empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found this gem in a rack the local video rental store had of tapes which are exchanged among various rental outlets. 'The Man who Skied Down Everest'. Hmm... never heard about it. The box reads of some Japanese fellow who always wanted to ski down Everest and actually did it. Sounds interesting. I rented it. As expected it was documentary style. The first part can be summarized so: \"I always wanted to ski down mount Everest\". This is followed by some footage of preparation for the event. LOTS of preparation footage. OK, I suppose it takes a lot of preparation. Then we are treated to a protracted piece on the skier, Yuichiro Miura's philosophy on life etc. More filler follows and I begin to wonder where the skiing fits in to this show. More preparation is shown and they begin to make the trip to the mountain. More philosophy is shown. At last they arrive at the mountain and maybe perhaps he will get around to skiing down the friggin' thing. Lots of climbing footage later there is a description of the parachute device intended to slow Miuras' speed on the steep slope. Finally he straps on the skis and gets ready to go.
He's off... He skis about twenty feet and his skis shoot out from under him, he deploys the parachute and tumbles in an inglorious bundle for some distance down the mountain and that's that. End of story. What the heck was that?
OK I can buy that he always wanted to ski down Everest, made extensive preparations and actually tried it with camera crew in tow. It didn't work and he ended up tumbling down and almost killing himself, so what egregious hubris would inspire the man to release a film of it and call it skiing down Everest? Perhaps the title,\"The Man Who's Feet Shot Out From Under Him and He Slid On His Ass Down Everest\" was just too long for the tape box.
\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 adore Hedy Lamarr. I think she was vastly underrated as an actress during the 40s. She was the Nastassja Kinski of that era, and critics didn't take her seriously. Having said all that...this film is a BORE. When I watched it for the first time, I was shocked at the lack of continuity, not only in story, but in makeup and costumes. Hedy's makeup changes from shot to shot. So does hair length and style. Reason: This thing had so many writers and underwent so many stops and starts it's amazing they ever released it at all. Her \"Lady of the Tropics\" began filming AFTER this one began, yet it was released before \"I Take This Woman.\" In fact, at the time, it was known in Hollywood as \"I Re-Take This Woman.\" That should tell you something. I'm a Spencer Tracy fan as well, but he is AWFUL here. I've read in various film histories that he absolutely despised Hedy Lamarr, and that looks perfectly obvious on film. NO chemisty whatsoever. The story wanders around for reel after reel and finally just rolls to an end very strangely. I can't recommend this one at all.
\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\nHedy Lamarr who may have been kept by more men on screen than any other actress, is again the kept mistress of Kent Taylor, society playboy and general all around rat. On a boat from the Yucatan after Taylor's given her the brush she tries suicide. But Doctor Spencer Tracy saves her from drowning in the Caribbean.
Tracy's quite the all around medical fellow. I guess he never heard the word specialist. He runs a clinic in Manhattan for the poor and his trip was a sideline into medical research. Lamarr and he marry and she tries to introduce him into her world and he even becomes a partner of society doctor Louis Calhern. Of course Kent Taylor reenters the picture and the Hollywood inevitable happens.
Watching I Take This Woman it seemed to me that the writers were very much influenced by Tracy's Oscar winning Boys Town. Unfortunately his role as Doctor Karl Decker ain't a patch on what he did as Father Flanagan. Maybe they were trying to give Father Flanagan a little romance in his life in this film so to speak.
Tracy and Lamarr did not get along too well. In fact this film was dubbed I Retake This Woman because the original director Joseph Von Sternberg walked off the film, presumably because Lamarr was not working out for him the way Marlene Dietrich did. She did Lady of the Tropics and then MGM went back to filming this with their contract director Woody Van Dyke who was known for the speed of his productions. And a whole new supporting cast was brought in.
Fortunately both Spence and Hedy had better roles in store for both of them.
\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 fully agree with the previous reviewer. There's no chemistry between Spencer Tracy and Hedy Lamarr, and the focus of the film is on their relationship. Hedy Lamarr isn't at her best, and Spencer Tracy appears to be naive, simple and overly-hopeful -- both in love and life; an idealist role that played out best in 'Boys Town'. If you can make it through the ridiculous crowd scene by the train station...whoa...it's rather slapstick and not worthy of any actor in the cast. Not the best acting on anybody's part. Miscast and mismatched. Story is empty and various and disenfranchised input is apparent. Hedy Lamarr is her absolutely stunning herself, which is truly the best part of the film. Spencer Tracy can't match the sophistication of her beauty and wardrobe, and the film doesn't come off as believable for at least that 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\nIt's hard to know exactly what to say about this ever so bland and dull little film. The story is predictable when not completely laughable. It's all a matter of \"dutiful gestures\" which, as presented here, carry absolutely no conviction. Yes, the MGM \"production values\" are gorgeous, and yes, Ms. Lamarr was exquisitely beautiful, but she and the great Spencer Tracy have absolutely no \"chemistry\" together - and that's the only thing that would have made this parade of cliches at all effective... It's my understanding that this movie received poor reviews when it was originally released; the passage of time has not improved 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 movie is on the level with \"Welcome Home Roxy Carmichael\" for biggest pieces of garbage that have ever hit the silver screen. If these guys weren't Adam Sandler's gay friends, this script would have ended up where it should have: as some big time movie exec's toilet paper. I hate this movie, it makes me want to injure people. I will admit that I have high standards, but honestly I'd rather watch Step Up 2. The ultra sad part was when I logged onto IMDb and read that you pieces of trash actually gave this movie a 6.9 rating. This is a testament to all of the retards in our society that will go watch terrible movies that are just hour and a half long dick, fart, and weed jokes with little to no originality. After seeing this rating, I would like to suggest \"Tyler Perry's House of Pain\" to all of you guys who enjoyed this film; you'll see some high quality humor there on about the same level of this abhorrent abomination.
\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\nCreating a comedy is like walking a pretty thin tight-rope. It either works, or it does not. Grandma's Boy is one of those movies that does not work. It may have a few very funny parts, but for the majority, it's just a terribly unfunny comedy from the usual supporting characters in Adam Sandler films (sans Sandler himself, he's just a producer).
Alex (Allen Covert) is a game tester. He's 35, and is the best tester and game player at his otherwise kid-filled workplace. He ends up getting his apartment and his stuff taken from him for not paying the bills (as it turns out, his roommate had just been spending the rent money on Philipino hookers and not paying the landlord). Desperate, he moves in with his grandmother, Lilly (Doris Roberts of Everybody Loves Raymond) and her two roommates.
That's the basic plot of the film, thrown in with subplots about a hot new girl named Samantha (Linda Cardelli, unrecognizable from her days as Velma in Scooby Doo) trying to get the testers to complete a new game as fast as they can, a robot-like game creating prodigy J.P. (Joel Moore) who works with Alex and wears much of the same clothes as Neo in The Matrix, and of course, all sorts of sex and drug related jokes. That's it.
The problem with the film, besides the fact that the real conflict in the film occurs and is resolved within the last fifteen minutes of the film, is that it just is not funny. It is totally mind-numbingly boring, and only sparingly funny. Nothing really happens at all. No emotion, no real sense of direction, and a whole ton of intense swearing. You find yourself maybe laughing at a few funny quips that the actors say, but otherwise sit in complete boredom, wishing you had not even bothered with the film. How this film was greenlit and how Fox thought it could make money will always remain a mystery to me.
There's just no entertainment value to come from it. None of the actors are actually putting in good performances, they are just acting like idiots for the camera, and hoping for the best. Stoner comedy has been done before multiple times, and on occasion, actually works (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle and Dazed and Confused come to mind). Here, it just makes for making the film even less funny than it is already. The random inclusion of a monkey and a pair of bare breasts really does not make the film any better either.
Other than a few funny one-liners, this movie should just be out-right missed altogether. It's not very funny, the entire plot is silly, it's boring, and it just makes for one horrendous film. Avoid it like the plague.
1.5/10.
\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\nHonestly, this may be the worst movie I've ever seen. And I've seen Spider Baby, and Not of This Earth. Heck I've even seen 200 Motels. Having just discovered the Freaks and Geeks series and being surprised at the acting ability of Linda Cardellini I checked out the reviews here and decided this was worth a try. That is the LAST time I will ever rely on a review at IMDb. I didn't realize that MORONS were writing IMDb reviews while they were waiting for their calls to be answered on AM radio.
This movie is so far beyond bad that mere words cannot express the wretchedness of its vomitous state. Seriously.
Watch this movie if you think Will Farrel is really really really funny, if you think Adam Sandler is a comedic genius. Watch this movie but PLEASE DON'T BREED!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat could be expected from any Adam Sandler-produced comedy, Grandma's Boy is predictable and so dumb it is sickening. Allen Covert stars as Alex in the film, a 35 year old pothead who works as a video game tester and has had to move in with his grandma and her two roommates after losing his apartment. Some usual plot turns occur: he has trouble adjusting to his new living situation, which in turn makes him have trouble at work, which is particularly bad because he is trying to nail one of the office's new consultants. Throw a weird boss, almost alien company star, really nerdy best friend, a few scenes at burnt-out pot dealer's place, a really big party scene, and an original video game Alex is trying to finish by himself into the mix you have Grandma's Boy in its entirety. Allen Covert does make a marginally good lead, Linda Cardellini is cute enough for her role as the just-one-of-the-nerds office consultant Samantha, and a few scenes do manage to squirt out a chuckle or two but none of that makes Grandma's boy worth much of anyone's time. Most of the supposed funny \"jokes\" or \"gags\" or whatever you want to call them are nothing but \"humor\" that would make anyone at National Lampoons embarrassed to watch, Joel Moore is incredibly unfunny in his role as video game mastermind J.P., and the entire film actually manages to be boring on top of not funny or substantial. Well, at least Grandma's Boy did something for someone: Adam Sandler was able to get a few paychecks to his out-of-work friends David Spade, Kevin Nealon, and Rob Schneider.
\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\nPositively ridiculous film.
If Doris Roberts, Shirley Jones and Shirley Knight persist in these kinds of films, they can submit their retirement papers and collect social security full-time.
While the idea that a 35 year old swinger, who works on video games, loses his apartment and his forced to move in with Grandma Roberts and borders Jones and Knight, this is foolishly dealt with. Imagine the 3 bags getting high on stuff that grandson Alex has left in their home and Jones going to bed with someone who may qualify as her grandson!
The video game sequences are as foolish as the rest of the film. The assortment of characters that Alex works with is beyond belief as he enjoys his weed habit along with the others.
Terrible best describes this miserable 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\nThere's an underlying current in all the positive reviews of this movie - it's just a brainless comedy, don't take it seriously. Chillax dude!!! Well that's one point of view. The other would be - why are we accepting exactly the same script, the same formula and the same unfunny people in all these \"comedies\".
What you get is a slacker who, through some totally unreal circumstances, has to change his life (always a he), overcome a set of circumstances which would only pose a problem to a raccoon or a teenager, beat the equally stupid bad guy who is trying to steal the gal he met two days earlier and triumph by remaining a slacker but with more money/self-esteem. On the way somebody does something gross but very illogical. This means you the viewer can call someone after the movie and say something like \"you won't believe it maaann. This guy finds the otter drowned in the bucket of diarrhoea the other guy left after he ate laxative brownies. Then he shines his shoes with it\". Hilarious.
Most of the usual names turn up. David Spade and Rob Schneider do unfunny shtick but they're crrrazzeee characters - a Russian and, I'm holding my sides, a waiter in a vegan restaurant. Adam Sandler, the king of the brainless unfunny, illogical comedy co-produces and some talentless nobody called Dante shows up, yet again. The US will have to explain to the rest of the world what this guy Dante is famous for cos we are clueless. Allen Covert plays a 36 year old which got the biggest laugh of the night from me. He was 42 and looked years older.
Did I laugh? Yes, but no more than I would at a TV sit-com and I don't have to pay a penny to watch them. Please stop making these movies.
\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\nFirst of all, I'd like to say that I really enjoyed this movie. However, that said, I can't say that it was a \"good\" movie. I went into the theatre with pretty low expectations (something I've learned to do). I'm glad I did, because the plot and development wasn't stellar. The jokes were low-grade humor. But, I was in the right mindset to enjoy them.
I wasn't the only one. In fact, the entire theatre was laughing out loud. I didn't hear anyone complain after the movie came to a close. I even saw one guy fall out of his chair laughing! But again, I have to warn you, Grandma's Boy is NOT a top-quality film. It is a funny (albeit low-brow) movie, and if you go with the right mindset, you'll really enjoy it. Oh, and don't take kids to 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\nAlright, how someone can actually think this movie is awesome, is so beyond me... I can't even comprehend how someone can find this movie remotely funny, the only character it has going for it, is the evil super nerd game designer, and that gets old after a while. This movie is so predictable, the punchlines are not funny they're forced, you see better acting at the red light district, and the story sucks it's so predictable, you know EXACTLY what's going to happen. Even the characters do not react like they should, try going to the hot chick that is your boss at work and telling her that you're banging 2 crazy chicks that you live with at the same time, her response wouldn't be (smile) \"ok let's get back to work\". I didn't laugh once during this movie, and I wish I had never seen it or spent 3$ to rent it because that's not even worth it. Adam Sandler produced this movie, I have lost all respect for him. All his movies are the same, his comedy style got old ever since The Waterboy came out, if I knew Adam Sandler had produced this before I rented it...there's no way I would have wasted my time on it. This movie is as bad as it can possibly get from every aspect... ace ventura wasn't a smart comedy movie, it didn't have a killer plot...but it was original and it was hilarious. I'm not knocking the movie because it has 'low-level' humor, i'm knocking it because it sucks, it's a piece of Hollywood crap. If this movie was presented to a production company and din't have \"ADAM SANDLER\" behind it, it would be thrown in the garbage quicker than a used condom. If you want a good movie about pot-culture watch Cheech and Chong, or Whitecastle. If you rent this movie all you will get is a generic comedy that targets 14-17 year olds, with loud rock music at every possible cut, acting that will make your eyes squint and your stomach turn, and comedy that is equivalent to watching your stoned friend eating mcdonalds for an hour and a half. Don't do it.... for the love of God...this movie sucks, treat it for what it is and look past all the Hollywood glory behind it.....Hercules in New York used to be the worst movie I had ever seen, but it's actually so bad it's good. This instead was a very expensive movie that sucked just as much, if not more.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis movie has NO plot. it was SUPPOSED to be that a guy moves in with his grandma, and everyone thinks hes a loser and he has to redeem himself. but what happens after everyone finds out who he's living with? they have a big pot party at grandma's house. the climax of the movie didn't even relate to the rest of it. that whole plot was introduced within minutes of the movie's end. i can see how it COULD have related to the supposed story - that Grandma's VG skills redeem him - but that just wasn't there.
However, the movie was funny as hell and clearly relied heavily on the jokes.
\"Her pussy smells like the great depression\" \"He just sucked his first titty...yeah for 13 hours\" \"It's for you...i think it's the Devil\"
\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 must say I was really excited about this film before renting it as it was an Adam Sandler \"Happy Madison\" production and I am usually attracted to that type of silly humour.
There were a few funny moments at the beginning of the film, but this film lacked everything that makes a good movie. I realize that many filmsthat are not realistic can still be quite funny, but this film was unrealistic and not funny at all. The acting was horrible, the cinematography was very poor, the plot made no sense at all. I cannot get over the fact that 3 classy older ladies would even work for such poor writing. Overall I was very unimpressed with this film and I do not recommend wasting 5 bucks on renting it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can laugh at just about anything, but unfortunately there is not a single one to be found in this stink bomb!!!!I honestly watched this movie from beginning to end, and did not even crack a smile. I am shocked that Sandler, Schneider, Spade etc., would put their names on this piece of crap. Worse than the worst that ever came out of the worst that ever came out of former SNL players. What more can I say? How could such tasteless, extremely unfunny drivel come from such a pool of apparent talent!! Maybe I have lost my sense of humor, (not likely), but I cannot remember a movie that I have disliked this much in a long time. What a waste of 2 hours I will never get back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf a movie has an unimaginative, hackneyed story and bland characters it needs to make up for it by being really, really funny. You can get away with a lot if you're funny. But while there are a few amusing moments scattered here and there in Grandma's Boy, they are so far and few between that they cannot begin to make up for the hack work the film displays in such abundance.
The movie certainly doesn't aim to surprise anyone. When Alex hides marijuana in his grandma's house in a tea tin you know what's going to happen later on and it does. The movie appears to have been written by a committee who did a study of mediocre comedies and grabbed any gag that appeared in more than one of them.
The most interesting thing about the movie is its somewhat unusual setting. The game takes place in a video game development company, which should be an interesting source for some clever comedy. But don't be fooled, this is not a movie about video game developers. This is basically a college frat house movie in which all the frat boys have been shoved into a big room to play video games.
The way the movie completely fails to think through its setting and use it for original laughs can be seen in the character of J.P. J.P. is I think more-or-less conspired by the creator of Doom, John Carmack. At least inspired to the extent that he's an odd genius who makes games.
In the movie, J.P. is a weird, obnoxious geek who is despised and jeered by the company game testers. That makes no sense at all. If you are one of the most significant people in the history of video games (as J.P. is supposed to be) then even if you're quirky and obnoxious, people will still admire and respect you on some level. If Stephen Hawking is obnoxious his associates still aren't going to make jun of him to his face.
Also, game testers are just as likely to be geeks as J.P., but in the movie they are basically frat boys. It's a fun normal guys against the obnoxious dweebs movie. And while that formula has worked, very occasionally, in the past, it is absurd in the setting of a game company. If you decide to use an unusual setting for a movie, you don't simply cram in all the conventions of movies from different settings into that one. Unless you're a hack.
About two thirds of the way through the movie I gave up. Something happened that I knew would result in a series of painfully predictable events. And I realized I hadn't actually laughed at anything for the last half hour anyway. So I stopped (although I did fast forward just to make sure I was right that they would follow the most predictable clichés, which they did).
Normally if a movie's bad I just say it's bad and then run out of things to say, but this movie is such a phenomenally shoddy production that it deserves a long diatribe.
Shame on the movie for luring a good actress like Linda Cardellini into it, then surrounding her with talentless nobodies. I'll give the movie 1 point for giving Shirley Jones the chance to be the anti-Shirley Partridge 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\nSadly, this movie did have potential with such a willing cast, but everything was so poorly thought out and poorly executed. I don't think I've ever seen any film where every scene just falls flat with a loud thud, as it did here. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a \"stoner\" sex comedy that didn't provide at least one laugh, but this vortex of pain provided nothing but groans and misery. The last time I was this stunned at how un-funny a comedy can be was with the awful \"Big Momma's House.\" Scene after scene, these movies will turn your brain into jelly. Silly and stupid can sometimes be funny, but here, silly and stupid are used as a torture device against the viewer. An absolute, rock-bottom dud.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn the last few years of Ron Miller's (son-in-law of Walt Disney cum Producer) reign he churned out live-action crap on a stick often starring the very boring Dean Jones, whose entire career was based on that kind of light, empty-headed fare. Other horrible films from that same period include Pete's Dragon, the Last Flight of Noah's Ark, Unidentified Flying Oddball and the dreaded Condorman. I'll not mention Tron because I thought it ambitious and Miller was only the executive Producer on it, so he had little to do with the actual production. However he was in full force when this god-awful piece of human junk was expelled from the bowels of creativity. Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo. Second sequel to much- loved Love Bug tale finds Herbie in love with another car who has a brain and heart too. There's a race, some lame bad guys, a diamond and Barney Fife. Shot in France, the film actually is nicely photographed and the countryside is lovely. But one gets the idea the film was made so all involved could have a three month vacation in France. The rest of film is a wreck. Prat falls, bumbling thieves, wicked German racing competitors and a pretty bouncing feminist all fall under the category of stock supply. The biggest insult of the film: trying to further develop Herbie's lover personality via shakes, beeps, flashing lights and movements indicative of a horny seventeen year old, Disney's writers do an injustice to our cute little VW. Then again I would think it'd be tough for anyone to top Helen Hayes driving Herbie around a skyscraper ledge in the second outing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEven Disney are guilty of the cash cow disease, after the roaring success of The Love Bug in 1968, the house of mouse cashed in with Herbie Rides Again, Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo, and Herbie Goes Bananas. Neither sequel capturing the charm and inoffensive appeal of The Love Bug back in 68, in this one we find race driver Jim Douglas and his sidekick Wheely Applegate, entering Herbie in the Monte Carlo Rally. Naturally things outside of the race start to take over priorities, they get mixed up in a diamond robbery and Herbie falls in love with another car!. The car stunts are of course pleasant and easy on the eye, and it would be churlish of me to really vent venom on such a friendly piece of fluff, it's just that the film goes nowhere fast and personally now i can see it for the coin motivated piece of work it is. Still you get to see Herbie take a bath, foil the baddies and of course dance for the lady in his life, so something there for everyone i think....................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\nIf you thought Herbie trying to kill himself by driving off a bridge in 'The Love Bug' was daft, wait 'till you see him acting horny in this bewilderingly silly second sequel. Dean Jones is back as the driver who competes in the Paris to Monte Carlo rally; this time his sentient VW falls in love with another car in the race, a Lancia driven by Julie Sommars. By this point in the series the energy and charm is lacking even more than in 'Herbie Rides Again'; the movie is overlong and threadbare, although it's watchable thanks to the return of Jones's typically likable performance, a few funny bits, and the cast's frantic mugging.
\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 made my face hurt. I don't understand it...things just happened, inexplicably, and they usually resulted in someone bursting into a song and dance number. I don't understand how people can laud this film with praise. There are B-movies, and then there are B-musicals, and then there is Rockula.
The songs made me want to run headlong into a wall. The only saving grace is that one of the musical explosions turns out to be a musical video, which eases the pain, yet still fails to justify why it needed to exist. The most frightening section of the film is Toni Basil's creep-dance that accompanies her weird song. But on the bright side, she can manages to find the notes that she is looking for, unlike pop music sensations Rockula (aka Rapula) and Mona...wow, can we say tone deaf. So if you want to question life for about 90 minutes, see this film. If you hate your life, then buy 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\nAs a CA resident, I'd like to see the jackholes who were shutting down the electricity plants to raise the prices get some jail time too.
I thought the movie was pretty good and has some very informative pieces. While they stuck to how Enron rose and crashed, I found it really interesting. However, when the movie focused on it's anti-Bush slant, it made me wonder if they were really being accurate.
It's fine to point out any connection the Republicans had to Enron, but the monster was created while Clinton was president. The CA energy crisis happened under Davis's watch. Both were in office during Enron's abuses, but neither are held accountable in any way. Rather, many minutes are spent on how Bush was friends with Lay. So what? Lay played golf with Clinton and spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Why are Democrats given such a free pass in this film? I think most politicians are a waste of our taxpayer money so I'm not partial to either party but I hate feeling like I'm subject to someone's political agenda when I watch a documentary. Yes, politicians deserve some blame, but I really doubt that the only guilty one's have Rs after their names. I found no value in portraying the Bush's as Kay-lovers when Democrats received just as much Enron campaign money as Republicans did. Like I said, it weakens the rest of the film for me because it makes me suspicious of the rest of the facts they lay out.
\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 learned little of significance from this film that I did not already know from CNN and The New York Times. (And I did not follow the Enron case obsessively as did some others.) The film did a very poor job of explaining what \"business\" Enron was in that might actually have been on the up-and-up before it started hiding its debts in the entities created by Andy Fastow. It also significantly underplayed the role played by Arthur Andersen and Vinson & Elkins in validating practices that were afterwards found to be illegal. Nor did it go as far as it might have in exploring what the \"investors\" -- all those prominent bankers -- thought they were doing. With the 24 hour a day cable networks, the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, documentaries have proliferated. I've seen many in the past year that were better than 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\nOh, man, I hated this movie. Granted, the site locations were great, but that's about the ONLY positive thing I can say about it. Now, I'm going to state right at the beginning that I am VERY critical of the way weapons, especially firearms, are both portrayed, and handled, in movies. Being a war flick, portrayal was fine, but the shoddy weapons handling in the movie would have NEVER been tolerated by a real SEAL Team. The acting was more wooden than my first sailboat, the equipment carried (or lack of it) was laughable, and the dialogue was, shall we say, lacking in ANYTHING interesting. Well, with the exception of the journalist, which was actually prescient. Watching this movie was comparable to watching \"Palmetto\" with Woody Harrelson, where each scene was so bad you just couldn't turn it off, because you had to see if they could get worse with the next scene. Like Palmetto, they certainly did. The scene in the water, where, after shooting the first of the enemy, they BLOW THE DAMN BOAT UP, thereby having to face possible drowning, made me laugh so hard, that for a millisecond, I almost thought it was worth waiting through the movie for. Then Charlie Sheen decided to drag the surviving enemy down to the depths of the ocean (the way it was filmed, with the many camera cuts, it looked like they went down about 80 feet. Nice continuity there....) before slashing his throat was so damn stupid, I was stunned. Then again, so was the whole damn movie. I enjoy action movies, but not this one. NOTE: The version I watched was a TV version, pan & scan. I can't imagine that made a difference, except for making the whole thing blessedly shorter!
\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\nSomeone commented that Charlie Sheen's character should be court martialed for doing whatever he wanted. You may be right, but that is how SEAL's truly are. I served for several months with a SEAL team out of Norfolk, VA. Actually, I should say they used our ship to deploy themselves around Europe for a couple of months. I was the postal clerk on board and everyday these guys would try to get their mail. Since only one person was allowed to pick up the mail each day we issued one pass to one person. Each day a different SEAL would come up pretending to be someone else. Well, after the third time I said no to them until I had proof who they were. They went NUTS!!! I thought they were gonna bust through my cage, gag me, and then steal the mail. Luckily I had not only the President on my side (The Navy), but the Federal Government (US Mail). That was the only time I saw the SEALs stopped from having whatever they wanted. They were allowed unlimited shore leave, where we had to be back on ship at a certain time. They killed and tortured a woman in France and the two SEAL's only got a 1 week detention on ship, whereas a Seamen was caught stealing a bottle of wine from a French wine shop and he got a court martial. Is it any wonder why the SEAL's retention rate is over 85%? As a SEAL you are god. So this movie does a pretty accurate job of portraying how a SEAL acts and thinks... unfortunately it is so unbelievable to normal people that it comes off as being fake.
\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 contemporary chapter of the U.S. Navy's elite underwater demolition team is called to do.... whatever they want, apparently.
Charlie Sheen was made an officer. Already the storyline is unbelievable. Michael Biehn is his immediate C.O., but he keeps Charlie on a rather long leash and one of the guys pays for it early on by getting killed thanks to Charlie's patented stupidity. The rest of the team spends their spare time committing courts-martial offenses. Mostly an exercise in random gunfire and paper-thin ethics, these particular Seals might be better suited to serving as crash-test dummies.
Some good action scenes counter the goofy proceedings.
\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\nTop gun without the in-house animosity. Or class. Or money. Or Cruise. An excuse for an upwardly mobile cast of next-big-thing actors to market their ability to lead a matinée this doesn't really have anything anyone can get their teeth into. It's a shame because the opening shot of Charlie Sheen opens out with great promise which is squandered almost straight away with a preposterous wedding set piece. Barking.
Dennis Haysbert is a changeable actor for me but in this film he is fine, particularly the action sequences. Michael Biehn is a first-class action hero but not a leading man: Charlie Sheen is, to all intents and purposes, the leading man but never quite an action hero. There's a stunt cast of hundreds who are also mentionworthy. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNote to self. Never ever ever again watch a serious movie with Charlie Sheen in it. Great comedian, horrible seal. This movie makes Navy SEALS look like a reckless group of rangers when, in fact, they are the most elite form of military in the world. Charlie Sheen helps destroy the Navy SEAL reputation. Thank you for making such an incredibly select group of individuals look awful in one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. This is a great story which could be made into an amazing action movie, but why Charlie Sheen? There are possibilities for a very passionate story here, but Sheen decides to wreck them with \"funny\" comments.
\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 a fan of good, plausible, action movies. And I'm a huge fan of the elite military units such as the Navy SEALs. Finally, I'm a huge fan of Michael Biehn. Sadly none of those allowed me to really enjoy this movie at the time. I gave it another chance more recently when I bought the DVD. Here's the problems with this movie in a quick list: 1. It's a poor mans top gun, for example including a virtual music video of the SEAL team playing golf with a soundtrack of \"The Boys are Back In Town\", which concludes with Charlie Sheen doing an inane chase to get his towed car back.
2. This is quite simply a Charlie Sheen movie, when Sheen was trying to be famous before he started doing stuff like Hot Shots. Reports I've heard indicate that Sheen was a baby on the set and it affected the roles and Direction the rest of the actors in the movie got.
3. Biehn is the head of the SEAL team yet Sheen seldom obeys him. Any SEAL showing the lack of discipline that Sheen's character does, or who endangered the team as he does, wouldn't even have made it through BUDS training let alone gotten on a team.
4. SEALs are cross trained on weapons. Yet in one part of the movie a SEAL has to \"figure out\" how to use a U.S. Stinger Missile.
There are a few good scenes in the movie. The assault entry at the beginning, Bill Paxton as \"God\", and some of the footage in what was supposed to be Beirut at the time. Overall though this movie is a loser.
\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 absolutely terrible... Definately a bull***t story and even worse acting. Too bad Charlie Sheen is involved in something like this since he is a decent actor and has done a couple of really good movies.
The special effects are 'A-team'-standard with the classical car gets shot and then flips over with a little fireball under the hood.
Of course the enemy are portrayed as total idiots and die as fast as they can say '-Die evil Americans'.
Unless braindead movies are you game, don't spend 113minutes of your life on this rubbish. Pick up 'the Platoon' or 'Apocalypse Now' instead.
\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\nBe very afraid of anyone who likes this film. They probably inhaled too many paint chips as a child. Its so awful I refuse to relive a plot. O yeah, there wasn't one! This movie is a true definition of what Hollywood creates for people who don't want to think at a theatre. Do the bad guys win? Do the good guys win? Who cares!
\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\nAlexandra Maria Lara: A very beautiful and enticing woman, but not a good actress. In all the films I've seen her in, she appears to me as the exact same character. Whether it be in THE DOWNFALL, NACKT, VOM SUCHEN UND FINDEN DER LIEBE and now WO IST FRED! She always is (plays?) the young, good-hearted woman, who is a little naive and doesn't know how to handle the things happening to her. She disposes of a repertoire of probably five different facial expressions that she works with abundantly. I personally have a hard time believing that she could play a mysterious and slightly obnoxious character because it just isn't in here. So she's typecast as the nice girl next door, which she is, but, once again, she ain't up to snuff when it comes to acting. Til Schweiger: Same thing! The film: Downright stupid. As it was an American movie it would have been a great role for Adam Sandler who I don't like either. I wasn't offended by the fact that this is a film with handicapped people in it, I just thought that the jokes resulting from this weren't funny at all. I chuckled twice or three times but when I was halfway through it, I was just bored and annoyed and wanted this flick to 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\nSeen this one in a Sneak Preview yesterday and must say it was terrible. After the credits I thought: \"Hey with this cast it'll probably be pretty good\". Didn't at all turn out that way.
Lame predictable groaners, terribly simply drawn characters (maybe except a little Ms. Lara's) and an ending one could foresee 10 minutes into the movie. And worst of all, it misused a delicate theme (handicapped persons) for low level and mostly tasteless jokes without ever touching anything but the surface of the issue. The handicapped person the film sympathises with the most is the one who is just faking it. What kind of message is that? And the film doesn't have a thought through ending at all, it basically comes down to: \"I love you, doesn't matter that you acted like a prick.\"
To sum it up: Great cast that must have been terribly bored to sign up for a terrible flick.
\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(There Are Spoilers) Usual slasher film with the story taking place in and around this God-forsaken mine outside the almost deserted town of Sutterille. After receiving a letter map and gold nugget from her brother Jared, Shadrach Smith, Clair and her husband Nick Breman, Carrie Bradac & Sean Hines, drive to the village together with four other friends and armature gold-prospectors Alx & Tori, Steve Wastell & Sangie, and Hayden & Rox Ann, Rick Majeske & Elina to stake their claim.
It later turns out that the fact that Jared disturbed the long-forgotten gold mine caused the ghost of the notorious Jeremiah Stone, Vernon Wells, to come back to life and with that restart his reign of terror. Stone, or 49er, is about the most ridicules slasher/killer in motion picture history. Stone looks like he was buried for years under a few tons of coal runs around with this hook slicing people in two. After doing in almost the entire cast local hermit Aunt Nelly, (Karen Black), who's daughter Eve (Alexandra Ford) was also one of Stone's victims, tells those still alive that unless they return the gold back to the Stone mine the crazed miner will never rest until he kills all those who still have it.
Aunt Nelly is given just enough time to tell her story before she's turned into a human torch by Stone and ends up jumping into a nearby stream.The movie goes on endlessly with the killer miner on the rampage looking like he's about as scary as burnt toast and just as dark. Even those in the film seemed to show no real fear of him. In one scene when he broke into Aunt Nelly's house everyone inside all charged, instead of running away, him causing the ghost miner to lose his right arm; Stone spent the rest of the movie with a miner's pick attached to his \"stump\".
Besides Actress Karen Black the film \"Miners Massacre\" also has veteran actors John Phillip Law and Richard Lynch as the town Sheriff Murphy and Old Man Prichard. Passable stuff but nothing special the movie has a predictable ending with the entire gold mine going up in flames. The audience given a hint by the makers of \"Miners Massacre\" that the end to this mindless lunacy is nowhere in sight and may very well resurface in the very near future in a possible sequel, God help us all!
\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 douche-bag teenagers go up to an old mining town in hopes of finding gold nuggets. The one hitch in the hair-brained scheme is that the ancient supernatural miner whom the gold belongs to doesn't wish to part with his treasure so easily and so begins to dispatch the interlopers accordingly.
Literally cliché-sprouting dialog, horrible acting, some insanely terrible 'southern dialect' and a lame unmemorable killer who resembles Jeepers Creepers (without the aforementioned's predilection of young boys naturally) combine to make this stinker just about unwatchable. Even cult legend actress Karen Black in a small role can't save this aberration.
Eye Candy: Elina Madison shows (badly lit) T&A
My Grade: D-
Where I saw it: TMCX
\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\nSeeing the cover of this before I watched it, my expectations weren't high, especially since it was amongst those other crappy horror movies at blockbuster (alongside films like Junior).
Alright, not only does this movie have the brainless stereotypical characters (the rich douche bag, the bitch, the sheriff, the localer that knows what's going wrong in the town, and so forth), but has such god-awful dialogue, acting, directing, and cg effects. The Jeremiah Stone dude was hilarious. (*SPOILER*) I'll never understand why he bit his finger off out of nowhere when he was holding that chick up hostage.
The premise for the movie is just as atrocious as the other flaws. From what I could get from it, Jeremiah Stone was a gold digger during the Gold Rush, and a notorious outlaw. He had a crapload of gold, (*SPOILER*) and put a curse on anyone who went after his gold before he was gunned down by the locals after he killed some girl, but not only did he survive, he bit off his own finger and ran off. So, present day, a group of clueless morons find out about this gold mine, and of course, they are warned by locals about \"The Curse of the Forty-Niner\". And what do they do? As expected, ignored the warnings and greedily sought for the gold. They get the gold, and all sorts of s**t goes on. Thankfully, (*SPOILER*) the bitch gets her head cut off.
That's about it. Looking at the cover of the film, you can tell what kind of movie it's going to be. It's just so terrible it's hilarious.
1 1/2 stars out of 5.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"