on the poor plot and even worse pacing.


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


user
Plot is not worth discussion even if it hints at corruption, murder, power and the rest of thriller related topics. Characters are interesting though sometimes. Not realistic but interesting nevertheless.
Development is slow like tea drinking ceremony. Visuals not stunning, but good enough to ease the eye strain. Good movie to watch after dinner before going to bed - nothing shocking too much, nothing overexciting. Movie sitcom style.
I liked Woody - excellent performance. Had to fight the plot inadequacy and did the job pretty good. The rest are bearable though very predictable. The whole is watchable and better than most TV 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 film is one giant pant load. Paul Schrader is utterly lost in his own bad screenplay. And his directing is about as comatose as it can be without his actually having been sleepwalking during the process.
The worst though is Woody Harrelson, whom I ordinarily like when he's properly cast. He plays "the walker", a homosexual man in D.C. who plays social companion to the bored wives of the Washington elite. He couldn't have been more one dimensional if he had been cut out of a magazine and bounced around in front of the camera on a popsicle stick. His "southern accent" is that "off the rack" version that decrescendos from the beginning to the end of every line he delivers, as though the heat and humidity of the South is still draining him of every ounce of energy he has. It is monotonous. But, his is not the worst accent in the movie. His "boyfriend", played by Moritz Bleibtreau, attempts to affect some kind of a Mid East accent that is so clumsy he can barely deliver the bad lines written for him. He is incapable of rolling his r's in spite of the fact that in real life he is German, and speaks several languages - one of them being Italian! That's kind of a good reason to cast someone else don't ya think?
From the story, to the screenplay, to the directing, to the camera work, to the performances by the leads, this movie is bad from beginning to end. The only tolerable moments in this film came from three supporting actresses: Lily Tomlin, Lauren Bacall, and Kristin Scott Thomas. Only these three managed to make it through this movie with their dignity in tact. In fact, all three are excellent, in spite of being trapped in a really bad film. Ufortunately, no one could ever be good enough to redeem this endless series of flaws. If you like these three actresses, watch them in something else. This movie is not worth your time.


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


user
The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a "walker" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.
I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the "artistic" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.
The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a "walker" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it.
As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.
Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan.


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 mediocre at best. Angie Harmon is as funny as a bag of hammers. Her bitchy demeanor from "Law and Order" carries over in a failed attempt at comedy. Charlie Sheen is the only one to come out unscathed in this horrible anti-comedy. The only positive thing to come out of this mess is Charlie and Denise's marriage. Hopefully that effort produces better results.


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 know who to blame, the timid writers or the clueless director. It seemed to be one of those movies where so much was paid to the stars (Angie, Charlie, Denise, Rosanna and Jon) that there wasn't enough left to really make a movie. This could have been very entertaining, but there was a veil of timidity, even cowardice, that hung over each scene. Since it got an R rating anyway why was the ubiquitous bubble bath scene shot with a 70-year-old woman and not Angie Harmon? Why does Sheen sleepwalk through potentially hot relationships WITH TWO OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND SEXY ACTRESSES in the world? If they were only looking for laughs why not cast Whoopi Goldberg and Judy Tenuta instead? This was so predictable I was surprised to find that the director wasn't a five year old. What a waste, not just for the viewers but for the actors as well.


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


user
The second attempt by a New York intellectual in less than 10 years to make a "Swedish" film - the first being Susan Sontag's "Brother Carl" (which was made in Sweden, with Swedish actors, no less!) The results? Oscar Wilde said it best, in reference to Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop": "One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud at the death of Little Nell." Pretty much the same thing here. "Interiors" is chock full of solemnly intoned howlers. ("I'm afraid of my anger." Looking into the middle distance: "I don't like who I'm becoming.") The directorial quotations (to use a polite term) from Bergman are close to parody. The incredibly self-involved family keep reminding us of how brilliant and talented they are, to the point of strangulation. ("I read a poem of yours the other day. It was in - I don't know - The New Yorker." "Oh. That was an old poem. I reworked it.") Far from not caring about these people, however, I found them quite hilarious. Much of the dialog is exactly like the funny stuff from Allen's earlier films - only he's directed his actors to play the lines straight. Having not cast himself in the movie, he has poor Mary Beth Hurt copy all of his thespian tics, intonations, and neurotic habits, turning her into an embarrassing surrogate (much like Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity").
The basic plot - dysfunctional family with quietly domineering mother - seems to be lifted more or less from Bergman's "Winter Light," the basic family melodrama tricked up with a lot of existential angst. It all comes through in the shopworn visual/aural tricks: the deafening scratching of a pencil on paper, the towering surf that dwarfs the people walking on the beach. etc, etc.
Allen's later "serious" films are less embarrassing, but also far less entertaining. I'll take "Interiors." Woody's rarely made a funnier movie.


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


user
"It appears that many critics find the idea of a Woody Allen drama unpalatable." And for good reason: they are unbearably wooden and pretentious imitations of Bergman. And let's not kid ourselves: critics were mostly supportive of Allen's Bergman pretensions, Allen's whining accusations to the contrary notwithstanding. What I don't get is this: why was Allen generally applauded for his originality in imitating Bergman, but the contemporaneous Brian DePalma was excoriated for "ripping off" Hitchcock in his suspense/horror films? In Robin Wood's view, it's a strange form of cultural snobbery. I would have to agree with that.


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 was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a "more pronounced depth of meaning and truth". But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is "lost" and "struggling", desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened.


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


user
Sorry everyone,,, I know this is supposed to be an "art" film,, but wow, they should have handed out guns at the screening so people could blow their brains out and not watch. Although the scene design and photographic direction was excellent, this story is too painful to watch. The absence of a sound track was brutal. The loooonnnnng shots were too long. How long can you watch two people just sitting there and talking? Especially when the dialogue is two people complaining. I really had a hard time just getting through this film. The performances were excellent, but how much of that dark, sombre, uninspired, stuff can you take? The only thing i liked was Maureen Stapleton and her red dress and dancing scene. Otherwise this was a ripoff of Bergman. And i'm no fan f his either. I think anyone who says they enjoyed 1 1/2 hours of this is,, well, lying.


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 lacked something I couldn't put my finger on at first: charisma on the part of the leading actress. This inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man. Even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play. It could very well have been the director who miscalculated what he needed from the actors. I just don't know.
But could it have been the screenplay? Just exactly who was the chef in love with? He seemed more enamored of his culinary skills and restaurant, and ultimately of himself and his youthful exploits, than of anybody or anything else. He never convinced me he was in love with the princess.
I was disappointed in this movie. But, don't forget it was nominated for an Oscar, so judge for yourself.


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 the kind of movie that my enemies content I watch all the time, but it's not bloody true. I only watch it once in a while to make sure that it's as bad as I first thought it was.
Some kind of mobsters hijack a Boeing 747. (That, at least, is an improvement over having Boeing hijack a good part of the Pentagon.) The airplane goes down in the Bermuda triangle and sinks pressurized to the bottoms, a kind of post-facto submarine.
It has one of those all-star casts, the stars either falling or barely above the horizon.
"We're on our own!", says pilot Jack Lemon. He is so right. Except for George Kennedy. He's in all these disaster movies.
Watch another movie instead. Oh, not "Airport" the original. That's no good either. Instead, watch a decent flick about stuck airplanes like "Flight of the Phoenix."


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


user
Towards the end of the movie, I felt it was too technical. I felt like I was in a classroom watching how our Navy performs rescues at sea. I liked seeing that the engines have fire extinguishers. I guess I should have figured that out before, but I never thought about it. Using a 747 to transport valuable old paintings with very little security is odd and not realistic. The acting was pretty good, since they're mostly seasoned professionals, but if you're going to stretch so far from what would most likely happen, it should be more like a fantasy, comical, etc. Everything was taken too seriously. At least the movie had Felix Ungar as pilot, with Buck Rogers, the night stalker, and Dracula also on board. The movie was filled with well known faces. I understand that Hollywood has to exaggerate a bit for drama, but it does hurt the quality of a movie when a serious subject is made into a caricature. That's why I said it should have been more comical. My pet peeve with movies about airline travel is that everybody just casually moves about. They walk around with drinks, setting them down and picking them up 5 minutes later, just as if they're in a building or something, and acting as if turbulence just doesn't exist. Also, I know it's a disaster movie, but suspense doesn't have to include a 30 second crash after hitting something. Anyway, the skilled actors and actresses keep this weak script from having been made into a movie that got canned after it's first screening. I like Lee Grant, but it was fun to watch a psychotic person get decked...:)


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


user
Capt. Gallagher (Lemmon) and flight attendant Eve Clayton (Vaccaro) are a supposedly hot item in this death trip; a luxury 747 airliner decked out to look like a nightclub-slash-hotel there's even a blind piano player who falls in love. Karen Wallace (Grant) is the hysterical b!$3& who'll do anything to get attention from henpecked husband Martin (Christopher Lee) and, later, the rest of the people on board.
Memorable Moments: Boeing 747 doing a belly flop in the Atlantic Ocean, Karen getting her chops busted when she goes too far, and furniture (and screaming people) who become 'ball bearings' in a sinking 'pinball machine.'
The action and rescue sequences here are relatively phenomenal, but not much goes on in between. Hitchcock was supposed to have directed this sequel, but I forget the reason why not He would've done wonders for the 1970 original, on which this sequel is partly inspired ('77 also got inspiration from `The Flight of the Phoenix').
Actors Cotten and de Havilland reunite from their days on `Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte' (apparently here they are not playing heavies, just reunited Autumn Years' lovers). And isn't the actress playing Emily's companion the same one who played the hammered-to-death maid on `Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'
TV actors include the girlfriend from `Mayberry RFD' (her character's daughter wins a drawing contest, or something lame like that), `Buck Rogers' Gil Gerard and `Dynasty's' Pamela Bellwood.



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


user
Although the production and Jerry Jameson's direction are definite improvements, "Airport '77" isn't much better than "Airport 1975": slick, commercial rubbish submerging (this time literally) a decent cast. Jack Lemmon is the pilot of a packed airliner which gets hijacked by art thieves and crashes into the sea (all the publicity claimed it was near the Bermuda Triangle, but there's no mention of it in the film itself). When the rescue ships come to raise the airplane out of the water, we see all their cranes dropping (rather blindly) into the ocean and it's hard not to laugh (imagining the cranes plugging the plane, the passengers and the waterlogged script). NBC used to air what appeared to be the "director's cut", with at least an hour of extra footage--mostly flashbacks--injected into the proceedings with all the subtlety of a "Gilligan's Island" episode. Most exciting moment is the plane crash, and some of the players have a little fun: Lee Grant is an obnoxious drunk, Brenda Vaccaro a no-nonsense stewardess, Joseph Cotten and Olivia de Havilland are flirting oldsters. Still, the personality conflicts and the excruciating military detail eventually tear at one's patience. ** from ****


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


user
I saw this piece of garbage on AMC last night, and wonder how it could be considered in any way an American Movie Classic. It was awful in every way. How badly did Jack Lemmon, James Stewart and the rest of the cast need cash that they would even consider doing this movie?


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


user
Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to "Alive" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.
Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.
The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.
Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...
WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.
Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.
Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!
Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.
Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.
WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.
WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start?
Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.
WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?!
WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.
So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.
As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).
The very end, however, is quote lame.


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


user
Ah yez, the Sci Fi Channel produces Yeti another abominable movie. I was particularly taken by the scenes immediately following the crash where, as the survivors desperately searched for matches, at least a half dozen fires burned  with no apparent reason  at various points of the wreckage. Fire seemed to be a predominate theme throughout. They searched corpses for lighters and matches, and finally finding a box built a fire every day for, apparently, 12, but no one ever gathered wood. Then when the vegan (hah) burned the bodies, what did she use for an accelerant? I mean these guys were frozen  well maybe not. Despite the apparent low temperature everything the yeti ate, bled. Maybe it's just me, but even in a totally unbelievable tale (none of the survivors had ever heard of a yeti, or an abominable snowman, until the very end), if you take care of the little things the bigger deals become more acceptable. Oh, what did the prologue (1972) have to do with the remainder of the movie? And the revolver, warm enough to hold in his hand, froze up and wouldn't fire. Gimme a break. Well, at least we have Carly Pope, another eminently lovely Canadian lass. And, with little irony, Ed Marinaro as the coach.
Well I might as well add, the rabbit they ate (despite it looking like chicken) is not a rodent, but a lagomorph. Now if it had been a squirrel (or a rat) it would have been a rodent, but it still looked like chicken. And the writers missed a real chance to have someone note "It tastes just like..."


assistant
0