empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA great gangster flick, with brilliant performances by well-known actors with great action scenes? Well, not this one.
It's rather amazing to see such a wide cast of well-known actors, that have many good movies in their filmographies in such a movie, without doubt this may be one of the worst they could possibly appear in.
First of all, the plot is as you'd expect it from your average gangster biography, nothing new, nothing fancy in it. The way it is told makes the movie look a LOT longer than it is (when i thought the two hours should be almost over, i was quite surprised that only 45 minutes had passed).
The action scenes look a lot like those from 80ies TV series - the A-Team, for example. It's just that in the 80ies (esp. with the A-Team) those scenes were far more sophisticated than those in \"El Padrino\". It's especially fun to see the guys point their guns in the air and still hit something (not to talk about people that take cover behind car doors which later look like they've been shot through).
The acting fits quite nicely to the action. Either you get the same reaction to everything that happens (Dolph Lundgren style), or it's so overacted that you may think it's a parody (but unfortunately it's not).
My advise is to stay away from this movie, any other gangster movie is better than this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA friend of mine decided to rent this thing, lucky it wasn't my money.. Pretty much wasted my time though. A story that could have been interesting is completely wasted by incredibly bad acting and horrible editing/directing. Maybe it could become a classic because of all the weird over-acting :)(Gary Busey's character for example) All the over-acted characters were actually the only thing that made this movie a little interesting as they grabbed your attention (for all the wrong reasons obviously) where the movie in itself failed miserably. In short: A waste of time and money
2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSome weeks ago, at a movie theater, I saw a movie poster of El Padrino (2004) with the tag \"The Latin Godfather\". How lame have we become, I thought, Latin just because he is a Mexican? Let me remind you that ANYTHING Latin comes from or is related to Latium, Italy, So the original guy in the Godfather movie is more Latin than the Mexican Godfather and this is why: We are called Latin-American people because we speak Spanish, a language based in the Latin language that originated in Rome now Italy. So to place a tag in a movie poster like \"The Latin Godfather\", is not just ignorant, of course if we are trying to related this movie to the original Godfather, but a desperate and uncreative attempt to get some credit by copying the title of a movie classic. Now about the movie, I just hate overacting so from 1 to 10 I guess is 3 the most.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm a sucker for mob/gangland movies, so I rented this movie. This movie is a complete train wreck. With all the big name actors in this film, I can not believe how bad it was. It was so bad, that I began laughing hysterically towards the end of the film. The actor better known as Zues or the big dude from the Ice Cube movie \"Friday\" does an incredible overacting job throughout the film. First thing I told Blockbuster when I returned the film was to remove this garbage from their shelves. Do not rent this movie, unless you want to waste two hours of your life. If they come out with a sequel, I wonder if it will be twice as bad as the first. I will be more cautious when renting so called 'mob/gangland' movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat is the deal with all these ethnic crime groups copying Italian mafia related movies ? We all know the Godfather as in Don Vito Corleone, now we have this Mexican one which is just a strait out Copy. I cant see why other ethnic groups have to Mimic and imitate Italian mobsters, but it sure makes them look silly. They sure seem to be wanabee Italians. I would much prefer to see Mexicans perform there own ideas and like to see there own culture, and the way they do it, instead of copying ideas from The Godfather trilogy. Apart from that the movie was disappointing, seeing mexicans acting and trying to be Italians is not my thing. After watching this, I'm now going to Watch the \"Real\" Godfather so this movie can be erased from my memory.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's amazing that this no talent actor Chapa got all these well known stars to appear in this dismal, pathetic, cheesy and overlong film about a low life gangster who looks white but is half Mexican, much of the acting is bad and many of the well known stars in this trashy movie are given a script that seems made up by a 16 year old, i'm sure this movie is the career low point for actors such as Dunaway, Wagner, Keach, Tilly and Busey who i'm sure are very embarrassed that they ever appeared in this turkey of a film. I doubt many people have ever heard of Chapa and after this terrible movie i'm sure he will disappear into oblivion where he belongs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEl Padrino :The Latin Godfather - while this seems to be a straight to DVD/video type movie- my fullframe copy obviously looked cropped- so maybe this flick had a limited theatrical run.And the title character appears to more of a Gringo than moi( I am half Honduran). Pretty typical rise and fall of a drugdealer movie with the A-list of B-list actors- Robert Wagner(drug lawyer),Kathleen Quinlan(crusading judge),Tiny Lister(mob enforcer),Gary Busey(child rapist),Brad Dourif(white power jailbird),Stacey Keach(bereaved Governor),Joann Pacula(bereaved Milf), Faye Dunaway(crusading lawyer) and Galo Make Canote as an uncredited party guest.This movie is pretty lame- I only watched it to kill time before the Skins game- the only thing that saved it was Jennifer Tilly as a crazed Latina drug dealing assassin - she was over the top and sexy-skanky that it was fun to watch her scenes.Not worth renting or seeking out. D+
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNothing I dislike more than a kung-fu movie that plays for laughs. It is the main reason I can't stand Jackie Chan (or his lookalikes). He was not always a clown, I must add. \"My Young Auntie\" is slapstick martial arts of the worst kind. It is a perfect example of how the subgenre was brought down to the mud by endless silly antics and childish behavior. Unless you are 5-year-old, I really don't understand how anyone could find this kind of film funny. But humor is indeed a very subjective thing. Personally, I think this type of approach did permanent damage to the beloved subgenre. I did think leading lady Kara Hui was very good here. But I had such a hard time sitting through this one that I could not enjoy her fine performance. If you don't mind all the silliness, you might enjoy it. I know I didn't.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe clever marketeer is he is, Jess Franco naturally also cashed in on the huge temporarily success of psychedelic spy movies like Mario Bava's ultimately sensational \"Danger: Diabolik!\". Franco is the ideal man to shoot a similar film, as he could freely insert as much sleaze, kitschy scenery and absurdly grotesque plot twists as he wanted to. And he partially understood this very well, as \"The Girl from Rio\" revolves on a man-hating organization, led by a funky dressed lesbo, that plots to turn all men into obedient slaves! Unfortunately (for them, at least), the diabolical plans conflict with the daily business of a feared crime syndicate boss, played by George Sanders. All the right ingredients are well-presented, yet this is a surprisingly weak and unsatisfying adventure movie. The plot is rich on imagination, but seemingly only on paper, as the action is quite tame. The film is also very colorful...but not too bright and especially shocking was the total lack of vicious sex. There's a bit of nudity, sure, but too few according to normal Franco standards. All the characters are sick in the head, so the least I expected (or hoped for) were more perverted undertones or frenzied themes. Franco obviously had a bigger budget as usual to work with, and I must say he spends that money well on more convincing set pieces and talented cast members. Particularly the veteran actor George Sanders (\"Village of the Damned\", \"Psychomania\") is one of the best players ever to appear in a Franco production. Too bad even he can't save \"The Girl from Rio\" from being a huge letdown. A legendary Euro-smut filmmaker like Jess Franco could and should have done more with this concept. Shame, shame, shame...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are certain scenes in this film (like the hero's first meeting with super-villainess Shirley Eaton) where it seems to be on the edge of breaking sexual taboos and doing its premise (females want to rule the world by making men slaves) justice, but it never dares to. The result is a film with no sexuality and some tame violence. Despite the choppy plot, the film is not overly bad until its climax, where its amateurishness runs rampant (terrible editing, overuse of stock footage). Worth seeing only as a curio. (*1/2)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNow this is a real turkey by the overrated director Franco, who gave us such classics as \"Las Vampiras/Vampyros Lesbos\". Yes, I think that bad films can be great fun. I adore the hilarious howlers of Doris Wishman, Dwain Esper and Ed Wood jr., but this one proved to be too much for me. It is the first film I rated 1. Where should I start? The screenplay is idiotic to the utmost. The dialogue is unbelievably bad. The directing seems to be nonexistent. The best music cue (used repeatedly in this film) was taken directly from the movie \"Der Hexer\" (1964). And it's BORING! Poor Shirley Eaton and George Sanders! In one shot Sanders reads a Popeye comic while his henchman torture a girl (this aspect is probably the intellectual highlight of this movie). The only thing that baffled me was that Franco promptly showed female nudity whenever I thought the movie would gain from it - this is real directing skill! Still, I'm afraid that a movie in which actors pretend to shoot with machine guns by shaking them is not really worthwhile.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDuring my childhood time I have seen the first three \"Critters\" movies and enjoyed 'em.They were fun and entertaining horror comedies perfect for adventurous horror loving kids.I have never seen \"Critters 4\",so I finally decided to check it out.My verdict:forgettable and pretty bad flick with strikingly low body count.The script by Joseph Lyle and David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd,the plot rips off \"Alien\" and \"Star Wars\" and the sets look bland and murky.The tone of the film appears to be deadly serious throughout making it slow and dull.\"Critters 4\" was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects;the ones taken from \"Android\" look seriously dated.4 out of 10.One to avoid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI haven't seen this movie in years, the last time i did i was really drunk after 5 pints of tenant's at my local Witherspoon's but even then i though it was quite awful. this movie is pretty terrible compared to the other critters movies, the first two were quite good, 3 was quite crap but miles better than this. The story takes place 53 years after critter's 3, were Charlie the bounty hunter from the previous movies is found floating in a pod in outer space by a crew of some kind of space miner,em,people and taken on board. Once on board the last critter eggs left in the galaxy which Charlie has brought with him from Earth crack open and we then have critters on board the space ship, cue an obvious 'Alien' rip off and a lot of terrible FX and you pretty much have this movie in a nutshell. only good thing is when we are re-introduced to UG(or so we are lead to believe) who is now a villain and wants to preserve the critters instead of destroying them
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a disgrace to the name of all of the lovable and laughable Critters' saga. Why do the writers feel the need to make the movie unbearable to watch by all quality standards. The Critters are cute and adorable as ever but deadly behavior has been transformed into that of a killer baby. They aren't as terrifying, gruesome, some what spine -chilling and funny as they were portrayed in the movies before. I used to love their porcupine shots but now it is hidden as if it was thought to be repetitive and boring. And what is with the killing and not eating. I thought this movie would have been cool but everything was so wrong. Why did Ug have to be evil and killed by that which is known as Charlie. This movie sickens me. Disgrace! Disgrace! DISGRAAAAAAACE!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n(SMALL SPOILERS) I just bought the DVD of this movie yesterday. I saw it with my friends and I couldn't believe what had happened.
In the first 3 movies, the critters at least had a sense of humor (especially the 3rd movie), but not only did the critters barely ever make an appearance, they weren't funny! They never made me laugh. I must admit that the story did start off nicely. After an hour had gone by I remembered that the Critters movies were always very short. So I thought to myself, \"Where the $^%#$ are the critters?!?!\" They were barely in this movie! If that didn't make me mad enough, the boy named Ethan was sitting on his bed after Charlie had \"murdered the ship\" and he knew that the critters were still on board! In the first movie the Brown family was scared out of their minds. But here, Ethan didn't even care! It was as if the critters weren't even a threat!
Now what I'm about to say next may ruin the ending, but I'm going to say it anyways. In the first movie, at the end, they had to face the giant critter for a final battle. In the second one, there was the great ball of critter. In the third movie, the critter with his fave burned did a spindash (from Sonic the Hedgehog) and was going to attack the little kid. But at the end of the fourth one (which is what made me the angriest) the bald critter charges toward Ethan, and Ethan kills it as if it were nothing.
Now something that I really don't understand was what happened to Ug. He was one of my favorite characters in the first two. Then after 50 years, he's evil. That was very disappointing. Not only that, but wasn't he a faceless bounty hunter? Why was he still \"Johnny Steele?\" Plus he seemed to have a different personality. He seemed much smarter and not as monotone like in the first two.
Being someone who actually enjoyed the first two critters movies, and loved the third one, I give Critters 4 a 2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ntrying hard to fit into the scary space comedy genre, this film falls down in two of these. It does indeed take place in space - but it is neither funny or scary. The plot is dismal and the one joke, concerning the computer's intellect, is overplayed to death. Saying that Paul Whitthorne as Ethan, Angela Bassett as Fran and Brad Dourif as Al Bert make the best of their ham script. The homo-esque relationship between Ethan and Al Bert is hinted at but never explored whilst the attempt at sexual tension betwen fran and rick is so crude as to be laughable. All in all this is a turkey that is best suited to late night tv, preferably whilst do the ironing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDidn't the writer for this movie see the other three? I loved the original, I thought 2 was the best, I tolerated 3 (it was OK, nothing special). But I HATED this one. Who dare they kill off UG? This was certainly not the Ug who had been almost like a brother to Charlie in number 2. Remember his speech? Charlie said, \"You wouldn't just leave me on Earth, would you\". Ug replied, \"Charlie, Bounty Hunter\", saying that he was now one of them now. How dare the writers ignore this special bond between them and turn him into a baddie who get's killed by Charlie (in a particularly awkward scene) just because they realized the movie was getting boring. In fact for the first 20 minutes, we get a new cast and have to wait this long until we again find out what happened to Charlie, who was the hero we've been waiting to see. I kept waiting saying, \"Come on, when's Charlie going to appear?\" Angela Basset must be doing her best to deny she was ever in this Turkey. Moving it to the future eliminates the possibility of ever seeing a sequel with the original cast or in our time. I think the writers decided, that their movie was going to be the last and they could do whatever they wanted. This movie is totally out of line with the first two. And it didn't even seem like it was written by the same people who made 3. 3 at least had humor and could easily be seen by younger Children. 4 is just ugly and mean-spirited (Eric DaRe) is particularly cruel and unnecessary. I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated it. I hated the fact that anyone could like it and I hated the fact that it ruined what was one of my favorite camp classics. I give this a one start simply because IMDb.com won't let me give it a zero.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter 30 minutes..mostly fast forwarding, deleted it off my recorder. The first Critters movie was self-consciously fun, The \"conversation\" between the critters just before Granny blows them away off the porch, for example. This film just limps along, waiting for someone to shoot it and put it out of your misery.
I can't imagine anyone who worked on this turkey being proud of it.
One was fun, four just was awful. Don't bother even if the alternative is watching reruns of a TBS \"700 Club\" fund-raiser, you'll at least get some good laughs there (and the \"alien\" makeup is more believable..grin).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm a big fan of the first Critters movie. The second episode is good,but it's not as good as the first Critters. The third episode is a little bit boring,but lovely. And WHAT IS THIS?? What a crap! It's stupid and really,really boring. It's the worst of the series. I can't watch it again,because I felt asleep at the first watch. And Ug's evil side...eeewww...that's one of the most horribble moments of the movie. In the first 50 minutes,we can't see the little,furry monsters,that's the reason why the audience fell asleep at the beginning of the movie.
It could have been much better.
2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMaking a film for under 1 Million might be a triumph for a line producer or an accountant but doesn't do anything for the audience. The balance sheet might have been pretty but the viewing experience was poor.
What will be a triumph for Irish Cinema is when people realise that production values and the script can't be sacrificed.
I don't understand why people expend the energy it takes to put a film together when the production quality is worse than a low grade TV show.
The deficiencies of the plot have been mentioned in another review on this site and I totally agree with what was written. What I would add is that the film skimmed the surface of several genres without ever settling in one of them. The film would have benefited from either going the direction of a straight out comedy or social/political commentary.
My overall impression was that the film was rushed, thematically under developed and visually not up to standard. On a positive note the performances and music were very good.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a poor film. It certainly belongs in the how not to make a feature film category. Story, direction, acting and style are all flat as a pancake. Story consists of five  yes five  football matches spread out over the film's duration, each one more boringly filmed than the last, as a dysfunctional amateur football team go from strength to strength. That's it, that's the plot. It's hard to know who this film is aimed at. It's too banal for football fans and there's nothing in it for teens nor grown-ups. There's nothing in it for women either, there isn't even a single female character. It's dreariness wears you down as the team play game after game after game after game after game. The story, such as it is, dialogue and mannerisms seem lifted from a bygone Ireland, with all the actors spouting cod theatrical Dublin accents. It doesn't have to be seen to be believed. Avoid at all costs. Can someone give me back my 90 minutes. High point the credits at the end, low point too numerous to mention. Brendan Gleeson is in this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI managed to see this at what I think was the second screening in the world, a few days after its opening at the Dublin International Film Festival. While I was attending another film two nights later at the same theater, I saw Brendan Gleeson, Paul Mercier and the rest of the cast & crew at another promotional screening of Studs.
I have to say that I was bitterly disappointed with the film, I was by no means expecting a masterpiece, but what was presented to me, I believe lacked all the crucial elements of the genre it had set itself into. Before I continue, two things, I accept that some filmmakers like to subvert generic expectations, here this is simply not the case. Secondly, I know that it was based on a play (which I haven't read but have been informed that it isn't a shimmering piece of literature), but this does not excuse the massive narrative problems that permeate the film.
My main problem with the film is the script, forget that it was based on a play, as a sports comedy it simply doesn't work, the down and out team are trying to win a football cup, few of the games are shown (when they are, it is very short) and we are not given any satisfaction due to any of their sporting achievements. Having read so far, you might assume that it is not a strict sports film but a psychological study of the relation between a \"charlatan\" of a manager and his hopeless team. It certainly does not achieve this, I'm not even sure if it was aiming to. Any attempt to shed light on the history of any of the characters is hackneyed and peripheral. Overall, I found the script lacking in many respects.
I do think the performances and the music were good and technically, the film was well made. But aside from those points, which should be expected from any Irish film at this stage, I left the theater feeling very disappointed.
My judgment may seem harsh but I do think there is some hope for a strong national Irish cinema in the near future and this simply does not back that argument. As Studs has become a recommended Dublin Cineworld film (I was part of the audience at that screening), most people would seem to be disagreeing with me, so that means you should probably make your own judgment of the film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with \"dramatic\" angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm glad I never watched this show when it came out.
I just wondered why it lasted 4 years. It reminds me of the terrible 80's with fake people, fake clothes, and fake music. How did I ever survive growing up in this era?
The acting in the majority of episodes I have watched are forced. This makes for very boring shows. The plot lines are not very interesting as the old Twilight Zone shows. The old show inspired the imagination and made one look forward to the next show.
Stick with the old Twilight Zone shows and spare yourself the pain of watching garbage.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTwo stars
Amanda Plummer looking like a young version of her father, Christopher Plummer in drag, stars in this film along with Robert Forster--who really should have put a little shoe black on top of that bald spot.
I've never seen Amanda Plummer in a good film. She always plays these slightly wacky characters in films that don't quite add up, and she does so yet again in this one.
Firstly, we have two young women, sisters, who don't resemble in the slightest, who allow themselves to be picked up, separately, by questionable men along the roadways.
Amanda's character, Sandra, does at least have a good reason for allowing Dr. Jake (Robert Forster)to pick her up in the first place. She has been run off the road, seemingly by a maniac, and her car is pretty much destroyed.
Warning - Spoilers ahead!
However, as we go along, we realize Dr. Jake is not playing with a full deck any more than Amanda is. He makes every decision based on the flip of a coin.
When Dr. Jake and Amanda arrive at a motel, who do we see but the maniac's car, and what does Amanda do but get inside his station wagon and start snooping around. What her motive was for doing this is never clear considering the man is apparently dangerous and might try to kill her. One would think the last thing she would do is place herself in such a precarious situation.
Not only does she snoop around, but she finds some money and takes it.
Shortly after this we have several other things that don't add up.
Dr. Jake, with Amanda as his passenger, runs out of gas, and the two of them abandon his car and begin walking. One would think crossing a desert, he would have checked his gas gauge--this seems a very unlikely thing for him to allow to happen. Then later, he is seen driving the same car. When or how did he get the car back?
Dr. Jake tells Amanda he knows she has taken the money. Now how would he know that? He didn't see her do it as far as I know, and she didn't tell him she did it.
Then later we have a character named Santini (David Thewlis), the man who was driving the station wagon, give the two of them a lift and I'll be darned if he doesn't know Amanda took the money as well. How would he know that?
It loses credibility at an alarming rate the further we go.
When Alice, Amanda's sister (Fairuza Balk)gets in the clutches of the killer and decides her fate on the toss of a coin - one would think she would be very, very careful that the coin she swaps for a trick coin would definitely be the trick coin - but apparently it isn't.
It's jarring things like this, that destroy any credibility this movie may have had.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCoen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI enjoy watching Robert Forster. That was the main reason that I rented this movie. I also wanted to see a story take place out in the middle of nowhere where the characters could work off of each other really well with no distractions.
Unfortunitaly I found the movie to be dull. I couldn't get interested in the characters. I couldn't get interested in the story which seemed to meander nowhere.
After watching this movie for an hour I turned it off. I will rate the movie 4 out of 10. This falls well below the mandatory 7 rating that makes a movie worthwhile to watch.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK look this show is the worst show on nick@ night. I love so many shows on nick@night and I love them. When this show came on to nick@night I was so annoyed. It's such a boring show and it is corny. Out of all the times I've watched I found one episode slightly funny. This show has some of the most unfunny and stupid jokes ever. This show sums up to terrible. Give props to Fresh Prince of Bel-air and George Lopez. This show is boring and not the least bit clever. This show should have been canceled much earlier. I don't think it deserves to be played on nick@night alongside some great classic shows. This show is lacking cleverness, good jokes, and style.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis show disturbs me. it takes up slots on nick at nite that could be reserved for the fresh prince or George Lopez. even full house and Roseanne. they're all better than home improvement. first off, the mother Jill annoys me SO much. she is an oversensitive whiny baby and i really despise her. brad is a fat toad, and he is annoying too. and the youngest brother, i don't even know his name! i don't notice him at all! that's probably not the actor's fault though, it's probably the writers'. Tim is just a stupid ass. although Jill is DEFINITELY my least favorite, i don't like any of them. the only reason i gave this stupid show three stars is one star goes to randy. as the middle child, he is still a pesky little brother, but an older brother, and i like his fun character. the other star goes to Al. as the chubby friend, his character is likable. other than randy and Al, this show sucks.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nhonestly I don't know why this show lasted as long as it did. ah well, humor is subjective eh? but yeah, this show is incredibly unfunny if you ask me. Tim Allen is annoying. Jill is annoying. the boys are annoying. Al is annoying. the neighbor is annoying. it's just more annoying then funny. the plots are all the same, Tim makes Jill mad and has to make things right again. and the latter seasons? less said about them the better, who the hell things cancer would be good for a damn sitcom? yeah, great idea jerks. so yeah, home improvement isn't a very good sitcom. I'd recommend you go watch News Radio or Seinfeld. if i had to give this show a rating I'd give it a 1/10 seeing as it never made me laugh once. ever. so yeah, it's still better then The Nanny though.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTim Taylor is an abusive acholoic drug addict. He's a coward and a child and has absolutely no redeeming qualities as an actor or a person. The only film with him in it that is enjoyable is \"Galaxy Quest\" and that just because his character - a boozed out washed up actor from a former hit TV show - was so close to real life for him. The rest of the cast is equally bad. I HATE the mother and the actress that played her Patricia Richardson, she sucks! Ever cliché is there, the stupid woman who is fat and likes opera and only cares about her children, while in real life she's proclaims family values and gets divorced after having twins. And the child actors were about as interesting as a root canal.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThese writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on \"scrubs\" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show \"scrubs\" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.
Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.
It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).
In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou get an hour and a half of braindead i have to save the world action all the way, one liners and a woman somewhere in the equation. This time he plays a guy who help people in the witness protection program. to quote the cover of the movie. He erases their past to save their future. Woppi, this have to be cool :) I bet younger people will like it though but it is a little over the top for my taste. And the one liners are really something else, and i don't mean that in a good way. After killing a crocodile he manage to say. \"you're luggage\" If you are in the right mood you may enjoy the movie. And as far as braindead action go, this is not very bad. But almost before the movie starts you know exactly what is going to happen. But if you like these kind of movies, you will probably enjoy this one. I rate this movie 4
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!
With the exception of THE TERMINATOR and TOTAL RECALL I don`t think Arnie`s action/adventure movies are up to much . They`re better than his comedies for sure but that`s hardly saying much . The problem I have with his all action blockbusters is that they`re overblown and lacking in any sort of morality
Morality ? I mentioned in my review of TERMINATOR 2 the scene where good guy Terminator blows the kneecaps off the SWAT team . Are we to think that because the hero maims people doing their job instead of killing them we will admire him in someway ? This is the problem with ERASER , when James Cann`s character is revealed as a traitor within the US Marshal department Arnie`s character John Kruger goes on the run with a witness he`s protecting but in several later sequences Kruger kills a fairly large amount of marshals working with the villain . Are we take it they were all traitors too ? Surely many of them were honest men who were trying to stop Kruger because the bad guy told them Kruger was the traitor ? It`s a rather uneasy thought that Kruger killed several people who were trying to genuinely up hold the law
Despite costing one hundred million dollars the special effects aren`t all that impressive . Look at the scene where Kruger lets go of the jet wing and scrambles to put on a parachute . It`s obvious as the action intercuts that it`s a stuntman who`s doing the free fall sequence while Arnie is in a studio in front of a blue screen . ERASER is also a film that has unnecessary CGI featuring killer alligators , not only unnecessary CGI but unconvincing CGI too . There`s also a few plot holes like in the opening scene involving a couple of witness protection people that the mob has caught up with . Kruger opens a car trunk and pulls out a couple of bodies and starts a fire thereby throwing the mob of the scent . Kruger is next seen rearranging the dental records via computer of the couple he`s saved . It would be logical to do this but would ALL the couples dental records be kept on computer ? Most importantly of all are we to believe the US Marshal department keep a freezer full of bodies for such events ?
So they`re you go , a typical Arnie thriller long on unlikely set pieces and short on intelligence and it`s interesting to note that ERASER didn`t make much of a profit at the box office as the production costs almost outweighed a potential audience figure . After ERASER Arnie didn`t do much more business at the box office save for TERMINATOR 3 : RISE OF THE MACHINES which was an event movie and it`ll be interesting to see if he`ll be remembered as a politician rather than a movie star
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy do they keep making trash like this? because it makes money that's why. Eraser is not so much a film but a string of action set pieces strung together. It's well filmed but predictable and it's all been done before, only better. This is basically a Nineties version of 'Commando'.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI did not enjoy the film Eraser whatsoever. It's awful acting, boring storyline and average special effects made this an annoying arnie film, as it had a mountain of potential. With other action films of the time Eraser fell very short!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTen years ago I really wanted to see this movie on the cinema. But I missed it, and then forgot about it. Oh boy, am I glad this movie didn't get to ruin my teenage eyes back then.
I saw it yesterday, and seriously, this must be among the 10 worst movies ever made. And I'm talking about movies which has had too much attention, such as those wonderful trailers on TV, and too much money spent on actors and the making of the movie.
The script sucks and the acting sucks even worse, do I need to say more?
Please, Hollywood, NO MORE ARNOLD!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSo I got this from the rental store where I work before it was released (release is 8/21), just watched it today, and now I'm speechless. They could have had a decent movie here, but they screwed it up in some painfully obvious ways.
First of all, the parts with John Krasinski were funny, and are the only reason I gave it above a 3, but they are broken up by bad acting and terrible \"serious\" reflections on life between the main character (Andrew Keegan) and his girlfriend (the annoying Lacy Chabert). It would have been much, much better as a straight comedy ala Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
I wanted to like it, because I think Krasinski is funny and want to see him do well. The story wasn't bad either, just not very original. But the directing (and a lot of the acting) was terrible. I swear they had trouble keeping peoples faces in the shot and just went with it anyway.
Their carelessness is showcased when the gun expert corrects another character and says that a \"Dirty Harry\" gun is not a .357 magnum but a .45 (it was, as everyone knows, a .44 magnum).
So see this if you 1- really like John Krasinski 2- like to watch low-budget (and poorly-directed) movies or 3- Have too much time on your hands (this is me!)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found this movie to be okay.
On paper, this movie has everything a person may want! Romance, comedy, drama. A bank robbery, a unique cast, great music and storytelling!
In reality, this movie ended up being mostly garbage, and I'll tell you why.
a) This is my biggest problem: The editing. This movie has by far the worst editing I've ever seen short of local-car-dealership commercials. The editing could've been done better by a deaf Parkinson's patient tapping away at iMovie with a a dead cat. There are scenes where two characters are talking to each other and you can see their lips moving and the audio/video isn't in sync because its clearly dubbed. Why was it dubbed? I don't know! Its English dubbing English! The voices were done in a studio elsewhere in certain scenes! Could they not find a boom-Mic?! They're not expensive; Jesus, even I own one! And i don't make films!
b) Andrew Keegan's performance lacked. It really didn't seem like he wanted to be a part of this project, and his acting was the equivalent of a skit performed by D.A.R.E. for schoolchildren. At least John Krasinksi showed some enthusiasm.
Yes, John Krasinski is the only reason I rented this flick, and its the only real reason worth watching. He's did a good, witty performance and he was the most three-dimensional character. Dean Edwards' character was quite thin, as was whats-her-face.
Final Word? If you're a fan of John Krasinski, this is worth your time. If not, don't even bother. The editing
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.
This film has loads of technical/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).
It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.
How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?
Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"