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\nUnfortunately House of D is just awful, with a ridiculous plot, terrible writing, some mediocre acting, and in fact just about everything else about it is sub-par.
Tom flees NYC to somehow survive as a lone child in Paris, and manages to convince the beautiful Parisian girl he eventually marries that he's French, despite a poor grasp of her language. She's shocked when years later he reveals his \"secret\" to her! Riiiight!
He then \"gifts\" his tale of woe to his own son, and who we are expected to believe thinks that's just the greatest birthday gift a dad can give his 13 year old boy. If only such things were so easy! David Duchovny miscasts his own wife Tea Leoni in the role of his mother and strikes out yet again. Leoni makes me laugh as a comic but she's just plain wrong for this role.
One of the problems with that is none of the characters are sympathetic. I just didn't give a damn what happened to any of them. I did rather hope that Robin Williams and his trademark \"child in a grown-up's body\" schtick would fall into a Village pothole, but alas, it was not to be and we had to endure his simpering performance all the way.
Anton Yelchin and William's daughter Zelda were not bad, but I suspect the rave reviews others are giving them is simply because they weren't anywhere near as bad as everyone else in this movie. They weren't great, let me put it that way.
There are so many silly and contrived aspects to this film - Erykah Badu, the bicycle, the Catholic school and it's staff of morons, the conveniently stupid characters, etc - that this review would go on for ever, so I'll just finish up by saying that House of D is a very poor movie, and I'm almost embarrassed for Duchovny.
The thing that really annoys me is how I was so strongly encouraged by online \"friends\" to see this that I traveled a long way to do so.
I would not have been so annoyed that this movie is so bad if I'd just wasted a couple of hours down at the local movie theater, but instead I lost a whole day, and discovered that my so-called \"friends\" are either stupid or dishonest, because this is an awful 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\nAn American boy goes to Paris after his mother commits suicide, becomes and artist and then discovers himself and returns to the States so he can make things right with his former friends.
I have to think that the people who are rating this movie so highly are all X-Files fans, even though there are no aliens or serial killers in it. Don't be fooled, this movie blows chunks.
The story is incoherent, with little or no explanation of what people are doing or why. When you do get an explanation, it doesn't fit the story that went before it. What it does is bore you. For all the acting talent in the film, it just isn't interesting. I spent the whole movie wondering when sex-addict Duchovny was going to bang someone. Maybe he was doing it behind the scenes; they should have filmed that instead.
What comes across is a story of a self-obsessed artist worrying about minor incidents in his life and wanting to make them right somehow - even though they didn't seem that wrong to begin with. There aren't any particularly interesting or shocking revelations, despite the mention of a big secret in the first few minutes. It's just a guy thinking that his life is as interesting to you as it is to him. It's not.
I saw in the trivia that Duchovny claims he wrote the script in a week, that's entirely believable. The guy can act, there's no doubt, but writing and directing are obviously beyond his talents.
Why Hollywood keeps greenlighting these self-discovery stories is beyond me. I discover myself in the shower every morning but I don't bother making a movie about it. Mine would probably be better than this one, though; at least there would be some nudity.
\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\nThey say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.
This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.
Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.
The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that \"retarded\" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.
Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls \"Lady\") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called \"House of D\" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.
I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.
Critics tore \"House of D\" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a movie with a wonderful concept, but very weak writing. It should never have been released with out at least three more re-writes (assuming it got any). The story is too loosly held together, and there are too many 90 degree turns in the story to make it a cohesive movie. It would be great to see what a decent screen-writer could do with the story.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you are having trouble sleeping or just want to take that nap in the afternoon but just can't seem to drift off, pop in this movie. The only neat thing about this movie are the electric planes. Aside from that prepare for some sweet zzzzz's. It boggles the mind how big name stars such as those in this movie can be part of the one of the dullest movies I've ever seen. Now, if you will excuse me, I will finish my nap.
\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 strange mainly because the plot was so incoherent. The title refers to a vicious wind which renders the surface of the earth almost uninhabitable when it blows, but this seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with what was going on. The movie seems to be an extremely poor rip-off of Bladerunner ie rogue android being chased by bounty hunter(or ruthless cop in this). Luke Skywalker turns in a surprisingly good performance as afore-mentioned rogue cop. Nothing seems to be resolved at the end of the movie, we never find out anything of any substance about the android or what his intentions are. There is one baffling scene where Bill Paxton(who has kidnapped the android) plays one particular song in his cardboard airplane for no particular reason(the song is called \"Shape of things\", by The Yardbirds). This happens again in a later scene where the same song is played for no apparent reason. Does this song have any relevance to the movie? Don't think so.
\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 film fails on many many levels. The script is the first failing, and as I understand it, if the script stinks, there's nothing that can fix that. The plot is boring, after the first 45 minutes, I'm looking at the counter on the DVD saying to myself, \"how much longer?\" The cinematography is pretty awful. I'm not sure how bad the transfer was to DVD, but it looked like a VHS copy. Also, the sound was bad. I realize this isn't going to get remixed for 5.1, but yikes, it didn't even sound like it was in Dolby Stereo which had been around for almost a decade when they cut this film.
Slipstream was far too similar to both Mad Max and Blade Runner for comfort. Because of the lack of decent special effects and high quality dialog, it is extremely disappointing. If I recall, the pointer scene took place during the last 20 minutes, usually it should take place in the first 20. Most people will be totally confused as to what the heck is going on until the final 20 minutes.
The film's music was excellent in parts, and then completely inappropriate in others. Elmer Bernstien did the scoring, but it sounds like someone else had a hand in sticking in 'other' stuff elsewhere as it doesn't match the overall good orchestral score (with some synthesizer music.)
There were great actors cast, Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Ben Kingsley, Bill Paxton. And they did a great job breathing the little available life into their characters. (Well, Paxton's character was pretty stupid, and the whole movie was centered on him. I'm not sure a heroic stooge is a good choice for the main character who carries the film.) Again, a major flaw with the script.
Thank goodness I watched this from a mail order DVD service, and not the theater. Overall a major disappointment for Sci-fi fans, or fans of Paxton, or Hamill. 90 minutes of your life, you'll never get back.
\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 quote above just about says it all for \"Slipstream\". I should have bailed out of this film after the first half hour, but decided I ought to be fair and give it a chance. I won't watch it again, so if anyone with the temerity to do so can get back to me with the number of clichéd lines in the movie, I'm sure it will set a record.
Some otherwise fine and talented actors got mixed up with this clunker; Mark Hamill portrays a futuristic bounty hunter and Bill Paxton is his quarry. Paxton's character has hijacked Hamill's prisoner, an android taking his name from the poet Byron (Bob Peck). Tasker (Hamill) shoots Owens (Paxton) with a dart containing a tracking device so he and his companion Belitski (Kitty Aldridge) can keep tabs on the pair. The real question though is why didn't he just fire the device at Byron thereby cutting out the middleman.
If you enjoy scene after disjointed scene with tedious characterization and artsy fartsy pretense, then I suppose you'll find something of interest here. But you can't convince me that the film makes sense on any level. Scenes of a futuristic Stone Age make way for high society snobbery, but the pinnacle of poor taste is reached when Paxton's character is displayed following a night of revelry with hickeys all over his torso. If anyone thinks there's some hidden meaning here, you're really stretching.
Patiently waiting for the frame proclaiming \"The End\" to come into view, alas, even that was denied. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is understanding; this movie had neither. Yet there was a single redeeming feature as the closing credits began their run - an awesome view of a half dozen hot air balloons. Apparently the film was keeping them afloat.
\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\nCombine good casting, bad writing, good orchestral scoring, bad dialogue, and good story idea with lots of potential but is never realized then you have Slipstream.
Just bought the movie for a buck, it is worth it, but not much more.
Good to see Mark Hamill act again.
There should be a decent sequel made to remedy the damage from the original. Or at least give it the proper attention it should have received in the first place.
Berstein's score gave demanded your attention from the opening credits, however, the long shots of slipstream planes and the even longer revealing of interesting plot points mutes his attention getting score.
It is really easy to dog a movie like this, after all it is by the producer of STARWARS and the director of TRON and a tremendous cast but it is what it is. And that ain't much.
Favorite Line- \"We're going to make it, ha-ha!...(BOOM!)\"
\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\nYeeee-Haa!
I have seen it argued that most American Movies are cowboy movies in disguise; that Hollywood is so in love with it's only truly original creation that it keeps reinventing the cowboy myth. I'm not sure I totally buy that argument but Slipstream is evidence in support of the theory; it's a cowboy movie with aeroplanes.
Actually it goes one better than that. It's a Spagetti Western with aeroplanes! Substitute the planes with horses, make the android a priest and this movie would be indistinguishable from any one of a dozen Italian Spanish semi-arty \"shoot-'em-ups with pretensions\" of the Seventies.
The film isn't as BAD as I had been lead to believe by some of the reviews I had read here but it certainly wasn't good.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow !! I didn't even know about this movie until I was searching for the name of another Mark Hamill classic (Time Runner). Some things are better left unknown. Mark Hamill's role is quite ... limited. I would compare his appearance in this movie to all those appearances of Vincent Price and Christopher Lee in those bad horror b-movies of the 60's and 70's. In those movies, they appeared in the the first and last 5 minutes of the movie. Memorable acting by Mark with such great lines as \"Don't try to run. You're under arrest.\" Did I mention he says that EXACT thing more than once. Bill Paxton fell into an Uzumaki type spiral of drugs and booze after Aliens, because he ended up in this movie after waking up on the set after a binge session. The HAIR .. the HAIR !!! .. Priceless Bill. Truly should have been \"GAME OVER\" for Bill .. but somehow .. he got treatment .. and went on to better??? movies. This movie blows. It is more dull and boring than The Crazies. At least that movie was crazy... this is just boring. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE SOBER.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film has so much potential which was not developed. Mark Hamill gives a good performance and so does Bill Paxton. The scenery is beautiful and the ultralight aircraft are neat. The problem with this film is that the story is way underdeveloped and the plot goes nowhere. The film at certain points almost puts you to sleep. I give it 3 out of 10 stars for the flying scenes.
\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 film when it first came out in the cinema. We were all looking forward to seeing Mark Hamill relaunch his career, but we came out wishing we hadn't bothered. Many people walked out after about half an hour - I wish I had too. The basic premise seems okay, but the plot was ridiculously involved and tortuous, and runs out half way through. Its completely unmemorable, and not a film you want to have paid money to see. If you're really bored and it's on TV, then it'll help you kill a couple of hours (or help you to nod off!). 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\nAWFUL wot more can i say i remember seeing it in the cinema (see how it sticks painfully in the memory)as a 16 yr old lad. Mark Hamill was the older generations skywalker and wasn't great at that, he was worse in this. Plus a dour soundtrack by Then Jericho AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH. There is one film equally as bad as this i saw in the cinema Arthur 2 on the rocks. Funny how that question \"What is the worst film you have ever seen is?\" is easier than \"what is the best film?\" which incidentally varies between The Italian Job (original), Untouchables, Casino, Things to Do in Denver, Goodfellas (getting a sense of what I like??? - this will fool you!) Finding Nemo, Pirates of The Caribbean and Moulin Rouge! Please Never Watch this film or it will stick in your memory too!
\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\nBut then again, what ever is? I picked this up at my local 99cent store for, you guessed it, 99 cents (plus tax). I remember seeing this on video as a teen and thinking it was a cool flick. Too bad the film and my memories don't match. Regardless, its not a too horrible way to blow a couple hours, and it is neat to see some vintage Bill Paxton and Mark Hamill. Blah.... Blah.... Blah.... Man, oh man, I CANNOT think of anything else to say about this flick... (Just filling space to meet the ten line rule...) Good golly, this is pathetic, just how bad is this movie that the best I could come up with in regards to it were five frickin'lines of text? So anyway, ten lines of text, eh? Hmmm, ten lines are hard to come by when you can't remember squat about a film you just watched.
\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\nMy overall feeling about this film is that it was a slow, drawn-out, structureless wander through some of the worlds genuinely unfortunate situations with a bit of redemption and an obvious message. The film is composed mostly of fairly uninteresting video footage of the countries he visits with bad reenactments, all slow-mo'ed down to a snails pace and overlaid with depressing music. Certainly some of the materials and interviews contain some compelling stories, but unlike what the description on the back suggests, it wasn't so much the victim's story that's being told as it is the director's, Mr. Ripper, and he doesn't tell it well. This film could have included longer, better interviews with the people themselves, letting them tell their stories. Instead Mr. Ripper indulgently draws the story towards himself making it some kind of personal journey, and unfortunately it doesn't end up being much of one. I never really got a sense of any growth as he explores the subject, and he never indicates what about the subject pulled him in in the first place. He just drags us from one place to the next, brushes lightly on the situation and characters, hangs around showing too much uneventful slow-motion footage of people just walking around the streets, then moves on to his next destination. He does this over, and over, and over again without any real development. I felt like this film could have been cut down to 45 minutes but it's drawn out to close to 2 crushingly slow hours. We feel morally obliged to care about the topic, but the director's self-indulgent, meandering, uninspired delivery of his journey makes you grow numb after a while.
\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\nScarier than any horror movie ever made because you're in controlled of this blood fest which make it more scarier than watching other people doing it on the big screen or on your television screen. This game got two CDs which make the game much more entertaining.
Each cd contains a different character with a complete different story line which make the game much more fun. I recommend you to buy this game and the first game too (isn't as good as this game, still fun though)
****

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOn top of the fact that Skylar is a complete douche bag and his cons are unimaginative, his schemes require way to much preparation to make any of his scams worth while. Without giving away any spoilers (as if it matters with this piece of crap) his cons are such a sham because it takes the effort of days and days of planning, and the use of multiple accomplices and an entire camera crew etc. just to scam someone into a service that would cost less than a hundred bucks.....in addition if you read in the credits they re-stage some of the phone calls etc. because they don't pan out...The whole concept of this show is bunk because all of his cons have the cost in both the crew and the effort of ten times the actual cost of the service he is trying to get for free...what is the con?
\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 decided to flush this show from my memory down the toilet of bad TV show into the obscurity of forgetful, disappointing, pointless, garbage TV show hell.
The Skyler guy who is the host/star/creator of this show is boring, uninteresting, unbelievable, not particularly good looking and not at all funny, in short why is this guy on TV and especially why is he in a comedy show when he's not funny, pretending to be a professional con man when he definitely is nothing but an obvious pretender? Others have said it here already but this guy is a total fake and fraud, if you believe any of these cons I think you should seriously consider going to get your head checked because they're all fake, and the ones that might possibly be true are so pointless, like spending all day to con someone out of giving you an average meal at a restaurant? Seriously this guy needs to go away, glad this show got canned.
\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 exactly is the point of pretending to \"con\" people out of things like ski passes and pizza? I fail to see a point. I'd not clever or original and it strikes me as being extremely pointless.
Skyler Stone doesn't seem to be a very down-to-earth or even a nice guy. He has very little charisma and just about anyone could do what he does in this show.
The worse thing about this piece of crap, is the fact that a lot of the phone calls are reenacted, so not only are they apparently conning the poor people on the other end of the phone, but they are also conning the audience who don't have enough time to read the \"disclaimed\" that flickers across the screen for about half a second at the beginning at the end of the show!
Not only that but he also claims this is how he lives his whole life. What an lie. No one could live their lives like this and the fact he says this is not only yet another con to get his show watched, but it's also one of the most fabricated, blatant pieces of bull$hit I've ever heard. This guy is an @$$!
What makes them think that going to all the trouble of, for example, write and record a song, get someone to pain a HUGE picture of you and two mates, get dance lessons and actually travel to a ski resort is actually worth only getting free ski passes and some food for free? What is the point of that? It's an awful lot of trouble to go to just for a few ski passes and a bit of snow.
As far as \"comedy\" goes, this is bottom of the barrel stuff.
\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 just finished watching this movie and largely found it a waste of time with little or no redeeming factors. I really don't understand where all the positive reviews came from -- the animation is clunky and unrefined, the plot makes no sense at all from an objective standpoint, and there is no sense of intrigue or suspense in that which is trying to pass itself off as an intriguing and suspenseful film. I have never read the book so I can't say if the movie was faithful, but as with most movie adaptations, it tries too hard to cram as much information into the shortest amount of time possible. The result is a disjointed and illogical storyline that doesn't really let you understand or relate to the characters, or, actually, anything at all. Overall, I felt completely detached from the characters and the plot to the point where I couldn't bring myself to care about what happened to them, and the only way I can see how this animation could be considered beautiful is if your normal standard of animation is a Scooby-Doo cartoon.
\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\"Blame it on Rio\" is a romantic comedy 80's style, with more than an eye full of sex throughout its 101 minute running time.
The plot concerns two middle-aged men in crisis, one of whom is sorting through his divorce, the other dealing with the possibility of that same prospect. Both good friends, they decide to take a vacation in exotic Rio de Janeiro, each with a daughter at their side. Complications set in when one of them gets involved with the other's daughter.
This potential riot of a story is fairly funny and there are some good lines, however it never really becomes hilarious, as it could have. Any attempt at handling the moral issue seriously doesn't work either, and perhaps director Donen should have stuck to the humour of the situation.
Not a bad film, but what really ruins it is Michelle Johnson's awful performance as the naughty little temptress Jennifer. While she uses her body to full advantage, it's the only thing she's got. Michelle's acting prowess leaves a great deal to be desired. No wonder we haven't seen her in anything else.
Friday, January 7, 1994 - Video
\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\nAll in all, don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.
And if you want to see a movie that will take you back to 1983, this will do that for sure. The only reason I gave this movie 2 points more than it deserves is for 2 reasons:
#1. Michael Caine
#2. the people, the sights, the culture and the music of Brazil
The movie is almost completely carried by Caine as he commits the seemingly impossible task of transforming it into a viable and semi-believable story. Even Joe Bologna and Valerie Harper fall short.
Michael Caine is pure class, as always. Besides being a gifted classical and comic actor, Caine brings a blend of introspection, mischievousness and sensitivity to every movie he does ... the focus of his charm as far back as his role in Alfie...and the reason why he won the Academy Award for Hannah and her Sisters 2 years later. In this farce, he is tenderly beguiling...funny and vulnerable... melancholy and sentimental....and besides the jewel that is Rio de Janeiro, the ONLY reason to not seek out a better form of entertainment.
Well...maybe a glimpse at the 2 lovely young actresses, Michelle Johnson and Demi Moore would be a reason. But look is all you can do at Michelle (though her look seems sorely dated)....there couldn't be a more painful movie experience than watching her \"try\" to act (most of her dialogue seems overdubbed, too). Demi's acting and looks hold up 100 times better and you could easily transplant her, as is, into any movie today (she doesn't really look much different to be honest). Ms. Moore is surely underused, especially considering she was the bigger star of the 2.
Save the fact that it is a silly farce, at the end, I actually kind of like the maturity with which all these people handle this scandalous situation...that it doesn't end friendships nor marriages and that an affair, even with the underage daughter of your best friend, could be forgiven and everyone can move on. The injured parties do show anger and disappointment at what transpired, but all works out for the best....a bit unrealistic for sure, but surprisingly refreshing. Hope always 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\nNot the funniest movie ever.....but I have to watch this film at least once a year just so I can fall in Love with Michelle Johnson all over again. She never looked better than she did in this film. by the way The story is good too.
\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 should be called Blame it on the Script. Directed by Stanley Donen, of Singin' in the Rain fame, this celluloid mid-life crisis is not all bad. It's got some lush scenes of Rio de Janeiro and various scantily clad extras cavorting with each other and romping around the beach to the sultry sounds of samba, but there is just something about watching fifty-something Michael Caine get it on with whiny teenager Michelle Johnson that makes you feel...well, sleazy. This storyline is a complete stretch, too. Nobody but pervy and vain old studio execs in Hollywood could have green-lit this embarrassment. Maybe they are so used to having young bimbos as arm candy that they forget it's their fat wallets that hold the key to their appeal, not their huge Larry King-style spectacles and yellow cigar-stained teeth. It's one thing for a nubile young sexpot to have a crush on an older man, but on her best friend's father who happens to be married? And then to throw herself at him shamelessly? Ugh! There's nothing entertaining about that. It's rather pathetic and grotesque. Take note of a young Demi Moore's budding *cough* talent.
\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 in the theatre a couple decades ago, and fuzzy recollection suggests that I liked it. However, seeing it for a second time two things stand out: (1) very poor acting on the part of Michelle Johnson, and (2) very poor music throughout.
It's not that all the music was bad. Some of the Brazilian music was fine, but the theme song and others that clanged their way in were reminiscent of the worst of '80s pop music.
Johnson's voice seemed all wrong, possibly dubbed. This was distracting.
On the positive side: (1) The story's not bad, (2) it's interesting seeing such a young Demi Moore, (3) Valerie Harper never looked better, and (4) Johnson did look quite fetching in various stages of disattire.
\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\nYeah, I know the girls are hot and the scenery lovely but for someone knowing the place, it's hilarious.
If you want some accuracy, this is not a movie to rely on. It starts with the flight from São Paulo to Rio aboard a 747. This will never happen on the 400 km flight. Smaller planes such as 737 or A-320 shuttle passengers between the two cities every half an hour. The drive from the airport home if shown on a map would reveal an intricate zig zag back and forth. Perhaps the producers tried to emulate one of the very known taxicab drivers itineraries when faced to tourists. Not that it would be a local habit as I myself got ripped off in very serious places such as Switzerland. The girls, yes. All topless. That's something an outsider will never understand. Brazilian chicks will be happy to expose 100 % of their incredible bodies at the Samba Schools parades and wear almost non-existent bikinis at beach, but never go topless. A handful beaches across the whole country will allow it. All carefully secluded and out of town. Oh, the indoor decoration; the amazing wallpaper... maybe in Disneyworld... Apart from that, it is very entertaining and, yes, Demi Moore is absolutely splendid.
\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\nMichael Caine's character has problems. He's a plain, nearsighted, insecure man in his mid-40s. He's married but his wife doesn't seem to love him anymore. He has a poor relationship with his only daughter. But his most immediate problem is that a stunningly beautiful young woman, played by Michelle Johnson, is pursuing him too ardently, kissing him, groping him, and trying to initiate sex at every opportunity. What's the poor fellow to do?
This movie should be taken out of the Comedy section and placed under Science Fiction. Only an intergalactic brain chip can explain the actions of Michelle Johnson's character. Let's see - 3 billion men in the world - she can pretty much have her pick - she goes with an clumsy, aging loser. This goes beyond a middle-aged male fantasy into something so delusional, you just hope that everyone involved voluntarily submitted to therapy.
There's not really anything funny here. There are some quick attempts at wit from Caine, who often seems to playing Hawkeye Pierce more than a new character. Joseph Bologna is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Michelle Johnson is no actress - she has one crying scene that wouldn't pass muster in a high school play - but she is beautiful and she does take her clothes off. So buy the DVD, skip to scenes 4 and 9, and forget the rest.
\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 never intended to write a review of this movie. Actually I was just on the sight looking for the name of the star of the film and then I started reading reviews... I guess I'll never learn. This movie is horrible! I'm not going to justify my comments with specific reasons because I really find it hard to believe that anyone with any taste actually LIKES this. A guilty pleasure? Okay, I guess. But a film this bad that wasted talent so good (Caine, Gelbart, and Donen) is a reason for mourning not a pleasant diversion. A low point for all involved except perhaps Bologna, who must sit up nights trying to figure out which bomb was THE bomb that destroyed his career.
\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 just arrived to Mexico and since I read very good reviews here about it I decided to go watch it with my friends and girlfriend, but i was greatly disappointed, I don't understand how people can rate it 10/10 I mean screenplay and directing were beautiful, but a great overall movie need a good story which this flick lacked altogether.
I've enjoyed several dramatic Asian and European films but they had a good story, watch this movie at your own risk unless you are eastern European or orthodox i don't think you will like it.
Half the people on the theater left including my 4 friends who waited outside since they were really bored so was I but I always wait till the end of the movie.
Regarding the movie, it was extremely slow paced, with a lot of time wasting scenes, the full length of the story could have been shown in no more than 40 minutes, but they made it longer by having scenes of the monk getting coal that is like 15 minutes of the whole movie plus panoramic views and so on, until they made it a full length movie a really boring one.
I recommend you listen to me if you still watch it come back and rate this comment as useful after wards to help people avoid this waste of money.
\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 puddle of derivative drivel stole from every Soviet film of note and failed miserably. I was left with an experience of everything that is wrong with organized religion in general and the Russian Orthodox Church's particular shortcomings (mind you this comment comes from a person of faith). Even the outstanding cinematography left me uninspired. I spent its most beautiful moments very aware of the masterworks that it was poorly imitating. I would not recommend seeing this movie unless you have a deep passion for the Russian Orthodox Church, its monastic traditions, miracles in the face of Communism, and Saints of the Seventies. It is a meaningless film from (and about) a narrow perspective that did absolutely nothing for me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMaybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.
I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....
\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\nAn absolutely baffling western featuring flash-forward sequences set in an insane asylum, South of Hell Mountain was one of the first films produced by the schlockmeisters at Cannon Film. Co-directed by William Sachs, who would later deliver such fan favourites as The Incredible Melting Man and Galaxina, the film tells the very dull tale of a trio of gold robbers who stumble upon a cabin occupied by two women who are hiding some secrets that aren't worth discovering. The cast (most of whom never made another film) try gamely, but are hamstrung by the screenplay, which generally makes no sense. The asylum scenes are edited in to little effect and are punctuated by ridiculous sound effects and tape loops. Ultimately, it's a lot of talk and little else.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went into this film expecting/hoping for a sleazy drive-in style slice of seventies exploitation, but what I got was more of a bizarre pseudo western with far too much talking and not enough action. It's clear that this film was made on a budget; the locations are drab and poorly shot, while the acting leaves a lot to be desired also. The plot focuses on a trio of robbers (a father and two sons) that steal a load of gold after killing some miners. They come across a cabin inhabited by a young girl and her stepmother...and all this is told in flashbacks by the young girl, currently residing in an asylum. It's clear that directors Louis Leahman and William Sachs thought they were making something really shocking; but despite its best efforts, South of Hell Mountain is just too boring to shock the viewer. The film drones on for about eighty minutes and most of it consists of boring characters spouting off boring and long-winded dialogue. The only good thing I have to say about the film is with regards to the music; which is good in places. The ending is the only other good thing about the movie; and that's only because it's the last thing that happens. I wouldn't recommend anyone bothers tracking this down...there was much better trash made in the seventies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell.....horror this ain't, but.......!!!??? A terrible low low budget backwood-flic of the worst kind, sort of AND...therefore quite charming and funny to watch...at least on my tv set!!! A cross between Pete Walker, Herschell Gordon Lewis and...say....damn, I give up...just can't come up with any \"prettier\" resemblances for this trashy movie. Everything is soooo wrong that I just have to enlist it in my film collection alongside with....Death In Venice.....Nekromantik.....Blue Velvet and The Good,Bad,Ugly... right !!?? People with some small talent for adding gory inserts or sexy happenings to film they buy offa other people, should pick this film up immediately....sure is a fat lil' ol' goldmine waiting here, oh maaaannnn!!!!!
\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 seen this movie and in all honestly was quite disappointed. And in my opinion this movie lacks heart. I frankly didn't care what happen to the characters by the end of the movie.
There was so much there they could have done with the movie that they didn't because they were either so rapped up in trying to be obscure and make some deep comment on life, or trying so hard not to, that the characters and story were completely lost in all of it. I have seen another picture by this director and enjoyed it well enough. But I felt this film lack of the whimsy and heart of the other and I was left wondering what the point was, or if the point of the movie was that it had no point. Honestly, while I didn't feel like tearing my hair out during the movie, I did remorse the lost time on the sad little film.
I have no doubt that some people will love this movie, but frankly I didn't.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI know Terry Gilliam is considered as a good director but claiming that this movie is good is just foolish. What was the movie about? What is it a spoof? Fantasy? Comedy? Satire? No answer there from Gilliam's screenplay. Totally confused and pointlessly hurtling from one historical age to another. I find it amusing that some people actually call this movie magical. Is it because they have to praise any movie which is vague and indecisive on what it is about?? 3 stars for special effects considering it is 1981. Roger Ebert has it right in his review. The movie is ambiguous and looks like Gilliam's romp with money just to make a vague children's move masquerading as a historical revue. The movie also tries to confuse the would-be viewer by giving John Cleese and Sean Connery top billing.
\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 got this movie from the library, and saw it had a lot of actors I like in it(John Cleese, Ian Holm, Ralph Richardson, etc), so I got it and watched it. I expected Cleese to have a large role since he had first billing, I was surprised to find out that he had about five minutes of screen time, along with everyone else I liked. This movie is amazingly pointless, the characters are nobodies, the plot is non-existent, and the ending is one of the worst endings I have ever seen. There were a few funny parts, but that's about it. Stay away from this movie if you want to prevent going \"What?\" and \"Huh?\", a lot. And if you don't want to waste your time. Ignore the people who say this is a very funny movie...it isn't. Just stay away from it at all costs...please.
\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\nFor some reason I just didn't like it at all and felt embarrassed about how bad it was since I bought it and watched it with my family. All of us hated it with a passion. It's a nice enough kids' movie, maybe in the year it came out. However, think about it: an outdated kids' movie? What's the point? Kids do not generally like to watch such old movies anyway, and I don't see what adults are supposed to get out of this movie at all.
Some kids' movies (like Mary Poppins or Wizard of Oz) can be enjoyed even now, but Time Bandits is totally outdated. For your reference, and I think applicable in this case, I also did not like Dr Strangelove or Spinal Tap at all. So, if you disagree with me on those similarly outdated movies, you might like Time Bandits.
There is also a horrible case of overacting as I recall from the 'bad guys'. Think of the two stupid 'bad pirates' in the Pirates of the C. movies, except in Time Bandits they are not even remotely funny.
Anyway, I warned you, that's all I can do. People that rate this movie high must have liked it from many years ago. If you have not seen it before, then don't bother watching it now.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis show has shown it's true colors now that Democrats are in power. It never did lead the world in IQ as anyone who thought it has intelligence has been programmed to think one way (which is a scary thing).
Comedy Central moved this & it's spin off back to an earlier time once the Democrats took power for a reason- because now when the Democrats screw up - which is just as often as Republicans do - Stewart no longer takes pot shots at them. That is why the ratings for both this & the spin are dropping.
Basically, most of the humor now is either lame, or lame Sarah Palin jokes - which all the ratings dropping Comedians are now telling. The facts to back this up speak for themselves. The Jay Leno show which has been doing the same kind of humor is on the verge of being canceled. The ratings for Letterman & Conan & the shows that follow them are down.
So Emperor Stewart is not alone. Trouble is if any of them start taking real rips at the bungling Democrats in power, they could raise their ratings in a hurry because the best humor is always at the expense of whose in power. The Bush years proved that because the ratings for this show & Colbert, & Letterman & Leno were higher there.
O'Bama has done one thing, proved these shows have to be willing to take chances & rip the folks in power if they are to prosper. Right now, the Daily Show & Stewart are sagging but maybe they can get lucky & have Palin elected as the first woman President in 2012. Then the lame Palin jokes will become ratings grabbers.
\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 tried watching this show on several different occasions and each time found it to be utterly pale of humor.
The reason, to mention one thing, is that it is solely based on ridiculing anything the Republicans have done. In short it is basically Democratic party political opinions touted as humor.
All Mr. Stewart does is wisecrack about anything the Republicans have done and the audience wets themselves in gales of forced laughter.
My guess is that the left is so devoid of any real substance that they have to define themselves in terms of how much they all hate Republicans.
-LD
_____________________________
my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
\n
assistant\n0
\n"