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\nWhile it's true that the movie is somewhat interesting, the execution leaves a lot to be desired (much like Blood Orgy of the Leather Girls, I Spit on Your Grave, and Born in Flames, all superior). I don't think it's not porn, but porn is in the eye of the beholder: if it functions as porn for somebody, who am I to say that he/she is wrong? I was rather puzzled by the statement in Winkimation's generally thoughtful review (\"Such a Shame\") that \"for once we actually see men's faces when they come.\" A few years ago I did occasional freelance reviews for an adult mag and I recall seeing plenty of men's faces when they came. I think this is probably more common when the film features on of the few male porn \"stars\" (and especially when that male is the director). Though I unsurprisingly can't refer to any specific titles, I know that there are some instances in Ron Jeremy's, uh, work. I also don't know that I'd agree that a man is necessarily showing vulnerability in his face when coming.
\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, how to make a movie as provocative as possible? This cartoonishly straight shocker tries by having two low-life Paris women (one prostitute, one recently raped ex-porn actress, no less) lash out and go on a national sex-and-killing spree- of men in particular.
Very short running time gives you a hint of the experimental nature of this violently hardcore \"Thelma & Louise\"- but it's done completely without irony or contemplation for any possible feminist message... And since we don't get very close to the protagonists, the violence actually feels muted and numbing- and maybe that's a good thing.
As a liberal advocate of freedom of expression, I always welcome when the \"serious\" movie industry dares to contain full-on sex scenes. But the question is: Does it work for the movie as a whole? Is it any good? Here, not very, although we're given a new meaning to the phrase \"a shot in the ass\"!
3 out of 10 from Ozjeppe
\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 sick of the \"open mind\" argument. I'm generally quite open-minded, but this sort of line is basically made by people who enjoy things that should not be \"enjoyed.\" You know what, there is a reason so many people are disgusted by this. And just because someone out there isn't doesn't make it less so. There is, after all, a reason for the existence of the feeling of disgust, and no amount of \"open mind\" or \"pushing the envelope\" should eliminate that feeling. Otherwise we're no better than senseless living things.
Back to the film. Another argument is that this film puts women in the roles normally reserved for men, which may be why men don't like it. But just because it proves revolting for more men than would otherwise doesn't make it great. Maybe men shouldn't be turned on by what's dominating the movie industry, but is the answer for women to do the same? Maybe, if you don't like movies, TV, and entertainment having so much sexual objectification of women, so much violence, don't watch them.
And if you're a director, don't make them.
Otherwise, some day someone will ask for an open mind when what happened in this \"movie\" happen in real life.
Heck, some people seem to like it so much.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnother French film with absurdity. Baise-Moi(F*ck Me) tells the story of two young women who come together to kill and f*ck. One of them is a porn star who escapes from her community after being raped and killing her boyfriend. Second one is a hooker who kills her flatmate and sees her boyfriend being shot dead. After those incidents they meet at a tube station(both misses the last train)then the whole thing starts. They find a bound and come very close. They abuse men sexually, take drugs, drive around the country and have lots of sex. Thats all about Baise-Moi really. We can see that they have no mercy for their victims. They even kill a woman for her money. Both actresses are real porn stars in France that affects the movie in two different ways. They look so comfortable in sex scenes, nonetheless, they can't make the whole film worth watching as ,to me, the film does not require no further ability of acting than that. It is a version of Thelma and Louise on a different level. I could recommend you loads of things to do instead of watching Baise-Moi. So, bother to watch if you wanna see a pointless, kinky film. * out of *****
\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 really understood the controversy and hype this movie caused. Especially in French and the neighboring countries (in Belgium, where I am located, for example), \"Baise-Moi\" was announced as THE most shocking and THE most thought-provoking social drama you could ever experience. Yeah right! It might be a little shocking, maybe (how often do you see someone getting shot up the arse?), but the weak and pointless plot surely didn't cause me to think much. \"Baise-Moi\" is another one of those \"blame everything that goes wrong on society\"-films and they're generally not very convincing. About 99% of the people functions perfectly well in this society so why would you blame this exact same society for the vile and hopeless acts of two deranged nymph-girls? The two main characters and their miserable lives are introduced separately and in flashes. Nadine just killed her roommate; Manu shot her brother and the two meet in an abandoned train-station, late at night. They decide to travel around France together, leaving a trail of sex and blood behind wherever they made a stop. Although we're constantly exposed to pornography and violence, this film is very boring to sit through. Like the girls are indicating themselves all the time, the dialogues are lame and the people they run into (and kill) are very uninteresting. If people want to make porno movies, that's fine by me, but please don't pretend that it's art-house film-making. If you leave out the swearing and the hip camera-work, all there is to see is (not so) arousing pornography. Cool soundtrack, 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\nThis isn't a good movie. Plain and simple. Take out the hardcore sex scenes and what you have is a mediocre plot, average acting (at best), plodding direction, and dull dialogue. Add in the grot and you've got mediocre plot, average acting, plodding direction, dull dialogue, with lashings of hardcore porn. Trouble is the porn's nothing special either. So it's not a good movie, and nor is it a good porno. It fails on both counts. They can say that women made this movie and they were intending to do this with it, and that with it, etc. But talk's cheap, the end result is what counts, and what we have here is a mediocre movie with some sex thrown in for shock value to try and con you into wasting your time watching it. One of those movies where you'd rather have the time you spent watching it 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\nI had to watch this movie for professional reasons and can only say it's a complete waste of time. When running, Baldwin looks like an ape, Characters are dull, same story has been told 1000 times better in other movies. I think everything has been now said about this film, but IMDb requires me to write 10 lines. So:Boring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivial
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this at my local supermarket and I knew that Debra was in it so I decided to buy it (out of support for that sexy woman!) The plot and acting in this movie was terrible (with the exception of Debra Wilson; and I'm not just saying that because I love her, she seriously was the only actor or actress who had any emotion in their acting and voice!) What I didn't get at the beginning is why the wife didn't just get back in her car instead of running at random like that. It was so stupid. And it's LA (NOBODY saw her being abducted on a public, residential street--NOBODY...yeah, that's realistic!) Also in the park, when Charlie stole the woman's cell phone (for some stupid reason) they were hell bent on finding him (and at one point) when they did they had him at gunpoint--over a CELL PHONE! In reality I doubt the LAPD would go out of their way like that for a stupid cell phone! The lady could've walked up to one of many of those cell phone booths and have it replaced! The kids acting skills sucked too (I think they were reading from a cue card or had somebody off camera whisper their lines) because they'd be asked questions and would look around and then answer in a questionable voice (i.e.-\"yes I do miss daddy?\") Also how could there be all of those snipers be in the trees and on building rooftops in LA WITHOUT being seen?! I see this being played at 3 AM on USA.
Debra Wilson fanatics will enjoy her parts. She's the only actor with any real acting skills (Debra, sweetheart--stop doing these cheap D-grade, direct to video films...maybe that'll change with the upcoming film Whitepaddy.) She puts some jokes in there (like when one of her superiors comes up and asks her who's she talking to, she screams at her computer and goes \"Damnit, Charlie!\") I gave it a 4/10...a 4 only because of Debra's good acting skills.
\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\nUgh. Stephen Baldwin. I never noticed until I got the DVD home and saw his name in the credits. Double ugh. What's worse, HE'S the NAME in this low budget, mindless, wandering, wannabe shoot'em up. I mean, where did they find the guy to write this refuse? Driving a caterpillar in the LA City Dump, while hoping to break into the movie game? The whole plot is ridiculous situation piled on ridiculous premise. Baldwin is as convincing as a poster boy for American Gothic, sans pitchfork. His whole acting repertoire is looking like he needs the potty and then looking like he found it.
So, there you have it folks: bad script, bad acting by no-name actors, low-budget setting and a hero that's about as convincing as a girl scout looking for a cookie customer as an action hero. It's too late for me to get my money back on the DVD, but you can spare yourself-- unless you're one of those who likes to look at the dogs for a laugh...frankly, this one is too boring to be funny.
\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've ever seen. When I was trying to watch this I had flu and i was pretty open minded for any brainless entertainment. Unfortunately this was too much. How, so many totally ungifted actors can be in one movie? This movie makes porn look like European art-movie. Cast just speaks out their lines without any emotions; special thanks to Charlie Snows (Baldwin) soon-to-be-ex-wife who talks about her divorce like the rest of us talk about the weather. Just horrible (and funny).
With lots of booze and friends this might just make it as a background entertainment and few laughs, just like Ed Wood-movies. The plot is a joke and soundtrack straight from some cheeky soap-opera.
Hopefully nobody paid to see 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\nI rented this film when my girlfriend was away, hoping to see some serious military/specialist action.
After 10 minutes of watching this \"movie\" I was so terrified and horrified and sick of the quality of everything in this film that I was ready to destroy the rented disc with a flame thrower. Luckily I couldn´t find one. I´ve seen many bad films. But this is not even bad, it is total garbage and it does not even deserve to be counted as a movie here on IMDB.
I feel sorry for the people who have been involved in the making of this total disgrace. Hope it wins some Oscars though :D.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is 1 hour and 24 minutes of pure boredom!!
In this 'Action'- movie, even the gun Baldwin uses (HK G3A3) sucks. It was sent to recycling by armed forces worldwide in the mid eighties, and is now only used by terrorists, bank robbers and military museums.
If I had known this movie was this bad, I would rather watch 10 episodes of MacGyver saving the planet.
No groove, no drive and no feel. Watch the Tupperware-channel  it's more exiting than this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie doesn't deserve a '0' on the scale. Better luck next time, Baldwin. Until then, I'll sit here watch my toenails grow  that is far more exiting than 'Target'.
\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 sucks. The acting is worse than in the films we made when we were 10 years old with a camcorder, the effects look like some 80's computer game and the plot is worse than terrible. Even the worst Van Damme movies make this look crappy. The accent and speech rhythm of the 'bad guys' is so bad it's funny..
I wouldn't recommend watching this unless you are a big time fan one of the actors. 1 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDear Movie Director:
In the future, when trying to create a sense of urgency, it might be best to have your hero *run* instead of jog/shuffle. Especially if you're trying to reinforce a time line. For example, if you're trying to convince the audience that the bad guy really will kill the hostage if the hero doesn't find her, it's probably a good idea to convey the feeling that your hero believes it may actually happen... Let's face it though. Making a *good* movie obviously wasn't your goal. Your goal was to pump out some garbage that will make more money than it cost. Otherwise you might have hired some actors.
Sincerely, Bored Viewer.
This is the worst movie I've seen in a long time. I can't say that it's the worst ever, because I was able to finish it. It was bad, bad, bad though. Dude, where's my refund?
\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\nTarget is the story of a special agent who, after carrying out orders to assassinate Turkish \"Terrorists\" (note that this is one of those American \"movies for guys who love mindless nationalistic super-patriotic crap movies\"), returns home to find that his ex-wife and two kids are taking hostage. Charlie Snow has just a couple of hours to do whatever the terrorists tell him in order to get them back.
This was by far one of THE worst movies I have ever seen. And, had it not been for someone I know actually (and probably, mistakenly) taking it out of the video store, I would never have watched this giant pile of garbage to begin with.
The movie plays out like any generic action movie story I have ever seen before. In fact, these are the kind of things they spoof on variety shows, that is how bad it is. I half expected In Living the Color's 'Homey the Clown' to Mad TV's Will Sasso doing his Steven Segal impression to bust out on the screen half way through, to remind you that this was just an exaggerated action movie, but now our characters are here to spoof how ridiculous it really is. There were not even any good fighting or action sequences. By the way things are played out, you wouldn't even think that anyone was kidnapped, that there were any terrorists, or that anything remotely interesting was going on.
Not only is the story completely and utterly uninteresting, the acting is so terribly wooden. Just watch the part where Stephen Baldwin, as former special agent Charlie Snow, is talking to the kidnappers on the telephone. They tell him that they have his wife, and they put her on the phone. She says \"Charlie, help!\" or something to that effect. And Baldwin replies \"it's okay, honey\" in such a deadpan manner, you think he was reading the script and trying to sound out the words phonetically. I imagine that, despite being such a ridiculously bad movie (one that belongs on the bottom 100 on IMDb--a list that they should expand to at least 250 movies and should contain nearly every Stephen Baldwin movie), someone with some talent could have at least made the effort not to ham it up as much. Someone. Anyone. I couldn't get past the fact that everyone sounded like they were reading from a script. Save that is, the only person in the whole friggin movie who has any talent whatsoever (and thus should not have been in this), Mad TV's Deborah Wilson.
This was the capital cheese fest. How truly embarrassing.
\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 hate to be too critical, but this one really was bad. I like the Baldwin brothers, I just wish there was more talent evenly spread between them. I did like the general plot, but there was just too much 'trying' and not enough actual 'doing' as far as quality acting was concerned.
My favorite character out of the whole thing was bald cop. He reminded me of Dmitri Valtane ( Jeremy Roberts, I believe ) from Start Trek 6: Undiscovered country. Just, without the hair.
If you have Hollywood Video's MVP program and are really trying to get your money's worth, then through this in with one of the three MVP movies you pick up. It's worth it for a few laughs.
The single most impressive special effect in the whole show is the sound of Stephen Baldwin's rifle firing. I suppose that lets you in a bit on the quality and excitement of the rest of the 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\nIf this film were to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, one would need to create a new rating system, as this one should not even qualify. The film's plot, (if you can call it that) revolves around Charlie (Stephen Baldwin), an ex- special operatives agent who is being targeted by the brother of a man he killed while he was still working for the US gov't. If this sounds like an interesting scenario, please don't be fooled, as this film will not deliver that which its action-themed story suggests.
Comedian Chris Rock once said that when one sees an actor doing a bad film that it makes one want to send the actor $50, given that the actor must be desperate for money to be doing such poor quality work. After watching this film, you may want to send Stephen Baldwin $100.
It appears that Baldwin did not put any effort into his role in the film. In the film, Baldwin is forced to run all over the city of Los Angeles in order to protect his \"honeycomb\" (wife) from being murdered by the brother of a man he previously killed. However, throughout the picture it appears that Baldwin can barely pull off maintaining a light jog. His laid back performance succeeds in subtracting from any suspense that the film might have intended to portray.
If you are the type of person who enjoys watching very bad films and laughing at their shortcomings, than this film is for you. However, if you are looking for a well made action thriller, it would be best to look somewhere else rather than renting this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n*The ELITE sniper team that has inserted 24h or so earlier have instead of digging in and making them selves invisible decided to take cover behind a big rock in one of the first scenes. *When the hero \"runs\" to rescue his wife he actually jogs. *When inside a building and aiming for a target only some 20-30 meter away the hero USES HIS SCOPE. Besides the fact that most non elite soldiers would make that shot from the hip and still hit there is also the fact that the scope probably wouldn't be able to focus that close. *There is a satellite that can actually look horizontally into buildings.
The list is endless... and the film is the biggest heap of crap I have ever put in my DVD player.
\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\n1- Stephen Baldwin doesn't care about his involvement in Stephen Baldwin vehicles.
2- The acting in any Stephen Baldwin vehicle ranges from horrible to mildly passable.
3- Writers don't write Stephen Baldwin vehicles, children do.
4- Most of the Stephen Baldwin vehicles revolve around one genre- the Actionless Action genre. It basically consists of crappy action sequences made with little to no effort whatsoever.
5- The director doesn't care about Stephen Baldwin vehicles; he passes his job to an orangutan from time to time.
And now you know.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is so bad that it actually gets funny. One of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life. The funny thing was that the trailer had scenes in it that wasn't in the movie. Just by watching the trailer I would have saved a lot of my time. It actually showed everything that happened in the movie except for the conclusion and that was also so obvious.
It's honestly hard to think of a reason why this movie was made. This is just so bad. Horrible.
I would give it 0 out of 10 if that would be possible. There is nothing else to say about 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\nDuring the 1990's, several attempts have been made to revive old Matsumoto's series. Yoshinobu Nishizaki tried to revive old Yamato saga in form of a laughably bad \"Yamato 2520\", which was completely abandoned after mere two episodes. Captain Harlock suffered a confusing and pointless \"Harlock Saga\", while Galaxy Express 999 suffered having this hack of a movie stapled to its name.
If you've seen \"Queen Millennia\", you'll recall that it was a wonderful movie in its own way. Maetel Legend tries to tell a sequel to this already concluded chapter, also finding a way to suck at doing so.
This movie takes all the annoying aspects of a generic pulp science fiction movie, mixes it with badly paced melodrama, and to add an insult to an injury, tosses in some of the most renowned characters from Matsumoto's universe.
The only redeeming aspect of this movie is good artwork, but the remainder is so amazingly bad that it can't save this movie from being a total loss.
If you've enjoyed Queen Millennia or Galaxy Express, do yourself a favor and skip this hack of a movie. You'll thank 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\n\"Heaven Can Wait\" is a crushing bore and a candy-coated, misogynist lie. I can't imagine anyone but film students sitting through it today. Don Ameche is in almost every scene, and, while he has a mellifluous voice that no doubt contributed to his successful career in radio, he doesn't have the charisma to carry this film. Ameche plays Henry, a womanizer. Lubitsch wants to make Henry's sexual incontinence adorable and amusing, and so he directs Ameche to play the part as blandly as possible. The combination of Ameche's lack of charisma and Lubitsch's insistence on blandness results in a lead character who is both deadly dull and completely icky. You wouldn't want to spend any time with this man; he'd put you to sleep. You wouldn't leave him alone with your daughter, no matter her age. Something creepy would happen.
The movie's look is quite boring. Scene after scene consists of static, overly lighted, diorama-style shots of fastidiously dressed Gilded Age stuffed shirts and bustles lounging in excessively busy, Victorian parlors. There's so many ruffles and frills and curlicues, so much lilac and sky blue and pink, you need Dramamine.
This movie hates women as much as hardcore porn, but it presents that hatred with a candy coating and a sweet little bow on top. The contrast between the content of the message and its delivery is sickening. In one of the movie's most hateful scenes, an elderly woman is sent to hell because she's not physically attractive.
\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\nHenry (Don Ameche) turns up at the entrance to Hell and recounts his life story to His Excellency (Laird Cregar). The story focuses on his relationships with females throughout his life, and in particular, his relationship with Martha (Gene Tierney). At the end of the film, we cut back to Henry and His Excellency for a very predictable ending.
Unfortunately, there is nothing more to say about the film because nothing happens. Its a sentimental story of one man's life and its very boring. I watched it with my girlfriend and my dad and we all thought it was rubbish, despite the Lubitsch touch. I yawned more than 15 times. Hugo (Charles Coburn) is good whenever he is on screen as the grandfather and there were a few funny moments of dialogue. The colour made it a good spectacle but it wasn't enough to save this plodder from going into the reject pile. In the same mould as \"Its A Wonderful World\" and \"You Can't Take It With You\", and so, not surprisingly, it was nominated for an Oscar. A story about ordinary people, none of whom are interesting and with no storyline of any interest. Boring, sentimental and the biggest damp squib of an ending that I can remember...
\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 some of us, director Ernst Lubitsch, adored for his underlying cheekiness and ironic comic touches, was rather wet when it came to picking material. It isn't that Lubitsch is overrated--on the contrary, he probably was ahead of his time in terms of a visual narrative--yet the projects he became attached to (or was assigned to) are not quite the landmarks of comedy his fans like to label them. With \"Heaven Can Wait\", a screen-adaptation of Lazlo Bus-Fekete's play \"Birthday\", Lubitsch is saddled with sleepy Don Ameche in the lead--and the combination of an anemic plot, a colorless star, and a musty flashback-framework stymies the director. A wicked man at the turn of the century \"falls asleep without realizing it\", presenting the facts of his life in front of Hell's entrance. Ameche...wicked? That was problem number one. The promising opening sequence (set in the Hades lobby) quickly gives way to dreary whimsy, and the supporting cast is of little help. *1/2 from ****
\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\nC'était complètement minable : à fuir absolument!
This was an idiotic attempt to destroy classic source material, and thoroughly succeeded!
Do not see this film under any circumstances unless you wish to have your ten euros torn up and shoved up your nostrils by a bunch of vapid, atrociously unamusing characters.
This type of film clearly illustrates the gulf that still unfortunately divides directors and audiences. If the individual (heaven forbid a collective could have conceived this dross) behind this had been considerate enough to watch the version currently playing in French cinemas, he or she would have endured what I was forced to endure, and mercifully rewritten it or just scrapped it altogether. The vein of adult humour being mined here dates, to my mind, back to Fritz the Cat but lacks that film's avant-garde status or even its base attempt at social commentary.
With the proliferation of remakes and increasing reliance on pre-existing source material to fund storytelling these days, one would hope that choosing Snow White, and thus not having to worry about conceiving characters or a radically new story, would have allowed more time for, oh I don't know, interesting animation, smarter jokes, perhaps a coherent film that has something to say and doesn't telegraph its vacuity from the opening frame?
A manifestly appalling production.
\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 came across this film by accident and wish I hadn't.
Why make a sexually rude sequel (and some gore when a man is beheaded) of a well know children's movie.
Do not take young kids to see this the title misdirects you, it has nothing to do with the original Snow White except for stealing it's characters. Better still don't bother going yourself, it's not worth it.
I could not watch it all, the poor (in comparison to Disney) cartoon graphics, and no plot except on how to totally mess up a classic movie made me want to give up and leave.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.
The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.
Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.
Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...
On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.
\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 fail to see how anyone who has actually read the M. Didius Falco mysteries could make such a mockery of them. An Aussie has no business in Ancient Rome. Nothing of the books is in this film except the setting and characters, and they are wasted on a plot thin enough through which to read the silly script. Kevin Connor and Lee Zlotoff have a lot of nerve displaying their names in the credits.
\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\nPaul Muni and Bette Davis overact monstrously while lacklustre studio hack Archie Mayo seems distracted and oblivious in this racially provocative film that derives its \"bittersweet ending\" by condoning segregationist attitudes. Heavy handed and poorly constructed the film collapses under its own weight within the first fifteen minutes with an out of control courtroom scene that it never recovers from as Mr. Muni begins to chew up scenery by the yard hollering and howling away in an almost incoherent fashion.
Johnny Ramirez is a Mexican American from the other side of the tracks who through determination and grit attains a law degree from a store front night school. In his first big case involving an auto accident he displays only ineptitude and is quickly made to look the fool by his well heeled opponents and an impatient judge who recommends he be disbarred. Devastated by the setback an angry Johnny takes on a job at a gambling joint where he is befriended by the owner Charlie Roark (Eugene Palette) who likes his style. The owner cuts him in on the place but problems arise with Mrs. Roark (Davis) who also wants a piece of Johnny. She kills Charlie, implicates Johnny and slowly goes mad before he is acquitted and free to be with a high society Wasp who coldly explains to him that they are from \"different tribes, savage\" and it will never work. When she flees to escape his rage she is run over and killed by a car. Ramirez sells the casino and moves back to his poor neighborhood rationalizing that its best to stay with your own.
In addition to this appalling denouement Bordertown has a series of bad performances to compliment the overall ugliness of the story. Unfair as his plight might be, Muni's Ramirez is so abrasive and arrogant it becomes hard to show sympathy for such a bull headed blunderer. Davis is no better as the less than loyal wife matching the same adolescent emotions of Muni. Her Lady Macbeth mad scenes give no indication that she was about to become the best film actress of her era. Margaret Lindsay as Muni's American Dream is cold, remote and flat.
Bad as Bordertown is (and it is very) it remains an interesting indicator of the times and acceptable attitudes. The rest is just a mishmash of bad acting and uninspired direction.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGerman emigree and uber-hambone actor Paul Muni who never saw a scene he didn't want to chew up goes \"blackface\" to play a humble Mexican immigrant living in Los Angeles and working his way up in the world. If this creaky vehicle reminds anyone of Al Pacino's minstrel performance as an uncultured Cuban in the remake of SCARFACE, don't be too surprised. The characters are quite similar, and both get wildly pop-eyed when the script calls for it. Hispanics everywhere should be greatly offended by Muni's over-the-top performance as this giddy Mexican living the American dream, consequences be damned. I guess Benicio DelToro's grandfather wasn't available. A young, bleached-blonde Bette Davis plays one of Muni's love interests; she eventually goes insane for love of Mr. Meh-hee-can Muni. An absolute hoot, Davis is the sole reason to watch this racially offensive claptrap. There is an absolutely delirious near the end when Muni asks the gal of his dreams to marry him -- a white gal of breeding with one of those stilted, stage-like '30s accents that Hollywood loved so much -- and she calls him a savage and a brute, of \"a different tribe.\" Muni immediately transforms into Mr. Hyde and chases her to an untimely death. In the final scene, a repentant Muni tells his sober-faced priest that he is going back to his own people, his own kind. End of movie. Finis. That's all she wrote. Muni was said to have hired a gen-oo-ine Mexican as a chauffeur in order to study this exotic creature's speech pattern and physical habits. Yowza!
\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 Kissing Bandit was the third and final film that Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson co-starred at MGM with. The first two were Anchors Aweigh and It Happened in Brooklyn. And in both Sinatra wooed and lost Grayson. I guess the third time's the charm.
For romance maybe, but definitely not for screen image. Sinatra in his forty's films once again plays the nice little schnook only this time in toreador pants. Poaching on Tyrone Power's territory laid out in The Mark of Zorro, Sinatra plays the son of a man who was a hotel owner by day and The Kissing Bandit by night. He's gone and left California for an education and has come back ready to take Dad's place, but in the hotel business only. And where does he learn the hotel business, Boston.
Of course some of Dad's former gang members, grown a little old and paunchy led by J. Carrol Naish, want him to lead the gang again. But Frank's just not cut out for the outlaw life. But he does make a good impression on the Governor's daughter, Kathryn Grayson.
Somebody must have had it in for Sinatra at MGM to cast him in this after the bad reviews he got in Miracle of the Bells. Frank's in a part that was more suitable for Red Skelton. But since this was a musical, I guess the brain trust at MGM figured Kathryn Grayson had to have a singing co-star.
In fact the best number in the film are for her, Love Is Where You Find It. Also Ricardo Montalban, Ann Miller, and Cyd Charisse do a dance specialty that is nice. Frank's songs are nice, but nothing spectacular.
In later years, Sinatra would wince at the mention of The Kissing Bandit and with good reason.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPerhaps the director was trying for another PIRATE (Good Garland and Kelly musical) -- but this lame musical epoch falls flat. Sinatra and Kathryn Graysons voices do not blend well -- and their chemistry together lacks spark. The premise of Sinatra as a sweet guy who tries to impersonate his late \"bandito\" father is okay, but he seems awkward in the role. What's amazing and wonderful here, is how Sinatra can take a rather insipid song and make it seem special -- his phrasing and eloquence as a singer make you want to hear it again. When Grayson sings the same songs it's hard to believe she's not singing something entirely different and not nearly as interesting. She has her big moment with \"Love Is Where You Find It\" which suits her perfectly and shows off her abilities. The photography is lucious and both stars look appealing as do the costumes and sets. Co-stars Mildred Natwick and J. Carroll Nash put lots of energy into making the impossible work. Aside from Sinatra's singing there is a strange menage-a-tois dance with Ricardo Montalban, Cyd Charisse and Ann Miller. It's fascinating and weird. Montalban and Charisse were a wonderful dancing team and this number is a real oddity.
\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 must be one of MGM's and FRANK SINATRAS worst films. An oddball musical comedy that fails in almost every aspect. Silly plot has SINATRA trying to carry on his fathers reputation as a KISSING BANDIT. He's no bandit and doesn't kiss!! He does play the \"nerdy\" character as well as could be expected given the dialog he has to speak. The scene stealer's are J. CARROLL NASH and MILDRED NATWICK. Too bad they didn't have more scenes together. I've given the film two stars because the sets and costumes are superior and one of the songs sung by KATHTREN GRAYSON \"Love is Where You Find It\", is sensational. Could have had a repirse of that one. Also, a comic type dance number by RIDCARDO MANTALBAN, CYD CHARISSE and ANN MILLER if fun. So for those reasons and those reasons only, it is watchable. KISSING BANDIT is part of the Frank Sinatra early years collection.
\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 klutzy young man returns West after being schooled in the hotel business via Boston; he quickly learns his friends in Spanish-colonized Old California expect him to fill his deceased father's shoes instead--that of a romantic thief known for kissing his female victims after robbing them. Colorful but silly M-G-M production has a great deal of talent before and behind the camera, but it never takes off. This might have been fun, second-string material for Abbott & Costello, but Frank Sinatra looks lost and embarrassed in the lead. Combination of raucous comedy and musical interludes are hindered by the poor staging (Sinatra is photographed singing at one point in a mirror, but one doesn't concentrate on his performance so much as noticing how odd the star appears reflected in this way!). Kathryn Grayson is the Governor's daughter who falls for Frank, and her high soprano trilling turns her singing scenes into self-parody. Aside from Robert Surtees' cinematography and the decent art direction, this \"Bandit\" remains kissless. * from ****
\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\nTycoon will never be listed as one of John Wayne's better post Stagecoach film. It's good in spots, has some fine action sequences in the cave in and also in the flood at the climax. But the plot leaves a lot to be desired.
What we have in Tycoon is two men who thoroughly dislike each other and that dislike prevents them from working as a team. Multimillionaire Cedric Hardwicke has hired John Wayne and James Gleason to build a railroad. But then he refuses to give them the needed funds to do the job right.
Things get really complicated when Wayne falls for Hardwicke's daughter, Laraine Day. After a night when they have to spend time alone in an Inca ruin, by convention in South America, Wayne and Day get a shotgun wedding even though nothing happened.
What should have happened is these two should have been locked in a room for 24 hours together to work out their differences one way or another. Their petty spites cause some fatalities among Wayne's crew.
But what Tycoon is most known for is another piece of pettiness. Laraine Day was married to Leo Durocher the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers when this was being filmed. He was a constant presence on the set, insanely jealous of John Wayne who he thought might be having an affair with his wife. Nothing to it, but he made his wife's life miserable.
Not one of the Duke's better efforts.
\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 terrible. John Wayne is a brutal actor at times. The lead female playing the role of \"Maura\" did a good job and tried her best to make scenes believable despite Wayne's inept, one dimensional, over acting. Seriously, did you see him when he was supposed to be talking in his sleep? Ridiculous. And his character became such an awful person in the second half of the movie and then did nothing to atone for his behavior and is still forgiven by everyone including his arch nemesis without even so much as a 'sorry'. The story was completely implausible. We were supposed to believe that two grown men, both tremendous successes in their respected fields, would sabotage a job and risk the lives of innocent men simply because they disliked one another? YOu can pretty much randomly select any scene and it will probably leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone paid money to have this film made. Its too bad because the only other Wayne films I've seen are the shootist and rio bravo, which were both great movies. Unless you're being paid don't bother watching this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBurt Reynolds plays Gator McKlusky, a likable ex-convict just released from prison who helps the feds nab a corrupt small town sheriff. Laid-back Reynolds was often accused by critics of merely phoning these 'good ol' boy' performances in; true, he's on auto-pilot throughout. But in his day, Reynolds knew just how to make a low-key effort work well for himself. Ingratiating and handsome, Reynolds comes as close to winking at the audience as he can without breaking up; he seems to know these backwoods as well as any movie star, while director Joesph Sargent provides an easy pace and a sweaty ambiance which brings the South alive. Unfortunately, the story isn't much, and supporting actors Ned Beatty and Bo Hopkins overact (as usual). Diane Ladd is fine in a small part, and real-life daughter Laura Dern can be glimpsed in the background. Reynolds returned to this character for 1976's \"Gator\". *1/2 from ****
\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 must have done well in the box office, in order to give Gator the budget it deserves. This film had no budget, needed a script rewrite, and a better ending. There is flashes of brilliance in this movie. The boat ride scene, Burt driving the mean machine, and his chat with his parents. You can tell Burt is a Southerner, and not a actor. This movie shows what Gator would be like, Burt's best film. Too, bad this film did not have the same funding and was done on the Rush. 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\nOne commenter said if you like Austin Powers you will like this movie. I liked Autin Powers and was disappointed with this movie. The film works hard, maybe too hard for laughs. Maybe it was that all the villains in this movie were shouting as if the shouting in itself is suppose to be funny. I get where they were trying to go with this flick. A cross between Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel but it just doesn't work. Austin Powers if silly but intelligent, Zorro the Gay Blade lacks the savvy of Austin Powers, The Big Lebowski or Kingpin.
I kept waiting for a laugh and while waiting found myself amazed that someone actually got paid for the script. My 15 year daughter also thought the movie was flat. My 17 year old who selected this flick on it's title, walked out after 20 minutes.
It seems many people on IMDb liked this film, but for me it lacked the good timing or jokes of a good comedy.
\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\nThough predictable and contrived, not a bad movie. It entertains, which is all Van Damme hopes to do. The omnipresent \"twin\" device is again used (as in a large number of Van Damme's movies) but it is not bothersome except to long time fans. Natasha is gorgeous and worth watching. Action is decent, nothing spectacular for Van Damme but exciting. I can recommend to Van Damme fans and even to those who aren't but don't mind an action film with a good looking lead couple. The Russian Mob is a nice concept and topical for the day. Clearly, not his best film but by no means his worst.
\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\"Maximum Risk\" is a step sideways for Van Damme and just more of the uninspired B-movie action stuff we've come to expect from films featuring the macho Belgian martial artist. The flick has gaping plots holes, goofs galore, a messy conglomerated plot, and a gorgeous Henstridge who spends most of her time looking like she's waiting for a cue. \"Maximum Risk\" doesn't distinguish itself in any way and will likely not have much appeal beyond the usual young male audiences. (C-)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"