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
Incarcerated train robber near Yuma breaks free his chain-gang and heads for the retired sheriff responsible for killing his wife (as well as a hidden stash of gold which remains hidden thanks to the screenwriter). Attempt to bring the western genre up-to-date with 1970s-style violence and brutality isn't even in the same league as some of the new-fangled westerns which came out of the late-'60s. It is impossibly simple and square, with the female characters merely around as punching-bags and possible rape victims. As the former sheriff back in command, Charlton Heston gives one of his laziest, least-inspired performances ever (he has one good moment, attempting to read a letter and fumbling for his glasses). James Coburn, as the half-mad half-breed, is pretty much on auto-pilot as well, but Coburn has a way of turning even the hoariest dialogue and situations into something prickly and unnerving. It's his show all the way. *1/2 from ****


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


user
By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.
It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.
This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV.


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


user
Stereotyped, derivative, unoriginal and boring Western. The two popular stars (Charlton Heston and James Coburn) both give performances that are far from their best, and justifiably so; they both have superficial roles and character traits stated mainly by dialogue. Heston is a sheriff who "liked the world better as it used to be before" and Coburn is an outlaw who "owes something to the man who locked him up and has to pay his debt". Additionally, Heston is so old that he has trouble riding a horse and Coburn is mean and tough but not as cold-blooded a killer as some of the minor villains. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished. (*1/2)


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


user
Damn, I thought I'd seen some bad westerns. Can't top this one though. Hell I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for a Trinity Triple Feature for cryin out loud. I dont think I'll be able to watch Ben Hur again without laughing my ass off. Just really bad.
But hey, if you like stupid westerns with acknowledged stars in the thing take a peek at Shoot Out with Gregory Peck. It's just as bad, but much funnier. 1/10


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


user
I feel the movie did not portray Smith historically. The goal of this movie was to tell Smith's life in a way that would be "comfortable" to the LDS Church leaders, historical accuracy seems to have been of little concern. The movie was designed to be a "faith promoting" experience, not a balanced view of Smith "as a man." I have taken it upon myself to study Smith's life and have read both LDS works and none LDS works. The movie, like most LDS projects, was beautifully filmed and well acted. However, this was not a realistic portrayal of either the beginnings of Mormonism or Smith's relatively short life.
A significant period of time was given to reenacting an accident that Smith had when he was seven. While this event was no doubt important in forming his mental outlook, it appears that the main reason for including it in the film is to help establish a sympathetic view of Joseph Smith. Another point is in portraying Smith's teen years the film is silent regarding the Smith family's involvement in magical practices during the 1820's. Another problem is while the movie shows Joseph Smith good-naturedly entering into wrestling contests, it fails to show how he sometimes lost his temper and became violent.
I could go on and on. This movie was not historical in any way and should be considered a fictional movie about a man. I would not recommend seeing this movie for any other purpose other then entertainment.


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


user
What is the most harrowing movie ever made? The gynaecological nightmare of 'Cries and Whispers'? The acid psychodramas of Fassbinder? The discomfiting black comedy of 'Last House on the left? I'm sure for that portion of the film-loving public that tie their masts to the good ship Buster Keaton, there is only one answer - any one of his sound films.
I don't know what flayed my soul more poignantly in this movie - the grounding of Keaton's intricate and expansive physical art to humdrum slapstick; the painful hesitation of this master filmmaker with dialogue - not that he hasn't a lovely, comic voice, or that he can't make dialogue funny; it's just that the studio don't seem to have given him enough takes, and so he seems to be trying to remember his lines before he delivers, which only makes him - Keaton, not his character, look silly; or is it the humiliation of seeing Keaton caught up in a tawdry sex farce, when he has given us some of the richest accounts of romantic frustration in film?
No, I know what was most disturbing - having to watch Buster Keaton, cinema's greatest comedian, sit aside to observe Jimmy Durante doing his schtick. It is horrors such as this that get yer Dantes composing yer Infernos.
MGM seem to have got the curious idea that the best way to adapt Keaton to sound was to turn him into a Marx Brother, complete with verbal pedantry, elaborate, tedious 'clowning', shambolic slapstick, theatrical setting, triumph through chaos, and Thelma Todd. Keaton was just not that sort of comic, and where Groucho's malicious tongue and gleeful opportunism might just have made this plot work, Buster's socially inept professor can't, he is too studied and predictable.
What Buster needed was to be allowed experiment like Lang in 'M', or Rene Clair; he would never have tried to hold back the tide like Chaplin. When a film like 'The General' is alluded to - messing about with trains - the loss becomes even more apparent.
And the thing is, in patches amid the flat direction, the film isn't all that bad - there is an excellent jolt when a camera on the bus leaves Keaton alone at a railway station; and the denouement, if hardly original, is at least livelier than what went before. There is something almost endearing about the way Keaton slows down a plot that needs all the zip it can get.
There is a film in here about loneliness, emotionally paralysing order, the numbing effects of education etc., struggling to get out. The best way to appreciate this film is to watch not the narrative of Professor TZ Post, but of emasculated genius Buster Keaton, trapped in a prison of mediocrity, confounded by new technology, mocked by a malevolent fate (in this case the studio), retaining a stoical grace. Looked at like that, it becomes a kind of masterpiece.


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


user
Watching "Speak Easily" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz.
Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, "Tell me about the rabbits, George." (Post would have said something like, "Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'.") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help.
There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.
If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch "Speak Easily" with friends, a la "Mystery Science Theater 3000". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for.


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


user
T.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3.


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


user
I watched full house when I was younger and I can not understand why I did. I don't remember really enjoying the show. I think I and the majority of Americans watching this were hypnotized by its badness. It will put you in a trance state and there is no going back. I am still scarred but I try to move on. I know it's a family show but that does not mean it has to be SO bad. The show is SO cliché with every episode ending with a "talk" from the dad to make everyone's problems go away. The characters on the show are all loathsome. There is a know it all, cleaning obsessed, corny father who you want to punch in the face every time he comes on screen. We then have a supposed "rocker" uncle that is just there to look pretty for the moms that have to watch this crap. We have another uncle who is completely unfunny who does lame Bullwinkle impressions (need I say more about him). There is the eldest daughter who can not act and is always whining about something. Then a middle daughter who always says, "HOW RUDE!" to pretty much everything anyone says. Finally, there is the youngest daughter Michelle. Do not get me started on Michelle played but the horrible actors known as The Olsen Twins. If you believe in Christianity I guess you would associate her with the antichrist. She is always demanding things, trying too hard to be "cute", is constantly saying "DUH!" and rolling her eyes which makes you want to smack her. I am not a big fan of using a lot of physical abuse as punishment to children. But in her case, I would make an acceptation. She needed it on a daily basis. She is the most selfish character to ever be introduced to mainstream television. One example of this is when her rocker uncle is busy doing his job in the attic. The brat decides to constantly annoy him and demand attention. He yells at her and she gets upset. POOR BABY! The rest of the episode is catering to her emotional needs and the uncle eventually apologizes to her. UGGHH! The show will lower your IQ along with slowly destroying your will to live. I am surprised we don't hear in the news about full house being played in the background when police find people that have committed suicide. Do yourself a favor and do not watch reruns of the show. You will thank me later.


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


user
Seriously. This is one of the most stupid family shows of all time.
Plot- A family without a mother and 3 "dads" raise 3 little girls in San Francisco, California.
Characters- Neat freak Danny, cartoon loving Joey, hair obsessed Jesse, spoiled brat Michelle, stupid DJ, and almost normal Stephanie. The creators of this show really want you to hate the characters, don't they?
Therefore, I do not think anyone should watch this show. I only chuckled at a few moments in the show's whole running, and I think that instead of lethal injection, all criminals should be forced to watch this show, a torture far worse than anything else.
1.5/10 or: D


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


user
It has very bad acting. Bad story lines. Bad characters. You should never see this show If you see it on. TURN IT OFF. Or you be cringing for the next 30 minutes. It should have never been aired. It's not great. You should never see it. NEVER EVER EVER. So now, if you ever wanna watch this show, please don't. Turn to the THE CW for Smallville. Or Disney Channel for Hannah Montana, Wizards Of Waverly Place, or Nick for Drake & Josh, Those are much better family shows. So believe me on this, I've watched it before. and It is honestly, and I say Honestly, the worst show I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of TV. So do me a favor, and never watch this show.


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


user
The acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.
What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.
Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer.


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


user
I can see little girls enjoying this show, but calling this a family show is ridiculous. I'm amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely unfunny and stupid show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really dumb lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light unfunny joke. As for the actors, I didn't like them either. Bob Saget was painfully unfunny as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a one note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's horrid. John Stamos was the most tolerable character but he was so clichéd it was hard to watch him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely bad actress and showed no emotion ever. The middle girl Stephanie was too clichéd as the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what bad actresses the Olsen twins were. You can always tell when they are switching them off. The plot lines to too many story lines were so unrealistically stupid it's cringe worthy. This is a "family" show that tried to replace any good substance with cuteness and love, and though those are needed for a show about a family they overdid it way too much. This will be remembered as my least favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.
My rating: Terrible show. TVG 30 mins.


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 crime...
You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.
But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..
Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.
Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.


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


user
Full House is one of the worst TV series ever! Why?Because all the characters are so irritating that it's impossible to bear.The best character is Joey an even he is pretty irritating occasionally.An that girl DJ,who wrote her character?I want to kill my self every time she speaks.Not to mention when Danny start's with his philosophy.
Example: DJ won around ten thousand dollars or more in the casino.However,she's not eighteen so she shouldn't gamble according to law.However the casino was ready to pay her the money but then Danny,her father cought's her and don't let's her raise that money because she is not eighteen.Oh come on,give me a break,will ya?Since i've seen that stupid and childish scene i instantly turned off the television.Some of the thing's they say in this series not even a child would bought.Who in the world could think that Full House is entertaining and funny?Every single word they say in this series seem's like Shakespeare wrote it.Except that Shakespere knew how to write and except that he wouldn't be that childish and stupid to write something as stupid as they wrote in the script for the Full House!
For everyone who has a bad heart or any kind of bad medical condition or any will for life or any sense of the real world,i deeply recommend 'Do not watch the Full House'!Not even one episode as a try out.Avoid this series.Save your self from stupidity and nonsense.This is the worst television show ever!I'd rather watch Teletubbies then this.'Do not watch 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 hated this crap, every Friday as part of tgif it was on, and consistently sucked big time with stupidity each and every week. If you want to see something funny go watch "No On Would Tell" Starring Candice Cameron and Fred Savage, it really is hilarious, shows exactly why no one ever goes on to a good film career after doing a terrible TV show. This show really makes me sick, I hate those kids, and bob saget needs to go jump off a bridge for ever making this crapfest. I've seen funner stuff everywhere else but here. I AHet writing 10 lines! Watch 'full house' to see the least humanity has to offer in the way of arts and entertainment.


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


user
When I was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.
Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:
1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period?
2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.
3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.
4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.
5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.
6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.
Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while.


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


user
This show is just annoying!!! I feel sorry for the actors for having to attempt to be funny (especially Bob Saget), the laugh track tries to cover up the sad jokes and the "Awwww" track comes up at the most unnecessary times. The over-dramatic kids are no exception, especially the Olsen twins. Also, this show is cliché city. If you were to look up the word cliché, it would read "Full House" Every story line has a "life lesson" to be learned at the end. A sappy speech makes everything better and even has the ability to make the most bratty child have a sudden realization of goodness GASP too bad this couldn't be possible in real life. I don't know how someone could watch this show without bad mouthing the behavior of the characters or the laugh track. i find myself yelling at the TV saying, "THAT Isn't FUNNY/SAD/CUTE" If life were really like this, the world would fall apart.


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


user
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of many of Woody's movies, obviously his late 70's masterpieces (Annie Hall,Interiors, Manhattan)and most of his late 80's/early 90's dramas (Hannah, Crimes and Misdemeaners,Husbands and Wives) in fact I even liked some of his more recent efforts (Melinda, Anything Else, Small Time Crooks) but this was abysmal, I though it couldn't possibly be any worse than last years Match Point but how wrong I was.
It was lazily plotted - basically a cross between Match Point, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks,with all the jokes taken out - Woody seems to be on the way out as well, slurring most of his lines and delivering 'hilarious' catchphrases 'I mean that with all due respect...' over and over until the blandness of it all becomes to much to bare.
I know that most actors are queuing up to work with him but they should at least read the script first - Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman are so much better than this - and Woody should really take a more behind the camera role in future, if he has any sense about 20 miles behind it.
It wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't have so many great Woody films to compare this to - but it is clear that his best days are behind him and judging by this effort, Woody should call it a day before he becomes an industry joke.
Embarrassingly bad


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 both thought this film a watered-down, made-for-TV (BBC) version of Manhattan Murder Mystery...which is itself good, but not great. The story has little inter- character tension or chemistry, and not much of a plot. Woody Allen's character just sort of wanders around running off at the mouth, and Hugh Jackman and Scarlett Johannsson don't have a lot more to do. It's pretty disappointing, I must say. Ian McShane's role is just an expanded cameo appearance.
The first thing that occurred to me was "I wonder how much the BBC had to pay Woody Allen to dislodge him from Manhatttan?" He must've needed the money, and they must have needed his appeal to expand their audience beyond the youth market drawn to the two stars. I'm giving this movie 4 stars instead of 3 because it is unbothersome background noise. If you ever want something to have on while you're knitting or sorting your stamp collection, this'll do the job. I wouldn't pay to rent it again.


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


user
Err...this movie sucked. A LOT.
I have been reading some of the other reviews. Apparently there are a lot of people that think that anything Woody Allen writes or stars in is automatically good...
I have watched several of his films, in the vain hope that I'm missing something. But no, they just suck. Poorly written trash. The characters are all very stereotypical (not to mention rather stupid). The plot is...I think it is supposed to be mysterious. Not sure on that. Mr. Allen's character is...Woody Allen, on any other film you have seen of his.
If you are a fan of Woody Allen, go see this film. If you are under 50, don't bother. (If you are a fan of Woody Allen AND you are under 50...well, you are atypical. I don't know what to say.)


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


user
This is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).
Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).
Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this time.


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


user
The movie seems disjointed and overall, poorly written. The screenplay moves along as if 10 different people wrote it, and none of them were communicating with each other. Apparently they wanted to take a page from a Miracle on 34th Street (the original) type film, but it is done in such a poor way that the movie falls apart. This film is for only the very young, and even THEY will see the fact that whoever scripted it knows little to nothing about baseball. Such as:
 When the Angels are in dead last place, the owner doesn't seem to care, nor is he bothered by the fact his manager just got into a fight with his pitcher  ON THE MOUND  or that he PUNCHED the team's play by play announcer on live TV. However, when the team is one game from winning the Division, he gets bent out of shape over a story (sourced by a 6 year old) that the manager is getting help from a kid who claims to see real angels. What sounds worse? A losing violent out of control manager whose team has lost 15 in a row? Or a winning coach on the verge of the playoffs that is acting a bit eccentric and is helping foster kids? The owner's reaction makes no sense. And he's moved to change his mind by Maggie and her 'straight out of cliché land' speech during a news conference.
 The Angels are supposed to be playing for the Division in the final weekend series against the White Sox, however at the end of the game the announcer's keep saying the Angels 'won the pennant". The pennant is not decided until someone wins the LEAGUE championship, not the regular season division title.
 Whitt Bass, the goofball pitcher is the starting pitcher and wins the game that breaks the Angels losing streak  then is the starting pitcher  THE VERY NEXT DAY.
 Mel Clark (Tony Danza) is said in the ninth inning to have thrown 156 pitches, in a low-scoring ballgame. Typically in low scoring games, the pitch count is MUCH lower than this, usually around 80-90 pitches.
 "AL" the angel says at the end "Championships have to be won on their own", even though he and his angels have been manipulating and fixing games throughout the whole second half of the season.
I could go on and on, as there are MANY other examples where the story is poorly written.
For younger kids (under 10), this movie may be entertaining. It's too bad  done right this could have been a classic. Done wrong like this and it's a forgettable mess that will forever live as a UHF/cable Saturday Morning washout.


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 actors and actresses like to try different kinds of movies - hey, no one wants to get typecast - but Danny Glover, Brenda Fricker (happy birthday, Brenda!) and Christopher Lloyd should have known better than this. "Angels in the Outfield" is another movie in which everything seems lost until someone or something magically comes and saves the day. Do I even need to tell you how it ends? The movie is just plain lowly escapism (examples of high escapism are the various sci-fi movies from the '50s). If these movies had some political undertone - or at least offered us a new look at life - then they would be OK; this one is just pointless. Far closer to diabolical than angelic. Also starring Tony Danza, Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey, and I suspect that they don't wish to stress this in their resumes.


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


user
Warning! Spoilers!
This is your typical disney film.
1.Policticly correct what with the foster home that has an even divison of races.
2.Insults the viewers intellect with its simplistic lines.
3.The boy's slezy father is almost directly taken from the Never Ending Story 2.
4.In a world full of crime,disase,corruption,starvation and other proplems that need to be taken care of,only a losing team is worthy of divine intervention.UGHHHH!!!
5.Did you know that angels don't like swearing?! Where the heck did that come from!
6.In helping the team,the angel cause pain and humilation on the opposing team.Very angelic indeed!
7.The team the angels are helping are called...can you guess...THE ANGELS! Disney at its worst!
8."Just got his training wings." Brillent line!
My conculsion:I did not like it 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
Naming the absolutely most pathetic piece of crap in cinematic history is not an easy task, candidates being so abundant, but Nemesis 2 has been my personal favorite ever since I saw it. It was so funny we had to rent it again the next day, and again I laughed so hard I was literally rolling on the floor. (This usually only happens when I see Monty Python's "Scott of the Antarctic".)
Throughout the whole movie, an overwhelming what-the-heck-feeling firmly grasps the viewer. I'm utterly confounded that this clumsy home video ever made it to production stage. It's supposed to be a sequel, yet has no apparent connection whatsoever with the first film. The hero has the same name, but this time "Alex" is female, although it took us half way into the movie to stop guessing, what with all the muscles and the barbarian-nomad outfit!
There is really no plot at all, it's merely a prolonged chase scene, only it's so slow-paced and senseless that calling it a chase scene makes it sound way more interesting than it really is. There is almost no dialogue, which is just as well considering the quality of it, and then the film suddenly just comes to an abrupt end after a blatant action scene with lots of gasoline explosions, without ever really explaining what it was all about. Luckily, it never gets boring, because there's something silly and phony going on at all times!
Terrible movies are usually just tedious, but Nemesis 2 is such a perfect mixture of over-seriousness and utter nonintentional wackiness that it's truly entertaining. Rent this film, or buy it even, you won't be disappointed!


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


user
I saw this movie in a theater in Chicago and should have enjoyed it, since I love Nemesis but if the first half an hour is skillfully done, the rest is just sub-Predator video fodder, a long chase through those post-modern empty factories Pyun affectionnates. My girlfriend fell asleep. I still like Pyun though, but not this


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


user
And that is the only reason I posses this DVD. Now I haven't seen the first Nemesis film, but I did check the info out of it and I here by say: What? Why? Because in the first film Alex was male. But then again the first one was set in the future, so maybe this Alex is brand new one and the scientist just happened to make Alex female this time. Who knows, at least it wasn't addressed in the film in any way.
Here's a quick summary of the plot: Alex, still a baby then (or how ever you want, as it was, is, in the future) escapes with her mom using a special time vessel and ends up in the 80's Africa. There mommy gets killed and Alex (Sue Price) grows up in a African tribe. Then the tribe gets slaughtered by a cyborg from the future and Alex then runs and hides and finally she kills the cyborg. So there. Does sound familiar, doesn't it?.
Terminator isn't the only film being ripped here, Predator gets its fair share too and I think the first Fly movie, the Vincent Price one, gets special nomination for giving a solid base to build up your cyborgs head from.
Lets see, what else? Okay, the film was quite standard small budget flick, but it did have bad special effects for a mid 90's film. It would have looked okay for a 80's flick how ever. Biggest problem is the plot. Things just happen and the viewer is barely interested. Nemesis 2 isn't the crappiest piece of cinema I've had pleasure (?) to watch but it does come damn close.
I won't say a thing about acting, because let's be honest here: did anyone expect Oscar worthy performances here? Oh well... at least I did find Sue Price hot in that amazonian warrior way.
A "real" movie rating: 2/10 There isn't a lot of pros about the over all quality. And despite of the very basic plot the film it self makes very little sense.
A camp movie rating: 4/10 I did get occasional laughs from the sheer badness of the film, so it does have small merits in it.


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


user
Years have past since Alex Rain (played by Olivier Gruner in the first movie) stumbled onto the horrific plot that involved replacing humans with machines however since then a war between cyborgs and humans has emerged and we lost, now a superwoman of sorts who is the daughter of Olivier Gruner's character (She also inherits only half of his minimal acting ability) which I think is the films minimal connection to the first, however when the superwoman is created she hides in 1980 while a bounty hunter from the future hunts her down in this confusing sci-fi clunker. Nemesis became a cult hit, that I can see why people liked even though I was no fan of said film. Nemesis tried very ambitiously to come up with different ideas, develop a beautiful look and provide tons of action, it almost worked. Nemesis 2 doesn't even have that ambition, it's a cheap rip off of The Terminator with a muscled female who is so low on acting ability she makes Olivier Gruner seem like a master thespian and the action sequences lack the explosive scope that was the main selling point of the original. I'll admit I was no fan of the original but it deserved a better follow up than this. The original also featured a good cast like Tim Thomerson, Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa, Thom Mathews, Brion James, Thomas Jane and yes Jackie Earle Haley this one features nobody and this time it's just a dull movie with a pretentious vibe. In fact after I saw this, it inspired to add a half star to the original.
* out of 4-(Bad)


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


user
If this is the first of the "Nemesis" films that you have seen, then I strongly urge you to proceed no further. The sequels to "Nebula" prove to be no better...hard to believe considering this entry is bottom-of-the-barrel. This movie tries, but it's just not worth your time, folks. Take a nap instead.


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


user
The recent boom of dating show on U. S. television screens has reached a fevered pitch since the first episode of "The Bachelor." Unsuspecting audiences have since been subjected to countless clones and variations, including "The Bachelorette", "Joe Millionaire", "For Love Or Money", and the execrable "Married By America." Hoping to cash in on this trend, and simultaneously tap and exploit a new demographic, Bravo has unleashed the disastrous "Boy Meets Boy" upon the world. And may they have mercy on us all.
The premise is simple and is designed to be light-hearted: an eligible gay man is courted by a number of suitors, eliminated show by show until one is left, but there's a twist. Half of the men are actually straight. This is not much of a big deal, but the inherent viciousness of the scenario kicks in after hearing the pay-off: if, at the end of the show, the gay man picks a straight man in disguise, the straight man wins a cash prize. The gay man gets nothing, or at least nothing more than a few parting gifts, a pat on the back, and a hearty round of "Aren't you embarrassed? Well, thanks for playing!"
Just the like the equally painful "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" (another Bravo program), this show is another example of stereotypes run amok. What makes it even worse, though, is the fact that straight men are playing UP these stereotypes for cash. The producers of this show believe that all you have to do is put enough hair gel in a man's hair, dress up in Abercrombie & Fitch with a pair of designer sandals, strip him of all body hair and fat and voila! It's the gay equivalent to putting a white performer in blackface, and just as offensive to those of us -- like myself -- who are genuinely gay and don't dress/act like that. It implies that gays have no variance or chance for individuality, that they can't behave like real people, only like stereotypes. Never mind the fact that the bank of suitors is sorely lacking in any kind of diversity. All are gym-toned, most are white, and all look far too scrubbed and cleaned.
This is another example of how, instead of fostering acceptance of gays as dynamic individuals capable of variance and change, Hollywood has again taken a stereotype and run with it all the way to the bank. I feel genuinely dirty watching this show, as show any gay man who sees this unabashed parade of soft-core pornography masquerading as legitimate television. 1 out of 10.


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


user
The Nutcracker has always been a somewhat problematic ballet. It bears little resemblance to ETA Hoffman's original story on which it is based.
In the ballet, the story is essentially over by the second-half when Clara (or Marie in this version) travels to the Kingdom of Sweets to watch a series of character dances.
There's an infinite variety of stage productions that re-interpret the story in myriad ways (not always successfully) to compensate for the ballet's weak libretto.
Balanchine's version doesn't really have any sense of drama or story at all (despite the fact that there is plenty of drama and mystery in Tchaikovsky's wonderful first-act music). The result is a completely forgettable first-half Christmas party where hardly anything happens and where even the dancing (the little that there is of it) isn't particularly memorable.
The pantomime over-acting, particularly of Drosselmeier, which might look passable on the stage, just looks silly filmed for the big screen.
Unfortunately, things aren't much better when we get to the Kingdom of Sweets (Act II in the stage version). Although there are a few choreographic highlights, most of the choreography is bland and uninspiring. This certainly isn't vintage Balanchine.
Balanchine is widely regarded as a master of abstract dance, but I have always felt he was less successful as a creator of narrative ballets. Watching this film version of his stage production of The Nutcracker has only re-affirmed this view.


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


user
I have seen many, many productions of The Nutcracker. Now perhaps I viewed this movie from the tainted point of view of a theatrical director, but I was disappointed. I'm sure people in the specific business of ballet choreography find this production impressive but from a purely theatrical perspective I found everything from design to choreography to be lackluster and unbefitting of a "motion picture". None of the traditionally "weird" and impressive costumes looked like what they were supposed to be (i.e. the candies didn't look like candies, the rats didn't look like rats but rather like chocolate kisses,) the acting was weak, perhaps toned down too much for the screen, and the choreography just didn't do anything for me. This makes the entire show very satisfactory (at best), as if it were intended to not set itself apart from any other production. But remember, again, this is from the artistic perspective of a theatrical director, not a dancer or a choreographer, but a straight male theatrical director.


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


user
I cannot vote on this because I wouldn't watch garbage from these people. They got my money with another movie (Mr. Jingles) and I swore it would never happen again. I feel it's my civic duty to help people stay away from this trash. Go to the forums on this film and read where cast members try to act like they are seeing the movie for the first time. One guy even responds to himself ...using the same name! There are shills in the forum that say it's as good as Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane...Not even close (by no means). If this is the company's 2nd movie, it should be better than the first. That means the 3rd movie should be a lot better. Not so, I've seen it. All I want to know is how you distribute this trash using the same names all the time. Having fun with friends and making a movie over the weekend is fine...but don't try to market that trash!


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


user
I don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.
Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family.


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


user
There is a lot to like here. The actors are first rate and the script provides good dialog best capturing the ambiance of a tightly knit, likable family. However, for that reason the film does not ring true. We see Leo, who apparently just learned of his HIV positive diagnosis, essentially react in a way that is not in tune to the supportive atmosphere for which he finds himself. As well, the film ends somewhat abruptly avoiding what Leo, his brother and the rest of this close family must have dealt with in light of their love for him. The young actor who plays Leo's brother, Marcel, is impressive as generally is the rest of the cast. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters could not decide onwhether they wanted an insightful dissertation on the effects of HIV on a functional, appealing family or what the devastation HIV is on the victim - so it only hints at both. While this film provides food for thought it leaves the viewer wanting much more than it delivers.


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


user
I must be that one guy in America that didn't like this movie. I guess this just wasn't my style or something, I just don't see what's so fascinating about it, this was *barely entertaining, let alone one of the greatest achievements in cinema history.
It's about a guy that came from nothing, and goes on to become a drug lord. Pretty simple way to describe an entire movie, and that's exactly my feeling about the entire movie. Contrary to what a lot of people think, just because a movie is about mafias/drug trade/criminal groups doesn't automatically make it a great movie, don't forget good storytelling.


assistant
0