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\nI found this an awfully disappointing experience! But I have appended a better option of similar style at the foot of this entry.
This \"Felicia's Journey\" is intriguing. It has drama. But it is full of stereo-types!
So it ONLY serves judgemental temperaments without concern for truer justice & fairness & truth, beyond black 'n' white judgements that fit 30-second ads of \"NEWS\" that dot our multimedia experiences everyday, especially news bulletins, true or misleading in such depictions!
It is SO EXAGGERATED, it reminds me of the fairytale of \"Little Red Ridinghood\"! Consider the innocent young girl with no identification crossing borders questioned by a guard but freed without any evidence to venture on in search of her 'Romeo' who didn't give her an address VERSUS the pathetically inept lack of substance in the raspy voice of the 'helping hand' befriending her with his unlikely story fabricated by the layer!
It seems to suit the directors & management team that no-one has faith or prays to God, even in their times of desperation!
So in these early settings, it orchestrates & tells much of what is to come! A nightmare journey that betrays the essence of substance without fairytale resolution, without truth or integrity or credibility! ...Then one twist & it's all over. What a disappointment! If you want to see a MUCH superior movie that investigates similar themes with MUCH more credibility, with much more powerful insight, watch the 1983 Paul Cox/Norman Kaye \"Man of Flowers\" movie!!!
Unlike here, you will NOT be disappointed!
\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\nDefinition of documentary: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. The key word here is informative. I love They Might Be Giants, and barely learned a thing about them.
The interviews with all the celebrities were pretty much worthless. I don't care what Sarah Vowel thinks of anybody and Syd Straw was downright irritating. And is listening to people recite TMBG lyrics like they were supposed to be funny/interesting? It was neither. I think that was the problem: the movie spends time discussing TMBG's love for coffee. So what?? Millions of people love coffee. Was the presentation of the material funny? No! There were hints that both men are married, yet it was never discussed. And what about the solo material they did? What motivated them to do it? These type of questions are not addressed nor answered.
I could go on and on with the negatives. I did find the segment on Dial-a-Song very interesting. If you want to learn about They Might Be Giants, just buy a few CD's and listen. Seriously. This movie is a gigantic disappointment. I can't believe so many folks gave it a 10. Incredible.
\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 episode was boring and was not even in the realm of horror, so far this season Masters of Horror has produced one really good episode...The Damned Thing...it is still early, I have faith that the episodes will get better. I admit that the vampire episode was okay but lacked a solid storyline. The episode about the couple catching the serial killer started out boring, but the last fifteen minutes was really good. Though, I am just plain out disappointed with the lack of originality and horror that the first season's episodes possessed. Please, save this season John Carpenter! I have faith that Pro-Life will redeem the entire lackluster season so far.
\"You're an angry little elf!\"
\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\nMasters Horror: Sounds Like is set in Seattle where Larry Pearce works as the manager of a computer software call center, having lost his 6 year old son Michael (Nicholas Elia) to a rare heart condition he finds that he has ultra sensitive hearing. Larry hears everything in ten fold, from people typing on computer keyboards, people whispering across the room, people tapping their foot on the floor, dripping taps & eventually even people breathing become unbearable for Larry as he is constantly bombarded with mind piercing noise. Eventually Larry decides he's had enough & if he can't stop the noises themselves then maybe he can stop himself hearing them with the help of a large meat clever...
This Canadian American co-production was episode 4 from season 2 of the generally hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, written & directed by Brad Anderson I thought Sounds Like was a definite miss. The script was based on a short story by Mike O'Driscoll & I am genuinely surprised by the amount of very positive comments it has here on the IMDb at the present time, for a start I would be very hard pressed to even describe this as a horror film & it feels more like some bizarre sentimental drama until the last 5 minutes when Howard Berger, Gregory Nicotero & the boys at KNB effects actually get to do some work. Larry has this strange unexplained ability to amplify sound & noises from the start so this episode ends up like 55 minutes of exactly the same sort of repetitive build up which leads up to a gory ending although it comes to late to save the episode. This is pretty slow going & while it's well written isn't this meant to be horror themed & I'm slightly confused as to who this is meant to appeal to?
Director Anderson does OK but he just keeps repeating the same things over & over again, until the last 5 minutes there isn't a single drop of blood in the entire thing. There's no horror, there's no scares or tension & absolutely no atmosphere.
Technically this is very well made, has good production values & doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV program. The acting is very good actually & it's shame the story is somewhat limited.
Sounds Like is one of the very worst Masters of Horror episodes, a lot of people seem to like it & that's fine but it's definitely not for me. Another Masters of Horror, another disappointment.
\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 agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple. Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors. So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene. What a difference with the Spanish cinema!! I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair. Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions. Pity. I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment was censured by another correspondent. It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrowness of others to express our opinions about certain matters. Where is freedom of speech? I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this comment, and I hope he won't receive the same treatment from some other narrow minded judge. Pity again.
\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\nNot only the title, the film itself is a long one too, or so it seems. That's because of the outdated style of acting and the pathetic way its hackneyed themes are visualised. Bad marriages of the sisters and a homo-brother who dares not speak the name of his sexual preference - Italy 2003, you don't believe it (and you don't have to).
\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\nRu Paul plays a secret agent called Starrbooty. She teams up with another drag queen agent to fight the evil Annaka Manners (Candis Cayne)and get her kidnapped niece back...or something like that. Seriously-- I had trouble concentrating on the plot! The movie is seemingly directed by somebody with severe ADD--quick camera cuts nonstop that make it impossible to focus on anything. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times and when you can hear it you wish it remained incomprehensible! The acting is actually pretty OK except for Ru Paul who overacts to an embarrassing degree. Also the film is full of disgusting bathroom humor that is just revolting and not even remotely funny. After 30 minutes I had to leave because I was bored, sick and just couldn't stand it anymore. I pride myself on sitting through anything but this went WAY beyond my limits! People are comparing this to the early work of John Waters. I disagree. Waters' work is sick but good--this is just sick. Avoid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay,. so I went into this loving RuPaul. I still love him/her but think a little less. This is one gross movie that shows a lot of male genitalia. THis is a spoof of the 1970s black exploitation films and is purposefully done badly. The only fun part about it for me is that all of the voices have been looped with those of drag queens, even the voices of real women. This is over an the top, nonstop, laugh your rear end off it is so stupid, badly made movie. I would never watch this again but I do appreciate what the film makers were trying to do. There is no rating on this but it would be R or even NC-17. RuPaul has done much better work.
\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 great cast and what a pathetic attempt at a film. The script is full of holes from beginning to end. Incoherent, not cohesive...utterly ridiculous. One of the most talented/beautiful actresses in the world (and I'm talking about Nastassja Kinski) is without a single memorable line here. Worse, she supposedly dyes her hair halfway thru the movie, but it's obvious she's just wearing a cheap black wig bought from a drag queen costume shop. The best moments are given to a character actor and his dog in the apartment building that lead actor Peter Coyote lives in. Fairuza Balk is photographed poorly, to boot. She looks like an overweight freshman who's pigged out at too many all-you-can-eat-student-cafeteria-buffets. I was so looking forward to this film. I WANTED to like it, but I think I'd rather watch Nastassja read the phone book, with her OWN hair.
\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 \"Red Letters\", Coyote is at the vortex of as a college professor who writes to a female prison inmate and gets more than he bargained for. There are two reasons to watch this flick...Kinski is one and Piven the other although it's difficult for their sparks to shine in such a complete directorial disaster. Everything is wrong with \"Red Letters\"...convoluted, lousy screenplay, camera, editing, and most of all acting which is subpar for Coyote, etc. Battersby has taken a story with potential and turned it into a seriously flawed and amateurish flick not worth the 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\nIt's a shame, really, that the script of this film had more holes than you could shake a stick at (mixed metaphor intentional), because Kinski and Coyote - both supremely talented performers who are capable of great subtlety and nuance - have wonderful chemistry together, and the always-provocative Fairuza Balk didn't hurt the mix either. Jeremy Piven would have been great here too, if his character (and all the other supporting characters) hadn't been written as a plot device. As for the main proceedings, the writers just didn't know how to create the suitable guilty-or-innocent tension for Kinski's character -- instead they gave us confusion, contradiction and, by the finale, downright let's-hope-the-viewers-don't-notice claptrap.
\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 bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.
First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing.
If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA truly masterful piece of filmmaking. It managed to put me to sleep and to boggle my mind. So boring that it induces sleep and yet so ludicrous that it made me wonder how stuff like this gets made. Avoid at all costs. That is, unless you like taking invisible cranial punishment, in which case I highly recommend 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\nOops. I hired this because I thought it was Bitter harvest (1981), which was recommended. After the appearance of the appalling Patsy Kensit, I checked the recommendation and discovered my mistake. OK, It's watchable, because the main characters are very sexy, but the acting is awful. Stephen Baldwin looks morose the whole time, which is understandable, considering his co-star. Is Patsy competing with Liz Hurley for the title of the most obviously useless actor on the screen?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEnormous suspension of disbelief is required where Will's \"genius\" is concerned. Not just in math--he is also very well read in economic history, able to out-shrink several shrinks, etc etc. No, no, no. I don't buy it. While they're at it, they might as well have him wearing a big \"S\" on his chest, flying faster than a jet plane and stopping bullets.
Among other problems...real genius (shelving for the moment the problem of what it really is, and whether it deserves such mindless homage) doesn't simply appear /ex nihilo/. It isn't ever so multi-faceted. And it is very rarely appreciated by contemporaries.
Better to have made Will a basketball prodigy. Except that Damon's too short.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat is about mathematical geniuses that get the critics juices flowing ? A BEAUTIFUL MIND wasn`t up to much in my opinion ( FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING deserved the Oscar that year ) while GOOD WILL HUNTING had several awards lavished on it undeservedly
First off is the script . When I attended film school I was told GOOD WILL HUNTING is a very good example on how not to start a script and the tutor was right . This movie lacks any type of opening hook and for the most part it`s very very slow . If you wrote an unsolicited script like this the script reader would have given up on it by page 15
Structure aside the idea of a member of the American underclass being some sort of intellectual god doesn`t really ring true . Ask yourself this : If he`s the cleverst character in the movie how come he`s gone through his short life without anyone noticing his abilities ? Not one single teacher from his childhood noticed his gift ? Highly unlikely as is the fact he`s read so much mind expanding litrature . And if Will`s so clever how come he`s so oblivous of what happens to young good looking boys in American prisons ?
But it`s the casting that let much of the film down . You want to get a couple of actors to play rough tough Irish gang members ? Let`s get Matt Damon and Ben Affleck which is like getting Russell Crowe to play a pacifist or Charles Bronson to play a liberal do gooder . I failed to be convinced by the foul mouthed Damon and Affleck as they strutted about smacking people in the chops and couldn`t help thinking that even though they wrote the script the parts should have been awarded to different actors , after all Billy Bob Thornton has written screenplays for films he hasn`t been cast in and the same criteria should have been applied here
There are some good points to the movie . Robin Williams is excellent as the man who tries to show Will his potential and also very good is Stellan Skarsgard who is quite simply one of the greatest character actors to stepped foot outside of Europe and despite my previous criticism of the script there is quite a moving piece of dialogue at the park as Williams character explains to Will what he has seen in life
But I`ve got to repeat that there`s less plus points than negatives to this movie and I`ve got to agree with the people who`ve said GOOD WILL HUNTING is boring and unconvincing
\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 not surprised that so many people fell for this one. When I was watching this movie, a couple viewers next to me sobbed whenever you're \"supposed\" to sob -- or at least feel \"touched\". Like when Hunting said he didn't love the girl. Like when Robin Williams' character (sorry I forgot his role's name) was telling Hunting repeatedly \"It's not your fault\" (oh Lord, just thinking of that scene gives me the goosebumps). I couldn't have cared less for what would happen to the characters. Many people sob for Hollywood manufactured characters they can't even relate to (think Titanic; Yuck!)... but it really only made me cringe and want to get out of the theatre. I guess I simply refuse to be psychically and emotionally manipulated by all this.
Folks it's not me who's being condescending ... those characters are, and for no good reason because they're unreal. Worse yet, nothing is new or surprising. Even Robin Williams' character is all cliched.
I gave it 1 out of 10. It's probably not that bad; it's just quite mediocre... but so many people went to the other extreme and gave it a 10 so I figured a single balancing vote won't hurt.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSo many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.
Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.
What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.
Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.
\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\nSappy.
I liked how they went to the \"Haaavaad baaa\" to quote books at each other to impress the ugliest girl there.
Probably the janitor at my school is a genius too but is waiting to land that big construction job.
Just because you keep your nose to the grindstone is no reason to try to cut a steak with it. \"Do you like apples?\"
the guy nods or something.
\"Well, how'd ya like DEM APPLES!\" Wow, that IS genius.
Duh, Minnie Driver would give her number to anybody. Robin Williams can't paint and keeps the good books on the top shelf. And there's a professor who always wears a priest scarf for no reason.
\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 Hollywood is trying to grasp what an \"intelligent person\" is like, they fail so miserably, finding it hard putting words in the mouth of the purported \"genius\".
Right, any genius walks around trying to rub in his superiority at every instance. Sure, they hang out in bars and pick fights  it's not like they are (generalizing wildly) autistic nerds who never have a tan.
Plus, if you are a genius you know all about Math and History and Politics and of course you're constantly up to date with current events and a thorough analysis of them. Coz these things, like, all go together n stuff, y'know?
Plus, you walk around with a smirk all the time. You are just a smug son of a you-know-what, that's how it is, y'all.
And of course you smoke, like someone who never smoked before, but you smoke coz it's like cool n stuff, y'know. And you're different. That is understood.
And of course you can fight  you're a bully. A bully who finds time to study 10.000 books whenever he doesn't lift weights. And whenever he doesn't smoke or drink beer because he follows a strict health regimen.
And you date a 30-something college student  Minnie Driver. Well, I won't even comment Matt Damon. Team America has hit the nail on the head already.
This movie is a daydream of a Beavis & Butthead type student (in other words 95% of them): \"Yeah, that's what I would be like if I was a genius.\" But stupid people and stupid authors in this case cannot imagine the lives of geniuses.
\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 sat down through 2 hours of pure boredom. I look here on IMDB, even though it is not high on the list, it is in the top 250. I was a little surpised. Even though, yes. I am very impressed with Robin and Matt's acting abilities, they still didn't save the movie. I'm not sure what I really didn't like about the movie. Maybe it's because I dispise math. Maybe I'm not too much for dreary talking for 2 hours. Even though I loved \"American Beauty\", but that was it. I just want my 2 hours back. It was a big waste of my time. If I'm missing something in this movie, please E-mail me. I am curious why this is on the top 250. And don't say \"Because it was a good movie\".
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\nThis movie is so predictable when you know the modern American dream: Do nothing, be a loser and then suddenly... whoah! You're a genius and an obnoxious one and the world is kissing the ground you are walking on.
And surprisingly all the other smart people are losers. They don't know anything and are bitter when our wonderkid solves problems so easily. And what kind of problems? They are so difficult but still these professors can analyse the results in less than 10 seconds.
Every movie has something good in it anyway and Robin Williams is it in this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm racking my brain, but I can't seem to think of another movie quite like The Valley of the Gwangi. A Western with dinosaurs? What could be more natural? You gotta wonder why John Ford and/or John Wayne never tried it!
The plot  While searching for a mythical miniature horse for her circus, TJ Breckenridge (Gila Golan), Tuck Kirby (James Franciscus), and the rest of the cast/characters enter a strange, lost valley. There they find not only the miniature horse, but some other, more fearsome creatures as well. Dinosaurs rule this place. Now wouldn't that be an attraction at TJ's circus  a caged T-Rex?
It's not that I find The Valley of the Gwangi a bad movie, I just don't seem to have enjoyed it as much as many others who have posted comments on the movie. There are some parts that I actually find almost unwatchable. For the first half of the movie, there just doesn't seem to be much going on. I wasn't necessarily bored, but I did want something to happen. Plodding would be an adjective I would use. To top it off, the movie features a very contrived love story. It feels forced as if the writers decided that the male and female leads just had to get together. But The Valley of the Gwangi isn't a total waste. There are moments I really enjoyed. Who doesn't get a kick out of the scenes of the cowboys on horseback trying to lasso a T-Rex. You just don't see stuff like that every day. Ray Harryhausen's creatures are impressive. There are some really cool shots of Harryhausen's miniatures interacting with people and horses. It might not represent the best of his work, but the effects are very nice. Still, at least in my mind these good moments aren't enough to overcome the negatives. As much as I hate to do it, I've got to rate The Valley of the Gwangi a 4/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh what the heck, I'll reveal the secret: this movie stinks!
Yeah there are some nifty dinosaur effects that, for their time, were probably really exciting to watch. Now they don't cut it, but they're not terrible. They're just good enough to tolerate without being able to laugh at it. So they just sit there, and i sit watching this, not laughing, not excited, just, well, bored. It stinks!
If I can exercise my Jay Sherman for a moment, the film really does. The box promises cowboys versus dinosaurs, and in very generic sense it delivers. Guys dressed like cowboys fight a couple of big dinosaurs. But really these guys are a bunch of sissies, and the hero is a loser (more on this later) and the dinosaurs are hardly intimidating. The plot is a yawner, and there isn't much technically wrong with it that's there to laugh at. It's all just gray and bland.
After some dreadful night cinematography (Filmed in one and a half colors I called it), we get the plot which involves some people, doing stuff. That was what I caught. Oh and they are at the turn of the century in Mexico, so they at least dress like cowboys even if they don't act like it.
So a bunch of these people, who I think were human, they go in the desert, and they stumble on these dinosaurs (after they find a miniature horse...I don't know, let's just move on). Then the movie degrades into a really pathetic King Kong ripoff in the final act. At that point I had lost the will to even keep my eyes at television level, and I drifted in and out of consciousness.
The \"hero\" is played by the guy from Beneath the Planet of the Apes who essentially played Charlton Heston's part when Heston decided he didn't want to be in the sequel. He was picked cause, shock o' shocks, he looks exactly like Heston. That's about all he has going for him. I was really upset when he was the hero of the film cause all he does is glower, snear, bag the chick in the film (Who's named T.J...unfortunately she's not a prostitute or finally the origin of the name would have been revealed). Meanwhile his friend kills all the dinosaurs, saves the day numerous times, and what does he get for it? Not recognition, no nothing! And he dies, sacrificing himself for his friends! They don't even wait up for him while they escape!
Boring, long, slowly paced, with little to enjoy until the film decides to carbon copy King Kong's script onto it's own, it's best to avoid this film unless you enjoy pain on the scale of dropping an anvil on your eyeball.
\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 generally loved the Carry on movies but this one is actually pretty awful. There are very few laughs because the whole thing is so forced.There is plenty of talent on the screen and some come off better than others. June Whitfield, Kenneth Williams, Hatti Jaques and Peter Butterworth are fine but Barbara Windsor looks tired and Sid James is just tacky. Joan Sims comes off well but in the case of the usually wonderful Charles Hawtrey its just plain sad. When you think of the sad end to his career the movie is almost too depressing to watch. The homophobia of the movie is nasty and its a very unpleasant experience. The set looks cheap and unlike other movies in the series the movie is very clearly set in England. The sea side looks cold and there is little attempt to create any illusions here. It looks like a cheap production. You will be surprised at how miserable you become watching this especially if you loved 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\nI have always liked the Carry On films, with their double-meaning sexual innuendo dialogue and moments of slapstick comedy, but I can see why the critics give this one two stars. Basically, many British people are gathering on a coach to go on a Spanish holiday to an island called Elsbels to the Palace Hotel. What they didn't know is that it is not completely built, plus they have to share bathrooms with their neighbours, they have crap draws, and many other complications and complaints that the owner Pepe (Peter Butterworth, putting on quite an amusing accent, e.g. peace sounding like the bad P word). Starring Sid James as Vic Flange, Kenneth Williams as Stuart Farquhar, Charles Hawtrey as Eustace Tuttle, Joan Sims as Cora Flange, Barbara Windsor as Sadie Tomkins, Kenneth Connor as Stanley Blunt, an apparently crap (I personally can't remember who he is) Jimmy Logan as Bert Conway, June Whitfield as Evelyn Blunt, Hattie Jacques as Floella (a ridiculous hag character, not as memorable as her usual Matron), Bernard Bresslaw as Brother Bernard, Sally Geeson as Lily, Carol Hawkins as Marge, Jack Douglas as Harry and Patsy Rowlands as Miss Dobbs. I admit it is not great, but there are just enough dialogue gags, and of course Babs in the shower, and going to to her bum with that iconic whistle, and later a rapid rip off of her bra. Okay!
\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\nSorry I couldn't disagree more ,with the last comments . frankly I thought this was worse than Carry on Columbus , enough said . Last film for THE usually brilliant Charles Hartrey who looked out of place as the humour had move on to the Highly witty level of on the buses, films of which were being made at the same time ,were frankly funnier .Barbara Windsor was embarrassing,a character like one of your mums flirty friends who still thinks she's eighteen , on holiday with some non entity of a Scotsman , Rab c Nesbit he ain't. The series miraculously trundled on with duffers like Carry on Behind ,and Carry on England . Carry on Dick wasn't bad , but really with this film the end of the series was nigh , a pity because up to this film I cant think of bad film before this?
\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 season lacked real oomf, but, as far as setting up stories to get us in the mood again, season 6 is without highlights and spontaneity.
This season lacked its usual Sopranos style, and if you cut out all the garbage that was filled in each and every episode this season, you probably would have had 6 episodes worth of real stories.
Side stories like Pauly's mom, is she or isn't she? was boring and had no purpose other than further exploration of his character. I would have like to have seen Bobby express his anger more at Pauly in that carnival episode, but to no avail.
And that's just it! These side stories had no real purpose, and lack finishing. If they are going to finish off these stories in the next 6 episodes, I'd rather not watch it, because, its not really worth seeing.
Disappointing is to nice a word to say about this season and its finale.
\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\nAs I sat watching this episode I kept glancing at the clock waiting for something to happen. As the hour wound down I thought they were really going to give us a big pop at the end, and then - nothing. The whole family is huddled around the Christmas tree like something from the Hallmark Channel then, fade to black.
Perhaps one of the poorest season finales I've ever seen. Nothing at all to drum up any excitement for next season. The only thing thrown out as any sort of incentive to watch the next season was the ambiguous nugget offered up by Agent Harris while pawing a sub sandwich that the guys in New York were looking to get one of the guys in New Jersey. Wow, really? I would never expect something like that from mobsters, I'm on the edge of my seat.
It almost seems like they're trying to get everyone to lose interest. They start more plot lines that end up just disappearing than any show I've ever seen. They tease and hint but rarely deliver any more.
What's with the Arabs that hang out at the Bing? They keep throwing them in front of us and magically, nothing happens.
Paulie knee caps some kid after Tony promised his mother that nothing would happen to her son and, poof, gone in the wind.
And how many more meandering drug montages with Christopher are we going to have to endure? Please, have him get arrested or overdose or something interesting.
This was one of the few shows that I used to looked forward to watching but now, forgetta-bout 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 picked up this movie and was horrified to find out that the movie is based on a rape of a little girl that the parents knowingly take their daughter to. My first thoughts were that I have never been more ashamed to be an Indian as well as a Hindu. I found this movie to be down right appalling. Please don't waste your time. As for the music, there are at most 2 horrible songs and the film used is cheap. The beautiful scenes are not what India is known for. I just hope that I have shed some light on how disgusting this movie really is. Yes it may highlight how evil people in power especially when it comes to religion may be, but to sit down and watch almost 2 hours of this movie can make almost anyone gag. If your up for a good Indian movie watch something by director Mira Nair.
\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 reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet \"monster\"... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching \"Matlock\" reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie 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\nRevisiting old films that you thought were average isn't necessarily a good thing. They sometimes get worse. Championed by the Fangoria camp (in Gorezone they labeled it \"the scariest film since Texas CHAINSAW\"um, no), LUTHER THE GEEK inexplicably developed a cult following as an \"intense\" horror picture. Actually, it is just an average stalk and slashuh, bite film that briefly sets itself aside from the pack by featuring a killer who clucks like a chicken. Yes, clucks like a chicken. To the filmmaker's credit, at least they didn't make the killer sound like a duck a la THE NEW YORK RIPPER. That would just be silly.
Narrative logic is completely abandoned in LUTHER THE GEEK. I'm not saying that slasher films are abound with reason, but at least in HALLOWEEN Michael Myers escaped. Luther is actually paroled after a lengthy scene where people argue he is reformed, even though he clucks like a chicken and has razor dentures (which he apparently fashioned in prison). It is the kind of film where a couple sees a bashed in door and the girl dismisses it by saying, \"Oh, my mom must have forgotten her keys. She forgets a lot of things since my dad died.\" The kind of film where the hysterical mother runs into a cop looking for Luther and tells him, \"The killer is in my house!\" So what does he do? He grabs her and literally drags her back to the house and says, \"Just show me where he is and I'll do the rest.\" Why not call back up?
It is too bad the film is filled with such horrible action and dialogue because the Luther character is actually pretty interesting. Most of the credit goes to Ed Terry, a dead ringer for Tom Noonan in MANHUNTER, who gives the clucking Luther a genuine air of menace. In the hands of a right director, LUTHER THE GEEK could be on the same level as SONNY BOY or SANTA SANGRE and be a true cinematic oddity. But Albright is not that director and merely places the fascinating character of Luther in tedious slasher trappings.
\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\nLuther the Geek (1990) is a dull horror movie and is really bad even by Troma's standards!! It's about a freak who bites the heads off chickens, and kills people by biting their necks out, and he actually thinks he's a chicken himself!!!!! Luther gets released from prison after 25 yrs because apparentely he's been a \"model\" prisoner and deserves another chance in life (which is VERY hard to believe after you see how he acts and treats people throughout the movie).
After killing an elderly lady in a supermarket car park, he manages to sneak into a womans car, and proceeds to torture her, her daughter and the daughters boyfriend at their family home in the country.
Then we get treated to a long winded and boring movie, with awful acting all the way through, before a useless cop turns up to try and kill Luther once and for all!! Oh and the film has a ridiculous and laughable ending too!!! I love low budget horror movies and i think \"The Toxic Avenger\" is an all time classic, but i'm afraid Luther the Geek is just boring, illogical and dull, not much in the way of gore too, just afew bloody neck bitings and thats about it! 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\nI consider myself a big fan of low budget horror movies. The more bizarre and imaginative the film, the more blood and guts, the better, and i really fall in love with cheaply done flicks if they are done right. Luther starts out well enough... his origin at the circus, a creepy run at a supermarket, an attack of an old lady, and his disturbing occupation of a woman's farmhouse all set the mood nicely. A hot sex/ shower scene ensues when the woman's daughter and daughter's boyfriend arrives at the house. When Luther steals the boyfriends motorbike the movie takes a turn for the worse.
The characters are presented with numerous opportunities to: A) save their loved ones, B) get the police to help, C) escape, or (most importantly) D) KILL LUTHER!!! I can't feel empathy or fear for characters that are too stupid to help themselves. Chareters snub chances to arm themselves with guns and knives while Luther is away. A policeman eventually arrives and is equally ineffective in stopping Luther, even though at one point he has a rifle squarely aimed at Luther while Luther clucks and does his rendition of the polish chicken dance. I found myself futilely coaching my television: \"Make sure he's dead!\", \"Hes gone, get out of there!\", or \"Just kill him already!\"
Luther is a bloodthirsty savage, but he is hardly Hannibal Lecter. If you can't outsmart this egghead, you deserve what's coming to you. By halfway through the movie you'll be so lethargic to the fates of the half-wits that only morbid curiosity will sustain you to last to the mildly amusing ending. This movie was noted as one of Fangoria's 101 greatest movies you've never seen... well Fangoria is half-right in the case of Luther the Geek.
\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 been a classic in my part of the country because it was filmed in my own small town. I now have many friends who are guards at Dixon Correctional, and I myself worked for 3 yrs at the SuperAmerica store next to the Krogers store the old lady was at. However, this is still the dumbest movie ever made, destined to be introduced by Gilbert Godfreid or Rhonda Shearer, if it hasn't been already. A bit of trivia, Illinois doesn't even have parole hearings, and Dixon Prison is a medium security facility housing burglars and vending machine vandals. The classic clucking/seduction scene is perhaps the most amusing piece of writing I've ever seen, especially with the suspenseful build-up
\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 probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The plot revolves around a man named Luther who wears metal dentures, bites people on the neck, and walks around clucking like a chicken without the flapping of the arms. He also thinks he's a chicken.
Sounds bizarre right? Well, to me, the more bizarre and weird the person is, the better. The more gore, the better and so on.
The movie starts out with the board deciding if they want to release this maniac from their institution. They mention that he has created some dentures in prison that he used to bite people on the neck. He also clucks like a chicken and THINKS he's a chicken.
If I had a patient like this, there is no way I would release him.
First, Luther heads to the supermarket and attacks an old woman on a bench and walks away. Then, he sneaks in the back seat of a woman's car and she drives all the way to her home.
While at the house, Luther ties up the woman to the bed. When the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend come home, Luther hides.
Later through the film, a cop comes to the front door and asks about the mother. You can clearly see the daughter is scared out of her mind and crying but the officer keeps asking if everything is okay. She replies that everything is fine. The officer finally gets in his car and leaves. If I saw a woman constantly crying and looking scared, I would want to at least get inside the house to investigate a little.
The ending is stupid as well. While the woman in in the barn, she starts clucking and gets Luther excited so he starts walking around flapping his arms and clucking like a maniac. She finally shoots him and just sits there for a minute before finally clucking some more.
Then the credits roll.
This is one of the STUPIDEST movies I have ever seen! NOTHING happens at the woman's house! NOTHING!
I sometimes like campy films but this one really bored me.
I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Good idea, bad direction!
\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 that I can't even describe it. I was amazed that I even sat through this pile of trash. I couldn't believe that a movie like this was even thought of. It was a about a serial killer that clucks like a chicken. He doesn't just cluck a couple of times, he clucks non-stop through out the whole movie. He even flaps his arms like a chicken which is even stupider than anything I have ever seen. I couldn't believe this came out in 1990. I thought it came out in the early '80's or something. Then the daughter isn't very smart either because she was protecting the geek or man chicken. The end just gets worse and is the worse ending I have ever seen. This movie is just chicken s**t. I was laughing more than I was scared and I strongly suggest going out and getting a bucket of fried chicken instead of seeing this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"