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\nThe recent release of \"Mad Dog Morgan\" on Troma DVD is disappointing.This appears to be a censored print for television viewing. Some of the more violent scenes have been edited and portions of the colorful language have been removed. Anyone who viewed the film uncut will be mad as hell at this toxic DVD version. \"Mad Dog Morgan\" deserves to be released on DVD in the original theatrical cut. However, even as released on DVD, the film is still one of the better depictions of bushranger life in nineteenth century Australia. After having toured the Old Melbourne Gaol, with death masks of convicts on display, it is \"Mad Dog Morgan\" that comes to mind.
\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 the worst movies I have ever seen. There is not a shred of historical accuracy, in fact reality is reversed. Just one example: Morgan preyed on the few ethnic Chinese he encountered. The acting is over the top, the script is a poorly written lie. I have never seen worse fake beards.
Hopper arrived in Australia and reportedly only would make the film if the script was totally rewritten so he could be a hero. Since the script was ten made up on the fly, the may explain how bad it is and how disjointed the movie is.
Any movie about Ned Kelly is a lot better than this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn the mid 1800s, Irishman Dennis Hopper (as Daniel Morgan) emigrates to Australia, seeking a share of the continent's gold. Instead, Mr. Hopper finds himself branded, and thrown in a torturous prison; there, he is gang-raped. Upon release, Hopper hooks up with aborigine David Gulpilil (as Billy), with whom he seeks revenge upon sadistic Bill Hunter (as Sergeant Smith), Jack Thompson (as Detective Mainwaring), and others. Eventually, vengeance becomes heroism; Hopper is admired and assisted by the common people, and hunted by corrupt and powerful authorities. Hopper's \"scarcely human\" performance certainly fits the disjointed feel of the film. Mr. Gulpilil heads up a strong supporting cast. The personnel involved in \"Mad Dog Morgan\" make it not only worth a look, but also a huge disappointment.
*** Mad Dog Morgan (1976) Philippe Mora ~ Dennis Hopper, David Gulpilil, Bill Hunter
\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\nSimilar story line, done many times before, and this was no improvement.
15 minutes into this, and you should pretty much be able to turn it off - the ending was deja vu all over again.
The only morals I could see out of this are: - stupidity + criminals do not equal success - if he screwed you before, he's gonna do it again
\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\nHave you ever read a book, then seen the movie, and wonder-How did they screw it up so bad? This is one of those. The book by Huffaker, \"Nobody Likes a Drunken Indian\" was great, riotously funny...this movie is not. It seems as though nobody cared enough to move the direction along so we CARED about the characters. This movie, which touches on some real concerns about Indians, makes you wonder why we haven't seen more comedies about the holocaust, or slavery. Not well done.
\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 recent DVD release of Good Humor Man labels the film as comedy. It's hardly a comedy, rather a dull indie film about a group of losers. Supposedly set in the 70s, there is scant attention paid to period details, with overly muted color correction taking its place. The monotonous soundtrack only serves to accentuate the repetitiveness of the film (perhaps that is the point, but it does not add to the enjoyment of the viewing experience.) Apprarently the clique of losers only like to hang out at one location, the bleachers. It seems like the packaging of the film as a comedy is meant to deceive people into renting or buying this film, which is a complete 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\nThe acting made you feel like you were watching a kindergarten play. The story is full of holes and gaps and skips around so you have no idea as to what just happened. Half the scenes are pointless. There is not an inkling of character development. The score/soundtrack consists of about three songs one in particular is played in about 70% of the scenes. I'm glad I only rented the movie yet I still feel cheated. Avoid this movie at all costs unless you want to see some decent actors give horrible performances. It seems like the bulk of the budget was spent on putting a few name brand actors in this less than bad film. This movie is equivalent to visiting a strip club, it tries to get you excited and interested but just as you think something is going to happen your thrown into some unrelated scene and left trying to figure out how you arrived 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\nI disagree in calling this a stoner movie just because weed also makes an appearance. I can't imagine this as even approaching \"stoner classic.\" That would be like calling Singles a \"grunge film.\" The movie definitely plods along with a murky plot. At times I wondered if the script had either been dropped and shuffled or if they lost it entirely and just tried to wing it. Watching this movie reminded me of watching children play-acting and making the story up as they go along.
The characters are wooden, the dialog is taxed, and the whole story seems to be completely disconnected. Who got killed? When? What? And this is how you act when your friend overdoses? Complete lack of emotion and utter disconnect from reality.
As for the droning guitar soundtrack that accompanies each scene: enough! It was like watching the opening menu screen where the same track loops endlessly in the background, neither moving forward or back.
I kept watching and hoping that the plot would somehow fall in to order, the acting and dialog would improve or something, somehow would focus this mess in to a coherent movie. After 112 minutes, it never happened.
\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\nWhen I think of a 1970s-period film, this is not what I think of. I don't want a monotonous, one-song Robin Trower soundtrack; I want a soundtrack punctuated with the top-40 bubblegum songs of the day that epitomized the '70s. The generic karaoke-style disco music during the prom scene was especially annoying. The acting (if you can call it that) was very wooden, and seemed just read from script in monotone. The film quality and camera work was horrid; the dialog murky, the script seemed thrown together without much thought and the plot was thin if not nonexistent. I can't believe people are giving it the high ratings I've read here. Basically a forgettable, poor attempt at recreating a beloved era of the past. Two stars is all I can come up with. Sorry, guys.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this on a screener DVD a couple months before it was released.
I liked the main characters and the overall story but some scenes are pretty sloppy and confusing. The sets were fitting but a few just looked like left overs from Freaks & Geeks or reminded me of a cell phone commercial shot in a middle class home. Definitely not what the DVD cover claims, \"Destined to be the next stoner classic\", hardly.
Wardrobe and hairstyles are done well and yes, there are some really pretty girls in this, always nice to see a good looking cast.
Almost every scene contained guitar that just droned on and on. Sound design was a bit poor. I think less would have been best.
\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\nPlodding, maybe that should have been the title. Bad dialogue delivered at a snail's pace. All the characters are single dimension with the exception of one. Unfortunately, that character has some of the worst lines and does not seem to fit into this cliché ridden two- hour drag. Having grown up in the seventies, this film is seriously lacking in detail, atmosphere and authenticity. Surprisingly, this was produced by Kelsey Grammar, someone who should recognize sharp dialogue and a consistent narrative in a script. Cameron Richardson is about the only element that lights up this film. Robin Trower's music is also a welcomed addition.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter seeing the DVD release of the Blues Brothers, and their mention of \"Wired\" on Belushi's bio, my boyfriend and I were hungry for more information on John Belushi. I had heard of \"Wired\" but didn't know too much about it and found it way in the back of the local rental store. I understand that Dan Akroyd was really p***ed over this movie and I thought it was because it didn't portray them in a good light. But that had nothing to do with it.
The movie starts out okay, until they wheel in John's body to the morgue. When he wakes up on the autopsy table, and decides to run for it, then begins the utter tastelessness of this movie. John is subjected to viewing his life and all of the turmoil he created with \"Angel,\" a Puerto Rican cab driver with a wicked sense of humor -- subjecting him to criticism and attempting to try to get him to cross over.
The two actors who portray John and Dan look nothing even remotely close to the real actors, (let alone anyone else related for that matter, i.e., Lorne Michaels,) making it difficult to really try to concentrate on them and how they were in real life... but that is the tip of the iceberg.
I believe this was supposed to be an \"artsy\" film -- John constantly being tormented by drugs (i.e., the powdered soap in the bathroom being cocaine,) in such a way that was also difficult to follow. The flashbacks are choppy, also making it difficult to understand.
Probably the most tasteless scene was when John is (literally,) forced to undergo his autopsy and is in pain while they remove his heart to weigh it, saying that it was abnormally large due to drug use, obesity, yeah, we get the point without the grotesque portrayal.
There are very few other actors we know of in the movie, (where's Carrie Fisher for instance? They were incredibly close. And Jim Belushi would have been a great person to show,) it looks VERY cheaply made, (we felt it looked as if the graphics were from the early 80s or late 70s,) it felt as if it was filmed in about a week and all in all, didn't show the side to John at all. I felt I knew a little bit more about him from watching episodes of Saturday Night Live.
On one last note, Bob Woodward comes across narcissistic by placing himself in the movie, arguing with John about writing his life story. For someone who was supposed to be very highbrow, concerning the bust on Nixon, his calibur of person could match any writer in the National Enquirer, and therefore losing my interest in any of his work from this point forward.
SKIP THIS MOVIE. If you want to see more on John, watch his movies, see clips of Dan Akroyd talking about him or hope someone has the taste to make another movie on John that goes along the lines of \"Man on the Moon,\" which is ultimately what we were expecting. I guess this was a \"moral\" kind of movie -- you know, don't do drugs, but I guess the creators of this film didn't understand that his death made a number of people (like Carrie Fisher,) stop doing drugs altogether for that reason.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAny film school student could made a film 1,000 times better than piece of garbage. As someone who had read the book, I expected even a straight re-telling of the book would make this a fair film. There was a chance that a talented director could go beyond Woodward's narrative and make a great film.
Well the director did go beyond Woodward's narrative. He added a hip Hispanic angel named Velasquez that was not in the book. He had Bob Woodward interview the dead Belushi in an exchange in the morgue. The film had all the insight of someone stoned on PCP staring at his navel.
If this is a spoiler to you, you will thank me for it because it is absolutely the worst movie ever made.
\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\nJournalist Bob Woodward's blistering, scattershot and sometimes suspect account of actor John Belushi's rise and fall becomes a wholly misjudged movie, a nebulous \"fantasy\" directed by Larry Peerce as if he were doing something edgy and vital. Michael Chiklis (years before his breakthrough on \"The Shield\") is put in the unenviable position of portraying Belushi, taking a post-mortem trip through his life, recreating those \"Saturday Night Live\" skits which are now part of TV history. It's like watching someone try to out-Lucy Lucille Ball--it can't be done. The reason why there was such sorrow at Belushi's death was because he was one of a kind. Chiklis makes a commendable attempt at looking the part, and he's funny in an early scene trying to escape from the morgue. Still, it's an uphill venture and no actor--no matter how talented--could have saved it. * from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nand I have seen a lot of films. I saw this in the theatre in 1989 and to this day I remember the sickening urge to walk out. If you like John Belushi, respect his talent, or even the sanctity of the cinema-- this film has nothing to offer you. It is mostly a pathetic showcase for the writer of Belushi's biography, Bob Woodward. As we see the progression of Belushi's life pass on the screen, Woodward actually shows up in the film like a ghost character. The most offensive scene occurs when Belushi is dying, looks up from his deathbed to see the author standing above him and he weakly utters \"Breathe for me, Woodward.\" There are too many terrible things to mention them all, the least of which is the opening that has Belushi jumping out of his body bag in the morgue and getting into a taxi driven by a guy named \"Angel.\" I'll leave it at that.
\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 narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4.
\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\"Wired\" would have to rate as one of the ten worst films I have ever seen. The writing and direction show a stunning lack of imagination and I'm sure that most of the actors still cringe whenever anyone mentions this film.
It fails to work either as a tribute to Belushi's unique talent, or as an accurate account of his short life.
A pointless mess with no redeeming features.
\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 could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film in the movie theater. I was taking classes at the Second City Chicago and of course the buzz of this movie was intense. It is a Woodward film about one of Second City's Native sons.
Everyone knew about Johns history. Everyone knew how he died. Some even knew that the lore did not make him out to be particularly friendly towards women in improv or comedy.
But hey. the man led his life and he was loved intensely by the people who were in his world, and lore also states that he treated all of his close friends with love and respect.
This movie. Well. Forget the idea of poor Michael Chilklis (who is a really great actor) being in a really astonishingly bad film, and really only relegated to doing an impersonation of the man.
Forget the idea that they could not get the rights to any of Belushi's work...and all the SNL scenes never happened that they portrayed in the movie.
Screw the idea that half of the historical information in the film did not even follow Bob Woodwards work. Kinda saying \"Okay...we are about to mess with Belushi...now lets go after Woodward too...\" They also decided to take the premise of It's a Wonderful Life and turn it into It's a Horrible Life on Crack.
Is he a guardian angel or the devil? Is the pinball machine the devil's assistant electronic device...how many different endings can you tack onto to a movie? It is one of those movies after it is over...you look at the person you are with and in stunned disbelief go \"What the hell was that?!\" In some circles this movie has become a kinda cult classic. But for good reason.
A good cult classic you sit around the screen and make fun of (or throw out snappy one liners) to the screen. A cult film is never good. And most people would never watch them in any serious context.
If you want to watch some classic bad late 80's fair stoned? Rent Wired. If you want to know about John Belushi...you can get more information off of the walls of Second City Chicago than 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\nWhat is it about the French? First, they (apparently) like Jerry Lewis a lot more than the US does. Second, they (seem) to like Edgar Allan Poe's work more than just about anyone else does. It's got to be the \"Beaudelaire effect\".
Don't get me wrong...I'm a Poe fan myself. But this trilogy manages to make three of Poe's below-average stories into...well, I'm not sure what they're made into.
\"Toby Dammit\" is a fine Fellini film, but it has nothing to do with Poe's story, at least in terms of theme. It's enjoyable on the first viewing. Terence Stamp does a good job with an interesting role. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Poe or spirits of the dead.
\"Metzergenstein\" is a big mess. How did Vadim's films get produced? It's just awful...not even up to amateur film school standards. Depending on the DVD menu you have, try to skip it and save your time.
\"William Wilson\" is actually the segment that is most faithful to Poe's work. It does not have much style, though, even if it includes the strangest snowball fight I think that I have ever seen on film. (It looks like the boys are throwing tissues, or maybe handkerchiefs, that have been rolled up into balls.)
My advice is to skip \"Metzergenstein\", watch \"William Wilson\", and then, if you're a Fellini fan (I'm not) keep \"Toby Dammit\" on while you cook dinner or make a snack.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm pretty sure Poe would have considered this a travesty. The first two stories are decent, nothing spectacular. And then there's Toby Dammit. What on earth was Fellini thinking? It's a rambling, random, dull piece, with little to recommend it. One should feel frustrated at the lack of backstory or conclusion, but there's only relief that it's over.
\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\"Yesterday\" as a movie, is hard to rate. The cinematography is excellent and deserves a 9/10. The story is gritty and real and does not compromise. But the translation of the story to the screen through the actors did not match the camera work.
As a person who was born and raised in Central Africa, I appreciated the authenticity of the film's look and the honest depiction of daily life for the Zulu. But this and the camera work are not enough to recommend the average viewer should see this film. It takes an appreciation of true cinema and not just a love of movies to see the purpose and strength of \"Yesterday\".
Unlike the 1980 film \"The Gods Must be Crazy\", which was a comic look at one African culture encountering modern technology, \"Yesterday\" has no intention of appealing to any crossover audience. The movie simply is not fit for the common western mind - and I doubt it was intended for the western mind. The scenes are long and slow, the editing is not paced for a 60mph+ instant gratification world. The dialog is not cleaver or witty, it is real. Movies about health crises do not make the best entertainment and this movie is not entertainment, it is education.
This movie is best viewed by those who know, appreciate and love the way of life and the culture in sub-Sarah Africa. If you lack a broad enough world-view to understand other cultures, especially African cultures, should skip this film. Do not waste you time with it. Go see \"Talladega Nights\" or \"Larry the Cable Guy\" instead for your cross culture viewing.
I give it a 4 for most who might want to see the movie but have no accurate understanding of African cultures. For the viewers with an appreciation for films about the human experience anywhere in the world, I would give it a 7.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.
What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.
What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs.
\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\nWhilst this is most definitely a well crafted piece of film-making, it's thoroughly without any entertainment value whatsoever.
If you're depressed already, this film will send you over the edge.
If you're feeling somewhat depressed, this film will be just one more thing in your life to feel bitter about. You'll feel that it's just your luck to have chosen to watch a movie that turns out to be a complete waste of time.
Otherwise you might be able to make it through this film unscathed (I didn't, BTW), safe in the knowledge that your life is so much better than Jim's. Then again you might consider that you have been fooling yourself, and that are in fact in a much worse situation than you'd previously realized. You might feel a bit annoyed at Jim for bringing this to your attention. You may want to slap him around a bit with a wet fish.
The sad truth is, much as I wanted to like this movie... I hated it. It took rather a long miserable road down the path of oblivion and then suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, looked back at itself and then stopped.
Jim does not have an epiphany, at least not one that is conveyed on screen. Jim has a miserable life and a miserable set of options. He discovers nothing that one can relate to and fails to make any significant progress on his journey of self-discovery.
Of course no-one alive could write a happy ending to this movie. As others have said it's no Hollywood tale, it's gritty and it's real. It's well made. Life is quite a struggle at times. If anyone were to know \"the answer\", they do well to shout it from the rooftops.
Still, I feel cheated because this movie pretends to have something to say. You feel that it's going to say something, that if you just suffer through a little more of it, it'll have something to say. It'll make you stop and think.
It doesn't.
Again, I do submit that this is a well crafted film. And therefore may be of value to a film student with a penchant for e.g. lighting techniques of the use of colour palettes.
For the rest of us, it's utterly miss-able.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only time I seem to trawl through IMDb comments is when I've seen a duff film. I guess I'm looking to find reassurance that it's not just me. For me, then, Lonesome Jim was a duff film packed with unbelievable characters in unbelievable situations which limped on lamely and boringly towards a cop-out hackneyed conclusion. So I check out what other people have to say and feel a bit like Jim, out on a limb, alienated, as page after page of multiple star ratings and plaudits leave me doubting my critical faculties. Yet maybe I should check the settings for the comments presentation, since after a while the gushing dies down and I'm relieved to see appreciations that mirror my own. I feel vindicated. It IS a rubbish film, it DOESN'T hang together and it DOES constitute a wasted evening sitting through it. Praise be to kindred spirits.
\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 was attracted to this film by its offbeat, low-key, 'real life' story line. That is, a twenty-something guy flops in the Big Apple and comes back home to live with his parents and even more floppy brother. It just might have worked but there's a problem. And that problem's name is Casey Affleck.
Casey Affleck is nearly catatonic in this film. His acting mantra must be \"exert as little effort as possible at all times\". Or \"why speak when you can mutter?\" Or maybe \"put yourself into a coma as soon as the camera rolls\". Lips moving when speaking? Barely. Facial expressions? None. Muscles in face? Atrophied. Something? Nothing. ANYthing? Zip.
\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\nLonesome Jim is kind of like a romantic dark comedy about a dysfunctional family whose two boys are total losers. Both boys around 30, living at home, with absolutely nothing going for them. I live in the Midwest and I can't name one family like this. I picked it up because I kind of like Buscemi acting humor. Now I realize I need to have a counteracting agent to that humor to make it work. The acting and camera work and editing was fine. The first 15 minutes got you set, and the last 15 minutes helped prevent the film from being totally depressing Jerry Springer trailer trash type of story. The female members of my family were begging me to turn it off, but I prevailed under the premise that there had to be a turning point near the end, and we watched the entire movie. The male family members, as expected, simply walked out after the first 30 minutes.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOlivia D'Abo in a wet T-shirt is the only thing this movie has going for it. Other than that, this Canadian production about a man taking out a vicious band of hillbillies is not worth anybody's time. The writing is bad, the acting is poor and the direction is sub-standard.
\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 family (A teenage boy, his mother and a stepdad), sick of city life, decides to move to the mountains to get away from it all and have a fresh start. However, their idyll is shattered by three brothers and their domineering father, who don't take kindly to newcomers on their patch. While having objects thrown through their window and being threatened in the street is just the start, the youth decides to make things even worse by having a relationship with the terrible trio's sister. With the law unwilling to do anything about it and the violence escalating rapidly, the lad decides to take matters into his own hands..
Veering wildly between hilarity and nastiness, this is one of the oddest exploitation movies ever made. At first, you can have a chuckle at some of the hammy acting and ludicrous dialogue given to the characters, especially the overwrought bad guys. But then, you get completely unnecessary scenes like a mother being raped while her son is forced to watch, or the thug's sister getting herself beaten up by her siblings for daring to sleep with our young hero. In fact, the whole view of women in the movie, which seems to be that they're pathetic creatures who scream a lot and can't defend themselves, is pretty despicable. But of course, there's the obligatory nude scene, which this time involves a young lady diving into a pool bra-less under a very thin T-shirt. Who cares about plot consistency when you have some willing young starlets ready to shed her togs. Right?!
The climax centres on the teenager, who up until now hasn't been able to sneeze without jumping, suddenly morphing into a Rambo clone and blowing off his assailants left, right and centre to save his stepfather who is being held hostage by the gang. It's completely implausible but hey, so is everything else in this film.. so at least you can't accuse it of not being consistent. So, rather than attempting to find logic in a place where the word doesn't exist, check out the IMDb pages for Janet Laine Green, Dehl Berti, Stephen Hunter, Jonathan Crombie.. etc. Notice a pattern emerging here? Their careers all hit dead ends. Why? Sit through this, and all will become clear. Remember kids, if you want to get ahead in this business, hire a decent agent and ALWAYS read the scripts they offer you. Please.. 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\nAre you kidding me? The music was SO LOUD in this show I could often not even hear the dialog. And the music was nothing great. Anyone know what Jake's mother said when he walked in the door??? And the mushroom cloud looked pretty close to have so little instant devastation. Anyone research the effects of nuclear fallout before writing this one. I felt like a bunch of sit com actors were sent on location and didn't know what to do with dramatic dialog. And what does a Kansas teen know about shopping in Soho....couldn't we have had a better line here? Was bored to tears and only kept awake by the jarring blare of the over-mixed way to loud music.
\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 slick little movie well worth your time to find and see.
It really speaks to all those mundane choices we all make every day and (like an H.G. Welles Story I can't quite recall) may live to want back.
Keep in mind that this is a SHORT (very short). It starts out slowly but just as you begin to think it has become boring =bang= it's over. And, believe me, the 'punch line' is one you will remember.
I'm not sure if the producers are going to make it available for purchase - or available on the web but either way you'd be happy you took the time to get hold of a copy - of that I am sure.
\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\nwhomever thought of having sequels to Iron Eagle must be shot. In this case once was enough. Iron Eagle was a good movie to watch. Even though it is unrealistic, it is still entertaining. Iron Eagle II has a senseless plot and can be used to as a cure to insomnia. I didn't even bother to watch Iron Eagle III, but from looking at the R rating, I assume it's more violent than the past 2 movies. Well, Iron Eagle IV is probably the most inane sequel. Lou Gossett Jr. returns as the always delightful \"Chappy\" Sinclair. Another Jason returns to fill the role of Doug Masters (Canadian Jason Cadieux, who looks just like Jason Gedrick from the first Iron Eagle). But wait(Here comes a possible spoiler).....Wasn't Doug killed in Iron Eagle II? The writers must've been desprate for a story so they revived Doug Masters by saying he was a prisoner of the Russians. This movie was the cheapest done of all the Iron Eagle films. Why do movie makers find it neccessary to make sequels to unappealing movies? (ex. Police Academy movies). I have always liked Gossett Jr.'s work in these films. He was the only one holding this turkey together. Let's hope this was the last of the Iron Eagle sequels. let it rest in peace.
\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\nLouis Gossett Jr returns to the well one more time as Chappy Sinclair who goes to Doug Masters (Played by Jason Cadieux who is in for Jason Gedrick who wisely declined) to teach a new band of recruits however this time they discover corrupt air force pilots who deal in toxic waste. This is a series that just keeps getting worse with each subsequent entry, this one however doesn't have any of the zip or even the action to make this even worth seeing on cable. Iron Eagle IV is directed with such indifference that the dogfights come off as if we were watching a playstation 2 game played by two lobotomized teenagers. It is horrendous to watch and Gossett Jr who has made his share of turkeys seems to have bottomed out here. And I saw Cover-Up, Firewalker, Aces:Iron Eagle III, Toy Soldiers and Jaws 3D. What is mysterious about Louis Gossett Jr is that he seems to be like Christopher Walken in his quest to do anything as long as he's working. As I look at his post Oscar win. Some of his better movies include Iron Eagle, The Punisher and The Principal. Considering that the latter two movies have him co-starring with Dolph Lundgren and James Belushi it is indeed something to say that three guilty pleasure action flicks are in the running for his better work. Of course Enemy Mine and Diggstown remain his best post-Oscar win work.
* out of 4-(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\nAnd obviously I didn't see it!
But looking at the cast and seeing that Doug Masters is back from the dead, I know now to avoid this like the plague! I hate it when Hollywood, producers, writers, directors or all of the above think that audiences are stupid that they're not going to catch continuity errors. A supposedly dead Doug Masters returning is a big giant one, won't you say?
And I can't believe that someone like Louis Gossett, Jr. would return for something like that.
Did Jason Gedrick really decline this? Well, I hate to say it, but even if he took the role again, it would have still had that same continuity error. I bet (if he really turned it down), he must have been incredulous seeing that his character died in the second film.
I'll probably catch it by accident on a late night air on some channel, but no way am I going to rent this or buy the DVD!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's another variation on the oft-told tale of two people getting married and having to share their brood of kids. WITH SIX YOU GET EGG ROLL is directed by Howard Morris (from television) and it shows, because it's the kind of tale that plays like a half-hour situation comedy padded out to feature film length--but with a scarcity of laughs, or to put it differently, only the number of laughs that would have been possible within the half-hour limits of a TV show.
DORIS DAY decided to call it quits after this film--and it's rather easy to see why. Even the presence of some fairly reliable actors in the cast doesn't help. BRIAN KEITH, BARBARA HERSHEY, PAT CARROLL and ALICE GHOSTLEY do their best, but the script is the real problem and should have been left untouched for the big screen.
Nothing much can be said in favor of it. Skip it and see Miss Day in any number of her more worthwhile films.
\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 sickly sweet and laboriously paced 5-reeler is definitely not among Harold Lloyd's better films. Gags are sparse and mostly uninspired. Saccharine melodrama is abundant. The setup takes forever, as Lloyd, the unconventional, but impossibly kindly, country doctor makes his rounds, bringing a little sunshine into the lives of children, the elderly, and puppies. It's like a 1922 version of Patch Adams. Ugh. 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\nStanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.
I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.
In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.
In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a \"doodle pad\" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.
\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\nFear and Desire is of interest mainly to Kubrick obsessives, who can plumb this pretentious clap trap for signs of his still-to-come greatness. Kubrick was right in seeking to ensure that the film was not screened or available on legitimate video. He considered it embarrassing and amateurish, and he was correct in his evaluation. This is a weak and tedious film--at 68 minutes it still seems longer than \"Barry Lyndon\"!--it nevertheless is of historical interest, and has its genuine absorbing moments. It's a difficult film to find (only \"unofficial\" copies are in circulation), though perhaps this may change if Kubrick's estate relents and has it released on video. Recommended only for Kubrick enthusiasts.
\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\nKubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!
Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of \"Reefer Madness\" going insane for no reason.
Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.
Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on \"Dante's Inferno,\" there is nothing especially clever. Dante's \"Divine Comedy\" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.
I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.
The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of \"Schoolhouse Rock\" on the subject of lobbying and the \"revolving door.\" It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun.
\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 was surprised to discover Michael Moore or Bill Maher wasn't involved with this \"movie\". An American leftist laundry list of axes to grind, with a distinct sparseness of democrats in Hell. Mao Zedong and Karl Marx didn't make an appearance in Hell, but Ronald Reagan is in the same room with Hitler? Perhaps we'll have to wait for these California spin doctors to butcher Paradiso for them to show all of their pet ideologue political figures.
Cheap shots at religion, right-wing politicians, corporations and their lobbyists, Fox News, even SUVs. All the radical leftist talking points were too completely covered - while conspicuously omitting references to wrongdoing from the \"other side of the aisle\" - to not have been a conscious effort. The singular exception I noticed, in the hour and a half, is JFK has to have sex with Marilyn Monroe for eternity: The token inclusion in these propaganda pieces in a pathetic attempt at appearing non-partisan.
\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 demented left-wing wipe-out trivializes Dante's great work, distorts the genius of the author out of all recognition, inserts hateful ideology, incompetent satire and moronic political commentary in every imaginable place, and itself deserves a place in the Eighth Circle, Tenth Bolgia with the rest of the falsifiers. Sandow Birk has reserved himself a spot next to it.
Stocking Hell with Republican political figures, Fox News helicopters and Christian conservatives is a work of literary sacrilege, to say nothing of extreme liberal bias. It is, however, unoriginal, tedious and trite. Nothing in Birk's unworthy and heretical revision is in the least relevant to the original text or is in any way entertaining, humorous or enlightening, despite his smug pretension to the contrary.
I could have eaten a reel of video tape and PUKED a better movie. I regret the two hours of my life that I lost watching this insult to the very concept of poetry. Calliope will weep forever.
\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\nDante would of been mortified, if he knew that his masterpiece was being ACTED OUT PUPPETS!!! Also the actors who played the puppets are sell outs. Due to the fact that playing a puppet is not acting it is just basically doing nothing. No one really will care who the puppet was. people only care who played a major role in like an actual movie. this is just annoying how you could mock such an amazing man and his belief, by this dumb little movie. This should be a crime and.... I cant believe you would ruin a book like that. I thought the movie was absolutely ridiculous and should be destroyed!!!! It totally ruins what your suppose to be getting from reading it. Your just making it a big joke.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"