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
I was very disappointed in this movie. Plotwise it was weak bordering on silly: Souls who can affect reality in the way they do? A mission apparently critical to the Soul Hunters entrusted to one of their younger members? And the whole B-story with the "holobrothel" and the lawsuit against the station was so awful that at one point I blurted out to the television, "Why are you wasting my time with this?"
Thematically, "River of Souls" didn't really go into the question of the soul in any more depth than the original episode "Soul Hunter" did. We see that Soul Hunters can make mistakes, but we still don't get a feeling for their culture. (Are there any female Soul Hunters?)
The acting was okay, given the material they had to work with, and the special effects - especially the planetscapes in the first act - were very impressive. But overall, I'd say give this one a miss.


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


user
Went to see this movie hoping to see some flashes of the Jet Li we were amazed by in Lethal Weapon 4. Unfortunately too many of his fight stunts are so clearly fake that it took even that enjoyment out of it. The flying kicks would be a lot more impressive if you couldn't see the wires holding him up as he flies through the air for 4 seconds and 9 kicks.
Too cartoonish and very disappointing.


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


user
It's hard to believe an "action" packed Jet Li movie could be so boring, but this was transcendant trash. The plot is an amalgam of other Hong Kong chopsocky flicks. The martial arts action is all special effects and no human talent.
It's a comic book story about a group of super-human soldiers who are to be killed because they're mentally unstable, one of their number (Li) who holds off an incompetent army to save them and rebuilds a life as a pacifist librarian. The saved killers resurface with an Austin Powers quality plot to take over the world, and Li sheds his new life to save the world.
The version I saw was dubbed, and that may have accentuated the cheesiness of the wafer-thin plot and comic-book 25 cent special effects. But I suspect even Ninja-Turtle-watching 8-year olds would have found this juvenile and hollow.


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


user
I rated this a 3. The dubbing was as bad as I have seen. The plot - yuck. I'm not sure which ruined the movie more. Jet Li is definitely a great martial artist, but I'll stick to Jackie Chan movies until somebody tells me Jet's English is up to par.


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


user
"Hak Hap", or "Black Mask" (in english) was a disappointment. I was told that it was a sort of "Japanese version of the Matrix". Imagine my disappointment. The film was either badly dubbed or the soundtrack didn't time well with the film. Another thing is that the dialogue was pretty much bad. There was very little thought put into the English version of this film and it appeals only to the "senseless action" genre. Not a film I would want to see again.


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


user
Jet Li, is one of the best hand to hand combat fighters in the world. He has been for over 20 years and he puts others in the genre to shame. While he is big in Asia, he is almost unknown here in the US.
Black Mask is supposed to be a breakout movie for him, but it fails horribly. First of all, it is dubbed. While it may have camp value (the dubbing isn't even close and it is flat in tone), it seems inappropriate for the ordinary movie viewer. Secondly, the director in this movie, Daniel Lee, does a horrible job. He cuts scenes so fast, at times, you don't know what's going on. Other times, the camera shakes and wobbles. Fans see Jet Li's movies for the fantastic martial arts. However, the director edits the scenes so fast that you don't even know who's who half the time! Other times, a scene is left hanging (ie Li is beginning to cut a hole in the floor of a jeep, while the badguys arm their guns, two seconds later, both Li and the love interest are already under the car!) Other scenes are so improbable, that they cross over the point of being completely ridiculous (killer CD roms? Just give him Throwing Stars!!!!). Li, needs a director who is less prone to machine gun cutting and more to creating a cinematic mise-a-scene. The added rap/techno music goes from being okay to intrusive. The plot has possibilities but are all squandered by cartoonish characters that take away from any credibility that this movie strives for. And are we really to believe that the love interest would not recognize Simon, because he has a half mask on? Wouldn't the hair, lower jaw, or voice give it away?
If you want to see a Jet Li movie, try Iron Monkey or his classic Shaolin Temple. This disjointed mess is a complete waste of time.....2/10


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


user
Lame, cliched superhero action movie drivel. I had high hopes for this movie, and the genre of HK buddy cop actioneers is one that i don't despise, but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. This would have been forgivable, as it always is in these kinds of movies, when the action compensates, unfortunately, it did not. The action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of HK action, but it's not very involving, obscenely gory, and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re-editing for american release, it does show signs in many places of patchwork). I was very disappointed.


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


user
The movie was awful. The theater was dead with silence 'cause everyone was embarrassed to be in there watching such trash. I think someone gave Jet Li a lobotomy and made him perform a script with dialogue written by a five year old. The martial arts are 'ok', but when put next to the Jackie Chan movies and "The Matrix" you're better off seeing one of those.


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


user
This was the worst movie I saw at WorldFest and it also received the least amount of applause afterwards! I can only think it is receiving such recognition based on the amount of known actors in the film. It's great to see J.Beals but she's only in the movie for a few minutes. M.Parker is a much better actress than the part allowed for. The rest of the acting is hard to judge because the movie is so ridiculous and predictable. The main character is totally unsympathetic and therefore a bore to watch. There is no real emotional depth to the story. A movie revolving about an actor who can't get work doesn't feel very original to me. Nor does the development of the cop. It feels like one of many straight-to-video movies I saw back in the 90s ... And not even a good one in those standards.



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


user
Monika Mitchell's showbiz satire has some laughs and some premeditated violence. I wouldn't say blood-soaked; but there is insult and injury. Max Matteo(John Cassini)is a character actor that has a quirky adaptable presence on screen, but he has a terrible track record of being chosen for the parts he goes after. There is always a producer's nephew or seemingly trivial reason for his not being awarded the role he seeks. Well, the best thing to do is get rid of the competition...Max becomes obsessed with such thoughts. The rewarding career is just a swing, push and shot away. Other cast members: Rene Rivera, Molly Parker, Jennifer Beals, Frank Cassini and cameos by Eric Roberts and Sandra Oh. Well, that's show business...or is it?


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 like a bad 80s TV show got loose and tried to become a soft-core porn movie. Oh my god was it bad. The plots of each character had little relevance. The plot itself wasn't anything to speak of. Something about a stalker, I guess. In the end he shoots himself? It's not really clear, but somehow there's a volleyball game involved. And the main character (Randy) sleeps around a lot. The only reason my friends rented this movie was because Casper Van Dien was in it, and they ended up wanting to fast forward to the scenes with him in it, which were barely watchable at that. Thank god I didn't spend any money on it, but I want that hour of my life back.


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


user
The volleyball genre is strangely overlooked by most screenwriters. Thankfully, highly acclaimed director Nelson McCormick has brought us the second best volleyball movie of all time (rated lower than Side Out and higher than, well, umm). However, don't let the cover of this movie decieve you. Kill Shot stars up and coming star Koji as a modern day Sherlock Holmes. Using such high-tech gadgets as a computer that is less powerful than my Gameboy, Koji is able to aid FBI agents in the tracking of a man who has not committed any obvious crime. While there are other actors in the movie, including brief cameos by Denise Richards, a gay negro, and a preposterously ugly and annoying girl, Koji carries this movie on his own. Any fan of movies such as The Matrix or Hackers will definitely love Kill Shot.


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


user
Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like "please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad 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 will confuse you to death. Furthermore, if your a Denise Richards' fan, don't even think of renting this movie. Besides getting top billing by being on the cover and about 10 minutes of air time if that, she has nothing to do with the movie or the many messed up plots.


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


user
Man, this was hilarious. It should be under COMEDY. Or STUPID. It would have made realizing what a pile of stank this was much easier. Seriously? I want anyone associated with this movie tased, effective immediately. For everyone who is thinking of watching this "movie", let''s go over a few plot points. Oh, wait. There aren't any. There is literally no plot. I think Casper Van Dien was bored, and he decided to film something with some random someones, and miraculously, it somehow got on videotape. This movie is literally the worst movie of all time. Don't believe me? Go watch it. Do it, man. I dare you. But be prepared to gouge your eyes out. If you can sit through this without blowing a cow, you are very strong and courageous.


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


user
This was one of the worst films I have ever seen.
I usually praise any film for some aspect of its production, but the intensely irritating behaviour of more than half the characters made it hard for me to appreciate any part of this film.
Most common was the inference that the bloke who designed the building was at fault an avalanche collapsing it. Er ok.
Also, trying to out ski an avalanche slalom style is not gonna work. Running 10 feet into some trees is not gonna work. Alas it does here. As mentioned before the innate dumbness and sheer stupidity of some characters is ridiculous. In an enclosed space, with limited oxygen a four year old could tell you starting a fire is not a good idea.
Anyway, about 5 minutes of the movie redeems itself and acquires some appreciation. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence you too will find most of this film hard to tolerate.
It pains me that so many quality stories go unproduced and yet someone will pay for things like this to be made.
Oh, did I mention the last five minutes? Well to give you a hook you have to keep watching in order to see the latest in combative avalanche techniques. Absolutely priceless.


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


user
Saw this on TV. I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema to see this or spend the money on rental. The movie is totally predictable - from the corrupt owner and planner, to the snaking electric cables. The plot is really weak and unbelievable - the avalanche expert guy gets hit by a 20 foot wave of bone breaking avalanche (using actual footage) and all he has to do is get up and shake himself down. The avalanche thunders down at a million miles an hour and stops dead at the side of the road.
Some of the actual avalanche material is impressive and shows its devastating power. But the contract between the real avalanche and the staged stuff makes this film look even flimsier.
Do yourself a favour, don't bother with this one not even on T.V.


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


user
I can't figure out how anyone can get a budget for a movie this bad. It's like the TV station are desperate for anything, anything at all. They're buried underneath a bunch of snow, the electricity constantly flashes on and off, yet magically there is a background light that stays constant. Where does all this (fake) light come from? That, and all that stupid bickering between the characters. They seem to be more interested in complaining to each other than trying to invent ways to survive. It tries to create that feel of emergency and people helping. But because it's such bad directing and acting, you will not your Florence Nightingale fix with this flick, sorry. I'm joining the negative feedback, and I concur that this is one of the worst movies ever.


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


user
**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet.
And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.
Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes.
In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.
And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.
I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.
It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.


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


user
Amy Heckerling's second film Johnny Dangerously is a parody of 1930's gangster films made in the Warner Brothers' tradition. Michael Keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. Keaton's mother (Maureen Stapleton) has continuing health problems, so Keaton falls into crime at an early age via Peter Boyle. Meanwhile, the fargan Richard Dimitri plays a rival crime lord to Boyle and Keaton eventually rises through the ranks. Joe Piscopo has a hilarious turn as Danny Vermin, yeah that's right, Vermin! Griffin Dunne is Keaton's younger brother turned district attorney, Glynnis O'Connor his wife, and Marilu Henner plays Keaton's moll. The film looks notoriously cheap, making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film.
The film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. Due to the combination of dialog and gags, the film holds its own for the first half, but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. Keaton chews the scenery doing his best James Cagney impression. Stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious, not funny. Piscopo does the "once" bit one time too many. Several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like Danny DeVito, Dom DeLuise, Ray Walston as a street vendor, Alan Hale, Jr. as a desk sergeant, and Sudie Bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. The second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. The closing scene utilizing The Roaring Twenties is an anachronism as is The Call Of The Wild Clark Gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. I think Heckerling should have known better, since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of The Roaring Twenties' actual 1939 release date. *1/2 of 4 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 one is the highest rating I could have given this movie, considering zero and negative numbers are not allowed. Pee yew, pointless mess of a movie with a lot of wasted b-list actors who have done better work, written and directed by some guy with the mentality of a twelve year old who smirks and giggles at stupid puns, and poop and fart jokes. For example, Gene Stapelton's (Ding-Bat from All in the Family) character telling Marilu Henner's character that she "swings both ways" sexually, was a cheap attempt at humor indicative of the general lameness of the movie... You want good, cheeky humor? Rent Animal House, American Pie (part one only), Old School or Office Space.


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


user
Just as "ITS A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD" is at the top of my list for all time greatest comedies ever made, this one is at the very bottom. (Of course, I could be wrong-not having seen "SAVING SILVERMAN") In other words, it's a lame, lame, lame, lame comedy.
Rating: 1/2* out of *****


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


user
** CONTAINS SPOILERS **
The truly exquisite Sean Young (who in some scenes, with her hair poofed up, looks something like Elizabeth Taylor) is striking in her opening moments in this film. Sitting in the back of a police car waiting to signal a bust, her face and body are tense and distracted. Unfortunately, once the bust is over Young's strained demeanor never changes. This is one fatally inhibited actress.
One has only to compare Young to the performer playing her coworker and best friend, Arnetia Walker, to grasp what is missing in Young. Walker is open, emotional, and at ease at all times...in that there's no apparent barrier between what she may be feeling and her expression of it. She is an open book. Young, on the other hand, acts in the skittish, self-conscious way you might expect your neighbor to act were they suddenly thrown into starring in a film. Basically, she doesn't have a clue.
With this major void looming at the center of the movie, we're left to ponder the implausiblities of the story. For instance, after Miss Young is kidnapped by the criminal she's trailing and locked in a closet, she breaks the door down when left alone. Granted, she's dressed only in a bra and panties, but in a similar situation, with a psycho captor due to return any moment, would you head for the door...or take the time to go through his dresser, take out some clothes and get dressed? I would guess that this and other scenes are trying to suggest some sort of mixed emotions Miss Young's character is experiencing, but Young can not convey this type of complexity.
There are a few affecting moments in the film, such as the short police interviews with the criminal's past victims, but overall this is an aimless endeavor. It's too bad Miss Young was replaced while filming the pair of comic book style films that might have exploited her limitations with some humor (BATMAN and DICK TRACY), because her floundering while attempting to play actual people is oddly touching. Watching Miss Young try to act, at least in this "thriller", is a sad spectacle.


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


user
The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a "thriller" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic.


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


user
the more i think about it, there was nothing redeeming about this
movie. i saw it 9 months ago, so my memory might have made it
worse than it was, but i do know it was at least as bad as a 4 out of
10.
after seeing the movie, i met the director. he seemed so clueless
as to what he was doing or what he had done, and as far as i
could tell, he didn't care for the film either. even he agreed that he
didn't really know what he was doing, and he was forced to do
certain things because it was filmed digitally.
i felt that the movie was trying to hard to fit in to the formula that it
built for itself: "9 people all have to be connected in some way. how
can we get from point 'A' to point 'B'" so in order get from the
prostitute we see in the start and back to her at the end they 10
minutes on each character's relationship to another person. it
makes one feel choked by the 2 demensional, badly drawn
characters.
I just remembered the one redeeming part of the movie... Steve
Bouchemi there is one scene where he is amazing. that's it. as i
say... 4 out of 10.


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


user
This movie starts slow, then tapers off. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolutely nothing happen, I walked out. I mean, nothing happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no story. The characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a "motion" picture. There is no motion. I could have told the same "story" with a couple still pictures with captions. The script is a joke. It's just awful. I doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. My biggest regret is not that I wasted 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to walk out, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people walk out before me.


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


user
Maggie Smith and Peter Ustinov as a very unlikely couple in a very not likable film at all.
The film shows promise for Ustinov is released from prison for embezzling. He convinces Robert Morley to go away so that he can assume his identity and begin hacking away at computers at a very fancy firm run by Karl Malden and Bob Newhart, another unusual duo for films.
Morley sounds just as he did in 1938's "Marie Antoinette." Perhaps, he needed to return to that genre.
This film is ridiculous at best. Hard to believe that the following year, Maggie Smith totally changed her ways and gave a shattering Oscar performance in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie."
Ms. Smith is made out here to be an apparent dumb-red head, but by film's end, she is the brains of the outfit. Too bad the writing didn't go the way with her.


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 excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast.


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


user
A reasonable effort is summary for this film. A good sixties film but lacking any sense of achievement. Maggie Smith gave a decent performance which was believable enough but not as good as she could have given, other actors were just dreadful! A terrible portrayal. It wasn't very funny and so it didn't really achieve its genres as it wasn't particularly funny and it wasn't dramatic. The only genre achieved to a satisfactory level was romance. Target Audiences were not hit and the movie sent out confusing messages. A very basic plot and a very basic storyline were not pulled off or performed at all well and people were left confused as to why the film wasn't as good and who the target audiences were etc. However Maggie was quite good and the storyline was alright with moments of capability.
4.


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


user
A good cast is appallingly wasted in this slower than molasses and haphazardly connived comedy. Peter Ustinov tries hard here to bring something to life but the result is a dour bore that misses all the right beats that might have made it watchable. Regardless of the favorable comments here, this film is awful. Badly directed. Badly edited. Badly acted. Badly written. You need to sit through a hundred movies to come across one this bad.
The muddled and excruciatingly laggard plot concerns Ustinov conning his way into an American insurance company in order to hack their computer and embezzle millions of pounds. How he does it is beyond lameness and credibility (he just learns his computer skills seemingly overnight by reading some pamphlets, and hoodwinks computer expert Robert Morley into going to South America and stealing his identity).
As a side plot, Ustinov romances fellow loner Maggie Smith, who just happens to become his secretary by chance after he gets a flat in her building. She ends up sharing scenes that have sexual undertones with Bob Newhart that go nowhere, while Ustinov goes about grafting the money bit by bit and trying to keep one step ahead of Newhart and Karl Malden. Then he Marries Smith and they fly off to Brazil, which has become the staple finale of almost every British caper comedy since (Nuns on the Run? A Fish Called Wanda?)
The surprise twist of an ending is more laughable than everything that came before. By the end I was thinking I must be truly off my rocker to stick out drivel like this. Even a cameo by Cesar Romero didn't help it. One of the most unfunny, poorly paced 'comedies' I've ever seen, and certainly the worst caper. Don't waste your time. If you love this you need to see better films.


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


user
The words "Swedish" and "Action movie" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.
Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.
This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no "ups", just "downs". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the "cool" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.
And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.
I rate this 4/10 for effort.


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


user
I firstly and completely and confidently disagree with the user who calls this a "spoof". Crispin Glover is very serious about his film. He personally introduced the film at the screening I saw in Chicago. He had worked on the film for years and it is the first in an intended trilogy. "What is it?" is Crispin Glover's attempt at an art film in the vein of those he idolizes by Herzog, Lynch etc.
I had heard rumor of this film years ago "epic porno movie with all down-syndrome cast directed by crispin glover". When it finally came out i watched the trailer on-line and read the synopsis and i was foaming at the mouth with anticipation. ...I went to chicago to see it and it was a major disappointment. If he took out the goofy sh*t, such as the pot-smoking grandma, and the dancing dolls, he would be left with something much better, but only about 10 minutes long.
In other words just watch the trailer, be entertained, and leave it at that. There are some striking images and fantastic juxtapositions and phrases, but its lack of focus amounts to disappointment.


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 Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.
Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.
Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.
Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.
Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.


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 his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.


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


user
What Is It? is a mish-mash of bizarre recurring motifs (snails, Shirley Temple, swastikas, and overtly racist music, among others) unfettered by any sort of narrative or plot or character development. The whole thing struck me as self-consciously "freak show," and I don't mean only the unusual casting decisions. It has the feel of a bad acid trip, far beyond any level of drug use one might attribute to Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs. The only movie to which I can compare it is Eraserhead (my second-least-favorite film of all time), which was by intent much more depressing, but I still found What Is It? a total waste of my time. It's one thing to give me a peek into the inner workings of someone else's mind -- even someone else's chemically altered consciousness -- but quite another to just throw weird visuals at me purely for the sake of weirdness.


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


user
Eytan Fox, whilst generally leaning on the apologist side of Israeli politics, has made several quite interesting films in the past such as "Walk on Water" and the simply wonderful film, "Yossi & Jagger". In "The Bubble", however, he has taken this illogical and unfair approach to the extreme.
Far from giving this film a standing ovation, the people at the screening I attended quietly got up and left. I also quietly left, fuming with anger at such a ridiculously one-sided film that translates self-preservation as racist bullying, and racist bullying (and terrorism) as outbursts of justified anger; which implies that Arabs are so wronged by the evil Israelis that they react in anger to a constant stream of one-sided Israeli aggression against them, and that they, therefore, should not be held responsible for their actions.
This film wasn't worth the money I paid for the ticket (indeed, I considered demanding my money back), and was basically an Israeli apeing of the Palestinian film "Paradise Now". If you want to be an anti-Israeli, then by all means watch this film, as it really justifies just such a belief system. The fact that this film was made by an Israeli director and, even worse, such a talented Israeli director, is a crying shame. Indeed, just how Israel can be surprised to be regarded as a pariah State when Israelis themselves make such anti-Israel propaganda, beggars belief.
What a shameful, horrid little film!


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 essentially deals with Inspector Gadget's arch-nemesis Doctor Claw who has returned after many years to the now-peaceful city of Metropolis. Claw's plan is to foil Gadget once and for all by using a newer "cooler" crimefighter to help destroy Gadget's popularity. Sadly the film fails miserably, the series was great, but it was revived nearly 20 years later with tragic results. Without the voice of Don Adams as Inspector Gadget it just doesn't cut it anymore; Dr. Claw is not only visually less frightening, but sounds more like a wrestler with a cold, than his original intimidating self. Granted this is a children's movie, but the plot is so painfully weak (heaven forbid I mention the animation) that it pales in comparison to the original series. Someone has decided to updated Penny as well to bring her two decades up to speed, she now has some quasi-punk rebellious clothing style and doesn't play half the role that she did in the TV series. The Gadgetmobile talks, as well as including a plot angle that focuses entire ON talking cars. Maybe I'm just a kid who loved the show who's grown up jaded, but I thought that the live-action version was more pain than I could bear, but now they go and spring this complete watering-down of the quality TV series on us. It's more than I can take.


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


user
I got this DVD well over 2 years ago and only decided to watch it yesterday. I don't know why it took me so long as I do like the Inspector Gadget show and even the new Gadget and the Gadgetinis. While it may have a bright color pallet and all the technical sophistication of a modern animated movie, there are some old things missing that bog this Gadget right down the toilet.
First of all the classic Inspector Gadget theme song and music is completely absent. The composer tries to compromise by doing a score that sounds similar but it's still just no good enough. The Gadget-mobile is now a talking car, not a car that can turn into a van. Plus it looks a lot cuter and rounder instead of being plain cool. Penny no longer has her computer book and she and Brain hardly make an appearance at all.
The plot is non-existent. There's something about a transformation formula and Doctor Claw using for some never revealed evil but that's all I got. What the deal was with the short/giant Italian guy I will never know. It had nothing to do with anything.
And if the title is anything to go by, his last case is wrapped up in no way whatsoever. And he stays on the force so why it's called 'last case' is a mystery also.
I wasn't impressed at all. This is an affront to a great animated show that is strangely absent on DVD, but don't let that prompt you into buying whatever Inspector Gadget DVDs you can. I sold this mere seconds after finally watching it. No kid will like or appreciate this and no fan of the old show with tolerate 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 animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 3/10


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


user
Dear Friends and Family,
I guess if one teen wants to become biblical with another teen, then that's their eternal damnation - just remember kids, "birth control" doesn't mean "oral sex", I don't care what the honor student says. On the other hand, even if the senator's aid quotes himself as a "bit of a romantic guy", he's still only hitting on a high school girl. If she was my sister, I'd eat this guys kneecaps.
Other than that I found out that Mongolians don't kiss the same way the French do and that baseball players named Zoo like delicate undergarments.
I think I'd almost rather watch Richie Rich one more time than suffer the indignity of this slip, slap, slop. Thank you, and good night.


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


user
Any film with a title as ridiculous as "The Bagman" should automatically attract the attention of any bad movie lover, but the plot is far different than what one may expect after viewing the DVD cover. The Bagman is by no means a good movie. It falls into the category of films that seem to have been (and probably were) filmed on a home video camera. The acting is awful. I haven't heard and seen such wooden acting since Troll 2. There are plenty of scenes with nudity and sex, but they are clearly jumped into too fast. The characters are morons and entirely forgettable. The ending (which I will not spoil) can be easily anticipated after watching the very first scene. Due to the cheesy nature of the film, nothing aside from the awful production values is truly scary (awful attempts at realistic gore, a driving scene where the car is clearly stationary, etc). Recommended for bad movie aficionados only.


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


user
We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.
We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.
IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.


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 the freshman effort of Stephanie Beaton and her new production company. While it suffers from a few problems, as every low budget production does, it is a good start for Ms. Beaton and her company.
The story is not terribly new having been done in films like The Burning and every Friday the 13th since part 2. But, the performances are heartfelt. So many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions, its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft.
The story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. The others are sworn to secrecy, but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. Ten years later, the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as "The Bagman". Who will survive? You have to watch.
If you are Roger Ebert or any number of arrogant critics, you probably shouldn't bother. But if your taste run more towards Joe Bob Briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft, then check out "The Bagman".


assistant
0