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
please save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and "a night at the roxbury." this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can!


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


user
Admittedly, I didn't have high expectations of "Corky Romano." But then again, who did? However, I felt it deserved the benefit of the doubt. I had no high hopes of "Joe Dirt" either--another recent comedy starring an SNL cast member--and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. But this film is just as bad as it looks in the previews. Chris Kattan is actually a talented comic actor--contrary to what you might think after watching this movie--with great energy. He's been in many hilarious SNL skits, and I think he's one of the most talented cast members on SNL as of now. In this case, he's given a lame, pointless script and he tries to remedy each scene with his incessant mugging. Throughout each scene, he attempts a lame Jerry Lewis act and fails miserably. Jerry Lewis knew how to pull off this type of physical comedy, not to mention he worked with much better writing. Kattan simply looks like some ignorant fool with ADHD who had one too many Cafe Lattes. He doesn't even wait for the punchline; he assumes we'll all laugh once he starts jumping around like an ape on crack. In one scene, he ends up in a tugging match with a dog who has a package of cocaine in his mouth. The package explodes and the cocaine splashes all over him. He comes back to the job, strung out on coke. Now, how are we supposed to laugh at the fact that he's acting hyper and on-edge, when he's doing the same thing throughout the whole film?
As for the rest of the cast members...Vanessa Shaw is really hot, Peter Berg is wasted in a thankless role and so is Chris Penn. Peter Falk is also wasted, though he has a few funny lines that I'm pretty sure he improvised. I hope Falk gets a decent movie someday soon. That's too much talent too waste on a clunker like "Corky Romano." I didn't like Falk's last movie "Made" all that much either, but at least he had a decent role.
I chuckled a few times, but I could not get a single laugh. Each gag is performed with no sense of timing or delivery. And it's made worse by Kattan's hammy acting. And there are certain gags that are streneously dragged out. For example, when Kattan is about to fart in his two brothers' faces. He stands there for 2 or 3 minutes, trying to get out a fart and when he finally he does it's a little tiny one. It's bad enough when you have a gag that's funny and drag it out, but when you have a lame gag and you drag it out it's a hell of a lot worse. And another example of this is when he tries to translate what those two Asian men are saying during a drug bust. I can go on and on about what's wrong with this so-called comedy, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Like I said earlier, if you predicted bad things from the trailers--you predicted right.
My score: 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
Chris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL.


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


user
This may not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!
Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.
Avoid this movie like the plague.
c


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


user
I didn't mind the film that much, but it was incredibly dull and boring. A few laughs here and there but nothing to go crazy for.
You should give it a go if you like silly, stupid humour because this is the film for you.


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


user
I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5)


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


user
Wonderful actors.
Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back.


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


user
For me, this movie just seemed to fall on its face. The main problem for me was the casting of Glover as a serial killer. I don't know whether this grows out of type-casting or simply his demeanor, but I doubt Glover could ever portray a convincing villain. He's a good guy, and that's always obvious in his performances. Other than that the film is your run of the mill serial killer story. Nothing very innovative .


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


user
Sorry, not good.
It starts out interesting, but looses its way a few minutes into the movie.
It does not help a lot that none of the normally great actors (Quaid, Glover, Ermey, Leto etc.) delivers a really good performance.
It might be owed to the fact that I saw a dubbed version (german), but Dennis Quaid's character was especially wooden and annoying, and Danny Glover does not really make for a believable villain. Moreover, Jared Leto's character does not really contribute to the story whatsoever (except saving one main character's life at one point, but that scene is as necessary as a windshield wiper on a submarine in the first place ;-)
Speaking of unnecessary scenes - the main complaint is really the tangled and cliché-ridden storyline: The detective (of course!) has to settle a personal matter with the villain and is (of course!) suspended from his official duties courtesy of his personal entanglement. The killer (of course!) *wants* to be tracked down and plays a cat-and-mouse game with his opponent for years ... I don't know how many movies build on a similar plot - most of them better, however.
The plot has got holes galore and many completely unbelievable and unnecessary scenes that do not contribute to or work well with the storyline at all (e.g. the truck stop scene or the car at the cliff's edge etc.)
To top it off, the ending tries to be original and exciting, but fails completely in these regards. We've seen *much* better finales with a similar kind of ultimate-battle-on-a-train-in-a-forlorn-winter-landscape setup ... In the end there is the supposedly moving reunion of parent and child ... hokey, at the least.


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


user
I have seen this movie at the cinema many years ago, and one thing surprised me so negatively that I could not see any redeeming virtues in the movies: Dennis Quaid was cast as a policeman that never smiles or grin, while his smile and grin are two of his trademarks. Danny Glover was cast as the bad guy, but - again - most viewers' imagination could not go far enough as to believe him in that role. Also, Jared Leto was not believable as the former medicine student. The tension was just not there, since the killer was known very early. The finale was, again, neither dramatic nor tense: nobody around me cared about what was going to happen next. All we could wait for was the end of the movie. All in all, a disappointing evening spent at the cinema.


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


user
Very disappointing version of Lorna Doone. Too many missing characters, no romantic scenes, changes in story line, too short, appeared low budget. Hardly enough dialogue to understand the story if you're not familiar with the novel. In some scenes it looks like Lorna has a cold sore on her upper lip. I'm sure make-up did it's best to hide it. I guess they didn't want to halt filming until it healed up, pity. Most likely why this movie lacked kissing scenes. Only one disappointing kissing scene at the very end. Lorna Doone is a great epic tale and should be told true. The 2000 version of Lorna Doone is twice as long, more romantic, much more enjoyable and more true to the book.


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


user
I watched this film version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!
This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the "romance" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his "death", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation.


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


user
I first read "Lorna Doone" about 20 years ago and absolutely loved it! It is a classic historical romance set in the 1600s when the west country was several days' journey from London and law and order was much harder to enforce. Sadly, this version of the book takes several liberties with the story and was incredibly disappointing in my opinion. The acting and production values are OK but the way the story was messed about with was dreadful. Why do television adaptations do this? Why would they think that the thousands of fans of a book would want them to change the story??? One of life's great mysteries!!! The BBC made an excellent version which was televised at Christmas in the early 1990s which I am still trying to track down a copy of! Take my advice, read the book and don't bother with this paltry version!


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


user
I have 2 words for you. Sean Bean. He is the only worthwhile presence in this film. But even so, don't see this movie. Even though he is good as the main villain, you don't want to waste your time.
I didn't care about the characters (except the little boy) and in fact, I didn't really care if the star crossed lovers ended up together or died. The movie did not make me care or BELIEVE that these people cared about each other at all. I have read a lot of "classic" novels after seeing the movies and this movie made me not even want to read the book. The story seems so boring. But I may go ahead and read it to try to redeem the story in my head.
Stay away from Lorna Doone. The actress who played Lorna was also in Sense and Sensibility and she was much better in that. Watch Sharpe, Horatio Hornblower, A & E has great movies of novels like Pride and Prejudice. Or miniseries like the Forsyte Saga. Check them out, don't bother with Lorna Doone.


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


user
Extremely dull drama starring a very young Roddy McDowall, who trains a wild horse, the Flicka of the title, and is the only reason for watching the movie in the first place. Coated in blaring, overbearing music and weighed down by schmaltzy dialogue, this is one of those interminable films that bores you to the point of a gnawing headache. The naffly-titled sequel, 'Thunderhead, Son of Flicka', in which McDowall trains the next generation of nag, is marginally better than the original but the pace remains slow and the score continues to pummel you into submission, although there are at least one or two scenes that don't induce a coma.


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


user
Unless you are petrified of Russian people or boars, this movie is a snorefest. Actually, I fell asleep about 40 minutes in & had to fight the urge to just leave the theater. I wish I had. A waste of a perfectly lovely Saturday evening.
Even "Silent Hill" was scarier. Heck, even "Pan's Labyrinth" was scarier. I'm still unclear on what was supposed to be scary in this flick.
To begin with, I'm very leery of movies that use "pidgin Russian" like this one did in the opening credits. It's embarrassing to me since I brought a group of my Russian friends & we all cringed. Oh my god.
Hmm. Well, luckily for me (& probably you, too) this movie has already escaped my brain & I just stepped out of it an hour ago. So I have no specifics, just murky visuals that go nowhere & some languishing-now-dead hope that anything would happen.
Perhaps I saw a completely mutilated version of this film because I can't believe it got such great reviews here (which is why I saw it) & ended up being so completely devoid of not only Horror or Suspense but Overall Entertainment Value as well.
I give it a 2 because, yes, I fell asleep & wanted to leave after 40 minutes but I woke up & didn't leave.


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


user
There were some scary scenes, which I've always liked more than straight out gore, but otherwise this movie was rather weak. THere were too many questions left unanswered, and when they tried to explain anything in the movie, it was still rather unclear. After watching this movie I still seemed lost in a lot of ways. It sort of reminded me of Silent Hill a few years back. That movie was also unsatisfying, but still better than this because it did try to work and the story did actually make sense. This one, not so much.
The acting for the most part in the Abandoned was decent, but the movie dragged on an on, and never really gave any type of satisfying conclusion. Like I said above, there were some creepy scenes, but otherwise, this movie was a mess. Sorry, I can't recommend it.


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


user
Sorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed


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


user
To quote the film, "It's better not to know. Better still to forget. Best of all to be abandoned." Oh, the irony.
A ghost story with all the technical refinements of a Hollywood horror film, but horrifyingly bad dialogue after the first quarter of the film, and you feel like you're being preached to from the start.
It's as if the writers' cumulative character dialogue can be summed up by bad cop TV and a Jerry Springer show. Fitting, maybe, for a film like The Hitcher, not a Russia-set horror film. The result is that a potentially great setting and some potentially great gore scenes go to waste and become just silly, not scary or meaningful.


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


user
I'm going to go on the record as the second person who has, after years of using the IMDb to look up movies, been motivated by Nacho's film, The Abandoned to create an account and post a comment. This was hands down the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. The plot was on the verge of non-existence, and none of the "puzzle-pieces" added up in any way whatsoever. The acting was laughable and the writing was embarrassing. How this film got backed and came to be is completely beyond me. The only saving grace I could find was Anastasia Hille's cunning and repetitive use of the f word. (and brilliant sound design) If I were faced with the option of seeing this film again or being mauled by wild bores I would be up against a difficult decision. I'm disappointed that I am unable to give it 0 stars.


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


user
A different look at horror. The styling differences between American and Russian films is interesting. However from my American perspective this movie just wasn't that good. The protagonist, Marie played by Anastasia Hille wasn't a pleasant character and I had a hard time identifying with her. She was disagreeable most of the time and confused for much of what little time was left. Also too much time was spent in bringing her to the main location of the film. Then a long time passed before any real suspense built up. Once that happened it seemed volume was used as the main effect which was more annoying than anything else. The concept was more original than most Direct-to-video movies and they didn't use sex to make up for a thin plot. All in all I'd recommend it for renting, but not for theater goers.


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 is an utter waste of time, the plot is awful, the dialogue is awful.
The acting is OK, but the actors have absolutely no plot or script to work with. The photography and some of the special effects are OK, too, but again there is nothing interesting in this movie to watch. There is no logical progression to the story, the story line is utter nonsense. It isn't even scary. For a movie to be scary, there has to be at least a small element of believability. This movie has no believability at all.
There are only three characters in the movie. Each character is shallow and has no personality.
Most of the special effects and make up work are both badly done, or at most mediocre.
I hope you read this and do not waste time on this movie unless you are curious to see an entirely awful movie.


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 is simply not worth the time or money spent. Full of clichés and a plot that makes absolutely no sense ! I cant believe that so many people have given this awful movie a 10. My guess is they are stooges of the movie maker.
If I could give this movie a zero, I would. Too bad IMDb doesn't allow that.
The only reason I watched it because I went with a friend who really wanted to see it. Whats sad is that I never had great expectations from this movie to begin with and yet I felt short changed. Take my word, don't waste your $8 on this piece of trash. The only entertainment I got out of the movie was making fun of the directors name. In all, highly NOT RECOMMENDED !


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 is a waste of time and money. Throughout the entire hour and a half, I continued to wait for it to get better and it never did. It was slow moving, the plot jumped around, it wasn't scary or interesting, and really never amounted to anything. The credits during the introduction were long and drawn out, which was basically like the rest of the movie (long and drawn out). Numerous parts of the plot made no sense. Several times during the movie I had thought that maybe I had "zoned out" because the incongruity of the plot, however, my companion had the same issue and assured me I did not "zone out" from boredom, but it was indeed the movie. I've actually never posted on here about a movie before and have been actively looking up movies on IMDb for numerous years. So the fact that I'm actually taking the time to write something should speak volumes of how bad this movie is and that you should not waste your time or money on it.


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


user
This film (along with Rinne) are minor gems amongst the retread homage pics that have passed for horror movies so far at the 8FTDF "HorrorFest." And, yes, that's faint praise indeed. 'Cause there's not much worse in filmdom than would-be auteurs who think atmosphere is a substitute for a coherent plot.
And that's all you get with The Abandoned. This is a film that was made almost entirely in the directors head. Sure, it would have been nice if he'd transfered it to film, but this happened instead. It's a very pretty film with a few genuine scares, but the last reel is strictly for the latte slurping cineaste crowd.


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 based on the true-life relationship, as purported, between Ms. Curtin and Mr. Levinson, I'm thrilled I do not know them personally. This is painfully slow, and both characters take stupid pills liberally throughout the movie while the theme song gets played into the ground. Many stupid scenes with people acting stupid does not make for a comedy.


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


user
I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay!


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


user
One of the weaker Carry On adventures sees Sid James as the head of a crime gang stealing contraceptive pills. The fourth of the series to be hospital-based, it's possibly the least of the genre. There's a curiously flat feel throughout, with all seemingly squandered on below-par material. This is far from the late-70s nadir, but Williams, James, Bresslaw, Maynard et al. are all class performers yet not given the backing of a script equal to their ability.
Most of the gags are onrunning, rather than episodic as Carry Ons usually are. So that instead of the traditional hit and miss ratio, if you don't find the joke funny in the first place you're stuck with it for most of the film. These continuous plot strands include Williams  for no good reason  worrying that he's changing sex, and Kenneth Cope in drag. Like the stagy physical pratt falls, the whole thing feels more contrived than in other movies, and lacking in cast interest. Continuing this theme, Matron lacks the customary pun and innuendo format, largely opting for characterisation and consequence to provide the humour. In fact, the somewhat puerile series of laboured misunderstandings and forced circumstance reminds one more of Terry and June ... so it's appropriate that Terry Scott is present, mugging futilely throughout.
Some dialogue exchanges have a bit of the old magic, such as this between Scott and Cope: "What about a little drink?" "Oh, no, no, I never touch it." "Oh. Cigarette then?" "No, I never touch them." "That leaves only one thing to offer you." "I never touch that either." That said, while a funny man in his own right (livening up the duller episodes of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) no end), you do feel that Cope isn't quite tapped in to the self-parodying Carry On idealology and that Bernard Bresslaw dressed as a nurse would be far funnier. This does actually happen, in part, though only for the last fifteen minutes.
Williams attempting to seduce Hattie Jacques while Charles Hawtrey is hiding in a cupboard is pure drawer room farce, but lacks the irony to carry it off. That said, Williams's description of premarital relations is priceless: "You don't just go into the shop and buy enough for the whole room, you tear yourself off a little strip and try it first!" "That may be so," counters Jacques, "but you're not going to stick me up against a wall." Williams really comes to life in his scenes with Hattie, and you can never get bored of hearing a tin whistle whenever someone accidentally flashes their knickers.
Carry On Matron is not a bad film by any means, just a crushingly bog-standard one.


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


user
CARRY ON MATRON was released in 1972 and it's becoming clear that the series has reached a natural end with the best entries like CLEO , UP THE KYBER and SCREAMING being from the mid to late 60s
In itself MATRON is by no means bad it's just that we've seen it all before with a thin plot ( A bunch of spivs trying to break into a hospital to steal a supply of contraceptive pills which they plan to sell to third world countries ) surrounded by gags of a slightly amusing though unsophisticated nature . I think that's where the problem lies - The gags aren't all that amusing with the unsophisticated nature starting to show its age . Did we need another movie that uses a man dressed up as a woman in order to drive the plot ? Perhaps the worst criticism I can make is that I saw CARRY ON MATRON this afternoon , less that twelve hours ago and I have a problem in trying to remember a very funny line . That's a serious problem for a comedy


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


user
It's interesting to see what shape Pierce Brosnan's career was in before Bond arrived on the scene. In this "tense" thriller, Pierce Brosnan plays the gentle Patrick, who works leading ghetto kids on "confidence courses". He romances a woman, who has a bog-standard mop-top mid-90s kid called Eric. The woman's drunken ex-husband soon arrives on the scene and begins to mess with Pierce.
At one stage Pierce is innocently making "vegeburgers". The husband enters. Pierce resumes making vegeburgers. The husband then assaults Pierce. Little chunks of half-eaten vegeburger call fall from Pierce's mouth. The fight abruptly ends without showing the outcome. This is as good as the film gets.



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


user
Who me? No, I'm not kidding. That's what it really says on the video case.
Plot; short version: Pretty woman stands around smiling. This, for some reason, makes all men kill each other.
"Find Ariel...Where's Ariel...Can't Find Ariel..." She's right behind you, you idiot...
Most of what can be said about this horrendous little Space Opera has already been said, looks like.
A bunch of corny actors playing mostly convicts come in after the first selection of actors is knocked off very quickly. Then they get knocked off in the same way. Every scene is broadcast nearly fifteen minutes in advance. Perhaps it was a drawing of straws to see which actors had the most screen time and bigger pay check. The alien virus/hologram/VR witch/glitch seems physically powerless and doesn't do a thing. Why can't she just stay in the computer instead of doing her "teleporting vampire" routine? (Actually, it would've been more interesting if she had been a vampire, or doing more than just standing around looking at people, which is all she ever does. This is enough to make all the men kill each other. Go figure...)
This isn't really a space flick. There are far more shots of the old western trail, 1950's Easy Rider trail, Film noir's night club scene, even a jog on the beach in fantasy-land, none of which has any real depth or even makes any sense. The night club scene is in black and white, of course. Worked with "The Wizard of Oz". Doesn't work so well, here. This is probably a good thing, as those few shots they DO show of space are depressingly silly. You will probably cry during those moments, especially upon seeing that swirling "space ship", which looks about three inches long.
Nothing is felt for any of the characters, not because they are convicts or have no personality, but because they are in serious need of acting lessons, except for Billy Dee Williams who really does look depressed and at a loss, probably by being in this work...
This is one of those movies that, when viewed with friends, is going to cause some extremely "loud" silences, especially when the nerd throws out his attempt at comic one-liners (including the line about French-kissing a meteor...? Did I hear that right? Perhaps not...)
The original virtual reality girls get "killed", which means nothing, as they are not even real to begin with. Well, the other "characters" aren't, either, but that's beside the point. Haha.
What's kind of funny is that the scene that graces the video case is some sort of skull-horror-alien looking thing (green filter added on top of that, to give it more of a...uh...green look), which is actually the android after he gets killed and ultimately has nothing to do with anything else afoot.
Another odd deal I noticed. Whenever there is an explosion (at least on my cheap DVD copy), everything becomes highly pixelated. I don't mean a LITTLE pixelated, I mean HUGE blocks about 1/16th the size of the screen. Wow.


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


user
As usual, on IMDb, going by the majority vote instead of the "weighted average" is far more indicative of the movie's entertainment value. In this case, the majority gives it a "one". How right they are! To start my review, I'll first admit that I am completely clueless as to why this movie is titled "Alien Intruder". It does involve space and even an "alien" (I suppose), but there's no rhyme or reason (at all) for anything in the long run, at least, no actual plot basis or resolution that I can make out anywhere.
There are quite a few scenes that are so atrocious (with regard to both the lines, the timing, and how they are spoken), that it far exceeds the weird feeling you get when watching similar really bad movies. I have no idea about that part near the beginning where an electronic Bugs Bunny seems to be ranting about something.
The "plot" solely involves an area of space known as the G-Spot, sorry, make that G-Sector...and a virtual reality program infected with some sort of alien(?) virus. I think it is alien since the image of the otherwise normal Ariel appears as a photographic negative.
For most of the movie, we see people getting shot with space weapons, falling out of lofts, and seemingly endless, pointless close shots of "Where's Ariel?", "Can't find Ariel" (pointless because most of the other shots INCLUDE interaction with Ariel, anyway - whatever) on a computer monitor. Commander Skyler (Billy Dee), sits and watches each fantasy of the convict's VR programs hoping to find this Alien virus and become one with it...??? Or maybe I missed something...
Billy Dee Williams took a few courses on "how to act in despair" prior to the filming of this. We know this because he spends a lot of time moving his fingers down over his face and looking mournful.
The docking scene with the nose of one ship going into the rear of the other was semi-hilarious at least, and provided for a laugh in addition to the early scenes where we see several shots of the ship as it is just spinning in a circle, looking much like a Lego experiment gone awry.
It seems everyone dies in this movie, so why bother? Even the VR females get killed, as if that is supposed to mean anything (especially since everyone else dies anyway)...outrageous.
Because of the money I save on groceries, I won't rant about wanting my money back that I paid for the DVD of this. The dollar that I saved on that bag of vanilla wafers paid for this reviewer's time.
I'll just add that the story itself, at least as a novel, and with far more detail added, could probably be quite interesting with the right author.
1/10


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


user
I couldn't believe it. I had to rub my eyes a few times. Was it true?
Yes, there were Billy Dee Williams, Jeff Conaway, Maxwell Caulfield and Tracy Scoggins - all of them have some manner of talent but here they all were in what basically adds up to a Cinemax-style skin flick set on board a spaceship!
Sad as it is, "Alien Intruder" tries to be unique, with a computer virus/alien demon/harpy/whatever else you want to call her named Ariel (Scoggins) infiltrating this sort-of high-tech virtual reality station on board a spaceship where four men are allowed to live out their fantasies as the system is over-seen by their captain (Williams).
Interesting? Maybe, but here everything just plays out like a well-padded episode of "Red Shoe Diaries". Williams out-classes everything right and left, and looks like he'd rather be doing anything else, ANYWHERE else. Ah, the things people do for money....
The FX are pretty static, maybe even less than what you'd expect for a straight-to-video cheapie like this. Unfortunately, even the female nudity is less than you'd expect. SEXUAL INNUENDO is the real star here and, of course, it gets ALL the best scenes.
If you like a movie that's all tease and no brains, check out "Alien Intruder". Of course, you'll probably have to look no further than Cinemax at 2 or 3 in the morning.
No stars, not even for what star power this flick can muster.
Leave this one lost in space.


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


user
This tiresome, plodding Las Vegas casino heist movie in almost impossible to watch and get involved in. It's something you 'look at' if you have absolutely nothing else better to do. The only two decent things in this movie are both attached to gorgeous Stella Stevens and one spends the entire program hoping she'll fall out of one of those skimpy tops she wears. Many great shots of mid-70s Las Vegas (when it was still a cool place to visit) and the fashions of the day are good for a giggle as well. Otherwise, one big yawn. The Rhino dvd has a very good widescreen transfer but even at under 10 bucks it still ain't worth it in my humble opinion.


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


user
Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN.


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


user
Snow White, which just came out in Locarno, where I had the chance to see it, of course refers to the world famous fairy tale. And it also refers to coke. In the end, real snow of the Swiss Alps plays its part as well.
Thus all three aspects of the title are addressed in this film. There is a lot of dope on scene, and there is also a pale, dark haired girl - with a prince who has to go through all kind of trouble to come to her rescue.
But: It's not a fairy tale. It's supposed to be a realistic drama located in Zurich, Switzerland (according to the Tagline).
Technically the movie is close to perfect. Unfortunately a weak plot, foreseeable dialogs, a mostly unreal scenery and the mixed acting don't add up to create authenticity. Thus as a spectator I remained untouched.
And then there were the clichés, which drove me crazy one by one: Snow White is a rich and spoiled upper class daughter - of course her parents are divorced and she never got enough love from them, because they were so busy all the time. Her best girlfriend, on the other hand, has loving and caring parents. They (a steelworker and a housewife) live in a tiny flat, poor and happy - and ignorant of the desperate situation their daughter is in. The good guy (= prince) is a musician (!) from the French speaking part of Switzerland (which is considered to be the economically less successful but emotionally fitter fraction of the country). He has problems with his parents. They are migrants from Spain, who don't seem to accept his wild way of living - until the father becomes seriously ill and confesses his great admiration for his son from a hospital bed.
And so it goes on: Naturally, the drug dealer is brutal, the bankers are heartless, the club owner is a playboy and the photographer, although a woman (!), has only her career in mind when she exposes Snow White in artsy pornographic pictures at a show.
This review doesn't need a spoiler in order to let you add these pieces to an obvious plot. As I like other films by Samir, e.g. "Forget Baghdad", I was quite disappointed. Let's hope for the next one.


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


user
This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song "piyu bole" is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized.
Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.
This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world.


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


user
I stopped watching lost at this episode because I thought Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths were unnecessary and really depressing. Then I found out that they kept Libby around just to die in the next episode! Gah! I can't handle it.
I liked this show for the first season, but it definitely declined in the second season, I found Jack and Locke's little religious feud to be annoying. The deaths of Rodriguez & Watros' characters was the final straw!
I give this episode a 4/10, for being the end to my viewing of this formerly great series created by Alias legend J.J. Abrams. I hope his series in the future will improve 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
I was honestly surprised by Alone in the Dark. It was so bad, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few stereotypes wandering around and getting killed. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a pounding techno track. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by horrible sound design. ADR sounded like it was recorded in an open room. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a lot of fun watching it. Definitely not worth nine bucks though.


assistant
0