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 caught this movie on late-night TV. Honestly i saw most of it, and the whole time i was sitting in complete and utter disbelief.
Is there any genre that's more pointless than soft-core porn? If there is i don't want to know about it. Softcore porn combines all the horrors of porn (lousy production values, abominable acting, crappy scripts) with the coyness of sex-scenes in regular movies. So the end result is arousing nor entertaining. This movie also has the rather odd approach of a science-fiction setting, and it works horribly. All the sex is performed in some sort of virtual reality setting where the crew from the future learn about physical love. And yes, it's about as confused and silly as it sounds.
But there has to be some positive points though, right? Well, there is one... Krista Allen is amazingly hot. That's about the only thing that was less than awful in this movie. I don't know what it is about her, but she has an amazing sex appeal. The rest of the cast look like the standard porn-cast though. Rather unattractive women with poorly done fake breasts, and men that have spent far too much time in the gym toning themselves grotesque. Probably a gym in Germany as well judging by haircuts and clothing.
To sum things up. If you enjoy Krista Allens presence on screen you can watch this for the brief moments where she shows some of her seductive potential (most of the time she tries to articulate crappy lines of dialog though). If you don't enjoy Krista Allen then you might as well stay away altogether.
I rate this 10/10 for Krista Allens sex appeal, 1/10 for everything else and 2/10 for entertainment value since this is a unique crappy porn/science fiction hybrid that's not really like anything i've ever seen.
\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, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.)
\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 just have to comment on this movie because I gave it a 4 rating, and in my opinion that's pretty high for a softporn smut movie. The actual plot is kind of hokey (who would expect otherwise) but Hafron is so incredibly funny, and he delivers everything in a cyborgish voice so it's easy for him. Whoever wrote the script had some wit definitely! I must have laughed out loud ten times, and that's not a reason anyone would pick up this movie. The only softporn movie I've seen which had any merit other than beautiful women (and believe me, Emmanuelle is drop dead gorgeous...just look at the cover!)
Any movie that can entertain me considering how poor the plot was and how bad the acting is, also considering the movie wasn't made to artistically entertain, so to speak, it gets at least a four in my book. I mean, who wouldn't watch this before Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot?
\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 read the plot summary for \"Mad Max,\" you've just ruined the first 1 hour and 10 minutes of the film. You've also found out that \"Mad Max\" takes place in post-apocalyptic Australia, which will be helpful because otherwise you won't have any idea what's going on. The film, made in 1979, tries really hard to be Stanley Kubrick's \"A Clockwork Orange\" (1971) only that film, in all its strangeness, actually makes sense and leaves an impact. This film does neither and ends up being a car/bike stunt-filled romp that crashes like every vehicle in the film does.
The first thing wrong with \"Mad Max\" is that it tries to sell itself as a revenge tale when no vigilante appears to take revenge until the final 20 minutes. If the first hour were condensed to 20-30 minutes and then the final 20 added on and then another hour added after that, \"Mad Max would be a cool action film with a great vigilante protagonist. Instead, Mel Gibson has to wait around and act like a sissy for 2/3 of the film and then have a sudden epiphany to seek revenge. I've yet to watch the sequel \"Road Warrior\" and I have to admit I'm excited for it only because I want to know what he does next. This first film was mostly a waste of time.
George Miller does some great action stuff here, but his over-the-top symbolism is absurd and the unbearable cheesy reaction sequences every time a character discovers something horrifying like a burnt hand or what have you completely ruins those moments. Its a terribly cliché B-movie technique.
There is absolutely no thematic value or subtle critique of society in this film no matter what you might think. A great action sci-fi movie at least makes a point, but the gratuitous violence done by random, weird bikers doesn't say anything of value. Even the villain Toecutter feels modeled off Alex of \"Clockwork\" only uglier and completely unimposing. The PG violence just does not allow the violence of this gang to settle in and get a reaction from the viewer, it just cheeses it up if anything.
I'll give credit for the amount of stuff the film crew blew up and crashed into things and Miller does a great job making you feel the intensity of the collisions. Everything else is mediocre at best and then after an hour of mediocrity, you get something good and the film ends 20 minutes later. I'm just crossing my fingers \"Road Warrior\" will fulfill the expectations of where this film ends, otherwise that's more time wasted. ~Steven C
Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOk, where to start. I can't believe how many good reviews I read on here. I watched this (year 2004) and I had to fight to not push the stop button, I decided to continue just because of all the good reviews I read. After watching it I felt it was my duty to let the world know about this. First of all the movie seems like it is never going to begin, the plotline doesn't actually occur until about 30 minutes before the movie ends, leaving the viewer wondering, `when is this going to start' So don't ever call this a `revenge movie' because the revenge doesn't even start until over half the movie is already gone by. Furthermore, the movie tries to make you believe this is a post-apocalyptic Australia. I am sorry if showing dusty rural roads half the movie and a crooked letter on a sign didn't quite convince me of that, even for 1979 this was not science fiction. So anyways, add this on top of randomly placed homoerotic subtext and you have got yourself one crappy movie (I have nothing against gays, there was just no need for it). The only good part was the first chase scene, good directing considering it was 1979, and another good part is how he kills the last guy. So basically I recommend you watch the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes and you will enjoy yourself much more than if you sat through all that stuff in the middle, which may lead you to gouge your own eyes out. Don't say I didn't warn you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGeorge Segal lives with his elderly and senile mother. There are many jokes about her Alzheimer's-like dementia and most of them aren't funny, though there were a few funny moments sprinkled in here and there (such as the nude running through the park scene and the old folks home). At first, Segal tries to kill his mother because she's tough to live with and because he's a selfish guy. Making the film sort of like a Wiley Coyote versus the Roadrunner comedy where he tries again and again to kill this indestructible gal would have been a hoot--too bad this was NOT the overall tone of the film.
I do applaud Carl Reiner's attempt to make a tasteless film that is intended to offend everyone. I have a special place in my heart for films like ED AND HIS DEAD MOTHER, EATING RAOUL and HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--all films about death that dare to offend. The problem here, though, is that WHERE'S POPPA? has some funny moments, but it also has a lot of flat ones and the overall product is amazingly bland. Plus topics such as homosexual rape, incest and the like are really difficult to make funny. I read in \"THE ROUGH GUIDE TO CULT MOVIES\" that it is considered a cult film, though I just can't see anyone wanting to see this more than once.
\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\nNew York attorney plots to rid himself of his senile mother after meeting an attractive, available woman. Screenwriter Robert Klane, adapting his own novel (the kind of paperback kids would buy for the dirty parts), doesn't seem to have any knowledge of mental illness: to him, it's just an excuse for prurient comedy and scatological jokes. George Segal--who, in the 1960s, starred mostly in war and espionage pictures--had become, by this time, one of America's greatest sad-sack comedians; his nutty reactions and batty responses rival only his mother's inscrutabilities. Segal is paired well with Trish Van Devere, and their moments of connection (though also played for laughs) are really the only sequences one can gravitate towards. Ruth Gordon, lovable as is she, is simply around too much--and more of her amounts to less. This is one of the worst directed and edited films I have ever seen from so-called professionals. Promising scenes which ultimately don't play out for the full effect are haphazardly disconnected from other moments which flail around endlessly, causing the crass, rickety movie to self-destruct long before it's actually over. *1/2 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\nA mild-mannered NY lawyer (George Segal) is slowly going crazy. He promised his father on his death bed that he would NEVER send their senile mother (Ruth Gordon) to a nursing home. Years later he's taking care of a senile, dangerous psychopath. He meets a beautiful nurse (Trish Van Devere) and they fall in love. But his mother keeps scaring her away. Segal is ready to kill her....
Ummmm...THIS is a comedy? I have nothing against sick, black humor but come on...there HAS to be some limits! This movie goes out of its way to throw every tasteless sick joke it can think of and rub your face in it. Too bad none of the jokes are funny. The jokes involve rape, nudity, public humiliation, senile old people, swearing and racism. Basically this is a movie that thinks it's clever by trying to shock people and thinking they'll laugh at it. I was disgusted and didn't laugh once. The movie is morbid, disturbing and (surprisingly) dull. The cast is the only thing that kept me watching. Segal and Gordon were both wonderful in their roles--Gordon especially. And Van Devere is pretty good also. But the script is against them. The only interesting thing (not funny) was a pointless courtroom scene with Rob Reiner Jr. (and try to spot his then-wife Penny Marshall as a spectator).
Actually this movie could have been worse--the original ending had Segal getting into bed with his MOTHER and pretending he's poppa! That was (thankfully) changed.
A real lousy, sick film. Bottom of the barrel. I give it a 1.
\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 19 in 1970 when it came out and having heard how funny it was when it came out and reading the reviews here, I finally rented it and watched it. I didn't laugh once - a very unfunny flick - and I usually love Reiner. I cannot for the life of me figure why this is seen as funny. I had not one chuckle. And I love comedies! Oh well, at least now I know what all the shouting was about. Not my idea of a comedy. Go rent The Navigator or The Love Nest by Buster Keaton - now THOSE are comedy classics! If you rent this one - have a back-up rental so your whole evening isn't a loss. Score 3 out of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot being a particular fan of westerns, I watched this primarily because I wanted to see Lucille Ball in something other than an \"I Love Lucy\" or \"Lucy Show\" type of role. Here she plays Christine Larson, owner of a saloon in the Arizona Territory in 1868 who's about to be married to the unscrupulous local Indian agent (Dean Jagger.) Ball's performance was OK - nothing really more than that; she didn't blow me away. It succeeded for me in that the role was very different from what I'm accustomed to seeing her in - there was very little of the outrageous physical comedy she later became famous for, although the movie tried to maintain a gently amusing feel throughout. (A typical funny line - \"there's two ways to deal with women - and no one knows either one of them!\") I didn't find the story all that compelling, although I appreciated that the Indians were shown as the victims of the Indian agent. There's typical shootout action and a lot of horses - your typical western in other words. As to Christine - we pretty much can guess from the beginning how her planned marriage is going to end up; it's just a question of how she's going to get there. If you like westerns, this would be a pretty typical one with a bit of humour thrown in. If you're not big on the genre, this will be lacking. I'm not big on the genre. 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\nBeing a huge street fighter fan and thoroughly enjoying the previous film, Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie, I was really looking forward to this one!
However, it seemed that the film had no real sense of direction or purpose. Most of the characters I could not associate with and it just lacked the intense action that made the other mentioned street fighter film so superior.
There are some good points however, the Animation is superb!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is based on the series Street Fighter Alpha (or Zero)! It is placed in an other setting than Streetfighter the animated movie! This movie is all about Ryu who is accompanied by Ken and Chun Li. I recognized Rose,Zanghief and Birdie! There weren't any other characters used from the video game (that i could discover)! The fighting scenes were OK but nothing really spectacular! And there were not many of them! To me this is odd! Isn't Streetfighter about fighting! Streetfighter the animated movie (1994) is far superior to this movie. It tries to be more than it really is! The use of the \"Hada Power\" and other supernatural elemnents have nothing to do with skills the characters have in the video game! And in this case that is a bad thing! The story is so boring that you don't really care what is happening! The action is toned down considerably! Why? And what happened to the other characters from the video game! Surely they are more interesting than the villain in this story! The main attraction of the video game are the characters with their own special skills! In this movie it is all about Ryu! That is why this anime fails!
\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\nSpoilers abound. You have been warned.
I was thoroughly disappointed, this being my first STREET FIGHTER movie I have seen (I dare not go near the 1994 joke yet). Very little grabs your attention in STREET FIGHTER ZERO (ALPHA) as opposed to most japanimation. The fights are hilariously done over board (Shun versus Zangief was a laugher) and the dramatization is far too moody especially toward the end when Ryu has to control everything in his fight against his brother.
The main street fighter, Ryu, has been weakening to a far darker version inside of himself. Frustrations in controlling this darkness are further complicated by the sudden arrival of a younger brother! A shady street fighting tournament is held with more than just fighting on the promoter 's mind.
What is with the artist 's drawing of feet? Any anime drawn above the stomach is impressive. The story 's soft nature makes the STREET FIGHTER genre far too intelligent, and places far more emphasis on a character (Shun), that is not even a fighter in the video game! A character study on more than just the core stars of the original STREET FIGHTER is completely ignored. How many times did you catch Rolento? Adon? Guy? STREET FIGHTER ZERO lacks the imagination of the video game.
\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 easily falls into the category of laughable, if not beyond that to actually insulting. I mean in what alternate universe did the filmmakers and studios think that this film would play? From beginning to end we bombarded with Quaids overacting and ridiculous facial expressions, laying on the \"im a loose cannon\" act a little thick. Another picking point I had with the movie was the lack of a realistic story of events that would make you grow to connect to a character. I mean in one scene where Lewis is playing in a bar before making it big there is this over the top, just completely absurd bar fight that every citizen in town is apparently a part of. Then Lewis begins to play his rendition of \"A whole lot of shaking'\" and everyone immediately forgets their differences and begins dancing wildly as if its the most normal thing in the world. These kind of scenes, of which there are numerous, coupled with the lack of depth in any of the characters led me to actual laughter. So all in all this film is not worth viewing for anyone not interested in mocking a filmmaker and his actors decisions for an hour and a half.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Dennis Quaid's performance was high school caliber. While it's difficult to portray an off-the-wall character like Jerry Lee Lewis, it can be done. Just ask Jamie Foxx (although Ray Charles had more depth to his personality and musicianship than Lewis ever dreamed of possessing). The Phillips brothers portrayal belonged in The Dukes of Hazzard, and Alec Baldwin playing Jimmy Swaggart is a bit like Donald Duck performing Shakespeare. When Robert Duvall played a country preacher, I bought it. Baldwin never made me believe a single word. Wynona Ryder's part was the best, and she was mediocre. (And can anyone figure out how she was 13 when Lewis met her and still 13 more than a year later?) Some checking on the Internet reveals the essential facts presented by the film were true, at least no more fouled-up than most Hollywood bio pics. This film did badly at the box office, and it should have.
\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 really just terrible. Quaid overacts more than Shatner. The part where Elvis walks in and says \"You can have it all\" just kills anything that might have been good in this movie that's bad enough as it is. Drug use was completely snow coated, the only thing that had anything to do with his life was the bit about him wedding his cousin. Quaid also looks nothing like Lewis and has dark roots and eyebrows. I wish this could be re-made in the future with someone who doesn't try so hard. A bigger budget wouldn't hurt and maybe more about his actual life. I was very, very disappointed in Quaid. Don't watch this movie or you will be too.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI haven't seen this film in years, but the awful \"taste\" of Quaid's performance still lingers on my tongue. Some have commented on how Quaid has Jerry Lee Lewis \"to a tee\" but the fact is he only appears to have the most extreme stage Jerry in mind. Nobody acts that way all the time, and the performance comes off as hopelessly clownish, reducing Lewis to a buffoonish caricature. The nuances of a man's life are lost in the rubble of sheer over-acting.
The author of the book this is based on (Nick Tosches) is a good writer, who has written several fine musical bios (I particularly liked \"Dino\" on Dean Martin); in the books Tosches gives us a full human being, both separate from and involved in the \"biz.\" Quaid's acting seems to imply that Jerry never acted like a human being. If people were like this, no one would bother to hang around them. As cartoons go, it is mildly amusing, but otherwise it is one of the most egregious, film-destroying performances I have had the \"honor\" of viewing. Terrible...
\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\nJust re-saw this last night and to put it bluntly: \"Style instead of substance\". We can already guess that there had to be a lot more to Jerry Lee Lewis than what is depicted here. The Jerry Lee Lewis character in this movie is not depicted as a real human being for one minute throughout the entire hour and a half plus running time, but then again, all the other characters are only one pencil-stroke from being total cartoon characters.
Let's take the beginning. We see Jerry Lee and his cousin, Jimmy Swaggart sneaking over to the black jazz club and we see Jerry getting his inspiration. Might be possible. We see how the two cousins choose different paths in life (also possible). Then we cut to Jerry Lee playing the piano as an adult (now played by Dennis Quaid) and it's thrilling and a little scary. Cut to a scene where he first meets his second cousin, Myra. From then on the whole thing turns into a recap of certain events played out in a style befitting a news reel on high speed.
Not that the movie is not a little entertaining and it's great to hear new versions of the songs that made Jerry Lee. Alec Baldwin as Jimmy Swaggart is also a reason why you should at least take a look at this, an indicator of his greater successes in the years to come. Winona Ryder as Myra is the most one noty character in the film. She teases, she sobs, she chews gum and play coquettish and that's about it. There is never for a minute given a reason why she ended up being the third Mrs. Lewis and speaking of wives, where are the first two? That is why this really can't be classified as a biopic, but more of a inaccurate news reel. We see Jerry get his first song played on the radio, we see his second single going into the top ten, we see his third go to no. 1 and so on. Then comes the inevitable downfall. Absolutely, no basis in reality.
To conclude another minor quarrel: The movie takes place from '56 to '58 and still Myra says: \"I am only 13\" right up till the end.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI must say I was surprised to find several positive comments to this turkey (in desperate need of a feather transplant)! I'm giving it a 1 because I think the idea of making a movie about the wild man of rock'n'roll - Jerry Lee Lewis, is honorable, but it's a shame to put out such trash and the \"killer\" does not deserve this! It's a good thing it came late in his career... they said Elvis practically ruined his career with the movies he put out through the sixties and this could have done the same for Jerry lee, had it come out some 15-20 years earlier! It's based on Myra Gail Lewis book and that's a shame to begin with. It's a bad and inaccurate story of her life together with Lewis and there is far better books about the Killer, that could have made a much better and more interesting script. Add to this a bunch of actors who doesn't know if they are participating in a drama, comedy or a little bit of both! The otherwise fine actor Dennis Quaid is putting on what must be one of the worst performances of an actor in many a moon! He is walking around in the picture, talking about his \"god-given talent\" and as a spectator, you wish he'd show some of it on the screen too! Silly gestures and funny faces and Jerry Lee must have felt betrayed when he saw what had become of him in this truly awful movie! The rest of the crew is almost as bad... save for Winona Ryder, who does her best with the crappy lines given to her. It's \"Grease\" all over again and whenever Jerry Lee take a ride around Memphis in his convertible, having the radio on in the car, the whole town is dancing to the music from it! Everybody in this movie are like cartoon figures of the real people involved... from the wild man himself to Sun Records Sam Philips! And it's a damn shame! A charismatic and interesting artist like Jerry Lee Lewis deserves better and I hope he took the 500.000 dollars he got from the deal and told the company to go f**k themselves... twice!
\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\nDennis Quaid is tryin' hard to prove us that Jerry Lee Lewis was a dumb guy. And he's doing too much to prove it. TV sequences are very good, like a photocopy of old black and white footages. Music is fine too, because Mr. Lewis himself is singing. But the rest is just Hollywood B-Movie style, with the fifties Happy Days complex. I think the only good thing in this movie is to see young Winona Ryder.
\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\nGreat Balls of Fire is the movie you show to someone you really, really hate. It is absolute torture of the highest rank and is probably used by minions of a foreign power to extract info from captured intelligence agents. I've enjoyed some of Dennis Quaid's performances in the past, but he goes totally over the top in this film. He doesn't so much cross the line, he pole vaults over it, then comes back to jump over and over again. He struts and mugs as if on some incredibly bad acid trip. It's one of those rare performances where you wish you could enter the film and beat the man within an inch of his life for doing something so truly awful. Was he desperate to win a Golden Raspberry or some other award for bad acting? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. Thank you Dennis, you gave us a bad performance for the ages. Where was the director to reign in this guy?
The opposite end of the extreme is Winona Ryder, she of the plastic features and plastic acting. I came across a review of her acting style that compared her to a wax dummy. That was of course an insult to wax dummies all over the earth, all of whom could have brough more humanity to the role of Jerry's underage cousin/wife. This brings up the film's mixed up message, that being it is 100% okay to marry your own cousin and have a child by the union. I fail to see what is so \"okay\" about that, but it looks as though Hollywood thinks that underage incest is hunky dory. Talk about \"family values.\"
Another problem is the format. Is it a stright forward re telling of Lewis' life, or is it a musical? I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the truly weird scene where Jerry drives up to the school, starts to belt out a tune and everyone starts to dance like it was Broadway musical in search of a Tony. Fantasy and reality are thrown together in a mix that does not work. But who really cares? I don't. And neither should you. You can't get back the minutes of life you would waste on this film. So don't waste your time, it's too precious for something this misguided and poor.
\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 romp across a disbelieving outback, this outragous adventure enchants through it's downright brazeness. Comedy from the clashing confrontation of cultural assumptions - as Drama from Crisis. Perhaps a little too Queenie for some - I would love to have watched IN a cinema audience in the outback. Shockingly good
\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 like all of the main actors involved in this quite bizarre film. Terrance Stamp, Guy Pearce & Hugo Weaving have all proved themselves as some of the best & most capable actors around, but I could not get into this. I don't know if it's because I don't understand the lifestyle or what, but I could not get my head around this film. Worse than anything is that the actors made some of the ugliest drag queens I've ever seen. I think that was part of the point, I don't know. I realize that is probably an insult, but I don't know what else to call them. I must say I bought the guys as the performers (the correct term?) but the story just wasn't very good or very interesting either. I will say that I can't usually appreciate costume designers very well, although I notice them when they are wrong or out of place, but I was very much impressed with these. Very creative to say the least, just not attractive, but I don't think they're supposed to be. I don't know I am definitely not the target audience and would never go see a performance done by these kind of performers, but I wouldn't go see ballet, or opera either so I don't know. If this is your kind of film then you will probably like it, but if it's not skip it because it is...well not for most of us. I just checked it won the Oscar for costume design & I will say rightfully so. I must say Ebert didn't care much for this film either, though he liked it better than 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\nShaggy, friendly yet frustrating film has the same old message: if you want to make it in this world, being imaginative isn't enough, you have to live up to your place in society and that means living by the (heterosexual) rules that govern us. Drag queen comedy-drama from Australia is a mostly upbeat journey of three male friends traveling across the Outback in their pink bus, christened Priscilla. While not a formula film per se, there are the obligatory \"road movie\" sequences (bonding by the bonfire, facing down the rednecks, etc.). Writer-director Stephan Elliott follows every potentially mean-spirited moment with a little humor and sympathy, but there are puzzling gaps in his narrative, a dire subplot about a gay man's relationship with his ex-wife and estranged pre-teen son (both of whom are comfortable--and the child wise--with his lifestyle), and a third act with no energy whatsoever. It has some wicked transvestite humor and a fairly game cast, but a script that seems to have been watered down along the way. ** 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\n\"Priscilla, Queen of the Desert\" is always being trotted out as a masterpiece of Australian cinema. I found it quite disappointing. The lead actors are great - Terence Stamp is aging beautifully, Guy Pearce should do more comedy instead of the dour roles he chooses and I've been a fan of Hugo Weaving since I saw him play Oberon eons ago. The cinematography is great, but if you've ever been to the Australian outback, you'd know that the air is so clear and the light so brilliant that they could have shot it on the movie equivalent of a Box Brownie and it still would have looked spectacular.
So what's my problem? Well, three things. First, there is not a sympathetic female character in the whole film. A woman who has to earn her living shooting ping pong balls out of her privates in a roadside pub deserves our sympathy. Tick's wife doesn't get much better treatment.
Second, the scene when they sing \"I Will Survive\" to a group of Aboriginals is offensive. To try to draw any sort of parallel between the struggles of drag queens and trannies and the almost total destruction of Aboriginal culture, which is what I assume the scene is supposed to do, shows a level of historical understanding worthy of Paris Hilton.
Last of all, and the greatest defect of the film is that it just isn't funny enough. Did Stephan Elliott actually talk to any drag queens when writing the film? Anyone who knows a drag queen (or three or four) knows that most of them have rapier-like wits and they're not afraid to use them. Now, I can understand that a lot of drag queen banter probably would have got the film refused classification but Elliott should have been able to gather enough \"fit for the kiddies\" material to complete his film.
So, all in all, a waste of a good idea and a great cast.
\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 those inoffensive and mildly entertaining little movies that strive to make you to like them more. But like so many others, it's material isn't strong enough to successfully fill a couple of hours.
The pitch is promising: three drag queens drive a bus through the Outback from Sydney to Alice Springs. They run into lots of trouble - with homophobic locals, with the engine, with their pasts.
The real trouble is with the dialogue. The leads are fine (though Pearce's continual campness becomes tiresome), but the one-liners and epithets feel forced where they should be casually thrown away. Characters shouldn't laugh at their own gags.
Writer/director Elliott also feels the need to pile on the pleasingly incongruous shots of flamboyant drag costumes against stark desert backgrounds like so much cheap make-up. For a movie about self-confidence and just being yourself, it all seems very insecure with itself.
\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 costumes are outrageous and the Australian outback scenery is fun to view, but there is an edge to this story - a mean edge - about drag queens. I particularly noticed that in Terrence Stamp's character, \"Ralph Bernadette Bassenger.\" Perhaps that was appropriate since there is nothing \"good-guy- like\" about Ralph-Bernadette and his group of \"queens.\"
Once again, we get the strong Liberal slant which says anything goes and if you're not \"with it\" - or in this case, pro-homosexual, then you are a homophobe. (Gasp!)
What's really disturbing is the ending when a young boy goes off with his \"alternative-lifestyle\" father and embraces his gay lifestyle, not because it fit the story but because it fit the agenda of the people who wrote the script. Pitiful.
\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 tries hard but fails. Perhaps to non-Australian audiences it may have appeal as a travelogue, but to the native it is merely tedious.
Anyone who lives here knows Broken Hill is a rough, tough isolated mining town. If a couple of citified fruits turn up in drag, well it's all so predictable. Where have I come across that well-worn theme before? Oh yes -- Town Mouse and Country Mouse. Spare us.
I kept hoping it would improve but after the Broken Hill scene I could see where this was heading and so turned off the TV and went to bed.
\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\nTerence Stamp can carry off anything, but this is still a shallow one-dimensional movie. It's nice to look at - so are the actors - and if you're into drag queens, I guess you might like it a lot, but the plot and characters are as thin as cardboard. It's one of those politically correct movies that warps everything else in order to make a 'minority lifestyle' seem warm and cuddly. It gets a lot of mileage out of bitchy dialogue, which is amusing in this sanitized form, I guess.
Ninety percent of the action is parading around in gaudy costumes in incongruous situations. The dramatic content is a token appendage - they hardly try to get you to take it seriously.
\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\nBasically a road movie. The gay, transsexual, and other gender-bender themes are rather disturbing, particularly when the child is involved. You do have to hand it to the costume designers. As for the actors, the only one I was familiar with was Terence Stamp. I suppose it was a very good performance, out of his (or anyone's) normal range. The movie as a whole was shallow, just a vehicle for the clever, bitchy banter. All in all, I don' recommend this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this in the cinema during its initial release and can only ask \"has the world gone mad?\" The seemingly overwhelming positive response is mind boggling for this poorly written, embarrasingly predictable clap trap.
Stephan Elliot is no genius film maker as evidenced by the consistent bombs he has produced since (check out 'Welcome to Woop Woop', 'Eye of the Beholder')
I can only assume making a film dealing with the gay/transexual culture has people assuming that to dislike the film is an offense to this sector of the populace. Aren't we smarter than that? What about an interesting script and good performances? Ok so the 3 leads do alright considering what they have to work with, but this film includes the worst performance by a child actor I have ever seen, not helped by appalling dialogue and a really lame resolution that you can see a mile off.
This is a disappointing film and one that doesn't deserve the overblown reputation it has garnered.
\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 video at a friends house, and it was the lamest thing i have seen ever. i lost a lot of the little respect i had for NIN. very boring, and the music is as equally interesting. dont waste your time unless you are a hardcore NIN \"fan\"
\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\nlike i'm sure other people have said this guy isn't a very worthwhile subject. sure, our society has a morbid fascination with death, and it's funny hearing him talk about how much he smokes and how much coffee he drinks, but he's into giving himself an unworthy mystique. anyway, the bottom line is that he's a moron racist using feeble methods to try to disprove the mountain of evidence of the holocaust, and as such he should be forgotten by time. but Morris is in love with any kind of curiosities, which normally i wouldn't fault him for.
\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\n1st watched 1/1/2003 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Henri Verneuil): Sober drama about a well-to-do Doctor who gets into trouble carrying on a relationship with a younger woman, whom his family brings in to live with them, as well as being married to another in the same household. His searching for happiness is not clear, but they do bring out the reason for his unhappiness rather well by displaying the overbearing trait of the females in his wife's line. Well played, but predictable drama.
\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\nDistasteful British film from a Japanese novel about a very troubled young man who comes under the influence of a Hitler-like classmate and plots to harm his widowed mother's lover. A couple of good scenes (Sarah Miles discovering her son has been peeping at her and confronts him in anger, the pasty-faced lad trying to ensnare Kris Kristofferson to his demise by being extra friendly), but what's the point beyond provoking shock? Ugly and uneasy, it doesn't showcase anyone involved to any advantage (especially Kristofferson, whose hollow stares and usual gravelly talk is out-of-place in a psychological mishmash like this one). Coldly without any sense of its own absurdity, director Lewis John Carlino seems to believe a circumstance like this could actually happen. If he's right, that's far more shocking than anything in \"Sailor\". * 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\nThe movie is an adaptation of a Japanese story by the respected author Yukio Mishima. It simply doesn't make the transition into a credible story about Brits and Americans.
The story moves sluggishly, especially the part where Miles and Kristofferson are separated and the director fills in with the cliched shots of a ship's prow cutting through the waves, and the little route line filling in on the maps, while their letters are heard in overvoice. The film moves so languidly that I even fast-forwarded through the sex and masturbation scenes which, although long, are not really either passionate or erotic. The film did achieve a measure of notoriety when Kristofferson's then-wife divorced him for extra-curricular activities with Miss Miles during the filming. I guess they enjoyed the sex scenes, but it isn't quite the same for a viewer.
There are no characters to hang on to. The sexually frustrated widow is unlikeable, the little kid is detestable. Kristofferson is amiable enough, but he just doesn't have the acting skills to bring much to the role, although perhaps we don't really want get too involved with him, considering his ultimate fate.
As for the little kid, well, he kinda falls in with a bad crowd after his dad dies, and they help him plot some evil against the man who enters his mum's life. Now this is a really bad crowd. They don't just shoplift and smoke dope, nosireebib. They slip a mickey to a cat and vivisect it. This is shown in gory detail. But of course, this is only practice so they can do the same thing to Kristofferson!
So the movie mostly moves slowly, with no characters to relate to, and when something does happen it is unrelentingly morbid.
The ending is about as unsatisfying as any movie you'll ever see.
This all might have made some sense if the Japanese locale and cultural context had been retained. As it stands, it is just abysmal.

\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\nKK should stick to singing- this whole movie was a big bore. I can't understand the viciousness of the boys and the romance between Miles and KK- the sex scenes were uninspired too. The ending was awful- unresolved- there needs to be reason to murder. And the whole voyeurism of the boy was weird..... the mother always wrestled with the boy- don't you think he would get some rather Freudian with her? And why didn't someone teach KK how to speak with inflection instead of monotone?
Glad I only paid $1.00 to rent this.

\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 just a very bad film. Miles looks as if she is in pain during the sex scenes and the acting is wooden. It also drags on slowly and never really finds a point to it all. One of the worst films that I have ever seen!
\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 funniest thing about Fortunes is that one of the main characters, Lewis (Urbaniak) has writer's block and apparently so did the screenplay writer for the film. This is sad, as well, as I guess by large, this is supposed to be a comedy, or dramedy, but that's the funniest thing I can remember from watching this.
Three friends go out and drink one night. On the way home, two decide to get their fortunes told by a \"gypsy,\" as they call her. Those two lives fall apart while the third friend stands by. Then, nothing happens.
I hope I didn't spoil the movie there, but really, this extremely low-budget, bad quality movie had some kind of idea when it started but quickly snowballed into the depths of hell. Yeah, I'm being harsh. Honestly, it wasn't that bad, it was just blah.
The aforementioned writer was annoying to watch, though he delivered maybe one or two of the only two funny lines. The clichéd \"ladies man,\" the only one that didn't get his fortune told was just annoying. The only bright spot, was the remaining friend, the married dad whose fortune was told that something big was to happen to his son and he needed to be prepared. He was funny, genuine and clearly the best actor in the movie. Unfortunately, that's not saying much.
Perhaps I'm being too cruel. Heck, they got the ambition to make a movie, went and got funding and accomplished something. Unfortunately, however, I can't at all recommend the film on the basis, there's hundreds of thousands of other independent movies that have hundreds of thousands better ideas and executions. This one was literally 10 minutes of an idea stretched another 81 boring 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\nPoor old Robert Taylor. Other than THE FEDS, nothing much has gone his way - this almost-shocker is a wasteful ninety minutes and not much more. It's one of those cheesy detective-crime flicks with the narrative of the lead character the whole way through - usually that's reserved for comedies these days but this film takes itself way too seriously! A pity; Australian films, particularly in the 2000-01 periods, have been of exceptional quality overall - but I suppose there have got to be a few misses. Why even make a film like this, that obviously isn't going to be any good?
\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\nWow...
Reading through these comments, I see a remarkable socio-cultural clash theme emerging between the US and ... the Dutch! The US P.o.V. appears to be that this is quite a good little movie, Parker being a likable hero, the story a light-hearted rendition of what could be a glorified form of reality.
All three Dutch reviewers view the world through a totally different pair of glasses it seems. They categorically and in surprisingly similar terms agree the movie is a disaster.
Far be it from me to take sides in what appears to be a dispute between cultures, on this item as wide apart as the ocean that separates them geographically. Still, based on factual observation - I saw the movie with my very own eyes - I suspect the Dutch are not too far off the mark:
\"Parker Kane\" is poorly made, utterly boring, and really not worth the celluloid that was no doubt wasted in its creation.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"