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
It was the tag-line "in the tradition of American Pie" that fooled me into renting this movie. What I got was a piece of junk in the style of Jackass, with the major difference that compared to this Jackass the Movie seems like a Citizen Kane.
This movie made me regret that I rewarded other movies with 1 out of 10, because now I can't go beneath that. This one makes quite some bad movies look like cinematic feats.
I actually turned it off after 45 minutes, and that's something I very rarely do. But it was just too plain boring, stupid, uninteresting and unnecessary.
Can't believe some people actually reward this with 10 out of 10. What did your parents do? Drop you on the head when you were just a child? Or was it the very first movie you ever saw, so you got nothing to compare it to? Are you still a virgin and are breasts all you ever think off? Something must be wrong, at least.
My advice: stay clear of this one. Even if your in the mood for a simple movie that doesn't require thinking, choose something else, or you'll regret it for sure.


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


user
my friend bought the movie for 5 (its is not even 1 cent worth), because they wrote it was like American pie. but we would soon find out that there is a long way from American pie to that piece of crap. it is not even a comedy, its more like a really really really bad documentary. not only the story is bad, the picture and sound also sucks to. they put in some alcohol, chicks, dwarfs and drunken teens. and the result is a disaster. if you see this movie don't buy it, rather spend your money on something else, and better. if you are gonna torture yourself, then don't invite your friend/s, unless you hate really much and you want to get rid of them.


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


user
The fact that this movie made it all the way to the rentalrack in Norway is bizarre. This movie is just awful. This image quality is just one teeny bit better than you get of a mobile phone and the plot is soooo bad. The main character is just plain annoying and the rest just suck. Every person affiliated with this movie should be ashamed. The fact that the people that made this movie put their name on this is extraordinary. And the distributors; did they even see it!? This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. To label this a comedy is an insult to mankind. I urge you not to support this movie by buying or renting it.


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


user
I haven't seen it in over twenty years. OJ was the bus driver, Arte Johnson was the tour guide, Lorenzo was the kidnapper.
Yea, Lorenzo looked very much at home as the villain, a natural. I think I watched it back then most for OJ, who I had seen Towering Inferno and Cassandra Crossing, but also to see Arte Johnson.
I was a little bored that Johnson was so serious.
And yes, it shifted plots. In reading other posts, I remember that was some plot that they were going to kidnap some rich girl, but then that priceless stamp business turned up out of the blue.
I was going, a stamp? If it came on as a late movie, I would probably record it to check it out again, but I wouldn't be nostalgic over it. Not yet anyway.
There are better movies from the seventies like this to check out.


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 idiotic attempt at some kind of action thriller. A tour bus on its way to Las Vegas is attacked by a group of white trash hijackers driving dune buggies. They drive them out into the desert and then steal all of their valuables. The plot changes constantly. One minute they are looking to kidnap a rich ranchers daughter, the next they are looking for a collectible stamp worth 90,000 dollars. The dialogue is horrible.
Please don't watch this movie.


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


user
There are laughs in this film, that is for sure. Michael Keaton is a talent and he used to be funny (before he decided he was a serious actor). However, what bothers me so much about this film, is how unlikable practically all of the characters are. Other than the main two leads, everybody is a jerk. I mean, these small town losers are about as uncouth as you can get. You just watch and think, man, these losers should be unemployed. Moreover, the American factory worker is portrayed as a lazy and ungrateful slob. It made me wonder if this film was made by Japanese nationalists. Oh sure, in the end they all come together as one, but I just did not enjoy the trip to get there.


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


user
Gung Ho was a good idea, however it is to much to ask Americans viewers to understand the dynamics of American jobs and foreign competition.In this movie the main character Hunt Stevenson(Michael Keaton) goes to Japan and convinces a Japanese auto company to come to America and help his dying Pennslyvania town. Two things come at you.First why would a Japanese company come to America to make cars when they do so ,and so well at that? Secondly can anyone understand that American companies of all types go to third world nations to have their products made to escape American labor costs? It makes the film's premise then that the Number one maker of cars in the world would go to one of its' top competitors(aside from Germany)and put a plant there as unrealistic. Keaton was still in his comedy mode by this time. But he gives a credible performance all the same as he could prove that he could go from comedy to drama in a matter of seconds and still not embarrass himself but Director Ron Howard can't keep this from becoming a TV movie which it ends up being anyway because they have to give the unlikely story a happy ending the politics and problems of Japanese and American relations not withstanding. Gung Ho has a Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley feel to it as the producers of both TV shows made the film and then made the TV version of this movie as well which gives the film its' lightweight feel.The Japanese manager gets to love his American workers and feels he and other Japanese people can learnfrom Americans.His No.2 man Saito who supposedly doesn't like Americans all that much doesn't think so.I would have prefered all the Japanese characters been like Saito than the soft goofball characters they made the Japanese out to be.It would have made the film more interesting.


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


user
talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially "The Squeeze" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in "Pacific Heights" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed "Multiplicity". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of "Batman" .. and i kind of liked "Night Shift" and i love "Johnny Dangerously" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was...


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


user
...not that all Disney films are garbage.
Anyway, I saw "Legend of Boggy Creek" first and absolutely loved the film. When I heard it had 2 sequels, I was ecstatic. I finally found a copy of this and watched it one night. I don't see how they can make a G-rated sequel to a horror film. The original is a movie/documentary about the Fauke Monster, and can scare anyone. "Return" is for kids and should not be watched by anyone. I don't remember the plot too well, as it's been quite some time since I watched it and I will not watch it again, but... It's about these hunters coming to town and they go looking to kill Bigfoot. Three little kids sneek out of the house to stop them. A big monsoon comes through. The hunters get hurt, are saved by the kids. Then they all hide out in a boat with a big piece of tarp on top and try to wait out the storm. Then all of a sudden, Bigfoot comes and does something really sick. I don't wanna ruin the ending for any of yas, but it's not scary. Well....


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


user
Never saw the original movie in the series...I only hope it was a much better movie than this or the sequel made in the 1980's as if it is not how were these two terrible sequels even justified. This movie had a really good lead in when they were advertising it to be shown on one of those old independent stations that are a thing of the past now. Anyways it looked like it would be a pretty good scary movie. It was, however, a movie that would make some Walt Disney movies look dark. Really, this movie was just a bunch of light fluff with virtually no boggy creek creature to be seen. The only real sighting is near the end when you see its shape during a very heavy rainstorm, other than that there is virtually no sign of the creature which was really disappointing as a kid. The story is basically the old evil hunters must kill anything they see and are after the boggy creek creature and kids are out to help it or just some random hairy guy in the woods that likes to pull random boats through the water. Not really worth watching I would however like to see the original, granted the maker of that would make the also bad boggy creature of the 80's, but he also made a very good slasher movie in the 70's "The Town the Dreaded Sundown".


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


user
I thought I had seen this movie, twice in fact. Then I read all the other reviews, and they didn't quite match up. A man and three young students, two girls and a boy, go to this town to study alleged bigfoot sightings. I still feel pretty confident that this is the movie I saw, despite the discrepancies in the reviews. Therefore I'm putting my review back: If you like the occasional 'B' movie, as I do, then Return to Boggy Creek is the movie for you! Whether it's setting the sleep timer, and nodding off to your favorite movie-bomb, or just hanging out with friends. Boggy Creek, the mute button, and you've got a fun night of improv. Look out! Is the legend true? I think we just might find out, along with a not-so-stellar cast. Will there be any equipment malfunctions at particularly key moments in the film? Does our blonde, manly, young hero have any chest hair? Will the exceptionally high-tech Technicolor last the entire film? You'll have to watch to find out for yourself.


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


user
Has to be one of the worst wastes of 35mm movie film ever unleashed on the public, the sequel to the at least entertaining pseudo-documentary original film "The Legend of Boggy Creek". Bad script, worse acting, etc., etc., Dawn Wells had to be hoping that Gilligan would come rescue her and take her back to the island just to escape from this piece of clap-trap.


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


user
Between 1937 and 1939, Twentieth Century-Fox made a ton of Mr. Moto films. However, towards the end of the series, it was obvious that the studio had "jumped the shark", so to speak. This phrase indicates that a TV show has passed its prime and the executives in charge decided to invigorate the show by fundamentally changing the formula. For example, with "The Brady Bunch" they introduced the annoying 'Cousin Oliver' and with "Family Ties" they introduced a freak baby who grew up six years in only one season! With the Moto films, they'd jumped the shark by introducing comic relief because they thought that these intelligent films needed to be re-tooled. In the previous film, Warren Hymer played an annoying wrestler. And, in this film the character Archibald Featherstone appears. Featherstone might just be one of the most annoying examples of comic relief ever, as you kept hoping someone (preferably Moto) would kill him just to shut him up!! Although he's supposed to work for the famed Scotland Yard, he shows all the intelligence and acumen of a brain damaged turnip. Again and again, his scenes were boorish and unnecessary and Peter Lorre just looks pained as he stands there and watches this buffoon "act". It's so bad that it truly destroys what COULD have been one of the better Moto films due to its clever plot.
As for the plot, the crown of the Queen of Sheba is discovered in the opening scene. Moto, now more of an international policeman than the amoral character he originally was, is on hand to protect the precious item from being stolen. In a great twist, several thieves all try to steal the crown independently of each other.
Overall, the film is watchable but is also ample evidence that the Moto series should have ended here. With WWII approaching, the films couldn't have survived much longer anyway, as having a sympathetic Japanese leading character simply wouldn't have been accepted in the US or in allied countries.


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


user
After eight Moto films the series had run its course, as this last entry demonstrates. Peter Lorre was clearly weary of trying to pump some sort of human interest and entertainment value into the wispy character of Moto, and the dreadful idea of pairing him with a "funny" British sidekick utterly defeats all his efforts here.


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


user
My wife and I just finished watching Bûsu AKA The Booth. She fell asleep during some parts of the movie. I really wish I had taken a snooze with her, but the unfortunate fact is that the main character's voice is so loud and grating that it was impossible for me to sleep. When our protagonist speaks, it makes me want to hear Regis Philbin and William Shatner sing karaoke. He also has no redeeming qualities. I was hoping he'd get hit by a bus five minutes into the film.
Don't get me wrong, I love Asian horror cinema, but The Booth is extremely irritating and full of scenes that really make no damned sense at all. If you want some good Asian cinema, check out A Tale of Two Sisters or Into The Mirror. Avoid The Booth like the plague, especially if you suffer from frequent migraines.


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


user
Just like last years event WWE New Years Revolution 2006 was headlined by an Elimination Chamber match. The difference between last years and this years match however was the entertainment value. In reality only three people stood a chance of walking out of the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York with the WWE Championship. Those men were current champion John Cena, Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels. There was no way Vinnie Mac would put the belt on any of the rookies; Carlito or Chris Masters. And Kane? Kane last held the WWE Championship in June 1998, and that was only for one night. It was obvious he wasn't going to be the one either. Last years match was a thrilling affair with six of the best WWE had to offer. 2006 was a predictable and disappointing affair but still the match of the night by far.
The only surprise of the evening came after the bell had run on the main event. Out strolled Vince McMahon himself and demanded they lift the chamber. It was then announced that Edge was cashing in his money in the bank championship match right then and there. With no time to prepare and just off the back of winning the Elimination Chamber match John Cena did not stand a chance and dropped the title after a spear to one of the most entertaining heels in WWE. This was the only entertaining piece of action that happened all night.
The undercard, like last year, was truly atrocious. Triple H and The Big Show put on a snore fest that had me struggling to stay away. HHH picked up the win but that was never in any real doubt was it? Any pay-per-view that has both Jerry Lawler and Viscera wrestling on the same card will never have any chance of becoming a success really does it. The King pinned Helms (who books this stuff?) and Big Vis tasted defeat against the wasted Shelton Benjamin with a little help from his Mama.
The women of the WWE also had a busy night. There was the usual Diva nonsense with a Bra and Panties Gauntlet match which was won by Ashley and the Woman's Championship was also on the line. In a match, I thought would have been left to brew till WrestleMania 22 Mickie James challenged Trish Stratus in a good match. Trish won the contest but it was evident that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.
The opening contest of the night pitted soon to be WWE Champion Edge against Intercontinental Champion, Ric Flair. This could have been better but it was a battered and bloody Flair that retained after a disqualification finish. Edge obviously had bigger fish to fry.
So New Years Revolution kicked off the 2006 pay-per-view calendar in disastrous fashion. The only good thing from that is knowing that for the WWE the only way is up. They don't get much worse than this.


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


user
I agree with most if not all of the previous commenter's Tom (bighouseaz@yahoo.com). The Zatoichi series is a great character study combined with great sword fighting and excitement.
I have seen Zatoichi 1-13,15,16; I believe 14 has not been released on Zone 1 (usa). Zatoichi the Outlaw was disappointing. The story line was complicated, and seemed to be a hodgepodge of many previous Zatoichi story lines. At one point, I was wondering if I was not seeing a remake of a previous Zatoichi film.
This film was disappointing because it started to depend on effects (a head rolling, limbs severed, blood) and less on the nobility of the Zatoichi character. All the previous films succeeded based on the storyline and action, and won a great following without having to resort to effects.
I am just hoping that the remaining Zatoichi films do NOT follow the same trend. This is the first Zatoichi film from his studio. I highly recommend all the previous Zatoichi films -- and recommend them.


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


user
The cult of personality has elevated the status of Roger Corman, Sam Arkoff, Lloyd Kaufman etc. as kings of the B's. Because the folks at Crown International were so key, they haven't been elevated to the status they richly deserve. A film like THE VAN may now seem like a disposable piece of Drive-in esoteria, but it was a sizable hit when it was released (not to mention subsequent re-releases as a double feature with other Crown hits).
THE VAN was a perfect example of Crown's hit strategy of seizing upon the mood of movie-goers at the time of a film's release. Here, it was sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and the brief "Custom Van" fad. As others have noted, it is ironic that the "hit" song in the film refers to a Chevy when the title vehicle is a Dodge in the film itself. I had a town Selectman where I was at the time even declare these vans to be "dens of sin on wheels!" A perfect ad line for the film!
There are the usual assortment of "good" and "bad" girls, muscle-heads and low-brow hijinks (including a supporting bit by Danny DeVito). In many ways this isn't much different from the old Beach Party movies of the 60's, but now spiced up with Nudity and Drug use. Obviously done on a limited budget and a limited schedule, the film coasts along pleasantly enough with a breezy charm that compensates for some, by today's standards certainly, un-PC views of women.
The classic touch is a Toaster for Bobby's den of sin on wheels. Yes, a Toaster! Hey, you gotta have something hot for those munchies!
Grindhouse Fest.


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 was abysmal. and not in the good way as some have claimed. First off the main character is a very unattractive gingerman. Second - WTF is going on with this van love. The plot, basically, is: boy wants sex so buys a van (which, in fairness is quite cool). Unbelievably given that he looks like a newt he scores with lots of chicks! And he fails with some. Then he scores with a really hot chick and realises he loves this dowdy bird who played hard to get. Then he drag races with the hot chicks boyfriend. And he tips his van. At which point danny devito saves the day. Although he didn't need to because in tipping the van the ginger kid crossed the line first. I gave this 2 *'s as i'm willing to assume that there's some sort of 70's Vanning subculture i'm not getting and also because there's some 70's boobage too.


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


user
Bobby is a goofy kid who smiles far too much and wants sex. So he buys a van to aid in this quest. The acting is lame, the comedy is pathetic and the script is no more than a loosely strung chain of clichés and cheap thrills. The makers of the film obviously wanted to capture some of the out there craziness of other films of the time, but fell a long way short. They even resort to Bobby slipping on a banana skin, because this will supposedly add comedic value.
I'm struggling to find a redeeming feature of the film. If you like DeVito, this is another classic DeVito kind of role - but he's only a supporting actor and there for cliché value.


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


user
The Van is a feelgood movie about a guy who tries to lure girls into his new van, in order to seduce them. The only thing this movie doesn't fail at is precisely depicting the van fad in the US in the late 70s. It looks like it was totally made by amateurs. It's trash, but I loved it! I have to admit I am a fan of 70s trash! Hope this one makes it to the IMDB bottom 100!
2


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


user
This movie was packed pull of endless surprises! Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they added more joints and more pink fuzzy-lined vans with raunchy sex scenes. As you can guess, I was a victim of the original version. We were tricked into watching it thinking it was Supervan, the host box which promised lasars, jail breaks, and much more. Who would have thought a Dollar Store Christmas present could have been so much fun!


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


user
I disagree with much that has been written and said about this supposed "masterpiece" of the German New Wave:
1) There are major flaws in simple exposition, in the basic communication of critical plot points, as relating to Maria's abortion and the secret contract between Oswald and her husband. How many viewers understood that the husband agreed, in exchange for substantial financial remuneration, not to return to and reclaim his wife until Oswald was dead?
2) The ending is highly unsatisfying because arbitrary and accidental. The original screenplay called for Maria to commit suicide after the reading of Oswald's will, on finding out that her husband had in effect sold their marriage to Oswald. In the final version, however, Maria only runs water from a faucet across her wrist in a gesture of suicide. Maria is then summarily blown up, rather than having to confront and live with the consequences of her self-delusion and moral compromise.
3) Fassbinder seeks to forcibly superimpose the public on the private, the political on the personal. Contrary to what the critics and "experts" assert, I don't think it works. Merely intruding historic radio news or the sound of the jackhammers of German reconstruction in the soundtrack on the dramatic events of the movie does not make those historical events integral to the drama.
The selfish ambition of Maria's rise from poverty to prosperity is meant to parallel the so-called economic miracle of postwar Germany. Maria is thus intended to be a woman specific to and reflective of her time and place, but is in reality unoriginal and nonspecific. Women have been asserting their independence by using sex for self-advancement for ages.
4) Lastly, there are several instances of inexcusable sloppiness and amateurishness -- Fassbinder's drug addiction and consequent impatience and inattention have had their effect. Unknown people talk off screen without ever being seen; music is clumsily intrusive in places; and melodramatic posturing sporadically substitutes for acting.
Strangely, for a movie condemning a country for willful collective amnesia of the holocaust, it itself never mentions it once.


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


user
This movie was, as Homer Simpson would have put it, "more boring than church." Maybe I don't understand it well enough, and I thought it started out pretty well, but after (START OF SPOILER) Hermann Braun is sent to jail and Maria starts working/sleeping with her boss it just started to drag, and I struggled to keep awake. Again, maybe it symbolizes something, but the explosion at the end seemed very forced and out of place. (END OF SPOILER). In the end, I fail to see why others think it's so great, as I found it extremely boring. By the way, I did not watch this movie by my own free will, as I was required to see it for a Film class.


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


user
R O B O T J O X.
Burn the master.
Grotesquely horrible.
No ending; no closure.
Completely and utterly the worst movie ever made.
Replaces "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" as the worst movie of all time.
I hate this utterly unacted, unedited, unscripted, undirected, unproduced mess of a thing called "Robot Jox" - and I just found out - THEY MADE A SECOND ONE!?!? I apologize to Adma Sandler (Zohar the Beauticin) and Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash) for hating their movies. This mess of a thing makes those movies only bad - not terrible horrible and grotesque like this thing. This is the only movie for which I have ever said this - REMOVE IT FROM NETFLIX - NOW!!! 10,000 out of 10 people found this comment helpful.


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


user
What an awful movie! The Idea of robots fighting each other is cool, but the storyline is ridiculous, real human action laughable, acting non-existent and special effects (on which, this type of movie must depend) are archaic. I thought it must have been made around '80-'84 and was amazed to see it was from 1990. That's 5 years after Aliens! OK, lots of people said it was good considering the low budget, but I just think 'what's the point?'. it looks totally unbelievable. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake with modern special effects and a completely re-written story because I still like the idea of huge robots beating crap out of each other.


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


user
There are a number of problems with this movie, but the bottom line is that it tried to do too much with too little. The base story is quite good, but the money just wasn't there to do the story justice. The non-existent budget really killed this movie. Stuart Gordon (the writer/director) has writing credit on 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids', which was a box office smash. However, that movie had some serious cash backing from Disney. Honestly, this is a good example of when to not make a movie. Had he waited a few more years, technology would have made it cheaper to do many of the effects. (not to mention he could have found a company with money.)


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


user
OK this movie had a terrible premise. Be serious according to the movie they had just been through an apocalyptic war yet they have money to buy huge robots and pit them against each other. Each country decides instead of investing into rebuilding their country they would rather fight with robots no one could afford. Here's a better idea, lets rely on our most inept resource,jocks, to fight our battles.
Everyone says what about the director, what about him. He makes a good movie, he makes a bad movie. There is no reason to give this movie some credit just because of the director, maybe he was asleep? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, because it was so cheesy and ridiculous I had to laugh. I actually had a good time watching it, well except for the cowboy mentor who turns out to be an assassin(trust me no one would see this guy as an assassin, so it is a surprise, however lame) What kind of training exercise is a jungle jim anyway. I was sad to see Mst3k had not done this one. I am giving a two star rating however because nothing could be as bad as "manos the hands of fate."
The budget does not matter either, I have seen plenty of reasonable movies that had nothing for budgets like cube. The storyline was not even plausible and I have seen better acting in school plays. Surly they could have afforded an eleven year old from any middle school play.
Anyway pick it up, it is a fun movie to watch.


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


user
I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.
It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.
I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?
The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.
Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes.


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


user
Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as "Power Rangers" and you have this film from 1990, "Robot Jox". A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.


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 the perfect illustration of how NOT to make a sci fi movie. The worst tendency in sci-fi is to make your theme an awful, sophomoric, pseudo-Orwellian/Huxleyan/whateverian "vision" of "the human future."
Science fiction filmmakers (and authors), as geeks, take themselves very seriously given the high crap-to-good-stuff ratio of their genre. I think other genres with a high CTGSR (yes, I just made it up, relax), like horror or action or even romantic comedy, seem to have a little better grasp of the fact that they are not changing the world with some profound "message."
Sci fi can certainly be successful on a serious level, as numerous great filmmakers have proven. But there is an immense downside to the whole concept, which is represented by "Robot Jox," with its low-rent construction of "the future" (lone good design element: the bizarre, slick-looking billboard ads all over the place that encourage women to have more babies) and its painfully heavy-handed "Iliad" parallels (He's NAMED ACHILLES FOR GOD'S SAKE! I actually didn't pick up on this until I saw the film for like the tenth time, but I went to public school, so the filmmakers are not exonerated.)
Of course, if you're a crazy movie freak like me, this downside has a great upside. I absolutely LOVE movies like this, because bad movies are quite often more fun and sometimes even more interesting than good ones. It's kind of a Lester Bangs approach to movie viewing, I guess.
Note: The lead in this movie (Gary Graham? Is that his name? I refuse to go check.) is really not that bad. He makes a go of it. He's kind of cool, especially when he's drunk/hung over.


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


user
Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.


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 abomination, and its making should have been considered a capital crime.
One of the great mysteries of film-making is why nobody ever has made a faithful movie adaptation of this wonderful mystery. It is a tale of a really gripping mystery, nice old-fashioned romance, and dry English humor. Why did the makers have to change Richard Gordon from a Scotland Yard policeman to an amateur detective, introduce the idiotic role and caricature of his English servant, change the part of the main storyline about the murder charge and circumstances of Gordon's struggle to save the accused, etc., etc.? These producers and directors who always think they can make a better story than the one in the book should write the original script themselves and not to rape another person's product.


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


user
I loved Dewaere in Series Noir. His talent is trivialized in "The Waltzers" aka "Going Places". Okay, it's a couple of guys flaunting convention in the most absurd and irredeemable ways; many folks find such behavior amusing. This was a boring, pointless exercise designed to shock. I find the smirk on Blier's face, the face behind the camera, annoying. Series Noir was a valid expression of personal liberty and licentious behavior. From the first moment when we see Patric Dewaere prancing in the abandoned lot we get an idea of the bewilderingly beautiful anti-hero we'll be spending time with for the next couple of hours. When we see him chasing the hapless middle aged female with his buddy Depardieu in "Going Places" we have fair warning that two hours spent with these chaps will be soul-draining. I have trouble eking even a "3" for this annoying distraction.


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


user
When I first saw this film, I thought it should have come from the children's section - It's very fun and at times humorous, and is actually quite a good story, but it severely lacks the "romantic chemistry" that actors like Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins are capable of delivering. I must note that Walter Matthau is perfect for the part of Albert Einstein, and his performance is extraordinary, but that's the sole exception. This film appears a bit forced, the directing lacks substance, and oh yeah...the music is ridiculously awful, it didn't put me in a very good mood. But if you are not expecting a smart, well-crafted comedy/romance tale, then this certainly can be entertaining, like I said..it should be in the children's section. Einstein and his buddies are a good relief from Tim Robbins' boring, almost tense quest to steal Meg Ryan's heart. A very conflicting film, but as long as it's not taken seriously this can be an alright movie.


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


user
Tim Robbins is oddly benign here, cast as a garage mechanic in 1950s New Jersey who falls in love with a perky blonde who turns out to be Albert Einstein's niece! Although he's on-screen much of the time, Robbins cancels out the inner-workings of his intense persona and fades into the background (it's easy to forget he's even in the picture!). Lumpy romantic comedy with a gimmick, that being Walter Matthau playing Einstein (who does what he can with a cartoonishly conceived character). Otherwise, it's sugary and sunny, directed rather drowsily by Fred Schepisi, who shows heart but no wit or brains. Meg Ryan is her usual affable self and the chemistry between she and Robbins is charming, like that of an affectionate sister and her big brother. ** from ****


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


user
Director Fred Schepisi(Roxanne) directs this well intentioned, but inferior comedy about Albert Einstein(Matthau) trying to hook his scientific niece(Ryan) up with ordinary guy Tim Robbins in order to get her to relax and enjoy life in the 1950's. To get Ryan to like Robbins, Einstein tries to make Robbins look like a brilliant scientist. The idea is cute, but the film falls flat with corny situations and silly dialogue. Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan, and the terrific supporting cast do their best to keep this silly comedy afloat, but are unable to rescue the film. Its unfortunate that so much talent went into producing such a lackluster movie. I would not recommend to anybody unless they are huge fans of Meg Ryan.


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


user
This TV film tells the story of extrovert Frannie suddenly returning to Silk Hope to visit friends and family, but unaware of her mother's death. Her sister runs the family home, but is intending to sell it and move away with her new husband. Frannie strongly objects to the idea, and vows to keep the family heirloom as it were, by getting a job and maintaining responsibility.
In comes handsome Ruben and the two soon fall in love (as you do), and it's from this point that I sort of lost interest....
There is more to Farrah Fawcett than just the blonde hair and looks, she can portray a character extremely convincingly when she puts her mind to it - and it is certainly proved here as well as some of her previous efforts like Extremities and Small Sacrificies - a great performance from the legendary Charlie's Angel.
Silk Hope is the type of film that never shies away from its cheap and cheerful TV image, and you know there was a limit to the budget, but it's not the worst film ever made. The positive aspects are there; you just have to find them.


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


user
Just in time to capitalize on the long-awaited movie version of "Dreamgirls" is the DVD release of this semi-forgotten 1976 musical melodrama that also takes the rise of the Supremes as its inspiration. Released five years before the Broadway opening of "Dreamgirls" and partially set in the same period, it has a predominantly black cast and a story revolving around an up-and-coming girl group, and that's where the resemblance basically ends. Written by Joel Schumacher well before he became a big-league director of mainstream studio product ("Batman Forever", "The Phantom of the Opera"), this movie seems grittier on the surface. True to form, however, Schumacher weakens the storyline and character development by injecting an abundance of clichés and eye-rolling one-liners. With little affinity for staging musical numbers, Sam O'Steen, a highly regarded film editor but neophyte director, helms the production like a low-budget TV-movie with a frustratingly episodic structure.
The story follows three Harlem sisters - sexy Sister, self-righteous Delores and sweet Sparkle - as they sing in the church choir, meet smooth-talking but well-intentioned boys Stix and Levi, and then find their first taste of success as a singing group - first as a sweater-wearing quintet called the Hearts and then as a glitzy trio known as Sister and the Sisters. But naturally there are problems beyond the silly name for the group - Sister gets involved with nasty drug dealer Satin Struthers who beats her and turns her into a cocaine junkie; Levi goes to prison for getting caught in a drug pick-up for Satin; Stix gets frustrated by failure and unwisely turns to some Jewish mobsters for financial help; Delores just gets plain fed up; and poor little Sparkle has to decide what kind of future she wants. A big plus is that R&B great Curtis Mayfield wrote the atmospheric songs, some catchy and one, "Look Into Your Heart", a real winner.
The solid cast does its best under the contrived circumstances. Lonette McKee's valiant attempt to make Sister a tragic figure is undercut by some of the ham-fisted plot turns, including a sad Billie Holliday-like turn at the mike. Before they hit it big on primetime TV, Philip Michael Thomas and Dorian Harewood portray Stix and Levi with boyish vitality if not much credibility. The best work comes from Mary Alice in a relatively silent turn as the girls' patient mother and a pre-"Fame" Irene Cara who effortlessly exudes sincerity in the title role (though her costumer and hair stylist should be shot for the hideous look she achieves in the final scene). The DVD just comes with the original theatrical trailer complete with an unctuous voice-over by DJ Casey Kasem and a bonus CD of five of the film's songs performed not by the original cast but by Aretha Franklin off her 1976 recording of the soundtrack. It's not a terrible movie, just an interesting if lacking curio that happens to cover the same ground as "Dreamgirls".


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


user
About time they released this movie on DVD. I know some say WB rush the release of this movie because of The Dreamgirls movie. But, how can you rush the release of a movie that's been in you catalog since 1976.
I'm very disappointed with the DVD release of this movie, no special feature, no 5.1 DD sound. come on WB, you can do much better then this. The audio and picture quality on this movie needs some serious help.
Seem WB didn't place as much time and attention to this movie because it is a black movie and my have okay sales. They could have kept the CD which by the way dose not have all the songs the original CD has.
Would I recommend this DVD for purchase. Yes, because it is a classic film. But WB need to go add some more special feature. Take notes from other group movies, The Five Heatbeats, or The Temptation were you may view just the performance, and the sound on both are much, much, much better than this DVD.


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 not a good movie. It's disjointed, all the acting is bad, and has a lame story you've seen a thousand times done much better else where. Not to mention you can see every plot point coming from a mile away. Worst of all, no one bothered to tell Lonette Mckee she can't sing. But who cares, she's sooooo damn good looking. But I digress, nothing new here. Bottom-line, hot girl group gets taken advantage of, some one gets hooked on drugs, someone gets hooked on a guy, some one gets the hell out, and then the horrible stuff happens. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the music business. I can't believe so many people out there think this is a good movie. So many of you seem to want to use a sliding scale when it comes to grading Black Movies. I don't play that! If you want to support these films by going to see them - great! If you enjoyed it - super! To each his own. But don't try to tell me it was good. Pleeeease! I wish colored folks would not fawn over these kind of movies just because they feature black actors. Wanna see a good African-American movie? See Love Jones. Ray. Or The Color Purple. Those would be great movies no matter what the color of the actors skin. Why? Because they told compelling stories with great acting, that made you feel something long after you left the theater. Just because it's our experience does not automatically make it a good film. It's only good -- when it's good. Period.


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


user
I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s.


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


user
I've seen enough of both Little Richard in interviews and in performances and enough of poor Leon pigeonholed into these 50s/60s musical bio pics to know that Leon was not the right actor for this role. Leon was so right as David Ruffin in The Temptations, but fails utterly to capture the essence of Little Richard in this film.
Actor Miguel Núñez who played Little Richard in "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?" was a much more suitable choice, having pulled off the musician's powerful but effeminate persona.
If the performances are unconvincing then the film will be as well. And this is what has happened here. Glossed over or missed entirely are LR's forays into homosexuality and voyeurism. What "The Temptations" did so well in capturing the rise of the group, warts and all, this film misses by a wide mark.
What is going on with director Robert Townsend who started off so well with "The Hollywood Shuffle"? He's a talented, funny guy but hasn't delivered anything near that first effort.


assistant
0