empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a lover of bad movies. I own \"R.O.T.O.R.\" and \"Boa vs. Python\" and am working to build up my collection to such great titles as \"Troll 2\" and \"What's up Superdoc?\" But \"Storm Trooper\" is not even bad enough to make it to the list of wonderfully terrible movies. It's just lame. The guy who said he's had better dialogue with his potted plants has it right. Everything about this movie is stupid. When the robot guy runs into the car it seems almost as if he knew it was going to blow up, there was just no reason he would ever run in that direction. \"Judge, Jury, and Executioner,\" \"The perfect cop...but they went too far,\" I mean, come on, why do people bother making these movies anymore? R.O.T.O.R. makes it because it is hysterically awful, but Storm Trooper is just a waste of cinema because it isn't even bad enough to be so bad it's worth watching. This belongs in someone's home movies collection, something they can be sort of proud of, but that is all. I am p*ssed off it was on an HBO channel (with only 1-star, which is why I watched it) because it didn't belong there. Even if you love bad movies, do not watch this movie. It is shameful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn watching Enterprise for the first time, as we all no doubt do with all shows, I went into it with an open mind, enjoying about half of the past Star Trek efforts and disliking the other half.
Enterprise has fallen short, but this episode \"A Night In Sickbay\" made me seriously question why I bother tivoing the shows from Monday night on Sci Fi.
Masking some idea that it is one of those 'A Day In The Life' episodes, in which we learn about what makes certain characters operate as humanoids, the writers seemed to forget that this was supposed to be a starship vessel, not the Ricardoes and the Mertzes.
A planet, especially one whose people had been offended previously by the Enterprise crew (for eating in public), was no place for a dog. As an animal lover myself, I would have never taken one of my pets into an environment that had proved in the past to be tense.
But what made this episode even more ridiculous was the endless problem with all of these ST shows, constantly depicting things that are sacred and insulting to other cultures, as tho they are offering some insight into American religious zealots.
The aliens were now offended when the dog urinated on a sacred tree, yet the aliens were quite capable of taking the dog urinating as an insult.
Strange how the dog's urinating wasn't regarded as some form of worship. I wonder how that one got by the show's writers.
From there, we are subjected to a captain who was misguided by his duties. In watching the episode, I found it very easy to forget that Bakula was supposed to be the ship's captain.
He chose to sleep in sickbay and from there we are given more inanities of behavior (sigh) that we aren't supposed to understand and that causes us to furrow brows.
The doctor non-chalantly clips long, hairy toenails and feeds them to hungry caged animals. Ewwwwww! Then a white bat creature escapes.
Oh, how is anyone supposed to sleep with all of this going on! Toenail clipping, for crying out loud! I was waiting for something that feeds on vomit to be presented.
Then we were inexplicably given some idea that the captain was in love with T'pol, and that perhaps he was masking those feelings with his concern over the dog.
Endless amounts of rubbish.
\"your dog is ill, so go have sex. You'll feel better.\" And of course, the captain had to apologize and we humans had to regard his apology as completely ridiculous, because we are so (everyone smile very sarcastically) narrow-minded! Saw depictions such as this endlessly droned out on TNG.
Oddly enough, the only thing missing from this awful episode was that Trip person offering his smirks and downhome boyisms, tho Bakula seemed to be covering all of that with the silly dog.
Oh, the dog survived, so now go play fetch.
\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 thought this series was going to be another fun, action series with some dynamic plots and great performances. I was wrong. While I like Jamie Denton, this show is hardly worth watching at all, unless you enjoy watching some people brutalized and the actions of the agents supposedly warranted under the theme of \"national security.\" The show is great propaganda for the current government, and spews out jingoism as though we talk that way every day. After a couple of episodes, it was boring the hell out of me, and I started watching reruns of House Invaders on BBCAmerica instead. Rather watch CSI and Without a Trace, without a doubt.
\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 we were chosen to be tortured with this disgusting piece of blatant American propaganda. It came no wonder for me that this is admired by most American viewers and hated by Europeans. This show is made for Americans - it is too stupid and full with hatred and clichés to be admitted elsewhere. Almost everyone involved must be return to school, acting is utterly predictable and bad, script is pile of garbage all round. operator work is ground zero etc. etc.
You have been warned. It doesn't even have \"guilty pleasure\" entertainment for those brainwashed iq=0 human beings.
I wish I could enter negative values, admins? Anyone?
\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 TV show was slow moving and the 'offbeat' characters were sometimes irritating. Only through the miracle of fast forward was I able to make it through the first 2 hours.
The write-up indicates that it's some kind of comedy/mystery but I didn't see much of either.
If it really picks up after the first 2 hours, please let me know, because I doubt that I will watch the rest without a recommendation.
This review is supposed to be without spoilers so I will continue in a vague, non-spoiler, fashion. I found the two main characters uninteresting and unsympathetic. I found myself asking 'Would a normal adult do that?' The man with the hedge trimmer looking out the window was irritating and when the male lead interacted with him, he looked pathetic. Would a normal adult put up with someone as irritating as him?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAh, the classic genre of 80s sex comedies. This is set on two beaches; one a nude beach featuring myriad (fully) unclothed women. The plot? Something about a bunch of dimwits attempting to get laid. The usual. Fans of gratuitous T&A (and P) should hunt this one down.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of a rarity of movies, where instead of a bowl of popcorn one should watch it with a bottle of vodka. To be completely honest we are a group of people who actually know the man, Mo Ogrodnik, and decided to drink ourselves stupid to this film.
The cinematic aspect of Wolfgang Something's photography seems to have left out both close-ups and breasts. Mo and Wolfgang's collaborative effort revealed the passion of the two actresses, plastic peens holding passion. There's also beetle banging. As Violet would have put it: \"This (plastic peen) goes up your butt\". The rat porn and subsequent rat smashing is awesome.
Alright. So if you are still reading, let us explain who we are. Mo Ogrodnik teaches at NYU and we are a group of her students, who, finishing a film class with her, decided to get poop- faced and watch here directorial debut. She also wrote Uptown Girls. I can't tell you how much that's been hammered into our skulls. So this movie is quite the experience. At the very bottom of this post will be a drinking game we created for this movie.
About 13 minutes into this game, none of us could see straight. The sheer amount of Dido's in the first thirty minutes created enough reasons to drink to pacify an elephant.There was something secretly pleasurable about seeing two underage girls hit on a Kurt Cobain lookalike with absolutely no context, save for his mysterious scene at the convenience store where he was oh-so-naturally reading a local newspaper. Because that's what we all do. The heart-shaped glasses were delightfully derivative of Lolita. And something about that provocative scene of the nude chin-up boy suggests the director's history of homosexual pornographic experiments. We wish we were kidding.
Enough intellectual contemplation. ON TO THE DRINKING GAME! This will ensure that the viewing experience is a positive one. It's very simple, and very likely to send at least one member of your party to immediate care.
The Mo Ogrodnik/Ripe Drinking Game: 1. Every time you see anything related to pornography, take a drink. 2. Every time you see auteur Mo Ogrodnik's name appear, take a drink. 3. Sex. 4. (plastic peen) require two drinks. 5. Any time somebody points a gun at another character, take a drink. -At this point you will probably need to refill/pee pee any remaining sobriety from your body.- 6. Any time there is blood (INCLUDING \"LADY BLOOD\"), please take a sip! 7. The underused hula-hoop girl requires one drink per second. 8. Gratuitous use of the \"magic black man\" requires one drink. 9. If you can't figure out the through-line, KEEP DRINKING, Beyotch. 10. Whenever you are able to predict a line, take a drink. Trust us. It's easy.
That's it, internet! Keep drinking, and try not to get riped.
-Hawaiian Smirnoff Punch, Jr.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are so many things wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin. The story is not cohesive AT ALL. I guarantee that five minutes into the movie the average viewer will be scratching his/her head in confusion.
Here's what I remember of the movie before I was bored into unconsciousness: A quasi-abusive dad chases some pre-teen sisters through a house but turns out to be not that abusive after all. In the next scene, the girls are about 15. They're driving with their parents and hit a deer. The deer must have been explosive because their car blows up, one sister drags the other from the burning wreckage. Then, the girls are drifting in a boat on a lake and make a huge plan to go to Kentucky (??) and start a new life. In the very next scene, the girls are hitchhiking toward a military base. And what a military base it is. Actually, it's more like a hog farm converted to look like a military base with plenty of confused extras playing \"soldiers.\" The base commander's office is particularly awesome because there are random things like an AK-47 hanging on the wall and a drill sergeant hat mounted to a plaque (????) so the audience is sure to know that this is a military guy's office. Then some random dude pushing a motorcycle shows up and the base commander orders him to go \"into town\" to buy some porn mags, and to make sure the soldiers don't think that he's on the \"pink team.\" So our character takes a pickup converted to look like an army truck \"to town\" and loads up a box from a nondescript \"book store\" with a blowup doll by the front door. The girls hide in the guy's truck when he stops to gas up, and look through the porn stash to find items inside like the \"anal invader.\" I guess that's enough of the plot to scare most people away. Plot aside, the sound quality is terrible and the movie is full of cheesy attempts at symbolism, like a radio preacher talking about forbidden fruit during the scene where the \"slutty\" sister meets the main character for the first time, or how the camera lingers way too long on certain shots to try to convey a \"message\".
If you ever see this for sale or rent or whatever, stay away. It's not worth the money in either case.
\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\nThinly-cloaked retelling of the Garden-of-Eden story -- nothing new, nothing shocking, although I feel that that is what the filmmakers were going for. The idea is trite. Strong performance from Daisy Eagan, that's about it. I believed she was 13, and I was interested in her character. The rest left me cold.
\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 did attempt to capture the naive idealism that many young teenaged girls have for fun, friendship, escape, danger, sex, maturity, etc. The problem was that it failed to establish these things on every single level; which is why it failed to build a decent story around them. I couldn't follow the point of any part of this story, nor any reason why I should care.
This movie is not an exploration into pedophilia at all. It's basically about a girl being in love with her sister, and her sister being in love with the idea of \"men\". While the latter tries out her love of men, the former tries to win her sister back by \"getting even\".
The plot is weak, the characters are weak, and the reality of it all was similar to an amateur porn filmmaker (without the sexual substance).
\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, in one word, terrible. It was boring, predictable, and downright creepy. I kept waiting for it to end and when it did, I was horrified. The ending left a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least. My advice to anyone interested in movies about budding female sexuality: stay away from this movie. Movies like this give classics like Lolita a bad name.
\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\"Ripe\" is one of those awful indies which manages to get into circulation and give indies a bad name. Telling a stupidly incongruous tale of pubescent twin sisters who crawl from a firey car crash which kills their parents and then hit the road while happily shoplifting, making goo-goo eyes at some guy, and ending up on an Army post so dilapidated no Army would want it (yeah, right!). An apparent attempt at a coming of age flick, \"Ripe\" is an almost complete loser which wanders aimlessly as the players drift in and out of character finally ending clumsily with nary a shred of credibility to be found anywhere. Not recommended for anyone.
\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\nUninspired, pretty much all around. The only exceptions were a couple emotional scenes with Keena (Violet), with whose performance I was pleasantly surprised and occasionally moved. Beyond that, it ended up being little more than a bad COA flick.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf this movie had been directed by a man, he would have been jailed. While Adrian Lyne was shackled with a lawyer in the editing room to oversee the gutting of a classic piece of literature to appease the censors, and to avoid running afoul of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, a woman dumps Ripe on us and everyone applauds. Did I miss a meeting? In addition to the blatant pedophilia, this movie is utterly preposterous. Has this woman never set foot on an active military base? Has she never met a soldier? Whose army is this? The uniforms must have come from Uniforms-R-Us. Just throw on some patches, who cares? Just make sure each and every one of them has a Big Red One. There is a slight inside joke here that no doubt went over the auteur's head, but might possibly have been slipped in by whoever furnished the military vehicles. Certainly there were no military advisors. The U.S. Army does not operate slums. Temporary base camps in jungle war zones are cleaner than this. The U.S. Army does not put 14-year-old girls to work on military bases, nor allow them to use the firing ranges or training courses. There is much drama to be mined in the sexual coming-of-age of teenage girls. This movie has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.
\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 terrible. Not only is the story unbelievable, the situations the characters put themselves in are so silly, to the point where it isn't shocking. I find it sad that Daisy Eagan, star of Broadway's The Secret Garden, decided that this would be a career step. The idea is interesting, two young girls coming of age very quickly. But the sex isn't even arousing. The film is silly, the story is silly, the performances are silly, and the whole concept while interesting falls flat. I'm sure all 14 year old girls make out with guys after they've had their first period and tried to flush their panties down the toilet. Better Luck next time guys. My Scale * T-Scale *
\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\"Stick Around\" is one of the brief series of films that paired Bobby Ray with Oliver 'Babe' Hardy before Hardy's immortal teaming with Stan Laurel. Several critics have suggested that Ray and Hardy -- the gormless little man and the overbearing big man -- were a prototype for Laurel and Hardy, but that simply isn't true. Ray and Hardy play off each other well, but really aren't a team; in each of these films, Ray has more footage and is clearly meant to be the hero, while Hardy bullies him in a manner very much unlike his later \"Ollie\" character's treatment of \"Stanley\". It's very clear that the relationship between little Bobby and big Babe was inspired by earlier Chaplin films, in which the Little Tramp was bullied by huge Mack Swain or burly Eric Campbell.
However, in \"Stick Around\", Hardy sports a bowler hat that's identical to his later \"Ollie\" titfer (although with a fuller moustache), and he and Bobby -- after spending most of this movie as adversaries -- end up as drunken comrades.
Bobby is a paperhanger for the firm of Matz and Blatz, with Hardy as his boss. When the tardy Bobby tries to pretend he showed up promptly, there's some clever physical business between the two men that reminds me of a routine performed by Roscoe Arbuckle and Buster Keaton in 'The Garage'. A bit later, Bobby Ray -- whose brief acting career never firmly developed a screen persona -- performs an \"impossible\" gag that would have been inappropriate for Stan Laurel, when he pulls a long stepladder out of a much smaller toolkit.
The paperhangers go to work in a sanitarium, and there are the usual unrealistic depictions of mental illness: one resident insists on sitting on a piece of toast because he thinks he's a poached egg! There are also some howlingly racist (and tastelessly unfunny) gags involving a black man who obligingly lets the inmates crack open walnuts on top of his head. When he sees a *picture* of a lion -- not even a photograph, mind you -- he goes all cowardly as if it were an actual wild animal.
\"Stick Around\" is fairly dire. Most of the pantomime and acting is much broader than it needs to be for a slapstick comedy; even Hardy, already a very subtle actor by 1925, pongs badly with his over-acting here. There are several bad examples of shot-matching. I was impressed with one unusual camera set-up, when a fat pedestrian's face is dirtied and we see a close-up of his reflection in a hand mirror, rather than his actual face.
SPOILERS COMING. During their brief pairing, Hardy typically played Ray's boss or adversary or both; here, for once, they end up as pals. It's a nice ending, but it doesn't make up for what's really a poor film. My rating for this one is only 4 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\n\"Nicodemus\" is almost a copy of \"Red\" in the odd behavior sense, but this episode focuses on other people in Clark Kent's unpredictable life. When a poisonous flower finds it's way into Smallville Jonathan Kent is the first to be effected by it. the flower causes people to reverse their behavior and when it effects Jonathan, he becomes short tempered and violent, however Clark manages to stop him from doing anything rash until his father finally passes out. okay. so far, so good. next up is Lana. the Episode was good up to that point, for the flower causes her to attempt seducing Clark. at the last moment, he refuses her but the damage has already been done. this episode causes the wrong impressions and isn't suitable for people under the age of twenty, due to it's adult content. the first part was good, the last part (focusing on the effect the flower has on Pete) was good, but the middle that was all about Lana's alternate personality, was most defiantly not, and that ruined what could have been a brilliant Episode. I give this Episode two.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is a shame that a movie with such a good cinematography as this one had no plot to be supported by the work of Sarah Cawley (cinematography) and Adam Lichtenstein (Film Editing), and above all, no sense of what goes on in Mexico City. The movie tries to be a very realistic depiction of life in city, but it is unable to do it. It is a shame, a lot of film wasted. An American woman tries to find her brother who has been kidnaped. The first account of the story is powerful and interesting, very realistic, but it seems that there was no effort to come with a better narrative of the ordeal, especially when it comes to the issue of the attitudes of the US embassy personnel in Mexico City, when dealing with an issue like this one. Compare, as an example, with Frantic(1988), which deals with a similar issue. Something similar can be said of the role of local authorities. Compare, as an example, with Todo el Poder (1999). The movie is worth watching if you want to get a sense of the looks of the City itself, paying little or no attention to the rather weak \"plot\" and the many twists that require a rather extensive suspension of disbelief. Who is going to believe that a Mexican patrol from Mexico City is going to go all the way to catch the main characters to the Mexico-US border? And that this policeman is going to be able to use its radio from the border to Mexico City! Only the producers of this movie. It is worth mentioning that unlike Frida and other movies about Mexico at least in these one Mexicans talk Spanish.
\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\nHere is a movie that was so pedestrian for 90% of it that it had no right to become so challenging and frustrating at the end. Did the director decide to become auteur suddenly, 80% through the making of this movie? Yeesh. SPOILER ALERT Thing start out typically enough for 50's youth-gone-wild; there are drifters, good girls, bad girls, gangs, the kindly old diner manager, and the town creep. Things follow the expected path until about 15 minutes before the end, when the only likable character is killed off and the anti-hero is blamed (this would not be so unexpected if this were the main plot of the movie... but all this stuff starts happening and unravelling during the final reel! Major curve ball). Then things get weird; the kindly old codger forms a mob and beats the hero to a bloody pulp. The mere presence of the hero's friend somehow drags a confession out of the real killer - the leering, creepy town nut (which in any real universe, he'd have been the prime suspect to begin with, even if the anti-hero was found with her body).
We're left with a somewhat feeble \"happy\" ending, which is about as out of character with the rest of the movie as the events of the 10 minutes preceding it.
Even more odd is this film's insistence on playing homosexual innuendo to the hilt, but constantly presenting the two male leads as straight. Maybe this was on purpose - perhaps Bix's resistance to settling down with the girl was more because of his sexuality (which in the 50s would have to be kept quite repressed, and thus not discussed or even admitted by him) than his need to be a \"drifter\". If the director's intent was to spin this as a sexual yarn - that the drifter drifts because he feels he's an outcast sexually; that his paternal regard towards Danny is not, in fact, paternal but spousal; that his inability to remain with Carrie is rooted in a sexual revulsion that even he does not quite understand - it could have been made more clear. Instead, we get this very bizarre alchemy of homoeroticism and behavior that is completely heterosexual.
These young men sleep next to each other even when they can get some room to spread out. When Danny is propositioned (and once even in bed with a woman), Bix flips out and takes him away. Danny pays Bix's way (sure, there is another explanation for it, but it still strikes a chord every time you see Danny buy Bix's lunch). They end up living together at the end. Not since Hitchcock's \"Rope\" has homosexuality been so blatant but denied.
MST3K did the right thing by taking this one on. Aside from Jack Elam, there is little to commend the film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis one is one of those classic B movie following the exploits of 2 hobos. It's done really cheesily and Big Stupid running off one-liners like a cardboard cassanova. But Jack Elam steals every scene he's in as the creepazoid Jesse (now Jerome!). My favorite scene is the lynch mob and the dad's voice going up 10 octaves (\"You loved her?\"). Danny, Big Stupid's protege, is surprisingly stupider, but not as loathsome as our lead star. There's also a quaint scene of a guy pimping at the diner. Joyce Meadows is the sweet, naive nice gal and probably the least annoying. And those yellow ruffles (RAWR!). Oh, and booze is evil according to Mr. Stupid.
This movie's a hoot. Watch the MST cover of this and Crow's terrific Elam homage!
\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 man, named Danny, has run away from home and meets a drifter, named Bix, who agrees to tag along with Danny and watch out for him... and his money. They end up in a small town where they meet Carrie - a shy, naive girl working in her father's diner. Bix starts seeing Carrie but he plans on leaving soon (because he's a drifter, see? He's no good! Understand?). Meanwhile, the town creep, Jesse (played by a perfectly casted Jack Elam), keeps showing up at the diner and bothering Carrie. Danny keeps inadvertently picking up whores left and right (because he's loaded with money  he has almost a hundred dollars!) whom Bix has to constantly chase away (there are a lot of ambiguously gay overtones between Danny and Bix in this flick). Eventually, Bix and Danny decide to leave town but trouble is a-brewing, due to Jesse the creep.
My review of the movie itself: a terrible, dated \"Troubled Youth\" flick from the '50s.
My review of the MST3K version of the movie: I've got to say that this is one of the best episodes of MST3K ever. The riffing is dead-on, all the time. Except for the somewhat downbeat ending, this movie is easy material for Joel and the Bots, especially Danny's constant screw-ups that Bix has to rescue him from. The host segments are pretty good too, especially the segment with the `Train Song.' Hopefully, Rhino releases this episode to home video one day.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe Girl in Lovers Lane is one strange little low-budget film. On its surface, the movie tells the story of a tough drifter named Bix (Brett Halsey) who spends his time looking out for a young kid named Danny (Lowell Brown) and the girl, Carrie (Joyce Meadows), that Bix meets who would like to look out for him. Nothing overly interesting happens (Bix goes out with Carrie, Bix gets Danny out of trouble, Carrie's father drinks a lot, etc.) until about 10 minutes to go in the movie when Carrie is murdered. Her father blames Bix, pulls him out of a jail cell, and just about beats him to death. Now their roles are reversed and Danny has to save Bix.
Until I read the reviews on IMDb, I thought that maybe it was just me reading more into Bix and Danny's relationship than was really there, but I see now that I'm not alone. It was quite obvious to me early on that Bix and Danny had more of a relationship than you usually see in a movie from 1959. The homosexual nature of their relationship, while never openly expressed, is still quite obvious. Their living and sleeping arrangements, Bix's reaction to finding Danny in bed with a prostitute, Bix's inability to commit to Carrie, and that phone call at the end when Danny tells his parents he's \"brining home a friend are a few examples of moments that lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's more to their relationship than initially meets the eye. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any movies I've seen from the 50s that scream homosexual quite as loudly as this one.
As for the movie, I don't know any other way to put this  it's boring. As I wrote earlier, nothing much at all happens for 90% of the run time. The characters are dull and the actors aren't good enough to give The Girl in Lovers Lane much of a spark. The lone exception is Jack Elam. His crazy Jesse is the one character interesting enough to be worth watching. Elam had creepy down pat! But I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was with character motivation and logic. Carrie is killed and Bix is immediately blamed? What about crazy Jesse who has been stalking Carrie for probably her whole life? Anyone think to ask Jesse where he was that night? Her father has seen him bother Carrie at the diner, yet he never considers that the leering Jesse might have something to do with his daughter's death? Not a lot of logic there. And what about Jesse's confession? Danny grabs Jesse by the lapel and this is all it takes to force a confession out of Jesse? Real tough guy, huh? Why would he confess so easily? And after he confesses, no one thinks to grab him? It's awfully nice of Jesse just to stay put and not run off. In any other reality, he would have never spilled his guts and would have run like a rabbit if he had been fingered for the murder. The fact that The Girl in Lovers Lane asks me to accept these ridiculous actions on the part of the characters is something I'm not willing to do. Overall, I'm giving The Girl in Lovers Lane a 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\nOkay... for the most part, and all its cheesiness, this movie was actually pretty good for an MST3K flick... but then they decided to ruin what little goodness it had about fifteen minutes before the ending. *SPOILER ALERT* The film is very basic... a rich mama's boy named Danny meets a bum named Bix, and the two of them travel to a small town, where Bix meets a pretty girl named Carrie (who is so very.) Now, this film's basic premise seemed promising enough. All they needed to do was follow the simple chemistry of any romance movie... Carrie loves Bix... Bix loves Carrie... a creepy guy in town lusts for Carrie... Now, I know what you're thinking... Bix fights the creep and ultimately decides to settle down with Carrie, and Danny returns home, and they all live happily ever after... right? WRONG!! Because Carrie gets murdered by the town creep, because Bix is too gay to commit. (There are so many homosexual undertones between Danny and Bix.) And then, the whole town decides to lynch Bix, even though the town creep would've easily been the prime suspect. Then, the town creep confesses to killing Carrie without much hesitation... (must've felt bad, the poor dope.) Then, Danny brings Bix home with him... that's the film's \"happily ever after.\" Sad, huh? All I can say is, thank God for Joel and the Bots. Because they turned this horse hockey into one of my favorite MST3K episodes.
\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 noticed that a lot of films that have been featured on \"Mystery Science Theater\" have received a tons of low ratings on IMDb. However, a few of the films featured on the films weren't that bad and it's not fair to rate a film that's been given the \"MST\" treatment--with the hosts making funny comments during the film. Now I am NOT saying that \"The Girl in Lover's Lane\" is a great film, but it's not nearly bad enough to merit its current IMDb score of 2.1.
The film begins with Bix and Danny meeting. Bix is a veteran drifter and Danny a younger guy who seems to have no particular reason to be wandering about the country. Once they blow into a small town, Bix needs to rescue Danny again and again because Danny is quite naive--a nice way of saying he has the intellect of a tomato.
Along the way, something happens to the self-assured Bix--he finds a nice young lady and finds the lure of staying put pulling at him. And, in an odd subplot, Jack Elam plays a super-creepy sicko who wanders the town scaring the crap out of everyone--yet oddly, the police don't seem to take much notice nor does anyone on their own do anything about him. Ultimately, however, when Elam puts the moves on a girl who Bix is falling for, things come to a full boil.
Overall, while not at all a great film, there were many interesting plot elements in this film--enough to merit a score higher than 2.1. The biggest negatives are a simplistic conclusion to the mystery that occurs near the end as well as the total stupidity of Danny one time too often. Considering the minuscule budget, however, it's a watchable little film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe Girl in Lovers' Lane: 3 out of 10: Homoerotic subtext in the movies is a well known phenomenon. Plenty of dissertations have come out of film schools about the hidden subtexts in such films as Top Gun and Spartacus. The Girl in Lover’s Lane certainly fits the homoerotic trope. In fact, it is so blatant and over the top even MST3K, whom rarely notes such things in their riffing, simply cannot avoid it.
The film is about two drifters. One a rich kid (Lowell Brown) running away from home with a hundred dollars and no street smarts, the other is a professional hobo (Brett Halsey). The hobo saves the kid from a gang of thugs and they end up in a small town consisting of a diner, a pool hall and a whorehouse. Our drifter scholar gets a second look from the diner’s waitress (Joyce Meadows as the titular Girl in Lovers Lane) who clearly is past the age of being choosy and whose only other prospect is creepy Jack Elam doing a Steve Buscemi impression.
On the surface, this seems like a strange film for the MST3K treatment. While the cast are to old for the characters they are playing, the acting is actually pretty good with both Brett Halsey and Jack Elam giving solid performances. The story is slight, but hardly The Robot vs. Aztec Mummy material and the production values are cheap back lot, but relatively competent.
It is the strange Batman and his ward homosexual undercurrents that make this film both awful and hilarious. Halsey’s over the top objections to the kids attempts to get laid in the whorehouse are hilarious, his inability to commit to the waitress (or at the least get past first base) are telling, and the dozens of glances between him and the kid; a hand on shoulder, the sleeping arrangements, blowing off dates with the girl so he and the kid can shave each other. You don’t have to be Freud to figure out this undercurrent.
\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 don't know if I hate this movie as much as I did when I watched it two weeks ago, but if you're expecting the events described on the box, forget it... that would have been a good movie. The great descent described on the box is nothing compared to the descent into utter dispair that I took viewing this movie. If you've seen HBO's Taxi Cab Confessions, this is the same thing, only fictional, and not even remotely as interesting. If you really want to see something interesting about a cab driver, check out the 20 minute short they run on Encore from time to time... it is actually worth watching. I have never, ever asked for my money back for a movie until I saw this ... thing. Boring, Boring, Boring. It does offer one unique trait, which is this: It leaves you to decide what happens to each of the passengers, letting your imagination fill in the gaps. Which would be great, if you actually cared about any of these people. Instead I found myself yelling at the screen, weeping like a child, praying for either the end of the movie or my own death. The cab driver himself (though well played, considering) runs through emotions seemingly at random, from sarcastic to sympathetic to raging lunatic to apathetic. Sometimes it is appropriate, most of the time it's just a display for it's own sake. \"Dammit, I learned all these emotions in acting class, and I'm gonna use them!\" Now that I've been thinking about it again, I do hate this movie as much as I did!
\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 have ever wanted to know more about cab drivers, then this is an excellent movie to watch, for informational purposes only. I can just hear it now, \"Wait, just wait a second! Why don't we follow a cab driver through his entire day! Cabbies are funny, and so are the people they meet, and they only talk to each other for just a couple of minutes, so the other actors should be cheap! Harry, you take care of production, Joan, you've got materials, Brian, you go round up some actors and we'll all meet back here tomorrow to start filming!\"
The first 90% of the movie could not have been any worse had that very thing happened. At least with no planning whatsoever, there is always the element of surprise to be found. Some of Jim Carrey's movies have stuff added as they go along and they always do well at the box offices. The problem here is that the first 90% is pretty well scripted out, and it pretty much sucks. Paul Dillon plays the cab driver in Chicago who is working all day. We pretty much see what he sees. People get in and out of his car and he drives all around town. He talks to those people for a few seconds and then we get some more people.
I'll admit, there were a couple of funny bits here and there. A religious family tries to talk the cab driver into going to church with them, he takes a pregnant lady and her husband to the hospital, breaks up a rich businessman from his girlfriend, a poor girlfriend from her boyfriend and takes a rape victim home. I guess the moral of the movie is that a Cab Driver is more than a Cab Driver and has a larger sphere of influence over the lives of his passengers than you might originally think. For some people, he's just a means of getting from here to there, but for others, his very ordinary words help change the direction of their lives.
The last passenger of the day is used to try make sense of the rest of the movie, and to a small extent it succeeds. It had a bit of that deathbed repentance feel to it where the good majority of the movie sucks and then at the very end, it tries to make it all better in just one or two changes. I wasn't too impressed with the movie as a whole, but there were a few bits and pieces worth watching again. As far as the actors go, Paul Dillon is it. John Cusack, Gillian Anderson and Julianne Moore are all in this, for about 30 seconds each, but don't watch this for any of them or you will most certainly be disappointed. I will give the other people invovled some credit that it's not your ordinary movie they have produced here, but it wasn't a very good one either. There just wasn't enough material to keep you going for an hour and a half. It was a decent effort, but it failed none the same.
\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 day in the life of a dimwitted cab driver sometime around Christmas: The cab driver picks up a fare...they have a 'really insightful' interlude...he drops off the fare...he picks up another fare...another interlude...and so it goes on like this for 90 friggin' minutes...none of it convincing (or interesting) for even one minute...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\nThe lavish production values that you generally find in a Merchant/Ivory film are all here, but this is an exceedingly dull take on what could have been a very lively affair. I agree with an earlier poster that it makes no sense for the story to be unfolding through the eyes of an African American family and yet their own ancestor, Sally Hemmings, has barely a role to play in the proceedings. There is not much clarity to be found in helping the audience understand the motivations of any of these historical figures. And I was very bothered by the accents of a number of the characters. Nancy Marchand sounded very British for what one assumes is a French nun. And both Gwyneth Paltrow and Greta Scacchi seemed to be trying out different accents in various scenes. In fact, Gwyneth is very poorly served in this biopic. Her role as Thomas Jefferson's daughter, Martha, is written in such a manner that we never get a handle on who she really is. One moment she is slapping a slave, and another moment, she's deploring the whole system of slavery. Nick Nolte performs the role well enough but doesn't ever make us truly care for Jefferson or any of his exploits. Very disappointing all in all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEven though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.
\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\nWe sought out this hard-to-find VHS after watching two excellent Merchant-Ivory pictures back to back. Knowing it was an instant box office failure, a failure as a rental, I thought it might be worth seeing anyway based on M-I's reputation. Too bad! Nine years ago, it was very much a Liberal Agenda objective to trash the Founding Fathers and indeed they had some success in eradicating the Founding Fathers from many American classrooms including, for example, New Jersey; whose eradication of our great founders quickly ended when the Washington Times shone the spotlight of truth into the NJ School Board and their subversive deed. A small part of this was headlining the alleged Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson connection, disregarding the inconvenient DNA findings which failed to support the wacky left's agenda. Never mind! They got James Ellis, an author of dubious reputation, to put it in a book, and Columbia University sealed the deal by giving Ellis a Pulitzer.
As to Jefferson in Paris, the Liberal Agenda spin begins in the opening scene wherein James Earl Jones is claiming to be the son of Jefferson. The spin simply continues in flashback mode to Paris. The unmistakable truth is that even if a person assumes the lie is true the Hemmings allegation would be an insignificant detail into the larger matter of Jefferson's prolonged and vital diplomatic mission to Paris (as well as to the Netherlands where he secured crucial financial backing for America when our infant nation was without funds).
Besides the Liberal Spin Job, there is nothing else of interest in this drab and tortuously dull movie. Some of the other history is indeed accurate --- adding credence to frame the lie --- but this movie takes one of the most interesting moments in American history and reduces it to a remedy for insomnia.
Please do not ask me why Liberals set out to trash the Founding Fathers, because I don't waste time explaining the acts of such people. Don't ask them either; they usually respond to such questions with the same answer: \"SHUT UP!\"
\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\nWhere do we start with an offering like this? I nearly said film but that would be going a step too far. The only thing hellish about this film is that it is certainly a marriage made in hell, between nothing and nonsense, baloney and balderdash. These films should carry a physiological health warning so as not to damage one's spirit to the point where one might believe that all good film makers have left the planet and their resources have been handed to the dunderheads who have make this classic piece of trite garbage just like it's sister in arms \"League of Extraordinary Twaddle\". They are neither science fiction nor fact, entertaining nor thought provoking, humorous nor weighty but lay in a twilight zone devoid of any and all accoutrements that entice people to give up their valuable time, sit in a darkened room and generally be more enlightened, enlivened or happy at the end of it. If we could award \"Turkey\" points for films like this, this would be a turnip, as we would gone through the turkey, ham, potatoes, sprouts, gravy and all other embellishments before reaching rock bottom.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"