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\nWhat is it with studios like Paramount that have a proven hit film series on their hands, and figure it can screw around with the budget and formula? Paramount spent less on this film than they did on TMP, which doesn't sound bad until you realize that there's a 10 gap between when the films were made. The $40 TMP cost to make would be equivalent to about $75 million in 1989. This film is the reason that Shatner has never been given a fair chance to direct other films, as well. Every time he turned around, the studio was slashing the budget and making demands regarding the storyline. The fact that this was the one storyline that Roddenberry and Shatner could agree upon for the most part made the freshman directorial task tough enough, but after all the machinations were done, all anyone ended up with was an uneven story and a load of badly executed special effects not worthy of the original series, much less a major motion picture. The most glaring examples: - All of the Phaser effects were severely ashed out and fake-looking. - The shot of the Enterprise going into the great barrier was so obviously a still-frame shot being zoomed away from. At least the popsicle stick that held the Enterprise cut out up was successfully matted out. - God \"chasing\" Kirk up the mountain... Egads, they may as well have just cut in shots of Godzilla climbing the volcano at the end of \"Godzilla 1985,\" and used thumbtacks to scratch the emulsion off of the film to make electric bolts come out of his eyes at the imperiled Captain Kirk.... Yes, friends, I have a real problem with the look of that last scene, especially.
Thank goodness Star Trek VI was such a redeemer of a 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 find it almost touching how Star Trek fans try desperately to like this film in spite of its unbelievable number of flaws.
To begin with, none of the familiar characters are really in character so to speak. Scotty is depicted as a bumbling tinkerer instead of the competent engineer he was in the original series. Uhura...Gods, I can't even think about what they did to her character. All of her dialog was painful to listen to. McCoy seemed like a neurotic stepfather to Kirk instead of his trusted friend. Spock...well, let's just say that Leonard Nimoy was terribly wasted. He was given bad dialog (\"I do not believe you have grasped the gravity of your situation Captain.\" Gravity, get it? Get it?) and made almost into a buffoon. Kirk...oh man, don't get me started. William Shatner is a hammy actor to begin with, so to allow him to direct really is to invite disaster which is what we got.
The plot is beyond ridiculous. Giving Spock a brother is a pretty desperate story line and unnecessarily soap operaish. But hey, let's go with it. The search for God. Again, a weak plot basis. You don't think so? OK, let's go with that too. So assuming that the two aforementioned plot elements are sound, what's wrong with the script? Well, for one thing, it recycles way too much. The Enterprise, for example, is yet again, not working properly. Are we to assume that Starfleet would send a grossly malfunctioning ship with a skeleton crew into a potentially dangerous situation just because they want James Kirk to handle the situation? If that's the case, then why not put him on a better ship as an adviser? Adding to that...the crew is grossly incompetent. Scotty has the ship in pieces (and apparently is cloddish enough to bump his head knocking himself into unconsciousness WHILE there are hostiles on board!), no one seem to notice the Klingon ship decloaking at a crucial moment (despite the fact that the sensors are clearly showing the ship in weapons range) and the crew all seem way too familiar with each other. In other words, there is no sense of discipline. If this is the flagship of Starfleet, then it's a wonder that the Klingons hadn't already overthrown the Federation.
As to the personal struggles with pain, it was crap. Lawrence Luckenbill is a competent actor, but even he couldn't save this turkey. In short no one could. Of all the people involved, I imagine Leonard Nimoy is the most embarrassed by it. I hope he is, anyway.
Thank god the original cast didn't bow out on this cloddish opus.
\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 so bad I can't even review it. So I'll jot some sentences about what I witnessed, and it'll be up to you to decide.
Captain Kirk, with toupee and tubby gut, is rock climbing Yosemete's El Capitan. Spock meets him halfway riding on a floating skateboard-like hovercraft. Kirk falls. Spock flies down, catches him inches before Kirk hits the ground head- first.
Later, that night, Spock, Kirk and McCoy are eating beans around a campfire. Spock likes the beans. Then, Kirk and McCoy sing \"Row Row Row Your Boat\", and want Spock to join in on the three-way harmony. Spock doesn't want to sing. And later that night, he disagrees. \"But life isn't but a dream, Captain\". Should I go on?
Okay... A renegade Vulcan, who happens to be Spock's half brother, leads a revolt on a sandy planet - taking hostages. The crew of the enterprise land on the planet, and Uhura, pushing fifty-five and weighing two-hundred some-odd pounds, lures the natives with her bare legs. But they can't trick the brother, who claims he can find God.
He kidnaps the crew and the Enterprise. They go to a planet where a big bearded apparition, claiming to be God, spits fire at Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock's sibling, realizing it isn't God - but is really a form of himself - or something - joins with the apparition in order to destroy it and... sparks fly.
Then, after stuff happens too complicated to explain involving Klingons who resemble Lorenzo Lamas...
The Three Amigos - Kirk, Spock and McCoy - return to Yosemite (did I mention, Kirk was wearing a GO CLIMB A ROCK T-shirt?). With Spock playing some kind of funky Vulcan guitar, they sing \"Row Row Row Your Boat\", this time all three harmonizing as the credits roll.
\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... Once. \"Manos, the Hands of Fate.\" That was worse than this, quite a bit worse: but it did have one thing: it had beautiful women in negligees wresting each other -- for about 20 minutes. This has a fat 45 year-old with 3 tits and a tail, in a cantina scene cloned directly from \"Star Wars.\" Not to mention an obese, blue seductress Uhura, her fat legs and ass hanging out of some sort of insane bird costume, in this Method Acting Mess. She always wanted to perform before a \"captive audience\"? She must have meant the poor slobs who shelled out 8 bucks hoping to see another \"Wrath of Khan,\" or at least a \"Voyage Home.\" Captive\" is right. I wonder how many people in the theaters tried to slit their wrists while crying out: \"mother, make it stop.\"
No question about it, \"Final Frontier\" is not just an unmitigated disaster, it's cruel and unusual punishment. This is Star Trek from hell. This is Shatner on mushrooms -- or maybe peyote. This is Where No Man Has Gone Before and Wished He Never Had in the First Place. Or, to paraphrase a review of \"Heaven's Gate: \"It's as if Gene Roddenberry sold his soul to the Devil for the success of a TV series, and Devil is just now coming around to collect.\"
And don't even get me started on a drunken Kirk and a grinning McCoy singing \"Row, Row, Row Your Boat\" together, like they were lovers in some sort of demented gay fever dream. Then we've got the Hideous Dynamic Duo of Sulu and Chekov, hiking through the woods together... probably en route to a Barry Manilow concert. Then there's Laurence Luckinbill as Spock's brother???!!! Yeah, right! Amazing how these relations we never heard of suddenly crawl out of the woodwork when we need a new plot line. And not to forget Spock rocketing through the air after Kirk when he falls from a cliff in Yosemite. Sure. He catches up to Kirk and saves him ONE FOOT away from the ground. Where'd you get those nifty Rocket Shoes, Spock?!
\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 voyage here is a search for God, the big guy in the sky, the big cheese with a beard. Cunningly disguised as the thirst for ultimate knowledge. Taking over from Leonard Nimoy in the directing chair is The Shat himself, Captain Tiberius William Shatner Kirk. In an attempt at blending the fun corny aspects of the series with sci-fi histrionics {Klingon dialogue consultant, really?}, Shatner and his co-writers have only achieved what is almost an embarrassing parody of a parody. Where's the danger,? where's the brothers in arms spirit,? in fact where is our badly underwritten crew?. Star Trek humour is a wonderful thing, when it's in the right places and done with a straight lace so befitting what has come before The Final Frontier. Some light moments exist, but they do not compensate for the lack of serious moments. While do we really need another Spock revelation,? really?.
Some nice sets and little knowingly Trek moments aside, The Final Frontier is just a bad movie experience. 3/10
\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\nWhen I first saw it 9 years ago, when I was 9. I thought it stunk. I'm 18 now and I still think it stinks. I mean geez no Special effects or anything, it was boring and kinda anti-climatic. My cousin watched once and George Takai (Sulu) kept talking about how it was supposed to be so much better, but they kept cutting to the budget. It would have been a great episode, but it was a terrible movie.
\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\nLeonard Nimoy directed Star Trek III, which wasn't half bad. Maybe William Shatner thought seeming as how Nimoy did it he could. After seeing this film he should have reversed that decision.
Star Trek V The final Frontier is the worst in the series. The acting from all involved and that includes those like Shatner and Nimoy is bad and washed out and making them seem as old as they look in real life, the special effects are tacky like when Spock has to rescue Kirk on a jet pack when he falls down from a mountain.
The attempts at humor were pitiful and story is so awful it dosen't bear thinking about which basically involves a Vulcan stealing the Enterprise to find god (seriously) I just didn't care about any of this film and oh not to mention Uhura does a belly dance to distract male guards. She looked like she was taking part in a granny competition. If they meant to make her look sexy. They were wrong. She looked grotesque.
How this got to production or even written...well it dosen't bear thinking about. The only place good for this film is in the garbage. The worst one of the series.
\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\nEven not being a fan of the \"Star Trek\" movies or universe of shows and books and such, I still find some enjoyment in some of the movies featuring the old cast and in the case of \"First Contact\" even the new cast a bit. This one though was kind of sad to watch...it seemed to want to be so much, but it failed on so many levels to be one of the worst Star Trek movies. The plot is very far fetched seeming to want to combine three or four stories into one ultimate Trek adventure, but it ends up an unfunny when it tries to be, not tense when it wants to be and not action packed like it tries to be mess of inconsistencies. The whole movie to take a phrase from Spock is illogical. The effects are nothing special as I have seen episodes of Next Generation that are just as good, which is to say it is fine for a television show, but not a major motion picture. The plot is laughable as the gang at first tries to stop Spock's brother then joins him on his quest to find God, yes you read that correctly. The Klingons make a tacked on appearance, which actually will set up the much better Undiscovered Country movie. All in all you know it is bad when the best part of the film is Kirk, Bones and Spock singing row your boat, well Spock was not really singing, but rather questioning the lyrics.
\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\nWhile Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, \"Row Row Row your Boat\" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead 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\nI don't think I can add much more to what has already been said about this film. However, I can offer a small recollection from seeing ST-V in the theater. In the last (dreadful) scene, as the camera is pulling out from the camping shot and it seems likely that the credits will start rolling at any second, the audience seemed to rise in unison. Normally, for a movie like this, at least -some- die-hard fans stay to watch right up until the final disclaimer. As the people filed out, I remember hearing no laughing and cheerful banter, only low murmurs.
I remember reading a movie review in the local paper in which the critic said that it was so bad that only Trek fans would like it. What an idiot. The fans were the ones most apt to tear it apart first!
Favorite worst scene: Target shooting on a Voyager space probe, through a periscope no less! Space must be a much smaller frontier than we thought.
\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 aware that there are some fans who might like this movie. I'm aware that the idea of 'searching for god' might appear interesting to some, to me, however, it's really boring.
The movie is simply boring. When it does get a little bit interesting, it gets stupid. Come on... Kirk fights against god and wins? How low can we possibly get? The only good part in the film is the camping scene at the first 5 minutes, which is truly great, but after that, the movie becomes boring, irritating, with nothing more than a good music.
Thank god we have Star Trek VI. (Oops, Kirk beat him).
\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\nNo one expects the Star Trek movies to be high art, but the fans do expect a movie that is as good as some of the best episodes. Unfortunately, this movie had a muddled, implausible plot that just left me cringing - this is by far the worst of the nine (so far) movies. Even the chance to watch the well known characters interact in another movie can't save this movie - including the goofy scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy at Yosemite.
I would say this movie is not worth a rental, and hardly worth watching, however for the True Fan who needs to see all the movies, renting this movie is about the only way you'll see it - even the cable channels avoid this movie.
\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\nStar Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.
The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with \"God\" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.
The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.
However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.
Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek 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\nThat's the only word I can think of to describe this movie. Not waste as in a waste of time (any time spent with these characters is never wasted), but waste as in a waste of opportunities.
When I see this movie, I think of all the Star Trek novels that were written which would have made a much better film than the story Shatner chose. The setup was like an average television episode, while the finish felt like the climax (if you can call it that) of the first movie.
Nimoy, in directing II-IV, focused on the character of Spock--how he faced the Kobayashi Maru outside of the classroom, and how he handled his emotional live now that he had a chance to start fresh. Shatner could have done the same with Kirk here, but he didn't. We don't know much about Kirk that we didn't know before. Again, one of the novels would have been better--try \"My Enemy, My Ally\" for a very interesting character study of our friend James T. The minor characters are used mostly for cute bits, and the Scotty-Uhura subplot seems way out of left field, particularly since the subtext in the original series was Sulu-Uhura.
Even hardcore fans can't find much to enjoy here. Sorry, but it's true.
\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 weakest of the 'old' crew Star Trek films, this film suffers from an awful script and obvious budget constraints, particularly in the mishandled finale. The bones of a good movie are here, and the directing from Shatner is not as bad as is commonly made out, but the characters end up speaking and acting way out of the style that the previous 3 films had carefully established. Lawrence Luckinbull is convincing as the renegade Vulcan with msyterious and mystical powers to influence people and these powers are responsible for some of the best scenes, particularly for Deforest Kelley who shines as 'Bones' McCoy in this his second last movie. However, as good as those scenes are, they ultimately do not advance the plot, and end up feeling as more of a distraction. A great score from the ever reliable Goldsmith and some funny scenes in Yosemite between the main three are not enough to cover the gaping chasms in the plot, and the frankly embarassing attempts at humour serve only to alienate even die hard trekkies. All in all, a wealth of possibilities which although it fails to deliver, has its moments. Watch out for the pool table in the bar brawl scene...
\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\nMan, this would have been a bad episode of the original series. I can't believe they actually spent money on this one... I caught the second half of this on tv and, having never seen this one before, thought I would watch it... Boy, what a waste of time... More cheese than Wisconsin!!!

\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 this movie just recently, and I said to myself: \"This movie is bad!\" William Shatner is a great actor, but he is no director!
It's not just that the acting is bad, it's terrible. And instead of a plot, we have a very bad storyline that is called a plot! What I really thought was bad was at the beginning where Kirk and McCoy were teaching Spock how to sing \"Row, Row, Row Your Boat!\"
Do I have something against William Shatner? I do not. But when it comes to being a director, he sucks! This film is not one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But it is the worst of the Star Trek series!
I noticed that after this Shatner did not return to direct another film in the series. They apparently did not want him to direct another film again after this happened!
Overall, this movie sucks!
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\nWelcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.
The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. \"BOONES! Hi, Bones\" Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky!
The \"Special\" Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.
Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! \"Capt. Life is Not A Dream\" Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.
A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party.
Cat Woman Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.
The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. Spock's antigrav boots amazingly support Bones and The Shat as well. Should also have used em on the humped-back whales in Star Trek IV! Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery the 2nd calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.
The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat.....
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in \"The Undiscovered Country\" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, \"Star Trek V: The Final Frontier\" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a \"buddy movie\" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole \"Sha-Ka-Ree\" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including \"Star Trek: The Motion Picture\" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of \"Star Trek III\" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.
\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\nEspecially if you love horrible movies. When I first started watching it, all I could say was \"I hope there's a dance sequence in it.\" Imagine my delight when not ONLY did the two main characters dance, but the main ghost began break dancing as well. AND on top of THAT, Sherman Hemsley sings the break dance song (not to mention the theme song). It makes me a little sad that he went broke because of this movie, but I've never liked him as an actor and he really should have known better. Not even the director would take credit for this movie (and you should check out some of the other films he directed!).
One note of warning, though, the writer seemed to really like jokes about the, um, male lower regions. For example, one of the characters discovers a book called \"Groins of the Darker Species.\" I am not kidding. And that, to me, is the most disturbing part of the film. Other than that, find the most obscure video rental store in your town, get the movie, invite all your friends over, and laugh until you cry with Ghost Fever.
\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 telling a friend of mine about the time my grandfather actually picked this horrible piece of crap for us to see one night at the theater. He never picked another one again! It was that bad! Anyway, my friend then told me that her father did some of the writing for this garbage. I thought she was kidding. It turns out, she was serious. She had never actually seen it, and she said that it put a quick halt to her father's writing career. I told her not to waste her time. But, if she did actually break down and watch it, she would see within the fist minute why this ended her father's days as a writer. I mean, even for the 1980's, this crap is bad beyond description. I mean, Joe Frazier as Terrible Tucker? And why in the world would two cops care one bit about a house full of ghosts? And the movie poster? A ghost with his tongue hanging out? What is that about? Nothing about this makes any sense. Well, I told my friend that this crap not only ended her father's writing career, it ended the careers of everybody involved. Or, at least none of them ever fully recovered from being in this garbage of a movie. Let's just say that I will forever ridicule my friend for revealing to me that her father was a writer for this movie! That alone should tell just how bad this is!
\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
This movie is só incredibly unfunny it makes any man want to cry, the cliché are put on thicker than 5-year old peanut butter and in such a way that it actually sucks humour out of your heart, every single joke was badly timed and wouldn't have been funny if it were timed correctly.
Don't see this movie, there's a real chance you'll never be able to enjoy going to comedies again...ever.
\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\nSherman Hemsley was great in the Jeffersons and especially All in the Family. He was also very good in Amen, why on earth would he do this movie? This movie has a terrible script and is a waste of a very funny man. Luis Avalos does the best he can but this is awful. This movie was the beginning of bankruptcy for Sherman Hemsley. I think he is very funny but this is an awful awful pointless ghost story. Stick with Ghostbusters.
\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 piece of garbage belongs in the basement of some moldy old mansion where it will never see the light of day again. The only thing scary about this junk was the price of admission. I was only amused when the ending credits started rolling and I was free to vacate the auditorium. What an unmitigated bore; a complete waste of 1 and a half hours. When I die, I pray I can come back as a ghost and give a fever to the moron who penned this gibberish.
\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\nAnother of those flimsy stories coupled with most forgettable musical numbers. Powell and O'Keefe as battling publicists are quite forgettable. However, there are two shining moments. Hubert Castle is the most incredible tightrope walker you will ever see - his \"drunken walk\" on the wire has to be the most spectacular piece of balancing ever recorded on film. He has to be seen to be believed. The other is Sophie Tucker doing a turn near the end of the film. Her magnetism, her professionalism, her sheer talent at being herself - well, charisma is not learned - you have it or you don't. A great lesson for all would-be cabaret artists. A sad note: W.C. Fields in his last film cameo is completely forgettable.
\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 about people living at a trailerpark. later in the movie it gets obvious that those people are out-of-work comedians, mainly old males. well, more or less they sit around the whole movie and talk about f***ing. but never there is any action, just those people talking. in the beginning I thought it's some cool perverted redneck-stuff, but after a while it got boring. I mean, how many versions can you think of saying f***ing, d**k & c**t? for sure, this can be funny - for half an hour maybe, not 80 minutes. but it was funny to watch those people trying to act. I'm pretty sure that they often were reading their text on some sheet when playing. but it does not disturb the movie, it's cool like this. because those individuals seem so poor, f***ed-up, crestfallen a***oles that the style totally fits. their wooden, helpless reading of the texts makes quite good atmosphere, I fell in love with the characters a little.
***SPOILER AHEAD*** later in the movie the f***ers do some comedy-shows (rhymes about f***ing) with just themselves as audience and imagined applause. then one gets an eviction-advice and so they decide to defend the trailer park and enter their roofs - armed with some weapons. then they got shoot. fin. sounds like action, but it's not. just some trashy home-camera takes. ***SPOILER END***
but the movie is totally consequent in it's style and I'm pretty sure it's just what the movie-maker wanted to have. it's the portrait of those f**k-ups in an groggy home-camera style with characters who can not act but seem interesting personalities so they are nice to watch. but the texts about - you know what - the whole time get boring after a while.
pretty young director who also seems an interesting person, as he played some teenager-stuff in popular movies/TV-series but now got in more horror-movies which is more his cup of tea I guess. and this, his first direction-effort will be distributed by troma now. don't know anything about a release, I got this one as an \"advance screener\" from this years cannes which says \"for bootlegging purposes only\".
\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 only positive thing I can think of regarding this utter piece of garbage is that now I finally have a good answer ready if anyone ever asks me what the worst movie I ever saw was called.
It would have taken such little effort to make it more watchable...a lot more effort and it could have been brilliant even.
Why would anyone want to produce such waste?
I refuse to believe that a director could be so ridiculously untalented.
Making a completely intolerable movie must have been the point.
Anything else just doesn't make sense.
\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\nOfficially the first martial arts movie in USSR cinematography featuring actual martial artists like Tadeush Kas'yanov and Russian Bruce Lee - Talgat Nigmatullin. Bad people highjack a ship in the high seas but fortunately just about everybody on board is a trained martial artist. A collectible for martial arts aficionado.
\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 was the first action movie made in banned in USSR Hollywood action style. It is not even close to the Hollywood action movies of that time. The plot is childish, the directing is so-so. This movie succeeded because it was first of its kind in Russia. Even though I watched it many times I have to admit it was kind of naive and I did not like it. This is not the best example of Russian action movie. This is just the first experience.
\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 has a few good performances going for it -- and that's all it has going for it. The leads, especially Pauley Perrette, are appealing. (Although some of the bit players seem to be acting from a teleprompter.) The material -- that is the problem. I feel as though the screenwriter/director watched the entire run of Felicity in one sitting, then sat down to write a script without catching any sleep. It really did remind me of Felicity -- a thoughtful young woman finding herself, finding love, with a shake-them-up-and- see-what-happens approach to the characters and their relationships. Except that while I usually enjoyed watching Felicity, this movie left me cold. The writing is just awful. It's amazing that the cast could come off as well as they did, as the dialogue is dull at best. At its worst it becomes trite, stilted and amateurish. There is nothing original here, with plot elements recycled from gimmicks that weren't so brilliant to begin with. (Angels and fortune tellers? Come on.) For the first half of the movie, I rooted for the actors and hoped to be rewarded for my patience. By the second half, I just wished for it to end already. My sympathies to the cast, who deserved a better vehicle for their talents.
\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 only interesting part of this movie was it's jazz and reggae New Orleans back drop. It tries to be one of those movies that has two struggles the heroine has to overcome, one from the past and one from the present which she fails to do convincingly. The acting's bad and the direction is even worse. I'm not surprised at all that this went straight to video. The end result of this film leaves no one satisfied or convinced including the actors themselves.
\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 low-budget indie film redefines the word \"blah\". It will surprise most that this word can actually be found in the dictionary, defined as: \"nonsense.. uninteresting, dull, lifeless\". The movie redefines the word because I would have to add to those four words: \"PC crap\", \"pretentious on a pathetic level\", and \"pointless\".
The film tries so hard to be \"hip\" and \"in touch\" with contemporary beautiful-people-struggling-for-je-ne-sais-quoi behaviour and \"thinking\" (do they think?). There is almost no plot to speak of, though there IS one to sleep to. The phoniest and most politically-correct things about it are how a white woman is great friends with a young, black stud, the black street-sax-player with a penchant for oh-so wise council and advice, and the fat black psychic. Isn't it beautiful how the races can get along after all?... Ahhhh... In the end, the woman reads out \"poetry\", which is nothing more than one of her dull \"dear diary\" entries. She gets a standing ovation(!!!), although in real life her listeners would have more likely than not dozed off into deep slumber. But this movie has little to do with real life, even though that is where it's supposed to be happening. In real life her \"poetry\" reading would have gotten standing ovations only if she had the sense to include the juicy, sexual details. \"And then I rubbed his huge penis against my sweaty, impatient pink little vagina...\" Cheers! What's worse, the lead actress has a dozen scenes in which she either bathes or screws with someone, yet they never have the sense to show her breasts, which was clearly the only thing left to save this mess.
The black guy and the blonde, who are separated by about a meter in height, hook up: they look like a cheap variation of Rodman and Madonna (as if the latter two aren't a cheap enough combination already). Nicole Eggert, mentioned by Howard Stern in his \"Miss America\" book, is the blonde. Stern writes of Eggert that she took her implants out. Yet I believe that when they took her implants out they also sucked most of the meat out of her flesh and muscles by mistake, for she looks starved here.
The sax player in one scene develops angel-like wings; he looks like Al Roker advertising angel food cakes.
\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\nAlthough the film does have a fairly stylish look for an indie made on a really low budget, that's not what I go to movies for. There wasn't one character I found sympathetic, they all seemed to be absolutely clueless losers. Everything they attempt ends badly, it's all too hopeless for me. Reviews refer to the Puffy Chair as a black comedy...comedy? The brother Rhett behaves like an escapee from an institution. When Josh talks to girl friend Emily about his brother, he almost hints at Rhett not playing with a full deck. Nonetheless Josh performs a \"wedding\" for Rhett and a woman Rhett met just a few hours before. There were a few interesting performances by some of the characters encountered on the road. However for me the most telling thing was that people were walking out of the film...and I saw it at a free screening.
\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\nWhen THE PUFFY CHAIR beckons, beware of its soft, colorful upholstery.
The movie starts out quite well. Josh (Mark Duplass) and Emily (Kathryn Aselton) are a boyfriend-girlfriend couple having a bit of a tough time with their relationship. An argument occurs one night and in order to make up, Josh asks Emily to come along on a roadtrip to his father's house where Josh plans to deliver a purplish LazyBoy recliner for his dad's birthday. Emily accepts and along the way they pick up Josh's flighty brother Rhett (Rhett Wilkins), an Amish-looking fellow more in touch with other peoples' lives than his own.
The roadtrip quickly devolves into more squabbling between Josh and Emily, as well as a bitter feeling for The Puffy Chair (it is initially very grubby and falling apart until Josh \"convinces\" the original owner to refurbish it). Rhett quickly ascertains that the cause of all of Emily and Josh's problems is the LazyBoy and sets it to the torch one night ...
And that's the last we hear of the chair, even though there are many minutes left in the film.
The big issue is that the title of the film is The Puffy Chair, when it isn't the chair at all that takes center-stage. It is Josh and Emily's doomed relationship and how the roadtrip seals their feelings for one another. Once the chair is destroyed, there's never another mention of it, even though they arrive at Josh's parents place on his father's birthday without a gift. Josh never mentions the chair, nor does his father. There's no connection between it and the lives of these people. So why call the movie The Puffy Chair and why isn't there a tie-in with it at the end? Bad script.
The other annoying thing is that Mark Duplass' brother, Jay Duplass, is not only the director but also the cameraman (and not a very good). Nearly every scene has a rapid zoom-in on the characters that goes grainy and out of focus before the camera's autofocus catches up and rights itself. Initially this took on a quaint and artistic feel, but rapidly became unbearable.
The acting in the film is accessible and entertaining. All of the actors/actresses did fine jobs. But the poor production quality, stilted ending, and lack of coherency to the title caused this flick too many problems.
\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\"The Puffy Chair\" was a supreme waste of 84 minutes of my life which cannot be retrieved and spent in a more worthwhile way (even \"The Blair Witch Project\" was a better use of life's precious moments). It must be called \"The Puffy Chair\" because only 'puffy' chairs could accommodate the extremely 'puffed-up', self-important brothers who drooled it out for public consumption; and, obviously, they are SO full of themselves that they have assumed the public would actually want to consume their drool. \"The Puffy Chair\" made \"The Wooly Boys\" seem like a cinematic masterpiece! \"Valley of the Dolls,\" \"Beyond Valley of the Dolls,\" \"Pink Flamingos,\" \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre,\" \"Night of the Living Dead,\" \"Urban Cowboy,\" \"The Blob,\" -- all of these would be a better use of one's time, than viewing \"The Puffy Chair.\" The characters portrayed are either too predictable or too lacking in normal, emotional reflexes to even come close to being likable or believable. Also, at one point in the film, while the characters are supposed to be in the same small town, if one watches closely, one can see that one part of the town is apparently in the southern United States, and the other half is located in Maine. That's some town, eh?
\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'd love to sit down and write an intelligent, well thought out review however, I feel I'd be spending more time in the writing process than the filmmakers did. I live in Los Angeles and I'm sorry to say that the characters seemed just SO much like underemployed and overly ego inflated ACTORS. There was not one moment in the film when I could escape the feeling I was watching the drivel ridden conversation of unemployed actors at a hipster LA coffee shop. One of the worst \"indie\" films I've ever seem with so little to recommend it that hearing it won at Sundance has effectively removed any prior interest I may have had in attending, much less considering a postitive Sundance review to be meaningful. Watch at your own risk.
\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 this at my city's independent cinema - no surprise, because no mainstream theatre would want its fingerprints on this train wreck.
The camera work is very distracting. The constant shifting, refocusing, and zooms could induce a sensitive person to have motion sickness. It looks more like a film student's project than a serious movie.
Though well-acted, the characters are unlikeable. Josh is devious, always trying to manipulate situations and people to his advantage. Without any context to Emily and Josh's relationship, she comes off as a whiny, insecure girl who's desperate to get married. Rhett is an emotional infant, incapable of understanding the complexities of human interaction. Without any redeeming qualities, I didn't care about what happened to any of them.
Obviously some people liked this movie, as the couple sitting behind me were laughing hysterically. Of course, they could have just making fun of it. I could hardly blame them for it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"