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\nif i could rate it a zero i would , coming from someone who likes shock/exploitation films of the time and Waters overall i must say this is useless.
It does nothing , serves nothing , an idiot with a camera and a urge to prove his cleverness by rebeling against social standards is all this comes off as.
Its entirely amateur , both in principle and execution , it doesn't have a point , its digusting for the sake of disgusting ,obscene with the wit of a neanderthal , its useless.
Someone said Waters was probably \"chuckling\" over all the bad press and disgust others gave with this film , but why? If i made a short film depicting a man in a bathroom taking a sh*t for ten minutes straight surely it would receive the same accomidations but why would i be proud or \"chuckle\" at that?
Would it be because i am so unintelligent that i have to resort to this so i can say \"HA! Take that censors and mainstream! Im so rebellious ill do whatever i want and film it!\" No.
Waters shouldn't be proud of this mess , fans of waters shouldn't watch it , its useless , that is , without any use.
Its doesn't even fit under the criteria of art for arts sake.
To like or defend this movie is to defend something that was designed purposely as being anti-culture to be pushed for the mainstream audience , in modern terms this film is the Hot Topic of films.
Useless and Obsolete. A Poser film that demands it be acknowledged as rebellion .
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have seen most of John Waters' films. With the exception of several of his very early ones which are not available, I have actually seen just about all of them, so it's obvious I am a big fan and it's certain that I have a high tolerance for the gross and irreverent in his films. While way over the top and disgusting, I adored FEMALE TROUBLE and POLYESTER--two monumental tributes to bad taste and excess that are seriously funny films. So I am certainly NOT squeamish and can take most of what Waters has to offer. However, in PINK FLAMINGOS he has created a film so repellent, so unfunny and so offensive that I couldn't even stand it. In his other films he made before he became more mainstream, they were funny. Yet here, the humor just isn't there as it seems the intent is to shock the viewers and not entertain them in any way. I am glad that after making this film, Waters' sense of humor improved, as Divine consuming dog feces (as in this film) is shocking but not the least bit entertaining. My advice is to skip this film and just pretend it never happened and then watch his infinitely better films of the 70s and 80s.
\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 guess I was prepared after all the years of hearing about it. First heard about it from Siskel and Ebert. When they said Divine ate excrement, I had to look it up. Then a friend told me about it in 1991. She said also that her parents saw it when it first came out and that her mom almost dumped her dad over it! So by the time I caught Pink Flamingos on Sundance today, I was prepared. For the most part.
I still couldn't help but be surprised by the anal close-ups and the blowjob scene. That said, the only characters I sympathized with were Edie and the egg man. Her crying scene early in the film, though over something frivolous to normal people, actually makes me sad. Though she sure wasn't pretty, she had a cute voice. I was happy for her and the egg man, and they actually touched me.
On the other hand, the acting in this poverty-level production was not good. And as for the script, just how does John Waters come up with this stuff? Well, at least it's different.
\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 only reason I haven't given this film an awful rating is because I feel that it was such an awful film in every aspect that it deserves at the very least a 2/10; for not trying.
The plot is the least of your worries as you are slapped in the face with over the top language and scenes like 'the singing arse-hole' in a poor attempt to shock and disgust. Seen as the main aim of this film is to shock and the main body of it didn't achieve this, the final scene disgustingly manages to erase the memory of this shockingly pointless film and fulfil its aim to be the most filthy film ever.
A really low budget film, awfully acted and the dialogue is shockingly bad.
I give it 0/10 really !!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter seeing Forever Hollywood, it would be natural to want to see a John Waters film. At least, one get to say that they have joined the legions of cinema cognoscenti who have experienced the unique cinematic stylings of perhaps the best known non-mainstream director. It's worth the effort, and PF is a lot better than Eraserhead,and there is a certain campiness about his films which his followers find addicting.
\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 playing on Lifetime Movie Network last month and I decided to check it out. I watched for the first 20 minutes and then shut it off b/c I am sorry but plot holes that are integral to a movie's plot make the movie nothing but garbage.
The movie is about a woman who accidentally runs a child on a bicycle off the road, leaves to get help, returns only to find out that it's being called a hit and run and there's a hunt for the 'monster' that hurt (in the end killed) her.
This is a movie about a female in an affluent neighborhood who has 2 small grade school children and who is an active, sociable woman and yet in order for this movie to work, it needs to be believable that she does not own a CELL PHONE. Sorry, but that's complete BS especially when everyone else seems to have one - they used theirs to call 911 when they found the girl lying on the side of the road - when our lead female left the scene of the crime to go phone 911 at some payphone. When the lead female comes back, the ambulance is already at the girl's side and there is chatter about how horrible the person is who hit and left her.
Just DUMB. Sorry but I am not willing buy that this woman doesn't own a cell phone which is needed for the movie to work. Please don't insult my intelligence movie, thanks. Maybe if this took place in 1970 or 1960, I'd buy it but it's clearly a present day (1999 at the time) movie. ..but wait, if she had a cell phone, there would be no movie. Pfft.
The woman clearly knows about technology since she had computers in her house, ones the kids played games on so all the movie had to do was make her cell phone dead in the car, making her resort to another way to call the cops.. leaving out a cell phone altogether just created a ridiculous plot.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThomas Vinterbergs \"De Største Helte\" is yet another road movie without the most important element of a film: a good story. The characters are not very original and not particularly interesting. Especially Thomas Bo Larsen is a pain in the neck, playing the same role he has played in the past few years and which he repeated in \"Festen\" - it seems as if he thinks acting = being angry and screaming at other people! The film doesn't make much too sense and isn't very funny either - although it tries hard to be \"kooky\" and \"weird\". If you're going to make a road movie, why not add something original to the genre?!
\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 DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.
Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.
Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.
Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n(Spoilers) \"Cash Crop\" goes something like this. Down-on-their-luck farmers grow pot to make ends meet. DEA agent blows into town. Farmers hide the pot. DEA agent leaves town. End of story.
This flick features solid performances by some second tier actors, mediocre direction, and a so-so screenplay...but it ain't got no story. And since the story is the foundation of every drama, \"Cash Crop\" is an utter failure. Too boring to recommend.
\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 caught this on Cinemax very late at night...nothing else was on so I pretty much had no choice. Bottom line, terrible plot, slow, waste of good film and actors' time. To make it short, don't even bother with this one. It's too bad we can't give zeros as a rating; this one really is not worth even a consideration!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is beyond me why two million Danish people each week sit down to watch this terrible show. The dialogue is terrible and not realistic. The characters are hollow and simplistic. There's a tough man, a tough woman and a sensitive man. The writers actually say that they have modeled the characters after Greek mythology! Give me a break! All the characters are of course brilliant policemen. When I have watched this show I have longed for \"District Hill Street\" and \"NYPD Blue\". These are brilliant shows, and \"Rejseholdet\" is a lousy copy. This program is a symptom of the disease Danish television is currently suffering 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\nWings Hauser and son, Cole Hauser team up to make a film about Neo-nazi thugs targeting a gay man, and terrorising a city. Wings plays the hero, and his real-life son is the villain. Fairly low-budget film that has not many redeeming features, and for some reason, no one has seen it! Perhaps because it is quite a laughable and ridiculous film, and the studio realised this! Maybe Wings Hauser himself prevented the distribution of 'Skins', after seeing it himself! Maybe people just didn't want to comment on such a bad film! Oh well! I generally like Wings and Cole as actors, but this was a film that they both should have skipped. Wings directed, wrote and was the lead actor in 'Skins'! An extremely bad and stupid film! 1/2 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 watched this film awhile ago and the only thing i can remember about the film is how absolutely horribly outstandingly bad it was its definitely in my top 5 worst films i have ever seen.And to think i had to persuade my mates to get this film out at the video shop,my reputation has been shot to bits because of this film will my mates ever trust me again?i doubt it,they always say don't judge something by its cover,they were right when i saw the cover to skins/gang boys i thought wow this looks great as it had a load of skin heads on the front cover running riot with metal bars.Don't WATCH THIS FILM.i can't think of anything else to say the acting is bad the story is bad its just bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a big fan of The ABC Movies of the Week genre. I am only 27, meaning I wasn't even born until after the series ended, but I am trying to collect as many of them on DVD as possible. I have about a dozen or so. I had read such wonderful things about this film, both on here and elsewhere, that I was really excited to see it. I just received my DVD in the mail today and watched it anxiously. I'll admit that the first one or two phone calls did give me the creeps - that boy's voice would give anyone the creeps! But it began to ware off fast and the entire divorce subplot was stupid. I also figured out that Michael Douglas was the antagonist about a half an hour before the movie ended. As soon as that story was told about how Elizabeth Ashley's character had locked up his mother, I knew something was fishy. Plus, didn't anyone ever think to ask him why he happened to suddenly appear that night when the fire occurred in the barn? I'll admit that I thought he was coaching a boy at the school to make the phone calls. I didn't guess the mute boy part or the pre-recorded tapes (did they ever say whose voice that actually was? I doubt Douglas could ever get his voice that high?).
I am only giving this movie a four out of ten because I actually liked most of the acting in it. Ashley especially is great.
It's a shame, because this movie has such a great premise, but oh well, thats what happens sometimes when one gets his or her hopes up for a movie too 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\nAfter starting watching the re-runs of old Columbo movies, I thought they would all get about the same vote from me (6). But apparently I'm now starting to see differences in the movies. It happened in some of just previous episodes, that showed some pretty genius directing, and it shows in this one, but in the negative way.
The movie was so boring, that I sometimes found myself occupied peaking in the paper instead of watching (never happened during a Columbo movie before!), and sometimes it was so embarrassing that I had to look away. The directing seems too pretentious. The scenes with the \"oh-so-mature\" neighbour-girl are a misplace. And generally the lines and plot is weaker than the average episode. Then scene where they debated whether or not to sack the trumpeter (who falsely was accused for the murder) is pure horror, really stupid.
Some applause should be given to the \"prelude\" however. In this episode, a lot of focus is given on how the murderer tries to secure his alibi and hide the evidence etc. I really liked that. But alas, no focus on how Columbo reveals all this. And the \"proof\" that in the end leaves Columbo victorious is the silliest ever.
Rating: lies between 4 and 5
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter a snowstorm, the roads are blocked and the highway patrolman Jason (Adam Beach) comes to the diner of his friend Fritz (Jurgen Prochnow) and advises his clients that they will only be able to follow their trips on the next day. Among the weird strangers, Jason meets his former sweetheart Nancy (Rose McGowan), who has just left her husband in Los Angeles. Along the night, without any communication with his base, Jason faces distressful and suspicious situations with the clients, and finds some corpses, indicating that among them there is a killer.
\"The Last Stop\" could be an average thriller, but the screenplay is simply awful. Most of the characters are despicable persons and the motives of the surprising serial killer are never disclosed, and the viewers have no further explanation why the killer decided to kill the guests. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): \"Encurralados\" (\"Trapped\")
\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 movie while surfing through infomercials and late-night 80's sitcoms on tv one night at 2 in the morning. I must say, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. Although Rose McGowan is hot, her performance and the performance of the rest of the cast was not Oscar-worthy, to say the least. This movie has its ups and downs, and does have a nice couple of twists at the end, but in all honesty it was awful. Not even a typical slasher movie. No gore, no sex, no nudity, no real violence. Just bad acting. I'd give it a 3 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\nPut the film down and back slowly away. The acting rivals a highschool play, the plot is treadworn, and the production values are slightly higher than community theater. The goofs are so plentiful that it becomes a laugher. Rooms are switched around, the dead move, dogs are used for wolves, men shot point blank with .45 caliber pistols are able to walk and ride snowmobiles, blouses button and unbutton without human touch... this is a baaaaaaaaaddddddd movie. I nearly passed out when I saw the average rating. There is no accounting for taste. BTW, there is no nudity.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis attempt at a \"thriller\" would have no substance at all! Some may state that this movie \"has it all?\" Autism, arson, robbery, lost love, a bag of money, cut throats, murder, blood, a snub nosed revolver, clenched teeth groaning, boobs (various definitions can be used), large flashlights, tribal people, a brother duo attempting to out-portray \"dumb and dumber,\" white wolves, fight scenes that resemble \"happy slapping,\" snow mobile(s), a large tracked vehicle, and a motel under renovation? All this, with an \"Enyanesque\" melody toward the end ...
Perhaps my rating is a bit harsh, but one viewing will certainly be enough for the sane cinemaphile with nothing else to do.
Yeowza!
\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\nBette Midler is the best thing about this movie. It is a POOR second to the original from 1962 with Natalie Wood as Gypsy. The songs were done much better in the original and the costumes were better. Bette's voice was great and she looked better in most of the costumes compared to Cynthia Gibb. Only someone who has not seen the original would think this a good movie.
There was not enough of a change between ugly duckling to beautiful girl. When Natalie Wood was Gypsy she only was seen as beautiful when she got into the dress with her gloves for the first time to perform in the burlesque show. When she has her hair down and then magically it is all done up beautifully and she looks so elegant, it is an important aspect to the movie because it is also the first time Gypsy sees herself as something special and that she might actually be a star, not just a poor substitute to her sister. And the scenes where she slowly becomes more famous were rushed through. It was an important part of the movie and they butchered it. It is critical to show her becoming more comfortable with her future as a stripper and the costumes are amazing in these scenes in the original. It was a huge let down to watch it unfold in this movie. I was completely disappointed and had it not been for Bette Midler I would have shut the movie off.
\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\nSuch a highly-anticipated remake of a cherished musical classic and such a bitter pill it was to have to take. Very, very hard to swallow...all of it. It didn't have an ounce of believability anywhere. And when you don't have a Rose, you don't have a show.
Bette Midler seemed born to play this part. Yet, all she was able to produce was a cute, funny, glitzy, trademark Bette Midler...weighed down with all the familiar Midlerisms. Roz Russell has nothing to worry about. She can rest in her grave knowing she is still the definitive Mama Rose (of film, anyway).
I thought Midler was really going to put it across this time...to throw herself into what is one of the greatest musical roles of all time...like she did in \"The Rose.\" But, no, she played it safe. She played herself. She made Rose a total dinner-theatre cartoon. Even her songs were uninspired. It was maddening to watch, knowing Midler has the talent to rise above her money-making schtick. She showed promise only once in this \"Gypsy\" and that was with \"Rose's Turn.\" But, by then it was too little, too late.
A sincere Cynthia Gibb as the titular heroine gave the film its only true spark and when the role of Gypsy outshines that of Rose, you know there's trouble in River City.
A huge, huge letdown.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film was disappointing. I saw it on Broadway with Bernadette Peters and she was outstanding. Maybe as she, herself graps on to the end of her musical career, her condtion of desperatation lands her in role that she flaunts, re-invents and triumps as her own. Bette's singing is always belted, always flat and lacking to show her ability as an actress. To be entertaining, this performance was dying for a stronger lead and a stronger cast, so that the others would be memorable in Bette's absence. Another criticism: she smiles directly into the camera every time she start singing! I know it is musical theater, but please leave some grace sociale-- Middler cannot perform like Liza or Streisand might in a retrospective tour - out of character and out of context.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLet me start by saying how much I love the TV series. The nature of class war was always going to be a subject worthy of poking fun at, but this TV series exploits it better than most. The chemistry between Yootha Joyce and Brian Murphy was always electrifying and the writers wrote almost entirely flawless episodes every time. In my opinion, it is the best British sitcom of the mid to late-1970s, surpassing the likes of RISING DAMP, ROBIN'S NEST, ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and so on. With the ON THE BUSES series having finished a few years earlier, GEORGE AND MILDRED became the next pride and joy of ITV (or ITV 1 as it's now known), enjoying a four-year run on the channel.
The movie however is absolutely terrible in almost every respect. The general essence of the TV series has almost entirely been stripped by the writers of this abysmal movie (who anyone will immediately notice are not the same ones who worked on the series). As one commenter has already pointed out, Mildred lacks the sharpness she had on the TV series and does not come across as anywhere near as overbearing.
The plot, instead of focusing on the class war with the Fourmiles that was the very foundation of the TV series, actually writes out the Fourmiles almost entirely after the first half-hour. The plot, if you can call it that, consists of George and Mildred going on holiday to some hotel and getting mixed up with gangsters. First rate talent in the form of Stratford Johns, Kenneth Cope, David Barry and Sue Bond are all wasted here. Most of these are well past their heyday and all of them look very embarrassed as if they very well know that the only thing worth hanging around for is a paycheck (which probably won't be much).
The jokes and gags in the movie (if you can call them that) rely heavily upon traditional British farce, including mistaken identities, embarrassing situations, poorly-timed slapstick, characters losing control of what is happening to them and general confusion. And it all fails miserably. As another commenter has pointed out, it seems as though the writers of this movie have never seen an episode of the TV series and instead crafted out a something resembling a CARRY ON romp. The scene where George is stripped down by Sue Bond's character is particularly out of context.
A mystery surrounding this movie is the BBFC certification provided - 15. Just why is it rated 15 when all there is to see is harmless, non-vulgar entertainment?
Not surprisingly the era of sitcom spin-of came to an end not long after this movie was released (shortly after the sad death of Yootha Joyce). And the company behind this movie, Hammer, well known for producing first rate horror movies back in the 1950s to mid 1970s, soon disappeared into total obscurity.
All in all, the movie is a near total washout. My advice - skip this and stick to the TV series. You won't be missing anything, I assure you.
\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\nGeorge & Mildred - The Movie lacks the talents of its TV writer John Mortimer who brings the close quarter cut and thrust of George's class war with the Fourmiles alive.
The plot is cut from standard spin-off cloth - hit-man/mistaken identity - and has as little tension as there are laughs. The producers should have taken a leaf from Rising Damp, (also 1980)which was also bought to the big screen after the TV series demise, and kept much of the story in familiar setting.
Yootha Joyce died in 1980 but she should not be remembered for this creaking piece of work encumbered as she was by her illness. Mildred lacks the sharpness of her TV incarnation; cutting asides and withering looks largely directed at Georges lack of libido. George's sputtering incredulity also gets lost in the more expansive sets. This is not to say that they were much to shout about. The budget for this movies looks pathetically small; a restaurant they go to is clearly a new semi-starched house with some Christmas lights adorning the front door.
For fans of 70's British comedy or those who just want to revisit an old TV companion from their youth this film can add nothing to the experience and they should just stick to the first four TV series out now on DVD.
\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\nGeorge and Mildred is a truly unfunny film. This attempt to translate the successful TV series to the big screen was a dismal failure, as is so often the case.
The wit and clever one-liners from the TV shows have gone missing. The plot is a typical English farce of confused characters and mistaken identities, which is neither funny enough nor weird enough to provoke many decent laughs.
Die-hard George and Mildred fans might want to see this final episode of the pair's output (Mildred died of hepatitis before the film was released), but others should invest their time more wisely.
\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\nG&M started a the odd couple downstairs in Man About the House and went on to amusing the nation in their own sitcom.
What was the typical small-scale personal charm of the couples chemistry on the small screen, G&M's transferral to the big screen was as appalling as genuis's Morcombe and Wise, and countless fine TV shows.
Unfunny. Unsatisfying and featuring an ill Yootha Joyce who died before the film was released.
\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\nGEORGE AND MILDRED was a spin off from the mid 1970s sit-com MAN ABOUT THE HOUSE . Though I haven't seen the series since it was last broadcast I do remember it being fairly amusing with most of the comedy arising from the eponymous couple going to live beside the snobbish Fourmile family , a sort of LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR without the cynical racist gags .
Having seen this \" big screen version of the show \" I find myself asking what it's a big screen version of ? Certainly not of a popular mid 70s sit com of the same name . For some reason the movie jettisons all character interaction from the television by having George and Mildred leaving the street where they live behind and getting caught up in a plot involving some serious gangsters who want something George has inadvertently picked up and which leads to some cringe making situations and lines like:
\" Did he give it to you \"
\" No that's the first time a man has resisted my charms \"
\" I meant the envelope \"
You do get the impression that screenwriter Dick Sharples ( Who never wrote an episode for the original sit-com ) has never seen an episode of the source material and has got the show confused with the CARRY ON series of films . In many ways it resembles the same mistakes of the latter LOST IN SPACE movie in that it has absolutely nothing in common with the series that spawned 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 adaption contains two parts:
1. The \"now\" time, when Gulliver is at home in England and soon is put into a mental asylum by the Evil Dr. Bates
2. The \"described\" time, in which Gulliver describes his travels.
The times are interspersed with a very choppy tempo, which makes willing suspense of disbelief far more difficult than it would have been if the movie simply would have discarded that part, and followed the book as written. In the book, there is no Dr. Bates, no asylum, and Mrs Gulliver gets very little mention. The travels - in plural - are depicted as one in the movie. There are several movies covering the topic of sane people dumped into asylum by some nasty person out there, look at them if you want that stuff. The \"now\" time part adds absolutely nothing to the story's value, is a complete invention by the movie adapters, and takes valuable time from the real story. All the time when this was going on I was longing for the next bit of real travel to be shown.
So much for the drawbacks. The parts which actually are part of the real story are well done, and the CGI is really well done for its time. Many small (and a few medium-sized) parts of the real travels are simply cut out, but that does not make the story halt. This is AFAIK the only version which depicts all four travels, and for that the movie should get special mention.
The two interspersed parts get approximately equal time. I rate the first part 0 out of 10, and the actual travel coverage as 8/10. Averaging out, I give it a 4/10. If only they would have cut the rubbish and focused 99% on the actual travels, since that cut would have freed up a lot of time much better spent on filling in the details cut from the travels.
Why some adapter think that he is gifted enough to improve upon Swift's work, I do not know. My best guess is that CGI was so costly back in 1996 so that the movie company felt a need to incorporate a lot of filler which did not need elaborate sets, GCI, etc. in order to keep total costs under some limit, while at the same time producing a mini-series which clocked in at some set number of minutes.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBy strange coincidence I've started to watch this move straight after Brice de Nice and the good thing was that not many movies could be worst than Brice de Nice, so I was really looking forward for something better which would make me forget this horrible flop.
Unfortunately OSS-117 again left me disappointed - I don't know, maybe it's just problem with translations, but since \"Diner de Cons\" I haven't seen ANY French comedy that I would call really good. Even when I look at the reviews on IMDb only people from France are giving the OSS-117 high notes...
For me this movie didn't really work - in some parts is as funny as real Bond movies, in others jokes were a little bit too predictable or too corny.
\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 plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...
The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....
And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.
Let's just hope \"Phone Booth\" will be a better effort...
\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\nEdge Vs. Michaels-Boring in general (loved the sweet chin music into the chair) 4/10 Taker Vs. Heidenreich-One of the worst matches I've seen, predictable as hell 1/10 Tripe Threat WWE match-Why do I watch them, nobody ever wins a championship at the rumble, its not the main event. Liked it when Show drove JBL through the wall. 3/10 World Heavyweight Championship-Pretty OK match, kind of more a beat-down by Tripe H than a match, but I was happy to see it after watching crap. 5/10 Royal Rumble-Good Rumble,Liked the brand showdown,the Hassan thing, and the end. 7/10 Overall still crap. Why does anyone watch the rumble???
\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\nOK, so it's a silly movie, but I think they knew that when they made it. And there are some neat little twists on the otherwise tired, overdone \"Godzilla\"-type genre. Borrowed a tape just because I knew someone in it, but I did loan it out to a couple pals, who also kinda liked 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\nAliens let lose a giant monster named Zarkorr, then send down a hologram that looks your average stupid teenage girl to tell postman, Tommy Ward (Rhys Pugh, in the only movie you ever see him in) that has been chosen to fight. Also if he loses the plant goes doom, so he goes off to fight Zarkorr the Invader! This movie is bad, very bad. So bad it you need negative numbers just to gave it a rattan. Horridly written, bad directing, way below Power Rangers over-the-top wooden acting that you're just whiting for a horde of Lumberjacks to come out of no where and cut them down! And don't get me started on the theme song at the end. The people who made this stemming pall of S$@# should not be aloud near a camera or any thing to do with films. Zarkorr is a cool looking monster that should have been in a movie a million times better than this one. Do your self a favour and don't see this movie, it's 80 or so minute of life. The actors that are in this never worked again by way.
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\nZarkorr is one bad movie. This doesn't even rate in the so bad its good category. It's just bad. From the (lack of) set design to the acting to the special effects, everything about this movie stinks. For starters, the film looks like it was filmed in just empty rooms with a couple of props thrown in to make it look good. Then we get acting that is so bad that it makes a high school play look like it was an Oscar candidate. And to top it all off, there's the special effects that are so bad that they look like an amateur pulled them off in their garage. The towns that the monster is supposedly crushing look like my nephew's train set. So obviously fake that they scream out at the viewer. The only good thing about the movie is the monster suit. Its just too bad that they spent all their budget on that and left nothing for the rest of the film. And maybe a decent script would have helped too.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is an utterly forgettable picture. A friend of mine picked it up in a bargain bin at a local rental place for $.50. He should have demanded a refund. Or at least a discount.
The plot is something like this: A giant monster threatens the earth and aliens decide that the most average human being on the planet must be chosen to save the earth. Thus a tiny holographic space alien appears before a postal worker and tells him that he's \"it.\"
The devil is in the details when it's time to rate a movie, and on that count Zarkorr! The Invader fails miserably. The monster Zarkorr only has a few brief moments on the screen, totaling maybe 5 minutes tops (with a generous estimate). The cute alien hologram has even less screen time and might be the most interesting character to look at, and only because she's wearing a \"teeny bopper\" stereotype outfit, complete with a teasingly short pleated skirt. The climactic final battle with the monster is over before you can say \"Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.\" In the next moment you are left to ponder whether you've just experienced a train wreck or if someone just drained 3 pints of blood out of you.
Admittedly though, this movie did deliver one line that my friends and I to this day still repeat and laugh at and was about the only bright spot in this otherwise abysmal picture. As the cast of \"protagonists\" is being \"interrogated\" by the fuzz, one of them responds to the questions with the statement \"What are you, some kind of a question asker?\" It is delivered in such a preposterous manner that if you're sitting with a group of friends (who won't be your friends long if you actually talked your friend into watching this) you may actually experience a howl or two of incredulous laughter.
While this is no Manos or Eegah (It's not even bad enough to be classically bad) this movie will still bore you with its awful dialog, unimaginative characters, and nonexistent special effects and still deserves to inhabit the bottom 100.
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\nThis movie stinks. IMDb needs negative numbers in its rating system to properly evaluate this turkey. The acting is either wooden or over the top; the film was apparently NOT written by anyone in particular; and the monster scenes were mediocre at best. Even as a movie driven solely by the monster scenes, those shots were so disappointing that they could not inspire any sympathy for the rest of the movie. I want the 80 minutes of my life back that this movie stole.
\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, let me make it clear that I'm a big fan of bad sci-fi, especially when it involves gigantic, city-stomping monsters. But this one is so fantastically lame that I can't even like it for being bad. They apparently didn't shave enough money off the budget by skimping on the props (the only prop we have to indicate the size of the alien girl is an oversized novelty pencil, available at Spencer's Gifts for about fifteen bucks), they also decided not to outlay for concept or plot. The monster DOES look okay, in my opinion, but it doesn't have enough interaction with the backgrounds, i.e. not enough destruction to suit most fans of the genre. The general rule of giant monster movies is: If you don't have a lot of fake-looking buildings to smash, then you'd better have another fake-looking monster to wrestle with. This movie has neither. I can't make my final complaint about the movie without giving away the ending, but suffice to say the origin of the monster, and the method found to get rid of it, just don't hold water. Not even as well as most of these movies. Skip 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\nExplores the frontiers of extreme boredom. Life in a small Canadian town in winter as an experiment in extreme sensory deprivation. Absolutely nothing happens as viewed through the eyes of a blank, deadpan, totally uninteresting protagonist. Viewers of this film should be prepared to hallucinate in the style of \"Altered States\".
In a groundbreaking study, David Snowden found that he could predict Alzheimer's thirty years in advance by comparing the autobiographical essays of nuns as they entered the convent. Those who eventually suffered the disease wrote in simple direct prose. The essays were quiet and contemplative with little optimism or episodes of joy.
Now, why did I mention that? Perhaps , my mind begins to slowly unravel watching this interminable, autobiographical, contemplative film which shows, in simple direct style, the bleak and stoic life of a small community, living next to giant slag heaps of asbestos.
This film became popular at the height of the Quebec separatist movement because of its presentation of this community as permanently wounded victims. Tragically, its writer-director was soon diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in the early 1980s and apparently committed suicide.
\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 one for my Canadian cinema course and I was told that it was considered to be the \"best Canadian film.\" When I watched this I really did not agree, considering I've seen a lot better ones. I understand that there were Canadian themes and messages, but the fact that the characters and the plot were so disconnected with me (as a spectator) it made me not really care what the film was trying to tell me. The plot was too dry. The characters did not have many positive personality traits, but this is to emphasize the messages, not to tick off spectators. This film shows a little about the history of Quebec. Not a very interesting film; it definitely does not deserve to be put on such a high pedestal.
\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 only rented this stinker because of its relatively high ratings. It totally sucked! I cannot imagine how anyone would think this a good movie - even an OK movie. None of the characters had ANY redeeming qualities of any kind. To varying degrees they were each selfish and mean-spirited - or abused and damaged personalities who hadn't a clue about the spirit of Christmas (when this takes place!) I know Canadians and like them - but I cannot think that even THEY would think this a good movie. I'd rather a sharp stick in the eye than watch this offensive movie again. A colossal waste of time and money. Do not believe the person who wrote the opinion that it was \"worth watching.\" This person probably would enjoy having a dentist drill their teeth without anesthesia, too. Don't mean to be unkind but for the life of me I cannot imagine what this person was thinking. Unless they had ulterior motives. Maybe s/he was the director or the producer. If so, I'd like to ask them to give me back my money. If your money is important to you - save it instead of renting this piece of drek - or rent something (anything!) else. I'm running out of good reasons NOT TO rent this film. If I were Canadian I'd be ASHAMED that it's supposed to be a favorite Canadian flick. If so, I would say that those who think so are definitely in need of great quantities of powerful drugs. YECK!
\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\n1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.
The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).
And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...
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\nWell, the episode I just watched had the older \"Gastineau Girl\" whining about why people keep mentioning her husband (Mr Gastineau, a famous American Football player apparently). She seems unwilling to accept that he's the only reason she isn't flipping burgers, she married someone famous and that's why she has cameras pointed at her.
When challenged by an interviewer to explain what she actually does, she gave a wonderfully circular reason for why people should pay attention to her: \"I work really hard on my reality TV show\". Then she said \"I'm not a celebrity... I'm a personality.\"
I'm not quite sure who this series is meant to appeal to, except people who've had all their intelligence removed. It's certainly no role model to anyone except gold-diggers as the two stars do nothing but spend money, and all it tells you about rich people is that they have no money problems.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor a while it seemed like this show was on 24/7. Then apparently there was a second season or some other kind of continuation of this horrible show about the two most vapid and conceited people who have ever been filmed. All the other comments have captured the essence of these two selfish, haggish, airheads perfectly. Not much less can be said about them besides what everyone else has said.
I doubt these two ladies have souls, and more than likely they made some kind of Faustian Bargain in order to get their lizardly snouts on a television series. May the fates protect the human race from any more exposure to the Ghastly Girls!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"