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\nFour Guys (Jacks) go into the restaurant business with a fifth Guy and lose all common sense. They allow themselves to be abused worse than textile workers at the turn of the century without simply leaving the situation. This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. I just hope I can resell this item to someone who might like it.
It is true that it holds your attention if you can let the illogical plot developments not bother you too much. It is very silly throughout however especially once a stranger enters the restaurant. Who is he? Guess.

\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 see the title \"2069 A Sex Odyssey\" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other \"80's\" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think \"80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!\" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The New Twenty\" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic \"indie\" film that pretends to be more is worse.
\"The New Twenty\" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.
THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS
From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail.
In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself.
The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes.
Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).
Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a \"Gordon Gecko\" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.
Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.
DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE
I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent.
The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.
The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.
CONCLUSION
\"The New Twenty\" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making.
\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 we're given in this trying-to-be trendy film is a \"frat-pack\" of college friends, now approaching age 30 (which we all know, of course, their generation thinks of as the \"new 20\"). Consisting of four guys and a gal, we have thrust at us the following types: seemingly \"unemployeds\" and frequent drug users, along with one individual who is job successful and one who is trying-to-be. They are all, in their own way, drifting while trying to find both a future and emotional happiness. With one, possibly two exceptions, these are people this reviewer would definitely never care to come close to modeling myself after. There is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment in almost all their lives. Except in the instance of one individual (who appears on the way to finding it), none appears headed toward emotional satisfaction in his/her life. And so, about the only sincere moment in this film is when a knock at the door brings to the person answering it an unexpected and heartfelt \"I love you.\"
With only the exceptions mentioned, these people are the kind hardly deserving or worthy of several hundred thousands of dollars being thrown away in presenting their stories.
PS--Writer/director, Johnson, definitely appears to have a problem with showing gay sexual scenes----with no such problems in presenting more prolonged and revealing heterosexual ones. Why might that be?
****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTalk about marketing. The poster/home video cover of 'The New Twenty' broadcasts a half-naked male in a \"Wolfe Video.\" For those familiar with the gay-themed movies  this broadcasts a \"must-see.\" (I loved reading one reviewer (from another site) stating they had been \"tricked\" into seeing a \"Sodomite\" movie. Are you serious? The tagline itself as the word \"gay.\" The Lord gives you eyes, yet you cannot see) That being said, despite the number of gay characters, stereotyped, no less (see: the lonely gay, the AIDS victim gay and the closeted gay) it's more about long-term friendship and characters that grow apart. In fact, if anything, there's more (here's one for Christians to complain about) heterosexual couples having sex outside of, gasp!, marriage. Not to mention backstabbing, drinking to excess and drug usage. I see this more of a made for TV-Logo or Showtime movie than big screen effort. Sure, I loved the cinematography, some of the actors could act and I always love seeing a big-group-of-friends that actually act like they've known each other for a million years. But we've see this all before. Nothing really \"new\" here. Barely an original idea  hence bringing back the same 'ole \"I have AIDS, let's deal with that\" for a good portion of the movie and boy, our friend has a serious drug problem, but let's not deal with that until it's almost too late. That's so (US) 'Queer as Folk' and 'Broken Hearts Club,' respectfully. The film deals with a group of college buddies, now grown (in size not minds) who have to eventually grow up and each trying their best while failing. Strangely, as in most of these independent movies, the most interesting, to me at least, was the heavier-set one, Ben. He stole each scene, but, again, there wasn't much to take.
\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\nSynopsis Correction: The ending does not show Ben cruising online for guys. He is looking up Arabic Language courses at The Presido Military Acadamy in San Francisco. Perhaps to Join the War in Iraq as a translator, (FYI- many of the dishonorable discharges from \"D'ont ask D'ont tell have been Translators (they are now it major short supply) Ben Also spoke Russian. This movie is a good time capsule of life in Manhatten but quite a bit of non reality here. Mostly a good laugh at Lame social skills and the sad portrayal of \"Grown up\" twenty somethings not developing beyond the college party mode. Also a brief study of the always changing scene in Manhatten.(somehow it Always stays close to the edge of the same B.S.)
Watch together the films \"Englishman in New York\"\" and the \"The New Twenty\" Both good for Nostalgia. I think the movie \"twenty\" shows how far the blur between gay and straight as evolved.
These two films are GAY Time Travel For Sure!!!!ENJOY
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUgh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.
Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.
Save your time and money, and skip this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nimagine if you took the Christ myth, mixed it with a healthy dose of porn, against a backdrop of bad sci-fi blackxploitation(brotha from another planet like) throw in a dash of after school special, and lots of really bad kung fu fighting. oh and some decent break dancing. with an awesome casio keyboard soundtrack.
and some how they make this even worse than you could imagine. there are at least 4 rape scenes, at least one great car explosion, a buff black guy running around in his undies with an Uzi.
add alcohol and this is the perfect movie.
i mean lots and lots and lots of alcohol
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film almost gave me a nervous breakdown. When I was recovering from appendicitis a few years ago, I had just started teaching in secondary (high) school. The whole teaching business was all a bit nervewracking for a beginner, but to mentally prepare myself for going back into the classroom I decided to watch some rather awful films. The Flintstones was one of the films that I chose, and then I put \"King Of The Streets\" (the UK title of 'Alien Warrior') on. Just before it finished I found myself almost in tears at the sheer waste of it all...my life, the film stock, the £2 I had paid for it a couple of weeks ago in the Blockbuster ex rental section, the time it must have taken to print the sleeve art, the effort of the editors and musicians involved in the soundtrack (as negligable as their efforts were)...the list goes on.
I love bad films. Let me make this perfectly clear - I LOVE watching crappy films from Blockbusters. Me and my mate Dan used to sit and watch many, many cheapjack horrors and laugh at them. But this was a different type of crappy film. I don't think that anything has come close to this, not even Tobe Hooper's \"Death Trap\" (which is probably my second worst film in the world). The whole making a car from abandoned parts section nearly killed me; the repetition of music at any available opportunity, regardless of on-screen events; the whole.... AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I can't even carry on with this 'critical' dissection, as my gag reflex has started. The futility of that film, even now, three years after I watched it for the first and last time, still renders me speechless (but I am still able to type). The whole \"making a car from odd parts\" section had me contemplating horrible things.
I implore you, if you are interested in watching this film, just gaze at the cover of the video and imagine the worst possible version of the story synopsis on the back. I can almost guarantee that it won't be even half as bad as this film actually is. Don't, under any circumstances, contemplate actually watching it for any reason whatsoever. Not if you are a Christian and you want to see a Christ allegory; not if you are a bad movie afictionado and you want to experience the true nadir of trash; not even if you want your life to seem longer (and believe me, every second that this film runs seems like at least a minute). Make no mistake about it, this film is unholy. It is the antichrist in video form. As Bo Cattlett in Get Shorty said: \"I've seen better film on teeth\".
\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\nHargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is a perfect example that a movie can not be successful with a high budget alone. It's obvious that there was a lot of time and effort dedicated into this: the animation is fluid, detailed and superb- the soundtrack isn't too memorable except for the ending song by Celine Dion (at least I think it was her). The musical score is powerful full orchestra material. Kudos to the animators and music composers! 9/10. However, the story and characters fall flat. It feels very 'been there, done that', predictable and plain uninteresting. The characters have distinct personalities but nothing too likable. They annoyed me to no end. I tried really hard to like this, but I didn't care about the story- it was cliché action-adventure plot. There were 'jokes' that weren't funny. It was vomit inducing predictable from start to end. The dialogue was cliché and awful- especially the last line \"It's not ... that gives you wings, it's love!\" Whatever it was, I remember cringing. I was wishing it would hurry up and finish. I wasn't the only one either- the people I went with thought it was boring. Please watch the Asterix and Obelix Cleopatra film if you're going to watch any. This was a waste of time.
\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 Asterix is very similar to modern Disney cartoons. Soulless, technically good and the usual in-jokes for adults. Maybe it's because this is the first cartoon I watched after Laputa: Castle in the Sky, but it was quite disappointing.
The plot is contrived and forgettable but it involves Asterix and Obelix going to the Viking's territory to rescue a spoilt teenager who then learns humility and finds love as well. Oh and initially they don't get on but after facing adversity they all share a deep bond of friendship... yadda yadda.
The best bit is to watch out for the little jokes. The Vikings get all the best ones. Such as Vikea (the Viking's chief's wife) giving a list of furniture and skulls to bring back from the next raid. Or the Vikings not knowing the meaning of mercy (literally). Oh, and Olaf the dumbest Viking is actually hilarious (as much for the voice acting as the dialogue).
For example, aboard the Viking ship: (After a speech by Abba, the captain's daughter) Olaf: Who is this new guy? Captain: That's my daughter, cod-brain! Olaf: Your... daughter's... a man?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...
Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).
Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 / TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.
Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a \"cool guy\" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move!
\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've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home.
\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\nDanny De Vito shows us here he is definitely, indeed infinitely, a better on screen performer than off. He plays the part of Owen, a miserable would-be writer with a cranky old mother (delightfully played by Anne Ramsey) he would like to see dead. Billy Crystal is Larry, a very frustrated writing teacher who has an estranged wife he feels the same way about. So Owen, after viewing Hitchcock's \"Strangers on a Train\", suggests they swap murders.
As director though, De Vito's control is inconsistent as he wastes this clever idea, while his film lurches from the very humorous to the very bland. He and Crystal are okay in the lead roles, but the show belongs to Anne Ramsey as the cantankerous Mrs. Lift.
Saturday, June 20, 1992 - Video
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a comedy version of \"Strangers on a Train\". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the \"moma\" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.
\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\nLeonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film derives from a Long Running ITV sitcom by the same name.The Sitcom lasted for half a decade roughly and brought to our screens Rigsby,Phillip,Alan,Mrs Jones & Vienna.
Then in 1980 The film version hit the Cinemas.Now when it did,sadly Richard Beckinsale had passed away & was replaced by Only when i laugh actor Chris Strauli.
I myself felt this gave the film a different feel.I would have preferred if it wasn't shot as Richard was a key character.Thats like having the porridge film without Godber or Mackay!
The Film did have some classics moments definitely but it felt a bit De-Ja-Vu! Many parts were seen before in the TV Series. Now if you saw the movie first rather than the Series you would get a different feeling about it then the series fan!
Saying that Leonard is definitely on top form and makes the movie,just like in the TV series.The Film has recently had a new lease of life on DVD and is usually on Terrestrial over a quiet weekend.It is a cracking good film,but for Rigsby fans you may feel that youv'e seen it similarly before.
Saying that though its worth a buying/watching
7.8/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.
Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.
As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.
Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.
On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.
When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste.
\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\nDoesn't this seem somewhat familiar? Oh wait, that's right.. 90% of the jokes in this movie have already been done in the TV series. What's the point in repeating yourself, you may ask? Is it for the benefit of the Americans who haven't seen the programme? Did the scriptwriters run out of inspiration? Or maybe everyone on set suffered a sudden attack of amnesia, and forgot they'd covered this ground already? Either way, for someone who has sat through the first three series, this was just really boring. I had to turn it off during the 'tablets that turn your water green' part.. yes it is very funny, but give us something original for goodness sake! Actually, if the best new stuff you can come up with is Leonard Rossiter's take on Saturday Night Fever, you can forget it.
The guy they got to replace the late Richard Beckinsale is a lookalike alright, but not half the actor. Personally I would exorcised the role, as a mark of respect to him. Or better yet, not bothered making the film at all, and just let the hilarity of the TV series speak for itself. But no, they couldn't do that.. not as long as there was money to be made. Sad, really. 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\nno way out 2007 was a really bad and if it is the road to wrestlemania they choose the wrong road.
Chris Benoit & the hardy boys def MVP & Minn: in my view this was the best match of the night some good wrestling here but not much. 7/10
cruisweight championship open(which chavo Guerrero won): awful, no high flying at all, really quick and boring. 3/10
little bastard & Finlay def little bogeyman & the bogeyman: this was more comedy than wrestling, some laughs. 5/10
Kane def king booker: a decent effort by these two but they could do better. 6/10
wwe tag team championship Paul London & Brian Kendrick def deuce & domino:another boring match,no high flying by the champs. 4/10
ecw world title Mr Kennedy def bobby lashley (disquilification): in my mind the worst match of the night. truly awful.i thought ecw was no rules,i was wrong 2/10
john cena & Shawn Michaels def Batista & the undertaker: an okay match but could have been a hell of a lot better. 6/10
overall this was bulls*it id give it a 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\nA good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to \"plot\" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the \"bad\" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean.
\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\"TNT Jackson\" isn't completely unwatchable. But either the version I saw on DVD was edited with a weed-whacker, or the screenplay itself is the lowest level of grind-house/blaxploitation sausage. Or maybe both.
Jeanne Bell is supposed to have been a Playmate at one point in her career,and the movie makes the most of the connection by displaying her breasts at least two times more than was really necessary (including a hilarious topless fight scene that I am pretty sure was meant to be funny). I will admit, they are quite nice. Still, she's sort of average looking and doesn't have the charisma of a Foxy Brown, of even a Cleopatra Jones. She does have her moments as an actress in the film, though, but it would have been nice if the director had pushed her a little harder or the screenplay had given her a chance to do more than emote \"attitude\" and kick people.
Speaking of kicking people, the fight scenes (the other putative reason to watch a film like this) are pretty poorly done.There's no real choreography to speak of here, just people posing and sticking feet and fists in the general direction of their opponents. One minor exception is a nice moment with an opponent equipped with butterfly folding knives; another is a sequence near the very end where an obvious stunt double for Bell (and maybe for Stan Shaw) leap around and do some decent sweeps and groundwork for a minute or two before Bell/\"Jackson\" punches her enemy's liver out, Shaw collapses and the screenplay just stops. (Again, I will admit that this is very much in the tradition of Shaw Brother quickies since time immemorial).
There are a couple of supporting actors who are actually better than the film deserves (I'm thinking of \"Joe\" and the fellow playing the drug lord's right hand man). There's a halfway decent funk laden soundtrack that complements the action on the screen and add a star to the rating by itself. There's a semi-dodgy sex scene that manages to be effective almost in spite of itself.
This one is strictly for hardcore fans of blaxploitation. I saw it out of sheer curiosity, and I'm not sorry I took the time. But I can't imagine wanting to take the time to see it again unless I decide to write a dissertation on the pop culture intersections of \"Kung Fu Theater\" and \"Foxy Brown\".
\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 young woman nicknamed \"T.N.T.\" for being virtual dynamite in a fight and a knockout in terms of looks to boot, goes to the most lawless part of Hong Kong in search of her missing brother Stag Jackson. When she learns he has been murdered, she decides she will bring the killer to justice in a fashion only she can.
Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, there's really nothing wrong with the basic premise as a starting base for a martial arts/blaxploitation action thriller, which is what this aims to be. The leads actually prove pretty good too with Jeanne Bell fitting nicely into the role of \"T.N.T.\" and Stan Shaw doing well as the ambitious, power-hungry Charlie. Where this fails miserably is in terms of the fighting action it offers up. The fight scenes are totally and completely unconvincing and/or sometimes so completely over the top it reaches the point of ridiculousness which doesn't at all help when the basic focus of your movie is a Kung Fu action heroine. Also the poor lighting, actors sporting accents making them hard to understand, the confusing camera-work and the sometimes poor sound doesn't help this obvious low budget effort out either any. This does deliver in one area which may delight some fans, it does offer up plenty of the T in \"T & A\", in fact practically every fight scene in the film is proceeded by some type of nude scene and Jeanne Bell actually does have one extended fight scene in which she is completely topless.
In the end, this fails to be something you want to revisit because the fight scenes are so pathetically, laughingly 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\nNow any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.
This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed 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 extremely bargain-basement Blaxploitation/Kung-Fu hybrid was in my country released by a questionable DVD label that usually speaking just occupies with the transfer of pure crap onto disc, so that wasn't exactly a favorable herald. Several other titles were released in the same series, like \"The Black Six\", \"The Black Gestapo\" and \"The Black Godfather\" and judging by all their low ratings and negative reviews none of these belong to the elite of the 70's Blaxploitation hype, neither. \"TNT Jackson\" is a pretty lousy film, completely lacking a significant plot but featuring far too many laughable fighting scenes and horrible acting to compensate. Apparently Roger Corman  never too embarrassed to make some easy money  assigned two of his most loyal acolytes to rapidly invent a simplistic story that would appeal to fans of both oriental Kung-Fu movies and contemporary trendy Blaxploitation flicks. The result Cirio H. Santiago and Dick Miller came up with was \"TNT Jackson\"; the tale of an arse-whooping black babe traveling to Hong Kong in search of her missing brother. She quickly discovers he was killed by a criminal network of drug-smugglers and swears to avenge him. Mrs. Jackson smoothly infiltrates into the underground and encounters macho pimps, helpful undercover agents, loads of vicious Kung-Fu fighters. Only one thing's for sure; they all want a piece of TNT's ravishing body in one way or another. I sincerely doubt movie concepts get any more elementary than this, but  unfortunately - all the other aspects suck too. The battle scenes are overlong and moreover pathetically staged. Jeannie Bell and the other poor suckers try really hard to stare menacingly and assume a tough position, but eventually all they ever do is kick in the air and stupidly leap across rooms. The cinematography is horrid, the soundtrack is vastly disappointing (whatever happened to soul music?), the few dialogs are poorly written and the acting performances are inferior. Speaking of which, Jeannie Bell is undeniably a beautiful woman, but still she can't hold a candle to Tamara Dobson or Pam Grier. There's only one really good and memorable scene in \"TNT Jackson\", namely the famous hotel room battle where Bell, entirely naked except for panties, repeatedly switches the light on and off whilst kicking the hell out of some goons. Amusing scene ... I just haven't figured out yet whether it's thanks to the light switch ingenuity or Bell's perfectly shaped breasts.
\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 cannot believe how this atrocity managed to capture the hearts and minds of a cross-section of the 'bright young things' of its era, but I'm certain I wish it hadn't. In my opinion it is an inaccurate, poorly acted, weakly scripted, pretentiously directed piece of gumpf. The brief outings to an imagined reality bludgeon any humour to death. The situations are unsubtle exaggerations which make the the already flimsy characters even more unbelievable and detestable. The romance is dull, the end is unsatisfying and ruins the only sensible drugs message in the film and the simple plot ('Withnail and I,' 'Fear and Loathing') is tested to extremes with the uninteresting motion of the film. In short this film as a blatant visual assault with no hint of skill or initiative. I condemn it to the ash heap of history and pray it stays there.
\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\nutterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The Best Movie of the 90's\" \"The Welsh Trainspotting\"....Aye, right! I went into this movie with pretty high expectations, and it was all downhill from there.
This movie was supposed to be this archetypal movie on the drug culture of the early 90's, and was going to allow us all to see inside this scene, and shatter the media's preconceptions following the moral panic which followed the death of Leah Betts in 1995. Unfortunately it has fallen a long way short.
Where Trainspotting was able to treat you like an adult on the subject, and potential problems that surround drugs, this just provided us with some schmaltzy tale of the wonder of drugs, and how it can like, you know, like totally open your mind. Cue some guff about Bill Hicks, and Howard Marks ad nausea. It is painfully bad at times. I mean, the scene at the end between Lulu and her Auntie actually made me laugh out loud.
Now maybe I am just a cynic, but the way Jip leads us through this tale is like listening to THAT Acid frazzled guy you once met at a house party, who talks to you about how \"the man\" is holding us back, and how Acid has released him from the strains of modern society. You just wanna shake some sense into him, and ask him to leave the premises.
The script was a real problem for me, because where Trainspotting had Irvine Welsh's excellent book to cite from, this is written and directed by Justin Kerrigan. The words \"Jack of all trades, master of none\" come to mind. You can see where his inspiration comes from, particularly in the style of narration from main character Jip (which sets the main character in a social situation where he speaks directly to the camera, and outlines what is going through his mind as the scenario plays out) The problem with this is that some of the speeches to camera are just painful to watch. Mainly this comes down to a lack of empathy for Jip, but they are so desperate to sound philosophical that they just end up sounding like your average A-Level drama project. The direction is fine, and the intentions are good, but it is so lacking in any integrity that you start to wonder what the hype is about.
Saying that though, it is not all bad. There are moments which are genuinely very amusing, and entertaining. Moff is the highlight of the movie for me. For an independent movie it also managed to attract a high numbers of quality British actors/actresses, which maybe outlines why there was such a buzz about the movie.
Best movie of the 90's? Not by a long shot, but if you're looking for a solid Sunday night movie, then this might just be your bag. Inevitably though, the movie is flawed by the hype that surrounds it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf I wouldn't have had any expectations of this film, it might have received a 5 or 6. As it stands, I give it a 3. The acting is poor, the factual accuracy of the drugs it discusses is lacking, and I feel no empathy whatsoever for the characters.
I watched 'Adam & Paul' immediately before watching this film, and I both laughed and cried on several occasions. This film did not strike even a similar chord. The directors of 'Human Traffic' may have some off-hand experience of ecstasy, but there is no demonstration of actual drug-related semantic knowledge here. In fact, I find it rather offensive and contraproductive to the strife of making current drug laws less politically oriented.
Watch 'Requiem for a Dream' if what you're looking for is an amazing, touching film about drugs.
\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\nHuman Traffic is purely a `been there, done that' experience  only this time it's quite limp.
Major themes explored are paranoia, male impotence and jealousy  but only mildly and poorly.
A lot of the movie seems to want to imitate Trainspotting (drug / `clubbing' culture)  but it fails to include the low times / come-downs that Trainspotting deals with (eg: issues with death / dependence, etc). It even tries to come up with a similar monologue to Ewan McGreggor's classic `Choose Life' speech  but `The Milky Bars are on me! Yeah!'  what the fudge is that all about?!
The characters try to analyse their lifestyle but when their lifestyle is so shallow  their analysis becomes boring and repetitious.
The soundtrack (for a movie that is trying to be cool) is pathetic. It includes the likes of Fat Boy Slim and CJ Bolland  come on people  good dance music IS be better than this!
The characters become grating and annoying (especially half way through the movie) and the lack of care-for-the-characters soon dawns.
There are a couple of funny scenes  but they are few and far between. The mother catching the son in the bedroom was quite amusing.
But PLEASE  I'm sick to death of the Star Wars analogy scenes. I thought it was much more sharper in a couple of Kevin Smith's movies (ie: Clerks and Chasing Amy). According to the characters  Yoda is a drug fiend hence that's why he is short and bald  huh?!
My score  4 out of 10  do yourself a favour and see Trainspotting or Go 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\nSaboteur was one of the few Hitchcocks I had yet to discover and I was less than half-overwhelmed. The French title \"La Cinquième colonne\" (i.e. The Fifth Column, a very evocative phrase for underground spying and sabotage organizations) set my expectations quite high as did the images of the finale on top of the Statue of Liberty.
Basically Saboteur is as much light-hearted as were The 39 steps (note this is another evocative phrase, even McGuffin as a title) but it lacks most of the humor (so the characters are rather down to earth) and it's definitely not as fast paced. As a chase movie across the USA from LA to NY Saboteur drags its feet from sequence to sequence. The sequence at the villain's lovely ranch? Lovely ranch, lovely villain but pretty tame on the whole, it doesn't really add up to nothing. The meeting with the blind man, the mixing with Circus people, the Soda City sequence, the NY ball sequence? They fall flat, bringing in more characters with very little added suspense value.
One big problem I can point out is the relationship between the leads Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane which is not building up as with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in The 39 steps. Hence the whole narrative structure is floating, depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. In The 39 steps it was clearly scripted as 1/escaping from the police (so you know the hero can't just go to the police) then 2/running for his life and after the villains to prove his innocence.
If you want a better Hitchcock from the 40s wartime propaganda I would advise you to chose Foreign Correspondant over Saboteur. They are both chase movies with a catchy finale, well really a gripping one and not just sightseeing in Foreign Correspondant as well as beautifully efficient scenes (the umbrella crowd, the tulip fields, the strange mills...).
\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\nRarely will anyone deny that Hitchcock remains one of the most creative, inventive and prolific directors of all time, because he is arguably all of these things. It takes true genius to scare generations of film goers out of taking showers and wearing neck ties. Saboteur, however, is not creative or prolific at all. Rather, Hitchcock set out with the soul intention of creating a film to muster \"American Pride,\" a certain call-to-arms, support-our-troops title which was a popular theme of the time. With that in mind, Hitchcock severely underplayed other important aspects of the film, including but not limited to a logical plot, characterization, believable dialog, and a fluent, running storyline.
Typically Hitchcock does great with espionage films, only a few years earlier achieving cinematic greatness with The Foreign Corespondant and The 39 Steps, but seemingly lost his stride in creating Saboteur and merely recycled the same once-thrilling story lines both his previous excursions readily provided. Without going into any great depth here is a list of a few of this films major problems:
1. Despite having his face plastered on every newspaper across America, the only person who recognizes Kane is blind.
2. At the dinner party, Kane and Patricia don't want to run for the door because the bad guys might grab them and tell the party they were \"gate crashers.\" Logically, what prevents the spies from grabbing them and saying this at any point during the evening? Besides, does anyone need to be reminded Kane is a wanted terrorist?
3. Since when can a fan belt cut through handcuffs?
4. Nobody recognizes him...his face is on EVERY NEWSPAPER!!!
5. The spies catch up with Kane in the ghost town and assume he's the man Freeman sent to work with them...shouldn't't he have some sort of credentials? I know spies don't run around with name tags and photo IDs but a secret handshake maybe?
6. Cop picks up Kane escaping from Freeman's house, still seems no one recognizes this guy.
7. How exactly does the FBI come to believe Kane with no evidence? They don't even show Kane talking to the FBI, the scene simply fades in and we are forced to assume everything is now kosher.
8. When the cops search the Carnival Caravan how do they know Kane is now with a woman? The blind man believed Kane's story thus logically would not have reported his daughter missing, kidnapped, or even more importantly running with Kane. Why does this movie not employ logic?
This is a running list. The movie is not exciting, the plot makes no sense, and the world is full of people who willingly take wanted terrorists into their homes and cars everyday because its no big thing. Hitchcock fails miserably on this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"