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\nCongo is another multi-milion dollar adaptation of Crichton's works. Like Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Sphere, etc, the film raped the book of its true meaning and essence. I'll make this short and to the point. The scenery is beautiful. The actors, well it's the best they can do. The script? Try congesting hundreds of pages into an hour and half movie. You get a mess in the end but how neat of a mess is what counts and Congo falls somewhere below that. There were some silly moments, like why did the killer gorillas decide to jump into the lava? And Amy, raised by humans, surrounded by humans, yet can intimidate dozens of killer apes around her? What sort of twist of common sense is that? Which brings me to this. If there was an annoying character in every movie, Amy ranks of one here. You see Amy is this naive little female ape who can talk with a special backpack and harness strapped to her. Neat idea, but it gets annoying after awhile hearing her talk. Congo is worthwhile to see, and not deplorable, but certainly not a memorable film either.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's hard to tell if this ham-brained B-movie adventure is a spoof, a homage or just plain bungled, but it doesn't work whichever way you look at it. Based on Michael Crichton's so-so novel, it's a nutty mixture of lost cities, giant hippos, monster monkeys, naff visual effects and corny dialogue. The first thing that scuppers this tosh is the gorilla that can communicate in sign language, and needless to say the film doesn't get any better from that point on. Making all this old rope somewhat worthwhile are Tim Curry, turning in a feverish slice of ham and sporting a bizarre accent that defies identification, and Ernie Hudson, who also seems to know that this is all a load of old rubbish.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm really not too sure why people are being so complimentary about this odd movie. Having said that - I did actually sit through the entire 2 hours and can't say it wasn't entirely un-entertaining.
I think the key problem is that Frank Marshall is not a true director and this is clear in the film - he is an experienced producer, so will have seen a movie made many a time, and will understand what goes into the process. But I think this is quite different to being able to truly direct a movie - the direction was competent, but somehow flat and direction-less. Marshall has more experience as a unit or second director, and this came through, I feel, in the finished product - it appeared to be a group of sets that failed to really have any continuity in its feel or its character.
Fun, watchable, but good? No.
\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 just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end.
\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 is a shame that such a great book was turned into such a terrible movie. I could not wait to see this movie after reading the book....it really did not do it justice.
\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\nPoorly acted and poorly directed, \"Congo\" unsuccessfully tries to recreate the feeling of \"Jurassic Park\". But the truth is, the book wasn't all that great either. Still, the movie's first problem is that Tim Curry's character was added; the second problem is that the talking arm was added; the main problem, though, is that the cast members don't create realistic characters. I guarantee that this movie will not make you think that there are killer gorillas anywhere on earth. Also starring Laura Linney (happy birthday, Laura!), Dylan Walsh, Ernie Hudson, Grant Heslov, Joe Don Baker, James Karen and Bruce Campbell; I'm guessing that they don't wish to emphasize this movie in their resumes.
\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 an avid cinema go-er i felt that whilst i was ranking my favourite movies i felt it only fair to rank my most hated films.
I'm afraid i really have nothing positive to say about this movie. It is in fact one of only two films that i have ever walked out on. In fairness I went back and watched the movie again to give it another chance and sat through it only to wish that i should have stayed away.
The sad thing is the movie has a really decent cast and crew...but then even the brightest stars in Hollywood cant bring a dead duck of a script to life.
Stay away...Save yourself from this truly woeful 'film' 1/10
\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\nA group of people goes deep into the jungle for various reasons, and finally find a lost city (where apparently King Solomon's Diamonds are) and a race of super-gorilla's... Now, you know you're in trouble when you put fine actors like Linney and Curry in one movie that stars... a talking gorilla, and that is just the beginning. Okay, what else...?
For an action/adventure movie the film is... well, lacking just that. The first hour (!) of the movie they aren't even in the jungle, just trying to get there, with subplot after subplot (something about a local military regime, whatever), and when they finally do... it's just no fun anymore.
The effects of the movie are only so-and-so (and really bad compared to the earlier Jurassic Park movie).
Now, the ending... The father not caring for the death of his son, but just interested in the diamonds? Uh-huh... only in the movies folks, only in the movies.
A complete waste of talent, this Chricton (Jurassic Park, Twister, ER) adaptation. 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\nAfter a string of successful 'a man and his monkey films', which included the seminal \"Every Which Way But Loose\", \"Every Which Way You Can\" and \"Peter's Friends\", the genre fell on hard times. In an effort to rejuvenate this once celebrated area, director Frank Marshall brought Michael Crichton's acclaimed novel to the big screen.
Think 'Gorillas in the Mist' meets 'Tron' minus the box-office clout of Bruce Boxleitner. This is one mans doomed love affair for his talking monkey. Not helped by bad accents (Tim Curry struggles with a Romanian), a baboon of a screenplay, hungry hippos, skydiving primates and Bruce Campbell. Ape-Sh*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\npublicity got me to the theatre
advice will take you away from this waist of time.
very bad everything.
do you really want to see a monkey talking with a technological device?
X
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'd give this film a zero if I could. How anyone could rate it any higher is beyond me. Until I saw Rollerball, this was my pick for worst film ever from a major studio with a real budget (claiming Mangler 2 or Leprechaun in the Hood as the worst ever isn't really saying much, those are supposed to be bad)
Tim Curry's mom must have needed surgery or something for him to agree to this non-sensical garbage. I'm really not sure what happened here. The novel was great, the director Frank Marshall had a solid track record with Alive and Arachnophobia (perhaps they should have changed the title to 'Africa'), the cast was good and the budget was there. You'd think someone would have bothered to read the script.
You'd be better off watching Battlefield: Earth again than wasting your time with. Congo makes you long for the return of MST3K
\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\"Congo\" is based on the best-selling novel by Michael Crichton, which I thought lacked Crichton's usual charm, smart characters and punch. Well, sorry to say, but the same goes for the film.
Here's the plot:
Greed is bad, this simple morality tale cautions. A megalomaniacal C.E.O. (Joe Don Baker) sends his son into the dangerous African Congo on a quest for a source of diamonds large enough and pure enough to function as powerful laser communications transmitter (or is it laser weapons?). When contact is lost with his son and the team, his daughter-in-law (Laura Linney), a former CIA operative and computer-freak, is sent after them. On her quest, she is accompanied by gee-whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters (including a mercenary (Ernie Hudson), a researcher with a talking gorilla (Dylan Walsh), and a a nutty Indiana-Jones-type looking for King Solomon's Mines (Tim Curry). After some narrow escapes from surface-to-air missiles and some African wildlife, they all discover that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall.
The actors in this movie were not talented. Dylan Walsh acts like a pathetic crybaby, especially at the end; Ernie Hudson is unconvincing (is it no wonder he went on to star in TV films?) and Laura Linney is nothing special. I think I can safely say the only talented actors in this film had very small roles: Joe Don Baker and Tim Curry, an always enjoyable actor (although sometimes scarred for life by constantly being reminded of his \"Rocky Horror Picture\" days).
This movie also had some other problems, including awful direction style, cheesy dialogue and a just-plain-boring plot, which was completely hashed when compared to Crichton's novel.
Not even Stan Winston's creature effects could save this movie from being a disaster. I am deeply disappointed in this movie; there was not even a campy quality to redeem itself with. It was just plain awful, cheesy, boring and ridiculous, and proves to be one of the worst Crichton book-to-film productions.
2/5 stars -
John Ulmer
\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\nLet's see: there's a civil war, a lost city, a talking gorilla, some regular gorillas, a previously unknown species of killer albino gorilla, the most powerful laser ever known to man, a *lot* of diamonds lying mined and loose in the sand, attack hippos, an active volcano, and a hot air balloon packed in a suitcase in a downed plane. That's not too much, is it? I've had more coherent fever dreams (\"... and then the Romanian guy picked up a bunch of diamonds, because this was a lost city that he had been looking for or something, but then the mean gorillas that we had seen before came out of nowhere and ate him. Now somehow the talking gorilla was back from visiting the regular gorillas, and, as a kind of earthquake or volcano started, the woman industrialist/doctor built a gun using a laser and this big diamond she had just found in her dead fiance's hand...\"). It's a blast if you're looking for more ammunition against the pernicious influence of Michael Crichton in American entertainment (and hence world entertainment), and if you keep firmly in mind the extent to which this cynical and half-hearted attempt fell on its face at the boxoffice. But, sadly, the men responsible -- Crichton, sceenwriter John Patrick Shanley, director Frank Marshall -- probably never lost a dime. Shame on them, and I mean that. 1/10
\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\nThe book, while not particularly great, was decent, but this movie completely changes it. A lot of the elements of the story are consistent between the book and the movie, but Dr. Ross' character goes from a creatively written character who lives for money and ends up causing the volcanic eruption with her greed to a heart-on-her-sleeve damsel in distress who won't do anything if she even catches the slightest hint that it might be less than noble. When movies change the book that much but keep the same name, it should be a crime.
\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\nAnyone who has seen the piece of steaming smelly poo called Congo understands my title. And I feel for you. This movie wasn't just bad. It was painful. The book was stupid, the script was even dumber and the cast was terrible. Dylan Walsh? Rumor has it Julia Roberts dumped your ass cause this movie blew so bad. Huge diamonds? Killer gorillas? Talking gorillas? Hmmm. Sounds like a hit! OH! Tim Curry's accent is so bad in this movie I would prefer being deaf! I recommend this movie to bulimics looking to purge after a heavy meal or Kavorkian patients who just need that one more reason to die. If this is faithful to the book, I would say lets have us a good old fashion Footloose book burning and destroy every copy. If future generations look back and find this garbage, how would we explain ourselves? Listen to the others who hated this movie! Don't watch it! Run away! DO NOT WATCH this movie! If you think it is full of action or suspense or cool effects, YOU ARE WRONG! If you think it blows more cock than Nicole Ritchie, you'd be right. So if you still are going to watch Crapo..,.I Mean Congo, I say do it after you just took 50 Tylenol PM.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI love bad movies: Showgirls, Plan 9 from Outerspace, so on. And this movie fits right in. Don't believe anyone who tells you this is good film. It's downright awful. Tim Curry's accent moves from German to Portuguese to Hungarian. There's a person in a gorilla suit who is supposed to be able to communicate using a glove that interprets the ape's sign language. There is a scene with a killer hippo that moves around a river like a Great White Shark. There are people hopping up and down Mt. Kilimanjaro as if there were escalators installed on it. This thing is laughably ridiculous. So ridiculous I was rolling on the floor. It is totally implausible. I loved every minute of 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\nIf you can make it through this flick without laughing out loud at the screen, you are a better filmgoer than I.
Count the logic lapses, common-sense leaps, and credibility stretches... betcha need more than two hands!
P.S.: If one more film uses a location that is clearly UCLA, and claims that it is a different university (in this movie's case: Berkeley), I'm going to lose 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\nThis was a highly-hyped movie prior to its release, but turned out to be a dud. I never talked to one person who ever liked this movie. I agree: I didn't like it, either. Perhaps one big reason it wasn't a box office success was that it had nothing but unappealing characters in the story.
For awhile there - I don't know if this is still true - I hadn't any movie in which Laura Linney or Dylan Walsh played anything BUT annoying characters.
That, and a stupid story, make this film a big disappointment, especially considering that big buildup. Did the filmmakers, with dialog this dumb, really think this was going to be a hit?
\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\nCONGO is probably the worst big-budget movie of the 1990s. It is so bad that it is watchable over and over again. A bunch of folks with different agendas probe deep into darkest Africa, where they encounter a temple of riches just like in KING SOLOMON'S MINES -- but with cannibalistic gorillas guarding those riches. On their side, the humans have a \"talking\" gorilla named Amy who helps save the day at one point or another. So much for the plot. The dialogue throughout is witless, the acting almost uniformly atrocious, certainly campy (Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson are both on hand to assure the ham factor), and the special effects abysmal. Wait until you see the cannibalistic gorillas. And the lava! Oh yes, did I mention there's a volcanic eruption to top off the big finale? Laura Linney of all people is along for this bumpiest of rides. What could she have been thinking? This is right around the same time she appeared with Richard Gere and Ed Norton in PRIMAL FEAR, a movie that helped guarantee her stardom.
\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 watched Congo on DVD.In most cases I love these kind of movies but this one is different. It made me write my first comment for a movie on IMDb. I was amazed how such a team of experienced filmmakers could come up with this movie as a result. You can see there was a lot of money for this production but you can't make a good movie if you don't have a good script. And as a producer Frank Marshall gave us plenty of great movies to watch; he never should have tried to become another Spielberg. This one shows how hard it is to make a good movie, maybe you've got all the ingredients but if you can't cook stay out of the kitchen. If Can make a suggestion don't spend your money on this one. If you want to see it watch it on television first and make up your own mind.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of Crichton's best books. The characters of Karen Ross, Peter Elliot, Munro, and Amy are beautifully developed and their interactions are exciting, complex, and fast-paced throughout this impressive novel.
And about 99.8 percent of that got lost in the film. Seriously, the screenplay AND the directing were horrendous and clearly done by people who could not fathom what was good about the novel. I can't fault the actors because frankly, they never had a chance to make this turkey live up to Crichton's original work. I know good novels, especially those with a science fiction edge, are hard to bring to the screen in a way that lives up to the original. But this may be the absolute worst disparity in quality between novel and screen adaptation ever. The book is really, really good. The movie is just dreadful.
\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 God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:
A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless
First of all, the \"dress up the nerd to look cool\" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?
The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her,
A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.
The End.
HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.
I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!
Okay. I'm done with my rant.
\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\nUghh this movie is awful. The script is stupid and of course chase doesn't tell zoey he doesn't love her!!! Like every episode...ill never understand zoey 101 (the show) Also , why the heck does Logan's dad act SO retarted. And its only about zoey and chase what about the other characters. Its always the same in every episode Quinn makes and invention something goes terribly wrong with the invention and zoeys brother always gets involved in it. If you haven't seen it don't waste an hour watching this cuz you'll be wasting your time!!SMaybe this may be interesting to an eight year old well 8- 10 but i cnat imagine any1 older watching this retarted film. But what can you expect from nick???
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh My God, this is so idiotic. Completely pointless, offensive, and repulsive. Why do the writers have such a problem with actually getting Zoey and Chase together we all want them too! in normal shows, there's actually MORE THAN ONE plot conflict in the show, wow, what a concept. also, you cant even tell the Zoey 101 episodes apart from each other because the same thing happens every time. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. it's like a shampoo bottle. and the end of the movie, omg again. so pointless NOTHING HAPPENS. it's like they specifically designed it so that the movie could fit between any two episodes of the show and the show would go completely unchanged after the movie plot.
\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 can't say I was surprised at this atrocity when I watched it a couple months or weeks ago (can't remember). I saw it as a two part episode of Zoey 101, because that's how they showed it here in Canada.
I was incredibly annoyed at the Makeover a Nerd thing, it's just an example of how unaccepting, unappreciating, superficial, negative, biased, and stereotypical the people in the entertainment business is and frankly I'm extremely peeved. It wasn't at all funny. A nerd is a stereotype and it makes people very offended.
Secondly, the people in Zoey 101 don't have real problems. Logan has a big house, he has a famous dad, he has everything and Zoey is rich too. They never have to deal with the things that today's tweens and teens have to do deal with such as peer pressure, and stereotype problems. Also, the actors are horrific. Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't deserve to be in a television show as successful as Zoey 101 (what is wrong with the world?), she doesn't have any talent as an actor. In fact, she's worse than Britney! The Chase and Zoey thing was incredibly predictable, I mean how could the show go on with Zoey and Chase dating? What other problems could they possibly have? Except for the fact that Chase doesn't get the girl he wants, everything is perfect! The absolute worse 48 minutes of my television watching life. Ever. 0/10 (and that's being generous)
\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\nThere's not really that much wrong with Crash of the Moons. Basically it's a few episodes of Rocky Jones, Space Ranger merged into a film. It is extremely dated, however. Winky's treatment of Vena is a good example of this. One has to remember that it was geared to be shown to children in the 1950's. In this respect, it succeeds. If you like children's sci-fi from the 1950's, go ahead and take a look at it. You'll see John Banner in a pre-sgt. Schultz role. He does a pretty good job in it. All in all, I'd give it a 6 out of 10. Not great, but not bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBy all appearances this serial could have been made any time since the mid forties. The cardboard sets, the moon kings with lightning bolts sewn onto their aprons, you know the drill. This one is a Rocky Jones adventure, featuring the space cop's dealings with the insufferable Bitch Queen of planet Offeecious, a commie planet that won't join the United Planets. When the noble messengers of intergalactic reason announce that Offeecious is on a collision course with this other, vaguely Slavic planet, Bitch Queen decides to blow the other guys up rather than evacuate her land. This introduces a moral to the effect of \"The greatness of a nation is not in its land, but its people,\" which is hammered home five or six times in the climactic talkfest. The BQ's constant nasal ranting about \"OffEEEEcious\" provides relief from some seriously wanting space effects, is this a TV show?
\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 movie for a couple of dollars at a \"Clearance warehouse sale\" one day when just looking around. The cover looked pretty good, (in colour), but the movie is B&W, (I wish they wouldn't try to trap us with coloured covers on B&W movies, but it's a common thing to look out for!).
When I watched it I was pleasantly surprised. It turned out to be better than I expected. I was disappointed that it was a B&W, but the effects are pretty good, certainly better than, say, \"Invaders from Mars\" which has crappy effects, and it is great to see John Banner in something else apart from Hogan's Heroes.
Overall, this movie isn't too bad for a B grade, and certainly worth the two dollars from a nostalgia point of view. It isn't my favourite sci-fi, but it's not my worst either. It's o.k.
\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 boy! I really trashed Manhunt in Space. I think this flopper deservedly rates worse than Manhunt. It goes nowhere and fungi growth was more exciting than this tripe.
Poor Cleolanta. She's so misunderstood. Smug Rocky struts around and thankfully, there's no mention from Winky about his \"gay nightlife\". There's a lot more talking, a really awful (to watch) space marriage on the rocks, and crappy space effects cut-outs. Then, there's Bobby. You decide who's more annoying: Bobby or the Winkster? Personally, I'd jettison them out of an airlock into a black hole not before first subjecting them to killer flesh eating alien mutants.
At least there's Vena. She's just a cosmic girl!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTANDEM is an odd slice in the Japanese pink genre-as it has the requisite sex-scenes and misogynistic tone that is all but required for these types of films-but also throws in a disjointed drama/dark-comedy storyline that seems like it'd have been better suited for a different type of film.
The film starts with two lone guys at a restaurant-each daydreaming about a previous sexual encounter. One is a mutual subway groping, the other a pretty typical (for this type of film) semi-rape scenario. The two pervs meet and start talking after one lends the other a cigarette. They hang out for an evening and talk a bit about their respective sex- lives. The film is inter-cut with flashback scenes of both of the men's interactions with the women that are central in their lives. The two men have a falling out and the film ends on a weird but predictable note...
I really don't know what to make of TANDEM. It sorta comes off as a soft-core, 'odd couple' type of anti-buddy-film, but doesn't really explore the subject-matter to any satisfying degree. There's also not much of the typical extreme sleaziness often so prevalent in these types of films-so I can't really figure out what the point was. I also cant quite tell if the film was supposed to be funny, depressing, or both. I think that TANDEM could have had some potential as a more serious drama film with a dark-comedy edge- but as a soft-core sex film that tries to be too 'smart' for its own good-it just doesn't work. Can't say I hated this one-but can't say there's anything notable about it either. 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\nThis film is BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, and BORING!!! It's not the worse film I ever saw, on the contrary, but.......how shall I put this.......IT'S BORING! There is some very nice scenery and some clever dry wit but that's about it. If it was advertised as a travelogue I would rate it a 7 but it's supposed to be a film with a plot, some drama, and for god's sake a point or a satisfying conclusion.
I read some of the comments on this board about this films and I wondered if they saw the same movie as I did.
See this film (yawn) at your own risk........one thing for sure- it really is rated correctly= G RATING! (Which most stand for GOD AWFUL BORING!)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the worst movies I saw in the 90s. I'd often use it as a benchmark when viewing other films; \"At least it wasn't as bad as Caro Diario.\" Three absolutely pointless segments, all featuring the director playing himself -- and he's not that interesting. A whole segment about this hypochondriac going to the doctor. Another that features him riding around the countryside on his scooter. For three interesting minutes and another fifteen torturous ones.
The only redeeming factor was that the scooter scene was set to Keith Jarrett's 'Koln Concert'. Prompted me to go home and rediscover that marvelous album. The best thing you can say about the director/actor/egotist is that he's got great taste in music.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was so bad, I want God to give me an extra two hours of life having had to sit through it.
First off, the acting was uniformly bad. There was barely a plot, unless \"Shaggy dog story with a guy in a rain poncho and skeleton mask instead of a dog\" counts.
The editing was was all over the place, and the slow-mo shots of the \"gore\" (red corn syrup flying through the air--doubtless flung using a spoon) got irritating after the tenth time, and infuriating after the hundredth time.
I like Michael Rooker. He's done some good work. This was not good. This was less than good. And by that, I mean that it sucked. Hard.
For god's sake, don't watch this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie tries to rip off Predator, but that movie is much better. This movie has truly terrible special effects and a mindless plot. The team that enters the forest to find the cause of the disappearances of military and scientist is a combo of rough and rugged male delta commandos and pretty but tough female rangers. None of them are too bright. All the characters seem to be more than willing to run off into the forest alone and headfirst into a spear or sword and their death. Some of the pyrotechnics are very big and must have cost a bundle. But the close-ups of the creature are laughable as are most of the death scenes. Every cliché that the writers could think of was used. If you're looking for a mindless slaughter fest, this may fill the bill. The night I watched this was very slow so I sat through the whole thing. I have to admit that it's been a while since I watched something this bad. There is very little to redeem this movie. I'm amazed that junk like this gets produced.
\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\nThank God for DVR and the high speed of it's fast forward. Even with that I couldn't sit through any more of that travesty. When they came across the old Indian asking for beans I gave up and erased it. Is this the best that SciFi Channel can come up with for Saturday nights? How about some old classics instead? The idea of a coed special forces unit was bad enough. It seems like they wanted to save money by having everything filmed out in the woods. What more can I say? It was so awful that I don't think I can come up with enough lines to qualify for space to review it. But, it looks like one more line will do it. Save your time, let alone your money on this dog of a film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo be honest, the movie was SO HORRIBLE that I loved it. Never in my life have a seen such a TERRIBLE movie. I was in shock. I mean, i don't even know what to say.
The characters couldn't even keep their own guns, one minute a guy had an M16 and his friend had an MP5, then in the next scene they switched guns. (Don't ask, trust me I know my guns)And i will never understand how they got from a place that looked like Vietnam, to an Arizona highway, to my backyard, and then to a chemical plant in California, that is what i took from it.
Why would you be afraid of a guy in a Halloween mask wearing a trash bag for a cape and shot plastic arrows at you? How is that frightening? I wanted to swallow arsenic halfway through the movie. I love how the \"skeleton man\" randomly decided to go on a killing spree at that particular day. But hey, whoever made this movie should be shot in the knees and fed to a mound of fire ants.
Good day.
\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 wife and I enjoy bad science fiction movies. Some movies are so bad they are good. Mansquito was one of those. That one was bad but it had some redeeming qualities. It makes you wonder how a self respecting actor approaches lines like \"Hey! Mansquito!\"
This one is so bad it has now taken its place as our standard for bad. It isn't just a bad movie, it really stinks. There was the coed strike force, the \"Indian\" that rode around in a black cloak and used a SWORD for crying out loud. He shot down a helicopter with an arrow!!
We tried to laugh at this movie but there were no points at which it didn't rise above pitiful. We couldn't come up with any redeeming features except for one. Those were the words \"The End\"
There seemed to be no plot, no character development, and no point to the movie. Someone in Hollywood needs to be fired.
\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 like to get a couple of fleeting glimpses of cleavage on some attractive women, there may be a second or two of enjoyment from this film. If you enjoy seeing poorly conceived and executed \"action\" scenes, there are plenty. If you are both blind and deaf, I still advise you to not have this film on in your presence. It is surely the worst or very close to the worst film I have ever seen. And it does appear that there was some money spent on it. Talk about throwing money away! As an editor, I would hope that the \"editor(s?)\" of this \"movie\" never again be allowed to edit a film, book, or even a post-it note. As a writer, I would hope that the author(s?) never again be allowed near even a broken crayon. You would think that I am not recommending that you view this movie. NOT so. Tape it (so you may stop your pain when you need to) and educate yourself as to how bad a movie can be.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough Casper van Dien and Michael Rooker are generally relegated to B movies, even they are above this movie. It fails to convey even the slightest sense of excitement, fear, or dread -- unless you count the dread of sitting through the rest of this garbage. The direction is amateurish with annoying cuts and jerky movement that hides the fact that the killer is no where near the victims when he attacks. And what a killer he is: a cheap skull mask and a black hood. I liked him better when he was fighting He-Man. This is one of the laziest jobs of character design I've ever seen. I mean, it's Skeletor! And he's on a horse! This is supposed to be some scary, supernatural creature? How are we supposed to take this seriously? All we get is scenes of this dude riding around the woods on his horse -- which he can barely stay on -- interspersed with scenes of soldiers shooting randomly into the woods, thinking they can shoot a ghost. Occasionally, Skeletor will shoot someone with an arrow or ride by and stab someone, revealing how corny the effects really are. I generally enjoy Sci Fi channel fare on a basic cheese level, but this film is too inept for any level of enjoyment. Where's Dolph Lundgren when you need him???
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis ranks up there as the worst movies of all time. No research or thought at all went into this movie. Action scenes were thrown in at random intervals which made no sense in the context of the movie. Items appeared and disappeared at random, etc. It's obvious that this was directed by a \"stunt coordinator\", who should go back to his old job. The Skeleton Man rode a horse throughout the movie, which amazingly, could change color at will. Either that, or someone thought the audience would all be colorblind and not notice. Blood would be on the actors in 1 scene and the very next, miraculously disappear and then reappear. Seems that everyone connected with this movie forgot to check for inconsistencies.
\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 write this, no user reviews are in yet, but there are 17 votes with a 4.8 average, so apparently some people thought this movie had its moments. I didn't notice any, and even if I had I don't think I could have stopped rolling my eyes for long enough to appreciate them.
A common debate among movie buffs is whether major mistakes in science, police tactics, and the like so common in B movies should detract significantly from one's enjoyment. I tend to fall into the \"Yes, that's a reasonable reaction\" camp -- especially when the mistakes are central to the plot. With this movie, I look forward to reading how anyone can defend this mess. They completely botch pretty much every aspect of military tactics and strategy, police tactics, weapons, science, folklore, common sense, and human behavior (outside of B movies, that is.) In short, I can't think of any non-trivial thing they got right.
Any movie would have its work cut out for it when its central premise is a supernatural spirit, impervious to all small arms, able to disappear into another dimension at will, and yet apparently vulnerable to simply a bigger explosion. (They don't make ghosts like they used to.) Combine this premise with every detail being wrong and you have a memorably bad 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\nThe scientist Charles and his wife (or assistant) Marissa receive some objects and a skull from an ancient Indian cemetery, and while cleaning a vase, they are attacked and murdered by a mysterious being, the Skeleton Man. Then, a military squad commanded by Captain Leary (Michael Rooker) seeks out two groups of four soldiers each that vanished in the jungle. They face the Skeleton Man, shooting him while he kills each soldier. Then the Skeleton Man goes to a power plant, and Captain Leary explodes the facility destroying the supernatural being.
I bought \"Skeleton Man\" on DVD expecting to see a funny trash, but I found an awfully boring, annoying and senseless crap, with shoots and explosions. The imbecile story is totally disconnected and does not make any sense, and the military team is composed of imbeciles, insisting in shooting the supernatural Skeleton Man until they are totally slaughtered. Their leader is also the most stupid, with the blow-up of an entire facility in the end to destroy the supernatural rip-off of the extraterrestrial warrior Predator. On DVD, it is possible to use the fast forward button along the movie and reduce the suffering of the viewer. My vote is two.
Title (Brazil): \"Skeleton Man\"
\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 very few to add to what all the other reviewers already made more than clear! This movie is awful! Beyond awful... In fact, so insufferable that they have yet to come up with a term to describe the awfulness that is \"Skeleton Man\". In case you expect your movies to feature a minimum of logic and plot, you should stay as far away from this as humanly possible. Sure, loads of people are getting killed by this skeleton-puppet wearing a ridiculous cape, but nobody ever bothers to properly explain what he is, where he comes from or why he's so angry with the world. He looks like a crossover between Skeletor from \"Masters of the Universe\" and the horseman from \"Sleepy Hollow\" and runs amok in some godforsaken wilderness. The setting of \"Skeleton Man\" is another totally retarded aspect! For nearly half an hour, I assumed that the movie took place at a small isolated island, but it simply plays at the mainland where fancy highways cross the forest and power plants are located at the end of the woods! Huh? Why does everybody pretend to be trapped when there are like a million escape routes? Anyway, after a couple of totally random killings, a special commando squad, led by poor washed-up Michael Rooker, arrives to come and hunt a monster they don't know anything about. Really hilarious is how every member of this squad introduces him/herself as the expert in a certain field (we have a sniper-specialist, a tracking genius, a drill instructor...), yet they ALL die before any of them is able to demonstrate their supposedly masterful skills! The horror Gods must really hate Casper Van Dien, as he's present again as well, portraying an heroic soldier who steals a truck for no apparent reason, crashes on the highway, but somehow gets catapulted back to the middle of the woods to die there. Right, that makes sense... Furthermore the characters steal cool one-liners from \"Predator\", the bonehead's horse constantly changes colors, helicopters are brought down with bow& arrows, ordinary bullets cause trees to explode and completely pointless Vietnam flashbacks haunt Michael Rooker. I say we all combine forces and vote this pathetic flick into the IMDb bottom top 100 ASAP!
\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 a helpful warning for others, I believe \"Skeleton Man\" is actually worse than \"Raptor Island.\" I have been using RI as an example of the worst original movie presented on the Sci-Fi channel, but SM is the most laughably incoherent and wretchedly designed movie I have yet seen. Yes, I did watch almost the whole thing, coming into it about 35 minutes into it. It drew me in with its pure ineptitude. What was Sci-Fi thinking? Once Skeleton Man and the surviving platoon leader (or whatever he was--I'm not good on military unit terminology) reached the chemical plant, the movie moved into a zone of impossible nonsense that was almost mesmerizing. I had the same idea as another viewer who wondered if more than one movie had someone been edited together to make one terrible whole.
\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 whole lot of the people that have seen this are confused, obviously. The original title of \"Cottonmouth Joe\" would've put things into better perspective for much of the viewing audience. I have personally experienced the condition of cottonmouth (often accompanied by a really bad hangover after a weekend bender) and it is indeed a lot like the movie Skeleton Man -- a dry, scummy film that provokes regret for recent choices and begs for a hot shower.
It is unfortunate that the choice of \"Skeleton Man\" for the title was finalized by the distributor (probably the work of some meddling Hollywood no nothing studio exec who just didn't get it) and not \"Cottonmouth Joe.\" Those of us who have seen the film know that the Skeleton Man is actually Cottonmouth Joe (a skeletal-manish apparition, not a true Skeleton Man). The deception of the folks marketing this film is unforgivable, and for that alone, I cannot give this film a high rating. Imagine this: when future filmmakers get together to create the true definitive Skeleton Man movie and need a title, they will be totally screwed and we are all, as serious fans of the genre, diminished for that.
Cottonmouth Joe could've become a horror movie icon right up there alongside Madman Marz, Black Claw, Mansquito, Humongous, \"Nature Boy\" Billy Conners, Morty the wooden doll, the Boogen, Eegah, The Moon Beast, Bloody Bill, the Driller Killer, Mickey Rooney, and so forth, but he will always be remembered as a sword wielding-caped-tackle dummy skull face-tied to the side of a horse-skeleton man wannabe.
That's too bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"