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\nJerry Lewis was marginally funny when he didn't write his own material and had a good director like Frank Tashlin. When he started writing and directing his own films what little talent he possessed was overshadowed by his egomania. Whenever his films would fail (and deservedly so) in the American market (they made money in France) Lewis always blamed everyone and everything but himself; for example, he blamed the failure of this film on the fact that it was, according to Lewis, released on a double-bill with the porno feature \"Deep Throat\". If anyone should have complained about that situation, it should have been the producers of \"Deep Throat.\" This is an absolutely idiotic \"comedy\" about the world's richest man (Lewis) who is rejected for military service during WW2 and decides to outfit a special \"squad\" to go to Germany and capture Hitler himself. Besides the many faults this film has (the script is mind-numbingly unfunny, Lewis' \"direction\" is nonexistent, the film has the look of a cheap home movie), Lewis apparently thought that surrounding himself with no-talent, over-the-hill Borscht Belt comics like Jan Murray and Sidney Miller was a good idea; he must have figured that they would be so bad, they would make him look good. He was half-right; they are embarrassingly bad, but he comes out even worse than they do. For a \"comedy\", Lewis' character is sullen, angry and pushy; the way he heaps abuse on his underlings makes you wonder why they would ever follow a bullying jerk like this on a dangerous mission like trying to capture Hitler. The fact that this movie took in any money at all is astounding. It is by far the worst Jerry Lewis movie I have ever seen--I've heard that \"Slapstick\" is even more pathetic, but I can't bring myself to see if that's true or not--and is to be avoided at all possible costs.
\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 standard action flick as we have seen them many times before. Not much action in this one though. Again it's about the guy protecting the president. He's macho - as usual, and at the same time soft and melancholic - as usual. Does he have the guts to take a bullet for the president?! And then there's the girl and the usual conservative flirting around. Stereotypical and predictable to the last toe-crumbling minute.
\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 has to one of the most pathetic, predictable and badly acted films I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has never been worse, never have I seen somebody less convincing on screen. I was laughing at him the whole way through. Then there's this romance kinda thing between him and the gorgeous Rene Russo, which was even more pathetic than the one between Mr.Connery and Ms.Zeta-Jones in Entrapment.
One IMDb user posed the question: What's not to like about this film? I'm asking: What is to like about it? And the answer is: John Malkovich. He is an absolute genius and probably the best movie villain ever (He even saved Con Air you know). But that's it.
This movie is called In the line of fire, but 'Bodyguard 2: the rip-off' seems to be a more appropriate title. Watch only if you are a die hard John Malkovich fan. Otherwise, avoid at all cost. *1/2(out of five)
\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\nInteresting and short television movie describes some of the machinations surrounding Jay Leno's replacing Carson as host of the Tonight Show. Film is currently very topical given the public drama surrounding Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno.
The film does a good job of sparking viewers' interest in the events and showing some of the concerns of the stakeholders, particularly of the NBC executives. The portrayal of Ovitz was particularly compelling and interesting, I thought.
Still, many of the characters were only very briefly limned or touched upon, and some of the acting seemed perfunctory. Nevertheless, an interesting story.
\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\nSaw this movie at a Saturday matinée with a friend. Theater was about 70% full.
Although there are quite a few funny lines, it is more of a drama/suspense with humor sprinkled on top. Robin Williams gives a decent performance as does Laura Linney. Being a Daily Show fan, Lewis Black is pretty good in this. Christopher Walken gives a good performance also.
The movie starts out slow and remains that way for about the first thirty minutes, then the suspense part kicks in and starts keeping you a little on edge throughout the rest of the movie. Suspense in a supposed comedy movie? I know that I, as well as everybody else in the place, was struggling a bit with this. A character would crack a joke during suspense sequence and you would hear just one or two laughs in the theater.
In all fairness, after the movie was over there was smattering of applause. So, definitely, some people enjoyed this movie.
I gave this movie a four out of ten, because I believe the comedy aspect doesn't work very well in a suspense/drama movie and the actors performances, while not bad, were just decent.
Again, this movie isn't what was advertised.
\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 premise of this movie, of a comedian talk show host running for president as an independent just to shake things up, is funny, entertaining, brilliant and even a bit inspiring. (thought about the west wing debate when Tom Dobbs leaves his podium, thought about Steven Colbert announcing his candidacy, good times) The first 15 - 20 minutes of this movie are therefore very very entertaining, the debate especially. When he eventually get's elected, it's a pity that is because of a computer glitch, you'd want him to win fair (although that is unrealistic).
But after that this movie goes completely downhill. I thought we'd get a great movie like 'Dave' (1993) in which we see how it would out if a comedian actually ran the country. Instead, the movie turns from comedy into a thriller, a romantic comedy and a drama and does none good. The computer glitch becomes the main storyline, which really sucks. Boy is this disappointing. I give it 3 stars just for the premise and because I actually managed to watch this movie from start to end without stopping it, which is usually a good thing with 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 saw a screening of this movie last night. I had high expectations going into it, but was definitely disappointed. Within 5 minutes of the opening, Williams is already campaigning for his presidency. And he becomes president in the first 40 minutes. So there goes all that aspect of the movie. The first half hour are hilarious. Don't get me wrong, the movie has its moments. But after the first half hour, it takes a turn for the worst. It becomes less of a comedy, and more of a thriller/drama/love story...which is pointless. the movie goes nowhere and stands still for a good 30 minutes. there are laughs interspersed here and there, but the consistently funny part is in the beginning and only the beginning. at one point, the biggest cheer i heard in the audience is when a person in the crowd yelled 'boooo' during a very confusingly emotional scene. Williams gives a great performance, right on par with his comedic style. Walken also delivers a strong supporting role as only he can. I think the one character that goes underrated is Lewis Black. Consistently vulgar and political, its funny to see him tone it down for a PG-13 rating. Overall, I would not pay to see the movie. Afterall, I saw it for free and even I was disappointed. The first half hour is solid, and its all downhill from there. Not really fitting into a category, the movie realizes half way through that it should not have been anything more than a one-hour comedy central special. 4.5/10
\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\nI am pretty surprised to see that this movie earned even lukewarm reviews, I found this movie downright awful. The plot flounders around trying to decide if it is a comedy or a thriller, then realizes it cannot achieve either. So it throws in the towel and continues with its absurd plot highlighted with a unintentional hilarious scene with Laura Linney, an injection, and spilled coffee that leaves the audience awkwardly squirming in their seats looking at one another like is this for real? Basically it is abysmal and really disappointing for Robin Williams fans, and it makes you think someone blackmailed Laura Linney into adding this piece of trash to her otherwise respectable resume. I wanted to leave after 10 minutes and wish I had, even seeing it for free I wanted someone to pay me for my wasted time. The computer glitch/twist in this movie was embarrassingly stupid, and by the end you don't care who wins the election. I vote for straight to DVD.
\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 liked the understated character that Laura Linney played in 'Love Actually', and she is very good in 'Man of the Year'.
But wow. Robin Williams doesn't give that much of a performance, with a couple of minor exceptions this was weak. Laura Linney may not have been miscast, but either the editing raped her character, or this was just a sad performance by director Barry Levinson.
And I think it was Barry Levinson that got old. So many weak performances, such uneven results have to be the fault of management.
Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum are great in supporting roles. Goldblum plays a sinister side with relish, and Walken's combination of entertainer's manager and commentator for the film is wonderful.
But the story is cliché, the presentation looks like it could have (should have) been a very good picture, and too many actions are half-hearted. The pacing, story, and direction all come up weak, compared to, say 'Head Office' (spoof of 'Secret of My Success').
\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 movie, while it could be considered an alright attempt at comedy, is not what the previews made it out to be. the first half is comprised of typical robin Williams stand up material, though he really didn't do many voices; he was always great at the one liners and hitting the punchlines... somewhere during the election there is a problem with the computer program that is used in the election. here is where the net 3 comes in... a woman who helped with this program wants the truth to be told and the evil corporation wants to shut her up **spoilers** her boyfriend even helps them, though this isn't even fleshed out... this movie could have been one of political brilliance (perhaps with sorken at the reigns) but it falls short in a stew made by too many chefs
\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 went to see this movie mostly because it looked so good in the trailers. Robin Williams and Barry Levinson should equal greatness. Instead it just continues Williams' bad streak of movies lately. What's wrong with the movie? More like what's right: the ensemble crew does a pretty good job around Robin, and like usual, Christopher Walken is fantastic. That being said, this movie just plain wasn't good. I really only recommend seeing it if you want to see what it would be like if Jon Stewart ran for president and won. Saying he won isn't a spoiler, since it was in the trailer. The concept and idea is really amusing, but that's all. Most of Robin's jokes are just recycled from old comedy bits of his, and there are very few laugh out loud moments, and most are just dumb. Like most comedies that turn out to suck, all of the funny bits are put into the trailer. Really no surprises there, but come on! Some of the movie reads like a Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn novel! People were expecting this to be Robin's return to greatness. Instead, it's more a Flubber.
\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 Robin Williams vehicle mildly amusing at best.i guess you would call it a political satire of sorts.it's about a political talk show host/comedian who decides to run for president and unexpectedly wins.i found most of the humour dry myself,and Robin Williams is much more restrained and sedate than usual.i would say the movie is more of a drama than a comedy,with a bit of mystery and suspense.i think the dramatic parts worked better than the comedy parts,and the mystery and suspense aspect(though that's a small part of the movie)worked the best.still,i wouldn't rate this movie very high.for me,it was an OK waste of 2 hours,but nothing special.my best advice would be to catch it on TV/cable or rent it cheap first,before making a decision on whether to purchase.my vote for Man of The Year is a 4/10
\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\nI was kinda looking forward to Man of the Year, a couple girls at my work said it was a pretty good movie, and my mom said that she liked it, so I waited for the rental, and watched it last night. I have to honestly say that this movie was a huge disappointment. I barely made through it, because to be honest the beginning was pretty good and very well paced, but then it got too dark and not into the movie I saw from the trailer. It looked like a good comedy, then it turned into a very dark drama, that wasn't even that interesting, considering how many of these types of stories we've had about government conspiracy.
Tom Dobbs is a very popular comedian with a top ranks show and has an act where many people would want him to get involved with politics, just because it seems like he has a good grip on what should be improved. So he does it, he runs for presidency, but many people doubt that he can win due to the fact that he's a comedian, but he does win! But Elenore Green who makes sure all the votes are accounted for tries to fix a computer glitch, but when the government tells her not to fix it, they try to get rid of her, and Tom soon realizes that this may not be the job he wanted.
The acting was fine, the direction was OK, it was just the story that didn't work in my opinion. Like I said, it just turned into a dramatic change of genres, because if you see the trailer, you'd think it was a comedy, and when you start watching it, that's what you get, but then it just turns into a very dark and somewhat scary drama. I wouldn't really recommend this movie, it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen so far.
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\nI was aware of Man of the Year's critical pans and unremarkable gross, but was prepared to give the film the benefit of the doubt because I know good pictures can fall under the radar during the crowded release schedule of the Fall months.
What I found out was that the movie is surprisingly uninspired. Surprising is an understatement considering Barry Levinson's gift for political satire (demonstrated in Good Morning Vietnam and Wag the Dog) and Robin Williams' obvious comic gifts. Robin Williams, in fact, is mysteriously underused. On the \"Making Of\" featurette that comes with the DVD, Barry Levinson talked about how sometimes he let Robin Williams improvise off the script, like it was some naughty secret of his. Umare you really that much of a moron, Barry Levinson? Whenever you have Robin Williams in your film and want to use him for his comic abilities (basically, every movie he's been in other than Insomnia or One Hour Photo), don't cage him within a script. Let him ad-lib whatever he wants because he is the funnier than anything anyone else can write for him and his uncontained comic rants can instantly raise the bar on any mediocre movie like RV or Patch Adams. What I found even more baffling in his failure to make use of Robin Williams was that back in 1987, Levinson used this exact formula to perfection in Good Morning Vietnam, injecting Robin Williams' bursts of comic zaniness into a war picture to make a resounding political piece.
So the film isn't as much of a laugh-fest as it could be and feels awkwardly lost in its tone. If the film had potential to work as anything, it might have made one of those thrillers from the mid-'90s in the style of The Pelican Brief, The Fugitive, or one of those Jack Ryan films. Its plot centered around an employee at a Silicon Valley company uncovering a glitch in a system that reveals that the country elected the wrong president and the efforts of the CEOs to eliminate her before the secret gets out, so if you replaced Robin Williams with some Harrison-Ford-type actor, or perhaps even Harrison Ford himself, added a couple more explosions, and maybe that's where the movie was trying to go. I'll never really know and it's not worth it to try to find out.
\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\nCombining serious drama with adequate comedy is touchy at the best of times. LOOKING FOR COMEDY IN THE Muslim WORLD pulled it off thanks to a topical subject and a fantastic script; not to mention Albert Brooks' excellent broodish character portrayal. But MAN OF THE YEAR can't come close by comparison. It has a messy message folded in with forced jokes and a twisted love story that is completely unbelievable.
The premise initially seemed very promising. Put a Jon Stewart-like comedy news guy up for President of the United States and see what happens. This independent runner is Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams, RV), a successful TV personality who is pressured into running by his audience. Along with him comes his manager Jack (Christopher Walken, CLICK), and his writer Eddie (Lewis Black). Seeming to have very little chance at a successful run, Tom Dobbs amazingly wins the election.
But did he? Eleanor Green (Laura Linney, THE EXORCIST OF EMILY ROSE) is a computer whiz at the company who designed the new software for electronic voting at polling stations. She finds a glitch in the system that is quickly swept under the rug by the company's owner and his dark attorney Alan (Jeff Goldblum, INDEPENDENCE DAY). Poised to lose billions of dollars if word of this gets out, the company's evil men decided to discredit and/or kill Eleanor to make sure she never tells anyone. But Eleanor is able to get to President-elect Dobbs and finally spill the beans (this is where the unbelievable love story starts blossoming, too). Dobbs goes onto Saturday Night Live and explains everything to the world, thus removing himself as the newly elected President and ending the careers of those at the computer company ...oh, and saving Ms. Green's life.
Does any of this sound funny? The comedy is forcefully wedged into the story and is often awkward. Robin Williams blazes for a few moments during a debate but is quickly doused as the gravity of how he became President bears down on him.
The message of the film is interesting and debatable, too: that special interest owns presidential candidates. I'm sure there's substantial truth in this, and if you wanted to make a movie about it you could. If you wanted to make a comedy about you could. But Man of the Year isn't it.
\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 few bratty kids unwittingly unleash an evil that has lain dormant for the past twenty years and have to reap the ill fortune that comes with that.The Campbell Brothers' film before this \"Midnight Skater\" was fun & their picture after \"the Red Skulls\" was all right. So why is \"Demon Summer\" so mind-numbingly bad? I really don't know, it IS better then their \"Splatter Rampage Wrestling\" but not be much as the basement level of acting is cringe-worthy and when a 'horror' film is as talky as this one is, that's not a good thing. The story's been done to death in many other better films, so why waste your time on this one?
My Grade: 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\nI could not watch more than 10 minutes of this movie. It has set the standard. I will never again give a movie a 1, unless it was as horrible as this one. I fully agree with the other comments about this film. But, since I'm Dutch, I watched it with Dutch translation. Apparently, they didn't have money for a proper translation, so they decided to babelfish it. With sometimes hilarious results.
Don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs, don't watch Demon Summer.
I was surprised that the actors (Wow, I can't believe I just said that.) didn't hold the script (Was there any?) in their hands while shooting. I think they also did a good job on... Well... Uhmm... No, they didn't do a good job at all.
\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 understand that the budget was low on this film, but come on this is really terrible film-making. The script is just plain awful and that was the free part. The effects aren't bad, but this film plays out like a conventional R-rated movie with lame scares and cut-away violence rather than a no holds barred unrated gore-fest that was intentionally made for video. Who were these guys kidding? Like this would have been released in theaters.
The acting is terrible. The editing, another free aspect of the film, is beyond amateur, and the plot, as I said before, leaves little to be desired. There's nothing original about the film. Gore fans, avoid this one. To the filmmakers: try for something original next time, or stop making movies all together. You're not good at it. People hate a trashy rehash, especially one of such low caliber. AVOID! It isn't even worth making fun of.
\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\nDid you ever think, like after watching a horror movie with a group of friends: \"Wow, this is so cool! We have got to make a splatter horror movie ourselves some day soon. I bet it isn't as difficult as it seems\"? Well, this must have been what went through the minds of the young Campbell brothers back in 2003, presumably right after watching Sam Raimi's \"The Evil Dead\" or a similar independent horror classic. This \"Demon Summer\", however, is so bad it's embarrassing! These young amateurish filmmakers obviously worship the horror genre and know their classics, but that nearly doesn't make them talented. I've seen quite a lot lousy B-movies in my years as a horror fanatic, but this honestly ranks as one of the biggest pieces of crap ever made. And it's quite sad to be this open-hearted, because the whole cast and crew clearly had good intentions. There's pretty much no script at all. A duo of thugs simply steals a mysterious book from a bum and, whilst reading some passages of it, one of them mutates into a hideous demon that starts killing off members of all the different teenager-groups: dorks, hot Catholic girls, stoners and troublemakers. That's about it, except of course for all the obligatory clichés, like the hot girl falling for the biggest dork etc etc... The performances are really painful to listen to and none of these annoying teenagers use mimicry! They just stand there motionless until the script says it's their turn to interact. I hate that! Some of make-up effects are remotely decent but still not spectacular and the soundtrack contains some of the most awful punk-songs ever. This film should never have been released... I can very well imagine that it must have been fun to be a part of the production, but it's utterly imbecile and doesn't feature the slightest redeeming element. Not even a bit of amateur-nudity, damned!
\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 rate movies on this site all the time, but I don't normally write comments. However, in this case, I felt compelled to WARN OTHERS! This movie is bad! It's probably one of only a dozen movies I have scored as '1 (awful).' I know people say this all the time, but this truly was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's easily on the bottom ten, anyway.
When it comes to horror movies, I have very low standards. I'll overlook all sorts of shoddy film-making for a good scare. But this movie is embarrassingly bad. It looks someone bought a video camera at Sears and decided to make a movie with his buddies. (The fact that every single crew member's name appears in the cast list proves this theory, I think.) This movie has lower production standards than your average high school play. It's actually a little shocking to see a movie that looks this bad released on DVD. The special effects are somewhat effective at times, but are still amateurish at best. The best thing that can be said about the actors is that at least they remember no to look into the camera, most of the time. I can't say for certain if they struggling to remember their lines or making them up as they went along. Any and all attempts at humor are lame. This movie is such a colossal waste of time.
\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\nAimless teens on summer break in a small Ohio town can't find any meaningful ways to fill their time. Some consider driving to Chicago; others are content to drink and bully their peers. In a random act of alcohol-fueled arrogance, the bullies rough up a homeless man and steal a strange book. The handwritten text turns out to contain archaic spells designed to summon demonic forces. A night or two later, one of them reads an incantation and is quickly possessed. He turns into a vicious killer and begins to quietly prey on his former peers.
\"Demon Summer\" is an amateur production with a microscopic budget. The production values are low, but the filmmakers were smart enough to not be ambitious. Little in the way of special props or shooting locations were needed. The acting is especially weak and there is virtually nothing original in the screenplay. On the positive side, the special makeup effects are surprisingly good by low budget film standards. Despite this, the gore is minimal. Makeup effects aside, there is little going for this film, even for die-hard gore-hounds. Not recommended.
\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\nVery slow, dull, enigmatic film. MAybe the kind of film Jean-Luc Godard would have made had he been Italian. Certainly conveys how tedious, repetitious, joyless and empty a person's life can be, but I don't usually go to the cinema to find that out! The plot (such as it is) doesn't convince. Why a gorgeous hotel receptionist (an exception to the dullness of the film) would be the slightest bit interested in a moody, chain-smoking, silent loner who speaks in 'deep' aphorisms baffles me. Very difficult to feel any sympathy with the main character. One feels like shaking him by the throat and telling him to 'snap out of it!'. His brother is a much more human character. The ending is inconclusive and puzzling. Everyone in the cinema (when I saw the film) went out muttering about how they nearly fell asleep. Of course, it shouldn't have to be a Hollywood Bruce Willis-style 'shhot-em-up' and 'crash-bang' fiesta, but a little bit of energy and action would have made it a lot more thrilling. One of the best Italian films ever?! Pleease...An art-house, curiosity at best.
\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 was so looking forward to seeing this film that I can't really understand how I got the impression I would enjoy it. I'm afraid it really is a yawn fest - every single patron in the cinema I attended yawned and fidgeted frequently during the whole film. This is a shame because it is a fantastic story - I'm inclined to think that it would make a better read. It is not helped by the principle character only showing his teeth once - and that was as a result of the camera angle. As the story unfolds it becomes easier to understand the main character's dilemmas. However, the suspense and drama that could have made this a really top rated film have been completely spoilt by the dull treatment. Dull as a half-baked documentary!
\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 one of the worst pieces of cinema I have seen in some time. This is also my first review so you can tell I must hate this film at lot.
Don't get me wrong, I like my serious films. I don't like Hollywood too much, I tend to like French, Italian, offbeat US or anything that tries to communicate something sensible.
But this was awful. Why? 1. The plot (such as it was) was entirely unbelievable, even though the director seems to be hinging everything on a feeling of realism.
2. The main character has nothing to recommend him. Does he smoke for coolness or to show us his angst? For goodness sake this guy is meant to be an ex-dodgy mafia lawyer. Are we meant to care more because that he is also one of the meanest unfriendly people you could ever meet? And he smokes...so he must have deep personal issues. Pop psychology at it's best. In the final moments, I almost cheered as he gets buried in the cement. Best place for him. And I thought that was about the only good scene. Or maybe that was because it was so close the final credits.
3. The entirely tired and unbelievable interest in the main character from the beautiful girl. She was there simply because beautiful girls always have odd sexual relationships with old, old men with a deep and meaningful personality (as demonstrated by smoking). Happens all the time. In really bad films that is.
4. The pace was so leaden. I like slow, I like careful. But this was just deathly.
5-50 a bunch of other stuff that I really can't be bothered to write.
Awful.
\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\nOh my god! The Beeb hit a new low with this gutless act of political correctness, A mixed race family living in Birmingham with a disabled kid thrown in for good measure. Whoever commissioned this tripe should be hunted down and thrown to the dogs. The usually funny Jasper Carrott is about as funny as piles in this show and don't get me started about the others. They have the timing and subtly of a Nuclear bomb. I only hope comedy will get better but with the likes of Little Britain and Catherine Tate about I severely doubt this. I think you'd be better off getting the box set for a decent comedy from yesteryear such as Fawlty Towers or Bottom if you want a laugh.
BAN THIS SQUEAKY CLEAN RUBBISH!
\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 says a lot about the United Kingdom when television programmes like this not only get made but also run for three series. Unfunny, politically correct to the point of sickening and poorly acted and written. Meera Syal has not been funny or accomplished in anything that she has been in, go on tell me I am wrong, and Jasper Carrott, funny guy as he is, is well past his eighties prime. This is such a bad comedy that it could have been made by ITV but even stinkers like The Upper Hand and the one with James Bolam as a car park attendant look like Fawlty Towers compared to this rubbish. I would love to sit down with the writer/director of this show so that they can point out the humour in this programme. Admittedly the majority of the UK's population is made up of poorly educated chavs but this would not tickle their funny bones. That's if they could tear themselves away from Big Brother or from their mobile phones but that's another story. Complete and utter dirt!
\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\nOh how I laughed....this has it all...an Asian/White family, a disabled Asian boy...everything a healthy person needs to see in the eyes of the BBC.
What utter tribe: This was a total insult to my eyes that viewed this rubbish for one episode and ONE EPISODE ONLY.
When you think of some of the quality the BBC has put out over the years (Fawlty Towers for example) and then this comes rolling in...Its a disgusting disgrace.
Its all geared on political-correctness and is devoid of any humour whatsoever.
This is straight from the bowels of hell: but what would you expect from the ultra left-wing BPC...I mean BBC.
\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\nHere's another of these modern-day ultra-sleaze comedies in which dysfunctional families are supposedly hilarious. Know wonder people once asked, \"What ever happened to Pauly Shore?\" Well, Shore didn't disappear, but his career took a nose-dive, that's for sure. Movies like this one, didn't help.
In \"Son-In-Law,\" Shore plays an incredibly-obnoxious character called \"Crawl,\" and yet he's the most likable of the family! His father is a profane idiot; his mother is totally incompetent, his young brother is a sex maniac and his college-age sister is a real snot.
Watching an hour and a half of totally-unlikeable people was tough to do. I certainly wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it to anyone but die-hard Shore fans. Adam Sandler took Pauley's shtick and went a lot further with it.
The following is an excerpt from the IMDb title page here under \"biography\" and it explains why I am not the only one who was disgusted with this movie.
\"........but his lunacy was dismissed as crude, dumb and, for the most part, unfunny. His film career quickly tanked. This downhill spiral was not helped by the failure of his failed Fox sitcom \"Pauly\" (1997) in 1997. Lambasted unmercifully by both critics and media alike, he was soon becoming a running joke and forced to lie low and ride out the storm....\"
\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\nFrantic, somewhat mean spirited, infantile humor abounds in this city boy turned wannabe farmer tale. It is not outrageous enough to appeal to the Will Ferrell crowd, and not interesting enough to carry the feature length. The most I can praise \"Son In Law\" would be to say that for the most part it avoids toilet humor. The main problem is that all of the characters lack warmth, and Pauly Shore is so abrasive that he is a most unlikable hero. There are a few amusing bits involving farm animals, and that's about it. The story, what there is, is so simplistic and predictable, it makes \"Jury Duty\" seem like \"Gone with the Wind\". - MERK
\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\nPerfect double bill for the horribly corny \"Beverly Hillbillies\" is this equally atrocious, lame brained 'comedy', \"Son in Law\". Country girl Rebecca goes to wild California to attend college, only to be assaulted by the lifestyle. 'Resident Adviser' \"Crawl\" helps her settle in, and soon the two are good friends. Bec decides to bring the wacky \"Crawl\" home for Thanksgiving, with obvious \"fish out of water\" results.
The only other comic angle Steve Rash (aptly named ) achieves here is a sexual one. This he bludgeons us with, but to no avail. Both comic aspects fail dismally, and you know the film is groping when \"Crawl\" hijacks the combine harvester and writes his name in the corn field.
Dramatically the movie falls short too, with several attempts at family and personal counselling from \"Crawl\" misfiring. Between them Pauly Shore and Carla Gugino manage to raise a couple of smiles, but little else, while the rest of the cast are mere fodder. The problem is it's nearly impossible to actually like \"Crawl\", and you'll find yourself spending the whole flick wondering why Rebecca would want to spend a moment with him. However, if you're a fan of unintelligent comedy, \"Son in Law\" is right on the mark.
Sunday, November 10, 1996 - T.V.
\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 amazes me that anyone would find Pauly Shore entertaining: he is basically one joke that gets stale *real* fast. He has his little \"California\" jerk vocabulary and a basic stock of lame jokes. Mainly, he is just obnoxious.
That said, I watched this movie because I was up sick and there was literally nothing else on but infomercials, otherwise I would have turned it off after 30 minutes. Anyway, the film could have been OK if Pauly could have just turned off his spiel and just played it as a comic actor instead of, well, Pauly.
Anyway, I'm sure Pauly fans will like it anyway - but if you are not a Pauly fan, stay away from this crock of manure.
I had to leave this comment after seeing that another user actually gave this film a 10/10! (Maybe it was Pauly!!) Personally, I gave it a 3/10 because they didn't have any mike-in-frame shots, didn't drop the camera, and the supporting cast was pretty 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\nOn his recent maligned reality-show, Mr. Shore conceded his filmic oeuvre is best enjoyed stoned. No, he must have said \"best watched.\" While a healthy toke might see you through the end credits, there is little pleasure to be found, save some sporadic chuckling at the picture, not with it. Titular hyphenate absence is the least grievance. Other hyphenate, wholesome Tiffani-Amber Thiessen (I dare you to rub out that \"Saved by the Bell\" patina of purity) is miscast as a rural vamp; she's too round of face for treachery. Mr. Shore, himself occasionally displays the odd talent for mimicry (I thought I recognized a Jimmy Stewart in there), however it is never aptly used. The trite fish-out-of-water formula has yet to be rendered with less grace. Our hero, Crawl has precious little wit to account for expeditiously charming his agrarian antagonists. Ultimately, I had to announce it's been ascertained: THE WORST MOVIE EVER. P.S. As another fish, Adam Sandler fared better with \"Mr. Deeds.\" It may take a Shore to appreciate a Sandler.
\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 movie is one of the worse movies of all time. I'm kind of upset this movie isn't on the bottom 100; it deserves a spot at least number 60 or 70 on that list. This isn't just a film I think is bad in a campy-fun sort of MST3K way; it's just bad. This is one of the few films that I really, really HATE. Freddy Got Fingered is in the same category of bad.
So the story in this one goes that the daughter (Gugino) goes to California to go to school and comes back with Crawl (Shore) and he tries to learn to be a farmer. Then the boyfriend tries to set Shore up so that the girl will leave Crawl and go back to him. It ends and what's left of the audience can leave.
The main purpose of this movie is for Pauly Shore to mug for the camera and try to be funny; but I'd say about 100% of the time he fails at that. Their horrible inaccurate and out of date view of farms and farming is offensive and there's nothing in this movie worth seeing. If you think of seeing it: don't. The one time I saw the movie it felt like I was watching it for 5 or 6 hours. If you've already seen it; you have my sympathy.
\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\nIf you are a Pauly Shore fan, you will laugh your butt off. If not, this is a silly mess wasting some very good talent. A cute coed(Carla Gugino)from South Dakota invites her California college dorm counselor(Shore) home to share Thanksgiving. Notable cast members: Lane Smith, Cindy Pickett, Mason Adams and the drop dead gorgeous Tiffani-Amber Thiessen. Watch where you step.
\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\nGood grief.. to think I've seen it all.. Danny Thomas looks SO out of place in this mishmash. He seems really uncomfortable. He can't sing worth a lick, and when he's paired up with Peggy Lee (PEGGY LEE???) she easily.. EASILY outsings him! Maybe the director saw this and made him do the reall really bad comedy routines that he sometimes does in the film. Peggy Lee is okay, but the whole thing is a shambles. Good for a laugh, maybe.
\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\nYes this movie is obviously trying to be a Conan the Barbarian, and what amazes me is that this is a sequel (the people demanded another one?). The first part of the flick is a flashback showing the original. From what I saw it doesn't look worth checking out (and apparently Ator always kills a huge puppet in his movies). Well now Ator lives at the ends of the earth with his mute sidekick Thong. A girl seeks his help as this evil dude has her father in his custody. Let me just say this bad guy is extremely patient as the old guy constantly insults the villian and just prattles on endlessly. The bad guy waits to the very end of the movie and finally smacks the old guy around leaving you to wonder \"What took him so long to snap?\". Meanwhile, Ator and his sidekick and the gal go through one adventure after another. They fight cavemen, invisible soldiers (don't ask), rent a thugs, and people who worship snakes. Ator also battles a giant snake puppet and hang-glides (again, don't ask). All the while you will be thinking that Conan would kick Ator's butt.
\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 mean, you just have to love the Italian film industry. Someone came up with a post-doomsday action movie (\"Road Warrior\") and the Italians were busy for years doing one rip-off after another. Then some other one came up with a successful barbarian movie (\"Conan\") and the Italians were busy... eh, see above.
Besides countless other variations of the theme (one of my favorites is Umberto Lenzi's \"The Barbarians\" starring the Paul twins) the Ator series was created. And this, the second one, is probably the worst (or best, depending on your point of view).
Ator is called back into action by his old teacher, who has discovered some kind of nuclear power that, of course, has to be protected so it won't get into wrong hands. The old man sends his daughter to Ator, and after a few complications Ator, his sidekick Tong and the girl set back to the castle, which meanwhile has fallen to some evildoer (of course, an old \"class mate\" of Ator). Somewhere along the way the heroic trio forgets about the plot and eradicates some giant snake-worshipping cult for the fun of it (not before some virgins are sacrificed). Just in time before the madman finally loses his temper and kills the wise teacher our heroes remember their duties, invent hanggliding and grenades and save the day.
Included: terrible acting by all participants (especially O'Keeffe), incredibly hilarious \"special effects\" (you just have to adore the snake fight scene, which must be sort of a hommage to \"Bride of the Monster\"), badly staged fight scenes, numerous continuity errors (Ator flies two different hanggliders during the climatic battle, watch for it, just an example) and an overall non-understanding of the concept of history (cavemen, \"civilized\" barbarians, castle-builders, all thrown in one film).
If you're, like me, devoted to bad movies, this is the one of the series to see, you'll probably end up ROTFL. For the records: the Malta-filmed third part is actually quite watchable.
Considering Joe D'Amato's other efforts this is probably his most entertaining movie, as he certainly has failed to deliver watchable horror or erotic movies. But I strongly have the opinion that this was completely by accident.

\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(spoilers) Horrifyingly enough, I have actually SEEN the film that this horrid film was a sequel to. It was called Ator the Fighting Eagle, and I saw it when I was just 8 years old. It made such an awful impression on me that i never forgot it. I've been an MST3K fan for a long time, so when Cavedwellers came out on tape I bought it. I was horrified to realize that it was a sequel to the wretched Ator movie that i'd seen so long ago! Ator's costume has, somehow, gotten ever skimpier than the last time i saw him. How can he wear that tiny little bikini? Doesn't he care that it shows off the fact that he has no...errr...package? And poor Thong...he gets no lines and no girl, and has to follow that frizzy haired girly doofus Ator around all the time. Has anyone else noticed that Miles O'Keefe walks like a woman? No wonder he's not interested in the pretty if somewhat lackluster Meela. The evil but prancy bad guy Zor is more to his taste, I'm sure. I loved Zor's cardboard spray painted swan helmet, and the way he spent all his time trying to touch some part of Ator. The fight scenes are so badly choreographed that its a wonder that the swords ever manage to connect. The dull old guy spends all of his time standing around looking depressed. Ator drinks from a cup given to him by a guy who hates him, and then looks surprised that they drugged him. He must be pretty smart though-he invented a hang glider in the space pf five minutes ,then flew it into a rift in the space/time continuum so that he travelled briefly into 17th century Bulgaria. That was after he stabbed the giant snake puppet, of course, and saved the post coital Meela while she sat around doing absolutely nothing. The real hero of the movie was Thong, who saved Ator several times from his boundless stupiditiy, and killed the evil Zor in the bargain. Kudos to Thong, the only competent person in the whole 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\nBOOOOOOOORRRRRINNGGGGGGGG and STOOOOOOOPIDDDDD. Kept falling asleep. If you want to see Miles O'Keefe loping around in a furry Speedo by all means rent this movie. If not please don't bother... Rife with anachronisms. Was this supposed to be set in the Ice Age, the Iron Age, the Steel Age or the Age of Reason? What was the reason for the black nylon wig on the guy dressed up as Genghis Khan? Was that really supposed to be Genghis Khan? If Ator had access to so much advanced technology and science why did we have wait another 1000 years for Leonardo? It's never clear where Ator comes from or if he's supposed to be some superior sort of being. You wonder if it was all explained in the first movie but after seeing this one you KNOW you'll never bother.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"