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\nAlthough I have rarely flown myself, I am keenly interested in aviation... and this film has added to the precious laughing stock in aviation cinema.
1. Why is the captain doing the ground checks? Why does he even measure the oil levels in the engines? With turnaround times as low as 15 minutes in commercial aviation this is not a typical pre-flight check.
2. WHY does the captain KICK against the aircraft tire? Strange kind of pressure check. Or anger management :-)
3. The cockpit has a crew of 3. All large, western, two-engined jets built since the 1980ies have a crew of 2 people. Now try a guess at how old the movie script is.
4. A helicopter manages to fly alongside the crippled airliner. Must be a fast one... and the captain's words to explain the \"maneuver\" to the passengers are indeed hilarious ones!
5. With arrested elevator rudders it is always possible to lower the nose of the aircraft. It happens, for example, when any aircraft moves slower than the stall speed.
6. The elevator rudders have hydraulic actuators. After the collision with the business plane it would, most probably, have severed the hydraulic lines and thus make them useless for steering, but it would NOT fix them in certain position.
7. The fire in the aft galley was a stupid idea. It was designed to show that only gentlemen ask for the extinguisher and fight the fire, regardless of who was actually trained to do that  the flight attendant.
8. At the time of collision, the aircraft's elevators would have been in a neutral position. The film could have ended here...
9. The flight engineer (the third person in the cockpit) has three bars on his uniform. In reality, flight engineers have two.
10. Why does the captain slash the cabin casing with an axe to examine the damage behind? I thought it would have been the flight engineer's duty, as he is already supposed to perform technical checks before and after flight.
11. In any aircraft, there is no unused space. At least commercial airplanes cannot afford the luxury of a compartment that can be filled with tons of water.
I could go on and on... but at last I laughed hysterically about how the screenwriters imagine aircraft disasters! Woooohooo! Most aircraft disasters happen in such a short time span that you simply cannot make 90-minute flicks out of them. But you can always fill 90 minutes with mind-boggling and insane crap, irrespective of the genre.
\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\none of the worst films I have EVER seen, but extremely funny (not on purpose though). Every scene that contains anything to do with; aircraft, romance, script or acting is badly messed up.
I recommend this film for all pilots, it´s so bad that you should burst into laughter at some point in the film (also see Airport 79:the Concorde, for the same reason).
Anyone else, avoid this film like the plague (except for fans of B-movies, of course)
enjoy
\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 a script, what a story, what a mess!
\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 actually saw this movie at a cinema. At the time, I was working shifts and went there during a matinée on a hot summer day when I couldn't sleep. The cinema was air-conditioned.
It was an early multi-screen complex and I somehow got into the wrong venue. I had intended to doze through something else. But as things transpired, there would be no sleeping. Shortly after the wrong movie began, I was additionally disconcerted by a group of female cleaners who came in and used it as their social club. I was the only other person there, and it is a measure of the movie's appeal that they habitually expected the place to be empty and asked me if I minded their presence. I didn't.
Within about half an hour, the cleaners' conversation proved to be more interesting than the entertainment I had paid for.
This movie oozed out of the screen with the cheesiness of very stale mayonnaise. The kind that has little dark, hairy, tufts growing on the surface. I particularly remember my senses being assaulted by strident cords of music that would blare out with very little warning, and even less meaning. The cleaners provided an anticipatory cue by putting their fingers in their ears.
It was about some city bird going to live in the sticks amongst a load a backwood folk, putting them straight but at the same time being taught a moral lesson or two herself. Like you do. A sort of 'journey of discovery'. There was a sententious smugness about the whole production. In particular, the leading actress had an irritating habit of staring at every hick with a kind of intense beatific compassion, as if she herself were the patron-saint of thickies.
And I believe at some stage she wrote a book.
Long before the end, I had become fascinated by one of the cleaner's hushed and breathy tails of sexual impropriety.
One suspects that there are some to whom sitting quietly for a couple of hours and not having to think, constitutes a meditation. The best that I can say is that I would not want to share their salad.
I have never seen this movie advertised as showing on television, which surprises me. It is just the sort of pap that is screened in the afternoon to punish the unemployed for not having jobs.
If you ever work shifts, be sure to get into the right theatre. Or hope for some cleaning ladies.
\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 an appallingly bad film! Ashley Rose Orr was horrible, she had none of Shirley Temple's charm AT ALL! Those ghastly smiles she would do when she scrunched up her piggy little eyes in a way that I think was 'supposed' to be cute and make the audience go - \"aahhhh bless!\" It just made me want to slap her. She must have simpered \"oh my goodneth!\" about a hundred times throughout the film. Also she could barely utter a sentence without accompanying it with a fake giggle. Horrible HORRIBLE film .. If I could rate it minus 10, I would. Don't waste your money on this piece of rubbish, go out and buy a genuine Shirley Temple 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 am a huge Shirley Temple fan. When I saw this movie, it made me appreciate what a talented child Shirley actually was. Ashley Rose Orr made possibly the worst on-screen Shirley. Imagine an 11 year old playing Shirley Temple from the age of 5. That in itself is wrong. But getting her to 'mimick' Shirley's voice? And her singing is woeful. The dancing was good, I'll say that. As previous users have said, there was little dramatic scenes, nothing to make the story interesting. Not even Amelia Earhart... I would have liked to have seen more of the world wide phenomenon that Shirley Temple created. There was too much focus on the Wizard of Oz, when in reality, Shirley was just considered for Dorothy. The film portrays it as though it is the end of the world when she does not get the role. Shirley herself said that she is glad Judy Garland got to play her. For me the star of the show was the lady who played Gertrude Temple. Otherwise, stay away! For great Shirley Temple films, watch Heidi, Poor Little Rich Girl and Little Miss Broadway.
\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 we all see the same movie??? I can't believe the raves some of the others are giving this really awful bio which, believe or not, was authorized by Shirley Temple herself, based on her book CHILD STAR. Gives me the feeling that some are awfully easy to please.
First of all, ASHLEY ROSE ORR, whatever her modest talents are, in no way, shape or form even resembles Shirley Temple enough to be cast as her in this sort of straightforward biography of the world's most famous child star. She gives no indication of why or how this child was so revered except for trying her hardest to do a Shirley impersonation which never clicks on any level. None whatsoever.
And that is the major handicap of the whole piece. But as if that isn't bad enough, any drama inherent in Shirley's story of her climb to almost overnight stardom has been completely white-washed with insipid writing peppered with occasional song and dance moments that don't even approximate what Shirley did (as for example, \"The Codfish Ball\" with Buddy Ebsen which was probably the high point of Shirley's choreographed dance routines).
Simply putting a girl in a polka dot dress doesn't make her Shirley Temple. None of Shirley's own brand of charm, warmth and appeal is even remotely suggested. All we see on display is a pale imitation of the original proving, once and for all, that there was only one Shirley Temple.
It's worthless to write anything further about this mess. None of the others are more than ordinary in lifeless roles. My advice for Shirley's fans is to read her book--or better still--watch her movies.
This is the pits.
\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 didn't think this movie was very good at all. Basically they took a bunch of one-liners from various Shirley Temple movies, threw them together, and had Orr act like Shirley Temple acted on-screen. \"Oh my goodness!\" was said quite a number of times. If you are familiar with Shirley Temple movies, you will recognize several lines direct from her movies. The trouble is they have Orr saying these in Shirley's everyday life. In the end, what we get is a hodgepodge of re-created Shirley Temple movies, instead of any sort of real look into Shirley Temple's life. Save yourself the trouble and rent Shirley Temple movies, it's a lot better than watching Orr try and recreate Shirley's acting 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 movie was awful! Ashley Rose Orr, while a talented tap dancer, and singer (actually a little better than Temple was in terms of the latter), is a terrible actress. She plays the character as the Shirley that we saw on screen in her movies whether she's playing her onscreen or offscreen persona. So what we get is an overly cutesy, and wholly unrealistic (not to mention uninteresting) portrait. If one wants to see that side of her, one can just rent one of her movies. The only bright light here is Connie Britton's portrayal of Gertrude Temple. I don't think it was terribly realistic, but at least it was well acted. Save yourself the trouble and rent The Poor Little Rich Girl.
\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 could have been a lot better than it was, if hadn't been a Disney Film. I thought that the young girl playing Shirley was all right, you could tell that she was really trying to do the job right. The teenage Shirley Temple wasn't right at all. I think that they should have spent last time on her childhood, the first hour should have been about the young Shirley, then the last hour should have been about the older Shirley. This was a boring movie, and not a good Shirley Temple 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\n\"Mame\" is a disgrace to many things--to Lucille Ball, to a story which has been told better many times over, and to the musical genre altogether. Ms. Ball does not understand her character at all and she seems to be heavily sedated. Bea Arthur is good, but it is not enough. The production is very shoddy and cheap looking, the songs are sub-par, and nearly every joke misfires. Also, Lucy couldn't dance well, so the music had to be slowed down to a funerial pace. Avoid at all costs, but DO see the delightful \"Auntie Mame.\"
\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\nLucille Ball's version of \"Mame\" in my opinion is one of the worst performances ever saved to film. After seeing Lucy in her various sitcoms more than an astronomical number of times, I can tell you that I really love Lucy, however, this movie is a fiasco of unbelievably bad casting, music and dancing. Robert Preston is the only saving grace with a part tiny enough to miss if you blink. I don't know what she was thinking, and I can't imagine how she was advised by the studio or director, but I actually cringed watching this embarrassing performance. I could be really cruel and suggest watching it for a laugh, but it's too pitiful even to qualify for that. Don't waste your money or your 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\nUp until around 1970 Lucille Ball was one great comedienne. She was such a perfect clown I only wish more people could have seen her with Bob Hope in \"The Facts of Life\" because she could do dry deadpan, too. as well as slapstick..
Yep, Lucille Ball was wonderful . . . until \"Mame.\"
Trying to see Lucille Ball in \"Mame\" is physically impossible because there is so much Vaseline on the already filtered lenses that you'd need Windex to see Lucille Ball in some scenes. So even if you see Lucille Ball in \"Mame,\" you can't really see Lucille Ball in \"Mame\". Which is a blessing.
That's about the nicest thing I can say about \"Mame,\" the movie of the musical of the movie of the play (this could go on, but it started with a perfectly funny book called \"Auntie Mame\"). Giving this a bad rap is like beating a sponge. So it does not matter that the music is croaked rather than sung. Most of the songs weren't much, anyway. There isn't any difference in the first three. \"It's Today,\" \"Open a New Window,\" and \"We Need a Little Christmas\" are all the same song. Celene Dion should do an album with them, they're so big and dull. The killer ballad \"If He Walked Into My Life Today\" needs a confident gorgeous voice (Edyie Gorme won a Grammy for doing it in 1967) that poor Lucille Ball did not possess when she made this movie. (True, Elaine Stritch can't carry a tune in a bucket, either, but at least Stritch can put over a song.)
If you still feel your life is not going to be complete unless you see the movie musical \"Mame,\" notice how there IS dancing in it, but whenever Lucy/Mame starts to do anything beyond a palsied shuffle the camera cuts away, returning right when the number is over and the star poses with the dancers. Again, it's just as well. Jane Connell got to reprise the role of pathetic Agnes Gooch after Lucille Ball had Madeline Kahn fired to ensure no comic originality would upstage the star. Connell is a stage performer who, like Carol Channing and Ethyl Merman, can't scale down her performances for films, so she joins Lucille Ball in being embarrassing, though for different reasons.
The lavish gowns are by Theadora Van Runkle (Van Wrinkle?) and they provide the color missing in all but one of the cast.
Bea Arthur as the actress Vera Charles, Mame's best friend, ignores everyone and does her own fun thing. If only she was in more scenes. She's too old for her role, too, but at least she didn't maim 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\nI love Lucy, but this movie is so wretchedly bad that I was squirming in embarrassment for all concerned within the first ten minutes . . . and it just got worse from there. Lucille Ball's \"singing\" is downright painful and the attempts to make her appear more youthful through the use of soft focus had me reaching for my reading glasses. It's bombs like this that give bombs a bad name.
\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 terrible movie, and I'm not even sure why it's so terrible. It's ugly, for one, with that trendy 1970s visual style that maybe seemed like a good idea at the time but which now enables one to instantly recognize a film from that time period as being a 70s product. The film retains the story and songs that made the stage version of the musical such a hit, but the songs sound lifeless on screen. But mostly, the movie sucks because of the wan performance of Lucille Ball, who you'd think would be able to make something of this larger-than-life character if anyone could. She sleepwalks through the movie like a terrified actress choking on her opening night, and the film sinks with her. Even Bea Arthur, who I bet was hilarious in the best friend role onstage, can't breathe any life into this stinker.
Avoid at all costs.
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\nLucille Ball was a mighty power in television throughout the 1950s and 1960s, but she still made an occasional film, most notably THE LONG, LONG TRAILER and THE FACTS OF LIFE. Although her television career remained strong, as the 1970s began her movie career seemed to be winding down--but Ball was determined to have one last big screen fling, and the project she selected was the 1966 musical MAME.
In many respects the role seemed tailor-made: based on the popular novel which gave rise to two different Broadway plays, Mame Dennis is a wacky, wildly uninhibited woman who \"inherits\" her orphaned nephew Patrick--and leads him on a wild tour of life's possibilities, bouncing from one comic spree to another. The music, which featured such songs as \"Open a New Window\" and \"If He Walked Into My Life Today,\" was among Jerry Herman's best work. The supporting cast, which included Robert Preston and Bea Arthur, was the best of the best. Expectations were high; opening night fanfare was tremendous; the film was a disaster. Critics were aghast and audiences sat slack-jawed.
No matter what hardcore Lucy fans may say, MAME is a fiasco, so much so that it is hard to know where to start. It is badly directed, badly filmed, badly performed, and there Lucille Ball is at the center of it all, unable to dance, unable to sing, and grinning like a waxworks dummy while incredibly bad choreography swirls around her. But the disaster is hardly of her making alone; the supporting cast fares no better. Bea Arthur and Jane Connell recreate their stage roles of Vera Charles and Agnes Gooch; the former is stagey, the latter is dismal. Robert Preston manages to sing with a smile, but he's pretty much on his own and clearly none too happy about it.
The DVD brings the film from the VHS pan-and-scan release to widescreen, but that only means there's more awfulness to see. Everybody loves Lucy, but only the least critical fan could love Lucy's MAME; while I wouldn't say it's bad enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, you may wish you had. Not recommended.
GFT, Amazon Reviewer
\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\nTruly I Love Lucy as well...comedic genius yes.....MAME...NEVER...she was as ridiculous as Mame...as was the film adaptation of Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya sisterhood. Both just completely missed the point. Roslind Russell was, is and always will be the first and only Mame. Perhaps as a young starlet, Ball could have pulled off a role like this, where her inherent beauty and youth could have carried her through...but this seemed a desperate attempt from an aged star to show that she was still viable in the field. The reason there are sooo many more supporters of Russell's version (aside from the fact that you cant improve upon the original) is that Russell had presence, she absorbs every scene, whereas Lucille Ball might as well be a pattern on the wallpaper in Mame for all the attention she commands in the role.
\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 was so awful, so boring, so badly miscast -- it took a lot of work to make what should have been a sure thing into such a travesty. I love Lucille Ball, but she absolutely stunk in this movie. Too old, couldn't sing, sounded like a truck dumping gravel even when NOT singing -- and the biggest sin of all -- SHE WASN'T FUNNY. EVEN A LITTLE. The studio shot themselves in the foot with this one, and for ruining what should have been a fabulous screen version of a fabulous stage musical, some other body parts deserve to have been wounded as well -- or perhaps they were already lacking those parts. That might explain it. But for Lucy to think she was right for a part that required SINGING -- well, that's the saddest thing of all. It's a very good thing to know your limitations. Even a legend can't come out of a stinker like this and still smell like a rose.
\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\nTo begin with, I really love Lucy. Her TV show still makes me laugh. She was one of the greatest comedians who ever lived, right up there with Chaplin and Keaton. But, her performance in this movie is disappointing. She was too old, and the gauze filters on the lens make her look like a London fog refugee. She couldn't sing, and her voice was so froggy that she croaked through every song. Her dancing days were long in the past. Just because you are a Lucy fan, don't gloss over this mistaken, sad performance and sing it's praises. I prefer to remember Lucy in her wonderful TV series(I Love Lucy) and to draw the curtain of charity over the terrible mess of a movie called \"Mame\".
\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\nLucille Ball cannot sing or act or dance. This makes the quality of her performance in MAME all the more dreadful. She's not allowed to do the low-brow slapstick that made her a hit on TV so she has to rely on building a character. Unfortunately, Ms. Ball never learned that skill as none of the tender moments have any warmth. How does she really feel about Patrick or Beau? We never really believe the words she says. That vacant stare of Ms. Ball is suppose to convince us she is emoting but there is no chemistry between her and Bruce Davidson, Robert Preston or Bea Arthur at all. For this reason every scene she's in is flat.
Moreover, when Ms. Ball opens her mouth to sing we are immediately made aware of the reason why the studios dubbed her voice for every other musical she starred in earlier in her career. It was stated that she demanded her voice be used so this is a mistake of ego as well as leadership. It is made worse when she is singing in voice-over and she has to \"act the moment\" without words. Whoever thought that would work forgot who was playing Mame.
I understand that Rosalind Russell did the role on stage and in the film AUNTIE MAME. Also, I am aware that Angela Lansbury won a Tony for her performance in the original 1966 Broadway musical. Neither of these women were known for their singing voices, but both could have pulled this off better than Lucille Ball. Why they went with her is the worst in blatant miscasting.
The only person that gets out unscathed is Bea Arthur. She's big and wonderful, catty and common in all the right amounts. Unfortunately, you keep waiting for this movie to take off and invite you to join in on the fun. But the film never does and you can't. No one besides Bea Arthur appears to be having any fun.
An additional bad review goes to director Gene Saks. Saks is known as an award-winning director of musicals and comedies for stage and screen, including the Broadway musical this film is based on. None of that skill and expertise is of aid here. The poor editing and storytelling quailty in this movie is beneath a director of his caliber. That glaring error in the execution of the movie is not the fault of Ms. Ball.
\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 a big fan of \"Auntie Mame\" with Rosalind Russell. She really was the perfect actress to play that character.
I've heard Angela Lansbury was very good on stage in \"Mame\" but it's hard to imagine anyone topping Rosalind Russell.
Lucy was such a great comedienne that her comic bits salvaged her performance in this movie where I think she was miscast Really, they should have dubbed her singing voice - hearing these songs sung at a faster tempo and with strong voices really changes the whole effect.
I just saw the stage revival in Washington D.C. and I think Christine Baranski was very good as Mame, Harriet Harris - the nasty chain smoking agent on Frasier - played Vera and she was particularly good.
Both would be good casting for a TV movie of this show. Maybe if that production makes it to Broadway they'll consider filming it.
Also I think Tracy Ullman would be good as Agnes.
\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\nWho the heck had the \"bright\"(?) idea of casting Lucille Ball in this film??? It should have been Angela Lansbury's baby all the way. At the very least Lucy should have had her singing dubbed.
There is some compensation in the fact that Jerry Herman's score is pretty well kept intact except for \"That's How Young I Feel\", and we do get performances by the original Broadway cast members Jane Connell and Bea Arthur.
I suppose Robert Preston had to be given a song, hence the inferior \"Loving You\".
Overall, I think in this one the wrong redhead was cast.
\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\nIn 1967 I saw an outstanding Musical at the Wintergarden in New York City where Angela Lansbury lite the stage as Mame. But did Hollywood give her the lead ???? No Lucille Ball great as Lucy was given the role. She killed the film. What a mistake There was no chemistry as there was on the stage Bea Arthur and Angela what a twosome when they sang.. It is too bad a producer does not put these two together even today
\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 good set design. Good songs, though like the other guy said they aren't performed with much energy. Bea Arthur, trying her damndest to do something with the material, had an occasional good one-liner as Mame's friend Vera and helped move the song \"Bosom Buddies\" along. Other than that, there's nothing here that's worth your time. Slow pacing, incredibly bad cinemetography, not very good singing (except from Robert Preston), an awful script, bad acting (except from Bea), and a horrible lead actress. Who thought Lucille Ball would be good as the classy, life-loving Mame? The heads over at Warner Bros. were no doubt on crack when they decided to not use Angela Lansbury, who had done it so well on Broadway, and instead use Ball, who wasn't nearly as funny by then as she was 20 years earlier, couldn't act the part \"the right way\" at all, and used a painful croak as an excuse for singing. Even if (perhaps because) making the movie was painful for her to make and even if she financed it, she just isn't Mame. Auntie Mame is such a better film and the soundtrack of the Broadway musical with Lansbury sounds great. For the most part, there's nothing here that's great, engaging, or interesting at all. Forget it, unless you're a huge Lucy fan who thinks she could do no wrong. Hopefully after seeing this you'll realize she was only human.
\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\nLucille Ball tries to look 30 years younger than she actually was in this poor excuse for a musical.
The movie features some of the worst choreography ever seen laced with the constant threat that Lucy might break into song with her bourbon voice at any moment. Lucy's total lack of talent as a singer and dancer sinks the film before it can begin and aside from die-hard Lucy fans, no one is likely to fancy it very much. Bad costumes and cheesy set designs don't help. Further proof that Lucy wasn't good at anything except making stupid faces.
Directed by Gene Saks.
\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\nWell, in all honesty it's beyond the boundaries of stupid, but \"Killer Pussy\" is still one insanely entertaining little flick. No plot, tons of oiled up cha-chas, cheesy effects, and a penis eating monster! What's not to love?! Pretty much - a couple of explorers find this creature that likes to nestle itself within a woman's beef curtains until a schwang is unfortunately... ah, thrust into its mouth. It finds it's host who is later discovered frozen in a deserted house by a group of moronic guys and their equally brainless, slut girlfriends whose van breaks down. The creature jumps from each girl as they all fornicate like drunken rabbits... There's some cheap gore, girl-on-girl \"blood wrestling\", KY Jelly vomit, sock-puppet monsters and lots of soft-core sex. Ridiculous but a cool 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\n***SPOILERS*** A hot and sexy Linda Blair as the Witch Amelia Reynolds is very upset with her friend and rival Witch across town Erica Barens, Julie Strain. Amelia getting her husband Hal, Edward Albert, to get a promotion at his job at the Giger & Greengrass law-firm over the more deserving Larry Barnes, Larry Poindexter, who happens to be married to Erica has her cast a spell on Hal causing him to lose control of his car and end up almost killing himself.
Larry finding out about Erica's attempt on his best friend Larry's life has a violent fight with her causing Erica to fall from the balcony to her death. It's when Larry goes back to his ex-wife Carol, Rochelle Sanson, that things begin to really heat up, emotional and sexually. The wicked Amelia tries to have the dead spirit of Erica take over Carol's body and end up murdering Larry who she holds as being responsible for her husband Hal's injury that left him permanently confined to a wheelchair.
Not much of a story but lot's of cheese and soft-core action with poor Larry getting manipulated by Amelia through the resurrection of Erica who plans to kill him the first chance he turns his back on her. Amelia is a bit whacked out herself not exactly knowing who is and who isn't a threat to her. Amelia even gets her poor and innocent gardener Stan, Michael Parks to first lose him family in a bloody house invasion break-in, then his mind, by being accused by the police as being the murderer, and finally is life, by getting blasted by Ameila herself. As he's made to runs into the Reynolds' house, under her control, as mad as a hatter trying to murder both her and the crippled Hal.
Larry Parks looked and acted so weird that you had the feeling that he accidentally walked onto the set of \"Sorceress\" and ended up being in the cast playing his part as Stan. Without the help or benefit of a script he improvised his way through and then slowly realized just how god-awful bad the movie really is. Stan getting killed off early in the film was a big plus for him since he didn't have to suffer,like those of us watching, through the entire brainless and mind-numbing movie.
It becomes evident to you as well as it did to the makers of \"Sorceress\" that all this shenanigan's on the screen has to come to some kind of hopeful and successful conclusion and a trick ending is put in to finally end the movie. The ending is about the best thing, besides Miss Blair and the rest of the very well-endowed woman cast, that one can say about 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\nI'm just throwing in this review to show that I'm not crazy -- I like a lot of Wynorski's work -- Deathstalker 2, Chopping Mall, Against the Law are fast-paced and highly enjoyable -- just to prove I'm not blind, I have to mention this, along with some Shannon Tweed \"Body Chemistry 3 or 4 or something\", are the lousy ones -- I've got nothing against drawn-out sex sequences, but Julie Strain's breasts are so unnatural looking you can't help but stare at them - which may be the desired effect but I didn't enjoy staring at them -- and several members of this cast seem depressed or disinterested -- The \"erotic thriller\" was the worst thing to happen to low-budget flicks ever, and thank God that their day has more-or-less done.
\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 female cast of this movie is terrific: you've got Linda Blair (maturing nicely), Julie Strain (who doesn't get too many speaking lines - that's a good thing), Rochelle Swanson (equally convincing as a sweet innocent girl or as an evil possessed girl), Toni Naples, and the most beautiful of them all IMO, the simply stunning Kristina Ducati (how the goofy male lead, Larry Poindexter, deserved to get sexually involved with any of these women remains a mystery). However, beyond the chance to watch these beautiful and in some cases talented women, the movie has little to offer. The plot is disjointed and doesn't really get going until the last 15 minutes or so; and when Wynorski finally manages to create some suspense, a ludicrous \"twist\" ending comes and ruins everything. (*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\nThis is very much overrated. I guess it carries some nostalgic value for many people. It has its moments, but every scene is heavily overacted and the plot is quite shallow. With this cast it could have been much 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\nThe Midnight Hour AKA: Tell Me No Lies (as found in some video stores) can be judged in two different ways. One by it's Merritt as a movie, complete with a plot (no holes), good story and believable conclusion and the other is by the skin flick it is trying to be. This is certainly no more than a B-Movie skin flick, whose sole purpose is to show every girl in the movie in an overly long sex scene at least once.
If you try to rate this as a regular movie, then this is bottom of the line drivel. HUGE plot holes ruin whatever storyline it has going for it. For instance, if a co-worker is killed, would you call the police or head home and hit the hot tub? Judging this movie by it's skin content, it's watchable... barely. The girls, for the most part, are all beautiful but quite obviously enhanced. The sex scenes were all long and overdone, though, and that made it's only redeeming quality a little boring.
Amber Smith could probably be a decent actress if she wanted. She was not as horrible as you could imagine or maybe next to the rest of the cast, she seemed a lot better than she was.
Zoe Anderson, who played Detective Arraya, should not even be watching a movie, much less acting in one. She looked good though, so we know why she was there.
Overall, I would not really recommend this to anyone. Even if you're looking for a good skin flick, there are much better one's out there. I rate this 4 out of 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 had heard about this movie through a friend, it was supposed to be a thriller, but what I watched wasn't a \"thriller\". It was more like a weak attempt at one. Amber Smith was a bright spot-that may be giving her too much credit. The scenes were she was in bed with actress Erika Michels were also lame. The two actresses did not seem to click with each other at all. Amber Smith was way out of this gal's league, and it definitely showed on camera. She did not seem into those scenes at all. I was disappointed because a friend of mine-guy of course-had pumped this movie up to be something \"great\", but it was actually more like watching dime store porn.
\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 ran across Yvette McClendon in a film at the Los Angeles Film Festival and thought she was a doll. After writing my review of her film there, I wanted to see more of her! Found this movie, it was pretty bad. Not her fault, she is only in the first few minutes where she is obviously being the person to pull you in to watch this bad movie. BAD directing. Scenes are looped over and over, with all the actresses. Amber Smith has a very bad breast job yet the other actresses looked pretty good. I really like Yvette but, this was obviously a bad choice of hers. I can't believe I rented this trash to look for her. I hope to find her other 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\nIt's hard to believe a movie can be this bad, but you live and learn. What's more amazing is the fact that the people who put this thing together likely had college educations. Meanwhile, the fruit of their labor bares the appearance of something a group of five eighth graders may have come up with. On the bright side, (if there is one) the soundtrack has some nice moments, which is another reason to question how the rest of the film can be so hideously bad.
\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 rarely shut a movie off after the first 10 minutes but that is what I did with this one. What turned me off was it was so obvious that the only purpose of this movie was to expose as much skin of as many B actresses as possible, and nothing else really matters.
Don't get me wrong; I like pretty actresses and sex scenes, and sexploitation movies have their own scale of merits, but this director does nothing else right.
For example, take the scene where the two cops (of course one guy one gal and OF COURSE there is all this supposedly witty banter between them) are talking over while standing over the first dead body. The camera pans between them for each line, (there's more than one screen-width between them!) and you end up wondering whether you're seasick from that or the clueless dialog.
Well, it MIGHT have gotten better after the first 10 minutes, but I wouldn't know. I declined the sucker bet and found something better to do.
\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\nOnly if you are crazy about Amber Smith should you see this. Besides her svelte body there is pretty much nothing in terms of cinematic value. She even has a lesbian scene in this one. My guess is she is trying to metamorphize into those late night scream queens ala Shannon Tweed and Julie Strain.
\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\n1st watched 6/21/2001 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Emmanuel Itier): Pretty much worthless supposed thriller that spends more time drawing us into sexual encounters with and without the star 'Amber Smith.' It tries to wrap a story around the sex scenes but as usual with these types of movies it is not done very well. I was so bored with this movie that I actually fast-forwarded thru the ending to get it over with. The video version I watched was called 'Tell Me No Lies.'
\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\nDare Rudd (John Wayne) and sidekick Dink Hooley (Syd Saylor) are itinerant cowpunchers who can't seem to stay in one place very long. In \"Helltown\", the boys are headed to Montana, where they meet up with Rudd's cousin Tom Fillmore (Johnny Mack Brown), who offers them a job. It's a hoot to see the boys wearing aprons as they start out as cooks with the herd, although Dare becomes self conscious when Miss Judith (Marsha Hunt) rides into camp. Judy is Tom's girl, but the attraction between her and Dare is evident early on.
Fillmore has a cattle herd to move, and promotes Dare to running the drive, partly to prove to Judy that he may not be up to the task. Meanwhile, bad guy Bart Hammond (Monte Blue) has his eyes on Fillmore's cattle, but when his henchmen fail to rustle the herd, he figures it's easier to win the money that Dare was paid at the end of the trail. Conning Dare into a rigged card game with his man Brady (James Craig), Dare's money begins to evaporate hand after hand. It's only when Dare fails to show up back at Fillmore's ranch that Tom goes out to find his cousin. Exposing the cheats, Tom, Dare and Dink high tail it before the bad guys can get their revenge.
\"Helltown\", also known as \"Born to the West\", was released in 1937 by Favorite Films Corporation, a couple of years after Wayne's series of Westerns for Lone Star Productions. It only slightly alters the Lone Star formula; Wayne does get the girl at the end of the film, but here he was trying. There's a great runaway horse scene where Wayne rescues Marsha Hunt, in which Johnny Mack Brown's horse does a complete somersault spill. Syd Saylor does a nice job as the comic relief pal, doing his best to sell lightning rods to unsuspecting victims. He replaces familiar faces George \"Gabby\" Hayes and Yakima Canutt here, staples of the Lone Star films. John Wayne's charisma is beginning to develop here, preparing him for the leap to super star status that he eventually achieved.
\"Helltown\" was based on a novel by legendary Western author Zane Grey. If you're looking for more films based on Grey's stories, try \"Fighting Caravans\" with Gary Cooper, \"The Light of Western Stars\" with Victor Jory, \"Drift Fence\" with Buster Crabbe, and \"Heritage of the Desert\" with Randolph Scott.
\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\nWith such a promising cast and a director that I have heard great things about, I was utterly disappointed by this film. It started off with signs of a great epic gangster tale and turned into a completely muddled mess with many unanswered questions and some completely ridiculous and pointless scenes.(and yes I did watch the full length version). I love Robert DeNiro and as usual he did a fine acting job, but in all his other gangster films, no matter how many people he kills, I always still had respect for his character, but in this movie he was a lowlife drug-addict, rapist with no care for anyone but himself. Also, James Woods, another fine actor, had some completely ridiculous scenes written for him. I thought the parts where Robert DeNiro called him crazy and he flipped out came completely out of left-field and towards the end the writers just throw in this random comment about how his father died in a nut house and that's why James Woods didn't like being called crazy. So much was left undeveloped in this movie. Also, we never find out who the men are in the beginning that are trying to kill Noodles and we never find out more about Joe Pesci's character. It seems that the writers threw together about five different stories and never fully explained any of them. The only redeeming quality of the film was the story when the characters were young kids. The story ran smoothly in this part of the movie and the kids did a great acting job. Overall, I was thoroughly disappointed by this movie and I don't see how anyone can even compare this to the Godfather 1 and 2, or even Goodfellas. I am sad that I wasted four hours of my life watching 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\nYou could see the final outcome from a mile away.All the signs were there....the prom,the liquor,the fast ride,the distraction of the females.... A good commercial for seatbelt usage,and later model vehicles that sit the passengers further back from the windshield.Also,the ending is rather anti climatic,as the Ford Econoline van barely suffers a crease across its nose after hitting a bridge abuttment at high speed (highly unlikely).More damage to the van would have made it a little more believable.And why do these films always take place during/after a prom? Is it a case of once you survive the prom,you will be good for life? More than anything else,it shows the lack of policing the prom for liquor,and not keeping tabs on the MINORs who are leaving the dance for a joyride.
\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 film listed here as having been made in 1980 is not the film which is available from Something Weird Video in their \"Driver's Ed Scare Films Vol. 5\". For one thing the 1980 version is in color. SWV has on this disc an earlier version (1972) of the film made in b&w for WLWT television Channel 5 in Cincinnati. Either way this film is notorious. However, unlike most other driver's ed films, this was intended for television broadcast and viewing by the general public. Thus the level of carnage has been ratcheted down. It's still a pretty grim exercise in exploitation of bloody death for a purported educational intent. I live in the Cincinnati area and I remember this thing being shown every year around prom time on Channel 5. If you're looking for one film that demonstrates the tone of this uniquely American film phenomenon, \"The Last Prom\" is pretty typical - morose, hyperbolic, extremely didactic, heavy on melodrama. Whether it really affected any teenager's driving at all is anyone's guess.
\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 Harold Lloyd short wasn't really much; not one of his funnier efforts. Of course, I never see bratty kids as anything hilarious. That's what the bulk of this story is, Harold and his wife, Mildred Davis, babysitting his in-laws two young kids. One is a baby who is constantly crying and the other is a four-year-old terror who does everything but demolish the house. Letting the kid create havoc over and over was not entertaining to me.
The best part was the last four or five minutes when the couple thinks that this big goon (Noah Young) is burglarizing their house. Half the time it's the pet cat scaring the couple, but overall, that segment is fun with some good sight gags, reminding me of another Lloyd short, \"Haunted Spooks.\"
However, the good ending doesn't save the whole picture, which I probably wouldn't watch again. Lloyd has done too many other good things to waste even 25 minutes on this one again. It just isn't that funny.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"