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
The show is average. It doesn't make me laugh particularly. However, I think Courtney really brings it down. She doesn't look natural. She has these three ways to talk, all robotic. She talks quietly (with no intonation), she talks normally (with no intonation), or she does that thing where she starts talking normally, and starts yelling gradually. However, her yelling is like "let's pretend I'm yelling because I shouldn't be too loud on the set".
She is constantly aware of herself being this cute actress doing this funny thing. It's annoying. You can't really get her personality, because she doesn't really produce emotion, and doesn't get upset. She has this husband, who's doing all these stupid things, and there is no reaction from her. Very dry and plain acting.


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


user
You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.
Episode 'Valentines Pay'
Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end
Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk.
IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.
'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.


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


user
All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.
And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.
The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness.


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


user
I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell.
Except..
Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in!


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


user
I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo?


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


user
It must be the most corniest TV show on the air. This is probably a escape for Jim Belushi and all of his bad movies. His brother sucked all the talent out he younger brother. I hope this show is canceled and never spoken of again except in a negative use. Jim has got to retire or something. Please let them go of the air. If i here a joke from that show i will throw up and and wash my eyes out with a toothbrush. Id rather be taken from the devil himself than watch a full half hour that piece of programing. I still do not understand why the show is still in the air and running. We all know deep down that we want to shoot our TV screens when we see Jim's face. In conclusion, no more please.


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


user
This is the most saccharine romance I ever sat through. The perfect film for an idle housewife in kerchief, housedress, and ostrich-trimmed high-heeled mules to watch in the afternoon, lying on the couch eating bonbons. In fact, bonbons play a prominent role in the movie.
The only reason I was able to watch to the end, is that I finally was able to gaze at Keanu Reeves' dreamy face in almost every scene. In most of his films, he moves too fast to get a good look. The only rapid action in this show is Giancarlo Giannini waving his hands with Latin emotionality - more Italian than Mexican, really.
The dialog is as stiff as wood. Unfortunately, no bodices are ripped - the hero is disgracefully perfect-mannered and mild. The aristocratic warm-blooded old-world family cliche is as old as the hills. What does it matter if they are Irish or Italian or Mexican? This is a fairy story.
I knew before the titles finished running that this would not be the movie I hoped for. The glowing grapes looked like the paragon of all food ads in Women's Day Magazine. I didn't see his name listed, but the art director surely was Thomas Kinkade, who paints the million dollar canvases of Irish cottages snuggled in fuchsias. This film was literally seen through rose-colored glasses. If you like dreamy pink and blue sky, this film is for you! (The bonbons looked really good, too!)


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


user
i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.


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


user
The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?
I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???
I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3.
Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor.


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


user
"I Love New York" is another entry by VH-1 (MTV Networks) showing the entertaining side of dating a shrill, obnoxious, woman. It must have been an easy decision to take the most wildest, Ebonics speaking, craziest contestant - and her mother - and give them a show on this network. Many will argue, "this is a show". True, it's not as bad as it's previous show, "Flavor of Love" - but it's just as bad.
It reminds me of a skit from the 90's show "In Living Color" where Keenan Ivory Wayans was imitating the boxer Mike Tyson on "The Love Connection" dating show and he picked "Robin Givens" for a date. Mike talked of how the date was okay, but how the obnoxious mother kept butting in. This show reminds me of that.
The men are chosen and given names to degrade themselves and the woman that they are dating more - (I would think an intelligent man looking to date an intelligent woman would NOT allow her - and her mother - to give you a name that is so ghetto, you'll embarrass yourself every time you appear on TV.) but these are professional reality actors, so why bother.
It escapes me to discover what is so entertaining about all of this. The fact that this is as fake as her newly implanted additions? 15 Minutes of fame and hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad time for the network? (Well, you can't hate them for trying to make a buck.) Maybe the wonder is - who would want to be with this woman past an hour? Or wonder if she and her mother's next show would be on the WWF! Any way you slice it, it's a train wreck you've seen countless times before so by now the shock value is down to nil.
No twist or turn will make this a more interesting train wreck, or any different from any of the others. Appeals to the lowest common denominator and for those calling an "end" to reality shows, this is just another nail in the coffin as to why they should end, immediately.


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


user
It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.
Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.
However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on.


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


user
I recently watched this film at the 30'Th Gothenburg Film Festival, and to be honest it was on of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Don't get me wrong, there are the funny and entertaining bad films (e.g "Manos  Hands of fate") and then there are the awful bad films. (This one falls into the latter category). The cinematography was unbelievable, and not in a good way. It felt like the cameraman deliberately kept everything out of focus (with the exception of a gratuitous nipple shot), the lighting was something between "one guy running around with a light bulb" and "non existing". The actors were as bad as soap actors but not as bad as porn actors, and gave the impression that every line came as a total surprise to them. The only redeeming feature was the look of the masked killer, a classic look a la Jason Vorhees from "Friday the 13'Th". The Plot was extremely poor, and the ending even worse. I would only recommend this movie to anyone needing an example of how a horror film is not supposed be look like, or maybe an insomniac needing sleep.


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


user
Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.
If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.
Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.
As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.
The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- "Saint Crispin's Day" and all that.
Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. "I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither." That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.
You'll just love 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 just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book.


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


user
I saw this film first in the Soviet Union and many erotic scenes were simply edited out by the censorship committee. But then, in Poland in 2000, I watched it in a complete form. And so what? The plot is incredibly unwise - 2 men survive the genetic catastrophe and find themselves on the planet full of feminist strong, straight and fundamentally severe ladies. The men now try to fight it and then the whole bunch of extremely silly clichés follow - sex-drive, constant masculine desire for sex, feminists who are shown like complete idiots (you may agree with them or not, but idiots certainly they are not), and so on. The performance even of the stellar Jerzy Stuhr is here wooden and strangely bad - he just pulls unfunny faces and repeats on saying phrases like "I am in the elevator with a nude chick and I haven't done anything to her!". This was intended to be a comedy, instead, it turned out to be a vapid farce, full of predictable jokes and below-the-waist innuendos. Do not waste your time on it - this is just bad.


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


user
In its way, Mister Foe (originally, and more appropriately, titled Hallam Foe  I can't see addressing its title character as "mister"), is a tribute to good acting. Both Jamie Bell, as Hallam, a physically attractive voyeur/creep, and Sophia Myles, as Kate, his kinky partner in sex and fantasy romance, are convincing. The problem comes when you try to connect their roles to anything that happens in real life. A young man who spies on the intimate details of people's lives the way Hallam does would be deservedly beaten to a pulp. And a woman in Kate's situation would be repulsed and frightened - she would probably call the police.
These things are not, however, what happens in the movie. Poor Hallam's mother has died and his father married a woman with whom he's been having an affair. Hallam, of course, hates his stepmother and lets he know it. She has sex with him. Kate's some kind of an employment person who places Hallam in a dish washing job and plays sexual games. She looks like his birth mother. It all ends happily with Hallam "resolving" his "issues".
Forty some years ago, the play and brilliantly acted movie, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, had a similarly optimistic ending, with characters becoming wiser and better after tearing each other apart. The trouble is, it doesn't always work that way, especially when nobody really cares. In Virginia Woolf, the ending's plausible because of the intensity of the emotional revelation. In Mister Foe, the emotional revelation never really happens.


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


user
Hallam Foe tells us the story about a boy who lost his mother and experiences some sort of Oedepus complex afterward.
It is something like 95 minutes long but would be better in ten. There's like an hour in the middle where he is doing climbing practice on rooftops, and habits in a church tower like Quasimodo (only he is much less sympathetic).
There's a strange love story involved which doesn't have anything to do with anything. She happens to look like his mother, yes so what? We know he misses his mother, that's what the first ten minutes were about. They should just have put the beginning and ending together and it would have been a O.K. short film. Now it's a portrait of a character who doesn't change. He is a guy that stuff happens to. The only active choice he has in the whole middle of the movie is to apply for a job.
There's this whole Oedepus thing going on which is supposed to make us analyze his character. He paints his face, dresses in women's clothing and wears a dead Badger on his head. A Badger! You've got to see the ending! He returns to his home with the badger on his head (and it is shot like a tacky Horror film) to kill his dad's new wife (which he had sex with in the beginning). And somehow they thought this wouldn't be entertaining enough so they put some indie punk music in the background. I've got to admit though, I'm kind of allergic to films that want to write a psychological complex on your nose. It feels like this MacKenzie director/guy/whatever is trying to show us that he also has been studying psychology in school. You are so smart! Thank you for bringing all these forgotten theories back into our memories! You really dug! What a Wallraff! Okay so now I realized this film is based on some random book, but anyway..
Photowise it is boring. A lot of talking heads. Plus the editor has changed the colors from scene to scene, you know cold and warm etc.. why? maybe "Hallam Foe" is both a feature and a test film for color blind people. Or maybe they just thought that the drama wouldn't be enough to tell us that he feels lonely, so they increased blue so that we really get it.
I'm not even gonna comment on the cliché indie-oh-how-how-how-cute drawings they have made in the presentation. And all the "cute" sex stuff going on. This whole film is an independent cliché. But I do recommend it. I laughed more than a few times. Though it is really annoying to be a film student and to see how crap like this gets through the machine.


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


user
First off...with names like Fred Olen Ray, Brinke Stevens and Jan-Michael Vincent, plus distributors like "Rhino" and "Troma" on the video box, you know what you're getting into with this one. B movie mania! If you're actually expecting to see a thriller "based on Edgar Allan Poe," then forget it and head straight for the excellent series of Roger Corman 60s Poe films. This is pure, unadulterated sleaze (with just a pedestrian attempt at a plot similar to "The Premature Burial"), complete with lots of R-rated, ready-for-video sex and nudity. However, it's certainly entertaining and fun in a slipshod kind of way...
Brinke (who has three nude scenes in the first 30 minutes) plays rich, traumatized, insomniac housewife Victoria Monroe, whose fear of being prematurely entombed stems from her belief that the same fate befell her father (Hoke Howell). Her worthless husband Terry (Jay Richardson) has racked up some serious gambling debt (owed to a gangster played by Robert Quarry) and, with help from his kinky, blonde, European-accented sexpot secretary Lisa (Delia Sheppard) plots to do away with Brinke for her money. Name-value actress Karen Black drops in briefly wearing a blonde wig as a hypnotist (she's way too talented to be playing an insignificant role like this), 50s sci-fi/horror star Robert Clarke plays a doctor and family friend and Michael Berryman shows up for a decent nightmare sequence performing an autopsy on a still-living Vicki. Jan-Michael Vincent mostly sits outside a house in his car making goo-goo eyes as Brinke enters and exits the home.
The kill-a-spouse-for-the-inheritance plot has been done a million times before, the ending is an unintentional laugh riot (concluding with a direct rip-off of the Zuni Fetish Doll segment in TRILOGY OF TERROR) and whoever created the awful stabbed face and decapitated head FX for this release needs to sharpen up on their skills a bit. Brinke does a decent job making her character somewhat sympathetic, but the biggest surprise of all is how good former Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard is in her role. She stole every scene she was in and easily gave the standout performance here.


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


user
Fred Olen Ray is a lousy director, even as far as B movie directors go, but 'Haunting Fear' is probably one of his better films. Yes, it does butcher the great Poe story 'Premature Burial' and yes, it is badly paced and uneven throughout, but it is also pretty entertaining. Scream Queen Brinke Stevens is better than usual as a pretty, fragile housewife whose worthless husband (Jay Richardson) is plotting to do away with her because he needs money to pay off a gangster (played by Robert Quarry). Delia Sheppard, a veteran of many early 90s soft-core movies, actually gives the best performance in the film as a slutty mistress. You will also enjoy small roles played by Karen Black as a psychic, Robert Clarke as a doctor and Michael Berryman in a nice cameo in one of the better scenes. The ending didn't make much sense!


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


user
I purchased this video quite cheaply ex-rental, thinking that the cover looked quite nice. And it was nice, but the movie is trash. I can handle B-grade, I sometimes even enjoy a good B romp (ie. 'Surf Nazis Must Die' is a classic example of how entertaining the genre can be), but this was just bland bland bland. Incredibly dull scenes were broken up too sparsely by good wholesome cheap porn and entertaining dream horror sequences. This movie has very little to offer.


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


user
A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable.


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


user
Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.
Got that?
OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.
The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why.


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


user
I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.


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


user
This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This is saying quite a bit, considering some of the choices I've made in film rentals.
I got this on netflix based entirely on the fact that someone I went to high school with is topless in it. The topless scene lasted all of about 5 seconds and the rest of the movie was about as much fun as having pungee sticks driven underneath my toenails whilst being forced to listen to Roseanne sing Big Spender.
The "skits" are stupid and consist of the worst kind of juvenile bathroom humor and locker-room gags, and it's such a blatant (and poor) rip-off of The Kentucky Fried Movie that you'll be begging for Big Jim Slade to crash through the wall and save us from the stupidity of "Vince Offer" (whoever that is).
Unless you are a masochist, avoid this pile of rubbish.


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


user
I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see "Kentucky Fried Movie" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO!


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


user
A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.
My Grade: D


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 doesn't even deserve a one. This was an utter waste of time. It was a waste of film and money. It was not offensive but everything was provocative and disgusting. My spoiler is one that I think should be read by everyone. There is full frontal nudity and disgusting language. But not only that, there is NO plot line, the actors are terrible, the accents are horrible, the actors are small time and I was even EXCITED to watch this movie!
The only reason I rented it was for Brian van Holt (who got only a fifteen second part, by the way). I think this might have been a mistake on the directors and editors parts but they repeated the same segments two or three times, adding only a new sentence.
A film similar to this is Eraser Head, possibly the most disturbing movie in existence. There is no plot line, and is not funny. Although it isn't trying to be funny. DO NOT WATCH EITHER MOVIE.


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 movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. "Guaranteed to offend...everyone!" the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.
So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap.


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


user
I bought this at tower records after seeing the info-mercial about fifteen hundred times on comedy central. I was actually really looking forward to watching this. My god where did i go wrong? Now before i give my review let me just say that i am a person who can pretty much find the good in all movies, hell i own over 1,500 dvd's! With that said, the underground comedy movie ranks up there with the worst film i have EVER seen. I tried to give it a chance, but not only was it not funny. It had no point, did not offend what-so-ever and was all around stupid. God who in their right mind thought these pieces of crap were funny? this is going right to the bottom of the bin...


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


user
For shame, for shame that a fine actor such as Joseph Fiennes would allow himself to be cast in this piece of nauseating drivel. The movie was not only bad, but down right horrible and of no redeeming quality. The plot, (was there one?) seemed to go no where. The Russians played silly kill or be killed games and the rest of the cast should be declared null and void for their pathetic performances. I gave up about 3/4 of the way through and turned it off. A "1" for awful only because there is nothing lower. Don't waste your time on this one, you'll not miss anything.


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


user
Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones.


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


user
To start with, I have to point out the fact that you're gonna feel completely lost for more than half an hour. Yeah, some things happen, but you don't know why or what for. When you finally figure things out you just realize that it's nothing but a twisted soad opera, dealing with mature prostitutes, dead mothers, illegitimate sons... The characters are rather poor and the actors (specially the young ones) don't help that much to make'em look credible. Only Marisa Paredes stands out, but she's a superb actress, no matter if the movie is pure rubbish.
The only positive things to say about "Frío Sol De Invierno" is that débutant Pablo Malo seems to have good intentions, and he's filmed a couple of scenes that are quite intense... Well, maybe the next time...
*My rate: 4/10


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 should be called "plan 9 from joseph smith." i think its weirdness is underappreciated. the playwright seems to have read paul ehrlich's "the population bomb (1968)," and crafted a musical response made especially for mormons. the whole point of the play is that having as many children as you can is part of "heavenly father's" (god's) plan. and anything that stands in the way of having more babies is very bad. get it?
This version was filmed in 1989, which is confusing. it's utah, so it looks and feels like 1983, the play was actually written in 1973, and of course, the theology is part 1840's, part battlestar galactica. some of the action takes place on earth and some in the "pre-existence, an aimless romper-room where annoying kids wait to get their bodies so they can come down try not to slam the door on the missionaries, losing their shot at celestial glory.
it is as stagey as they come, but don't let the poor theatrics spoil your appreciation for this demented mormon universe where the 'cool kids' are all into population control, (presumably) counseling their parents not to have any more children!! having big families was, at the time the play was written, the cultural norm in the lds community, and more importantly, considered part of God's plan. the church has since done a 180, and have made family planning a choice of the parents, and large families are much less the cultural norm now. making the entire doctrinal premise of the movie for a modern-day mormon moot!
ahhh but it's really only as good as the music. there are some catchy tunes here that just won't let this movie die the 1970's death it was pre-destined for. the brother and sister sing some love songs to each other that make you wonder if maybe something else was going on there --wink. and the tough, cool kids make new kids on the block look like metallica. so cheers to all that! gather the family around, make some jell-o shooters and enjoy the show!



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


user
I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.


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 said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.
The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.


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 feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.
The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...
Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...
THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...


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


user
What a waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain.." about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!


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


user
In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying.
The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.
The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director.
Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.


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


user
"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (an amazingly incovenient title) is simply a bad movie; it has no heart, no deep ideas, nothing very special about it. Yes, the CGI backgrounds look interesting, but the result is that the whole thing is shot in an annoying soft focus. Additionally, the movie uses music the same way as, say, "Gilligan's Island" or the Scooby-Doo cartoons-- IT NEVER STOPS. Terribly, simply terrible. There are no fresh ideas, either, just gobs and gobs and gobs and... etc., of bits taken from older movies and serials. There is no gatekeeper here, the movie just seems to exist because it can. Save your money and your time. Not entertaining at all.


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


user
Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.


assistant
0