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\nUgh. Pretty awful.
Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.
Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.
Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing \"The Coven,\" in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.
Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.
There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.
The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.
Not recommended, not even for Halloween.
\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! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.
\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 hope this group of film-makers never re-unites.
\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 are looking for a cinematic masterpiece, this ain't it. If you are looking for one of those awful movies that are so horrible that they are actually good, then this may be for you. There are so many unintentional laughs in this film, that it could almost be considered a comedy. Let's start with the opening titles, that say \"Jack-O\", and then add the word \"Lantern\", as if the viewer wasn't able to figure out the movie was about a pumpkin by the giant pumpkin shown on both the cover and in the opening scene of the movie. After that, the movie goes in about 20 different directions, none of which make much sense. Jack-o is everywhere, he's in people's houses, in the woods, and yet he doesn't ever seem to do much of anything. He does make a few kills, but the long buildup to those killings is so poorly acted and constructed you almost wish Jack-o would take out his rage on you the viewer. Other than that, the plot consists of poor acting, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous plot line. The acting in this film is among the worst I've ever seen in my 35 plus years of movie-watching. The boy who is the lead in the film (the director's son) has about as much emotion as a corpse, and just about all of the other actors/actresses are just as bad for numerous reasons (especially the bug-eyed lady with eyes bigger than saucers). But, having said all this, if you take this for what it is, (that is a steaming pile of dung) then you will get a few laughs from this movie. What I also found amusing is that the makers of the DVD saw fit to release a \"10th Anniversary Version\" of this movie (as if the original wasn't good enough). And someone actually had the idea of making a \"behind the scenes\" mini film which is also included in the 10th anniversary edition (I'm not sure why).......I'll give this 3 smashed pumpkins 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\nIf you are in search of a masochistic thrill, rent this movie, and show it to a group of your friends sober. This movie is just plane lame, but there not completely without value. The brief tits are nice, and there is one victim's death that is funny as hell. Other than that, this is straight garbage. But it is still better than \"Grim\" or \"Spookies\"
\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\nMy mother and I rented this gem a few years ago while she was here visiting for Thanksgiving. I have rarely laughed so hard. This is a typical low-budget horror movie with dumb special effects, a worse plot, and even worse acting. But are you really expecting a classic when Linnea Quigley receives top billing? I thought not.
Since this movie does have some entertainment value, I give it a 3 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThree delinquents disturb the tomb of an ancient warlock who after summoning Jack-O (a less then menacing pumpkin-headed figure) to dispatch said hoodlums, continues on his sworn vengeance to kill every decedents of the family that offed him. That includes young Sean Kelly and his horror-loving family. Of course it's up to Sean to find a way to save the day.
Such a stupid low-budget B-movie. The acting's atrocious and the plot isn't much better. Throw in a extremely lame killer, a possible pedophile who laughs way too much & a couple of stereotypical cardboard cutout 'conservative' couple and you have this film in a nutshell. Not really worth your time save to see how superbly well Linnea is aging.
Eye Candy: Linnea Quigley is always good for some T&A and she doesn't disappoint here with a lengthy shower scene; Rachel Carter also gets topless (although it could be a body double)
My Grade: D-
\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\nWarning Might contain spoilers
i just sadly spent 5 bucks on this movie on amazon and i wish i never spent it. I have never seen suck horrible special affects, or acting. I mean Jack-0 is just a laughable monster and his costume looks like something u could buy at a Halloween store or make yourself. The acting is just horrible especially Sean Kelly i mean come on he is so pathetic with his little lines \"COme get me PUmpkinman\" low i laughed so hard on this its just stupid. I mean the movie is so awful they had to put a few minutes of nudity in it just for people not to shut it off low. I think the most laughable scene is when the woman sticks a butter knife in the toaster and gets electrocuted. I mean come on that looked so fake and the dummy i could buy that at any Halloween store or make it myself. Well I recommend not watching this cheesy movie cause it will be time you will never get back.
\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, I could only find three reasons to consider this film worthwhile considering the extremely low budget.
First there was Linnea Quigley and Rachel Carter. Actually, the two of them gave me four good reasons to watch, and watch I did.
The only other reason to watch is that a lot of was filmed right down the road. Now, I didn't know this beforehand, but I saw an Orange County car tag and said, wow! this was shot in Florida.
I was impressed by the flashback to the past and the ancestors of the young kid, but that was really it. The killings by the pumpkin man were pretty lame, with the exception of the biker.
If you want to see Quigley and Carter, OK, but Return of the Living Dead will give greater thrills.
\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\nJack-O (1995) was a really bad movie, we are talking snoozefest x 100, no entertainment value whatsoever, no budget, no gore, Z-grade actors etc etc, this film was an awful addition to the horror movie industry and shouldn't have been made!!! The only reason i purchased this movie was because i knew Linnea Quigley was in it, and sure enough, she does her obligatory nude shower scene, which is lovely yes.
But as for the film itself........ i fell asleep at the 40 minute stage and had NO desire at all to finish it, it's just bigtime lame OK.
I love horror movies, i'm an avid fan, a MASSIVE fan, i love low budget horrors, i love it all, but i hated this rubbish, so i think that will tell you all you need to know about \"JACK-O\".
I give this movie 2/10, the \"2\" is for the 2 minute Linnea shower scene, the movie itself is a total ZERO!!!!
\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 can not believe I even wasted a NetFlix rental on this complete piece of CRAP. How long did it take to make this film? 15 minutes? On a budget of what? Fifteen bucks? I can spend a few hours with my Sony Camcorder and come up with something better than this treacherous lump of bile, and it's even available on DVD!?!! A very sad thing to think classics like The Stepfather have not been released on DVD but this chunk of steaming dung makes it to the format. Here's hoping my rating of ONE ONE ONE ONE makes the overall (already) pathetic rating of 2.5 go DOWN.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOn Halloween a town is terrorized by a lunatic with a big pumpkin for a head. Bad acting compromised mostly of local talent and laughable special effects makes this one baaaaad. B-Movie Queen Linnea Quigley looks embarrassed to be a part of this one and even her considerable charm which has helped so many of her other films can't help this one. Pass this cheesy flick if you are looking for a good Halloween horror film and rent \"Night of the Demons\" which also stars Ms. Quigley.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWe were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.
The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters.
We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film made no sense to me whatsoever. Good actors(SergioCastellittoaparticular favourite; he was great in \"Uomo DelleStelle\"/\"TheStarmaker\"but that was made by Giuseppe Tornatore, a great Italian director as opposed to the mediocre one who made this effort),but awful, rambling script, terrible editing,and a director who seemed to have no idea of what he was trying to say, and ended up saying exactly nothing. Apretentious load of rubbish, but the sort of film that certain Italianpseudo-intellectuals whom it was my misfortune to have known in the dim and distant past would have loved it, and unfortunately Italy has no monopoly on these, they can be found everywhere and probably acclaim this as a great masterpiece. I never thought much of Bellochio as director. I remember seeing his first film \"PugniNella Tasca\"/\"Fists in the Pocket\" (or some such title) in Rome when it was first shown close on 50 years ago (I was living thereat the time). All the usual pseudos raved about it, but it left me pretty cold. I didn't think he was much of a director then, and still don't. Age has certainly not improved him, and this film must rank as one of his worst.
\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 agree that this film is too pretentious, and it is not easy to know where it is going. I have been teaching literature and film for many years, and I find this film to be one of the most over rated, according to some of the previous reviews here.
However, let me remind you that this is the same director who has L'ora di religione (Il sorriso di mia madre- My Mother's Smile) to his credit -- a gem of a film!
Was he trying to outdo Fellini's 81/2 here???? The scene with the dogs, which has also been pointed out, is absurd and excessive  just one example. Others would take too much space, and some reviewers have already noted them.
Overall, a most frustrating and annoying experience!
\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 would have to rate as one of the worst films of all time. The film screened at the Italian Film Festival in Melbourne, Australia. After the screening, not only did I want my money refunded, I wanted the 1.5 wasted hours of my life back too. I have a very broad tolerance level when it comes to the indulgences of some European film-making, but this is one of those films that is selected for festivals based on the reputation of the filmmaker alone. This film is proof that while such selections may satisfy the egos of the film-maker and the selection panel, there is absolutely no joy for the audience. There is no character development whatsoever, the plot is a garbled mess, the style is nonsensical, the shot selection is appalling, and the editing is worse. By the end of the first reel, you'll wonder if you walked into the wrong cinema, and by the end of the third reel, you'll be begging to be put out of your misery. This film is an abomination.
\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 checked this out at the Vancouver International Film Festival and was not impressed.
The only area of the film I enjoyed was the commentary on film-making. For the most part, this film seemed random and somewhat fantastical (I don't say that in a complimentary way, however) and just silly. It was as if he was mixing fantasy with everyday life, which may sounds intriguing in some films, but the fantasy merely seemed needlessly perverse.
My criticism of this film is not upon the actors, rather the story itself. I found it boring and narcissistic. I wanted my money back, but considering it was a Film Festival, that wasn't about to happen.
\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 premise of the film was very promising - sort of a gay Napoleon Dynamite type of film. And to be fair, there were some funny moments and funny lines but it really wasn't very good overall. The script and dialog felt like a local sketch production, full of clichés and scenes that were predictable.
However, there was enough that was amusing, that I stuck around to see how it finished, since there were hints that something special happens at the end. But it seems that either the film ran out of money or the writer ran out of ideas because the ending is extremely abrupt, almost skipping directly from what looked to be the key conflict in the film to the final credits.
Overall, it was very disappointing but not completely unwatchable...
\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 wasted enough time actually WATCHING this chore of a movie, I don't want to waste more writing a big review. Not once did I so much as crack a smile. ALL the jokes were boring, forced and lacked any kind of wit. I kept saying, \"wheres the punchline?\" Almost every single character was an obnoxious stereotype and all the situations were clichéd and half the time there wasn't even any kind of solution. Things just happened to get to the next scene. For the life of me I can't understand how this got as many good reviews as it did. If you like clunky acting and poorly composed film making Fat Girls is the movie for 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\nThis movie has been done before. It is basically a unoriginal combo of \"Napoleon Dynamite\" and \"Sordid Lives.\" There are some funny bits, but otherwise it is a cliché bore. It is a good first film attempt and the director (who also stars in and wrote the feature) shows a lot of promise. But the writing was kind of choppy and the story was not very original. I swear I had heard some of the lines in other films. However, the acting was very good and the film was shot in an interesting way. It is also refreshing to see gay-themed movies not be so bogged down with political correctness and tired stories of angst. The main character seemed fairly well adjusted for a gay teen in rural Texas so no saccharine, coming out drama here!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The Secret Life\" starts with the worst possible narrative intro: \"The crimes committed by Jeffrey Dahmer are too horrible to make a film about...\". Okay, so what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't bother to continue watching as the film won't be accurate or bloody, anyway? And they were right, too! The film isn't the least bit shocking and contains almost no blood or gore at all. Although I think that's mainly due to the low budget production values and not because of Dahmer's crimes being too horrific. Basically, \"The Secret Life: Jeffrey Dahmer\" is just one sequence repeated over and over again. Young, pitiful and mentally confused Jeffrey picks up victims (always males, as he was a homosexual), kills them and then talks about how it wasn't his intention to hurt them and about how lonely he is. This gets boring really quick and even the admirable performance by unknown actor Carl Crew can't save this movie from being a total dud. Still, this version is much better than the pretentious and hopelessly muddled \"Dahmer\" that got released in 2002.
\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***Possible spoilers***
I've read up on Dahmer a little and saw the new Dahmer film (with the same name) at an earlier time. This movie here concentrates rather much on the victims and killings, too little on Dahmer himself. The film called \"Dahmer\" had the opposite problem, it was too little about his crimes and too much about himself.
I did not find the acting to my satisfaction, it had a certain amateur feel too it, especially the probation officer. It also seemed as if the Dahmer acting got worse every time he played against the probation officer actor. But I might be wrong about that.
What annoyed me a bit was that some of the scenes were quite disturbing but that the filmmakers seemed to try and show \"the real deal\" about what he did anyway. That is ok - but what I then don't understand is why the guy who ran away from his flat while Dahmer was out getting beer, was not depicted being naked, since that is also how it happened. It's not a big deal, but it just eats away further on the movies quality that such details are left out. What wasn't shown either or not even really hinted was Dahmers sexual obsession with the dead. Again, I don't mind they didn't SHOW it, but at least they could have mentioned it or built it in to the movie somehow.
Conclusion: I think the really good Dahmer film is still to be made, a movie that incorporates not only Dahmers crimes but also who he was, and why he did what he did. I think that 1.5 or 2 hours are just not enough to grasp the complexity of it all. This movie was just a cutout (excuse the pun) of Dahmers life and personality and does not give you any 'close to good' insight into his life or personality.
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\nJefferey dahmer was one sick guy. There's not much to say about him that hasn't already been said, except that the many documentaries, and films made about him are probably better than this one. It's Ridiculously cheesy. It's so cheesy, a guy who posted the whole film on youtube added some annotations to make the viewer laugh.
Carl Crew (Who's he?) stars as Serial killer Jeffrey dahmer, Who's killing spree began in 1978 with a young guy dahmer just wanted to be friends with, a finally in 1991 with a man he wished to have sex with, and eat.
I didn't bother to watch the whole film through. it's basically a documentary that shows all the attacks dahmer pulled off before he got caught. And since this film was made in 1993, one year before dahmer was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate, The death of dahmer isn't shown. but it Probably would've been as cheesy as this cheese-fest.
1/10
\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\nHow can you make a joke about Mafia? It is not the kind of subject to laugh at! A near movie cannot make me laugh, because I am comparing it to Jane Austen's Mafia!. Mafia! wasn't a good movie but Hoods is really worse! In Mafia!, there were some good jokes but in this one there are maybe two or three...that make you smile. Not too bad actors but very bad scenario!! We sure prefer something serious like The Godfather. I give it * out of *****.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've watched the first 15 minutes and I can tell that there was no consultation with any military type personnel. Judith Light's charactor (an officer) has her hair down past her shoulders! One of the first officers that greets her as she walks in to the medical facility she works at is so overweight that his pant pockets gap! No - there was no military advising them on this movie. Even an ex-military enlisted could have assisted here.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've been hearing a lot of this new bird flu that has killed dozens of people in South East Asia over the last three years . Apparently it's on the thresh hold of mutating into something very contagious and millions upon millions of people are going to be wiped out in a global pandemic . Just thought I'd mention this in case you haven't got round to writing your will yet .
I'd also thought I'd mention it since I was watching something called CARRIERS tonight which wasn't about naval warfare but opens with a scene that's a cross between OUTBREAK and an episode of THE X FILES I saw many years ago . I thought I'd be watching something with added resonance after hearing the stories about the danger posed by bird flu but after the not unimpressive opening CARRIERS descends into a cheap and cheerful TVM and like every other TVM you'll see the lead characters are female , one of which is a ballsy authority figure while the other lead female is a mother of young children . It goes without saying there's a sick child subplot too
What is irritating about the TVM format is that it overwhelms the potential of what could have been quite a good film if it was made for cinema . There's a fairly gory scene of someone coughing blood all over a nurses face and a very impressive jay walker getting run down stunt but these bits are quickly forgotten as the mood descends into family sentiment since this - And just about every other TVM ever made - was made for an essentially female audience
\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, imagine that every state in the US, nay, every country has exactly the same trees growing and ground foliage. Imagine, also, that a monkey-trapper's camp so far off the beaten track you had to do the first half of the approach by river has a beautifully tarmac'd, perfectly straight road leading up to it. Imagine a world where you have to wear a full biohazard suit to collect a floppy disk, then you just drop it in a ziploc bag and transfer it to your pocket with no precautions as soon as you get back to the office. A world where two nine-year old girls are happy to give lots of blood without complaining. This is the world this movie is set in.
On top of that, it's one of the most cliché-ridden pieces of excrement it's been my misfortune to witness in many a year.
I liked it. :)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not going to bother mentioning any of the plot - this is strictly a B movie on its way to obscurity. The shock to me, though, is seeing what has become of some of the actors in this film. Erika Eleniak, never anything you'd call a thespian anyway, seems to have morphed into Anna Nicole Smith (in her Big period). Daniel Bernhardt - I almost shed a tear. He's always been a favorite of mine because of his martial arts prowess, as seen in the Bloodsport series (also B movies but, if you like martial arts, eminently watchable). Here, he is a shell of his former self - sure, he's older, but doing the mercenary thing and not even looking interested ... I just don't get it. Don't these people invest? William Forsythe is another \"heavy\" that I've always liked, but his last several roles are what you would call \"mailing it in\". I'm not going to even mention Mr. Reynolds - his gig here amounts to a throwaway, nothing more. The only winner is Andrew Divoff, as usual a creepy, evil, pockmarked villain with a sandpaper voice that can curdle milk - the best kind! This is a movie you watch for laughs. There's nothing else 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\nLike a terrible cancer raining out of the sky, I wandered into this crock on some movie channel the other night. Being a fan of bad movies, and actively engaging in the purchasing and viewing of said bad film, i was intrigued by the idea of a genuinely terrible looking action movie coming from modern times. After that wore off though, I found my hands inexplicably turning against me, grabbing at anything in range and stabbing about my head and neck. Something sinister was in that tape...err...where was I...anyway this ranks among the more embarrassingly bad pieces of film I've run across. William Forsythe can't play more than one character, and that character is always a walking joke. Even when set into a comic background and given things to do and say that are supposed to be funny (ala Deuce Bigalo) he's laughable in the wrong way. Erika Eleniak is much the same, having starred in her fair share of terrible movies and done terrible jobs in all of them, she doesn't fail to help scum up this one. Classic b-movie villain guy Andrew Divoff does a respectable job but barely even has any scenery to chew on. Even reliable standby for b-movie action Daniel Bernhardt fails to deliver anything bordering on entertainment. As for the film's own merits, the plot is lame, the script, just like the action and the plot movement, is both dull and...well, stupid, for lack of a better adjective(lord knows they didn't put any effort into it, why should I?).
Anyone who has seen enough movies has seen some bad ones, and anyone who has seen enough bad ones can learn to appreciate them, but there is simply nothing here to be enjoyed unless you are among the most bad movie tolerant and simply feel so inclined as to test your mettle. Before you do though, take it from me, this one isn't even terrible enough to be enjoyed (unlike say...some of the more ludicrous Italian zombie films). A fan of b-movie action would be much better off checking out most any of Bernhardt's other films, or pretty much anything else that has ever been put to film for that matter. America simply is not the place to go to for action it seems, especially not now. If you have a craving, check out anything from over the seas, films like Heroic Duo or the slightly less normal Hakaider(along with anything else in the awesome Keita Amemiya's cannon) will provide a lot more fun and way better action than your apt to find elsewhere, especially here.
\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\nRecap: Simon leads a little team of special agents that has specialized in finding and returning missing people, against all possible odds. Their latest mission is about the granddaughter of a friend of them. She seems to have been caught in the web of a particularly brutal criminal and everyone that has gone looking for her has gone missing. But now The Librarians are on the case.
Comments: This is pure B-action, through and through. The key phrase for this is unlimited supply. There is unlimited supply of ammunition, they don't have to reload once. There is an unlimited supply of bad guys, so the heroes have something to shoot at. There is an unlimited supply of breasts, many of them bare, in an vain (and as always failed) attempt to distract from the plot holes. And there is an unlimited supply of bad acting (it is almost like Erika Eleniak's performance shines in this, what about that?), and actors that don't seem to care more than the paycheck (and why should they when no one else seem to?).
And as in most B-action movies there are an unlimited supply of bad gunfights. But these almost seem to be of a ridiculously bad kind. I think I saw more realistic gunfights when I played cowboy as a kid.
But then again I didn't really expect much either, how could I from a action movie named The Librarians? And it actually delivers about what could be expected. 90 minutes of more or less bad action with some scenes to connect the dots between. But I am unsure if I can call it entertaining, it didn't keep my interest very long.
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\nI heard the stories of the ravers in the movie and thats great but that is only 1/100 of the movie. The problem with this movie is the cheesiness. I never really got the plot or why the guy was stealing girls. That makes no sense but hey...why they were in a club randomly was curious also. Many parts of this movie make no sense but overall I was interested. It was confusing on many levels...maybe I am just not indie enough for this movie but judging from the B looking end scene they ran out of money, just cut some stuff in, and forgot about the plot. Its low budget and appears so. I like the fact that they used little special effects which were bad, but they used none that were quality. I would say this film is the quintessential bad script, with alright production. It is definitely not as random as many movies I have seen but the pieces of the puzzle just don't make sense together. In effects, I would give exception to the final battle when all the effects went 1950's on my ass. Sparks out of models and the like. Watch it if you like an unintentional comedy from an action movie. Mystery science theater has a candidate.
\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\nAs stated by others, this is a ludicrously horrible movie (NOT A FILM!). It is not bad in a funny way, just painful to try to endure. Don't waste your time.
Erika Eleniak is pretty hot, but there is one scene where she is in a bathtub, and you can see the wrap covering her breasts under the bubbles. Also, she's getting fat.
The fight scenes are so bad as to be unwatchable, if you know or care anything about martial arts, or even decent choreography, and the editing/effects are abysmal.
There is no payoff, it goes nowhere, and sucks getting 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\nAll things old are new again.Erika E. is on celebrity fitness (VH1);Florida State Rep. Mark Foley is the national buzz for allegedly sending sexually explicit Emails to a 16 yr. old male page.As I edit this Mr.Foley is resigning from his representative seat. Mr.Foley you see does his turn at acting as the father of the recovered girl seen during the opening sequence. My place in movie history will forever be solidified with my appearance in the graveyard scene.I should have looked at this as a omen.I hate to say it but be warned If you place this in your DVD be prepare to put your toe on the trigger of the shotgun you'll soon have between your teeth. Your level of depression has reached its zenith.I have seen better writing put to screen on an Etch a Sketch.Shot in 1999-00 under the working title \"The Librarians\" in and around Palm Beach Co.Why the Librarian's you ask,well you would need to be wrapped as tight as binding to be able to read anything into this frat party of over the hill stunt men plying their trade onto celluloid for one last time.Oh well enough with the accolades...Burt Reynolds as a Irish mobster, in Miami no less...possibly the worst forced accent impression since Linda Lovelace in \"Deep Throat\". .William Forsythe as a hip, slick and cool tough guy...doubtful,possibly 10 years ago.I'd say it's curtain time for Mike Kirton.You now have the Forsythe to pass up this sub par movie,more like a film school project, for anything on tape,disc or paper your local retailer has to offer.
\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\nQUESTION: How does a film merit two different titles like \"The Librarians\" and \"Strike Force\"?
ANSWER: The film is sooooooooo bad that the filmmakers couldn't even decide on a title!!!!
This film is a hodgepodge of martial arts, death wish-vendettas, melodrama, romance, and other cliché film techniques. The story focuses on a vigilante group called The Librarians led by Agent Simon (WIlliam Forsythe). The group is hot in pursuit of a nefarious, multi-lingual, pockmarked creature named Marcos (Andrew Divoff) who captures women and holds them hostage in the lawless urban world of south Florida.
Burt Reynolds appears as a cameo in this film, and his scene is entirely extraneous to the action. Burt delivers a long monologue in one of the strangest drawls I have ever heard. This may have been Burt's attempt at an Irish dialect, but the overall effect is a kind of perverse imitation of Marlon Brando in \"The Godfather.\"
Also appearing in this film is Erika Eleniak, who has infiltrated the inner circle of Marcos' bizarre world. Erika's character kick-boxes her way into an alliance with Simon. The Librarians and Erika will become a powerful strike force against evil in a film that has been delivered directly from the editing room to your cable TV converter box.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought it was comedy!! What a hoot! I can't believe Forsythe or Reynolds would actually appear in this piece of trash..And then there's the beautiful Erika Eleniak or whatever this piece of eye candy is called..Appears she put on a few pounds since her Playboy centerfold..Like about 50!! The story line is ludicrous, the acting absolutely horrendous, and the tired old cliché's that are run over and over and over again, boy it took a lot of stamina to sit through this dog..The only thing worth it was the LAUGHS!! And there are PLENTY! If you really want to kill say, an hour and a half pick this baby up at the rental shop, but make sure you have a room full of brain dead people to watch it with you. I think that's who it was written for.. it plays like they were thinking of a real low rent, drug induced audience for 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\nEvery James Bond movie has its own set of rules. Just like every Indiana Jones movie has ITS own set of rules. And the fact that screenwriters don't break these rules maintains the integrity of the characters. With a completely unnecessary plot twist, the integrity of both Ocean films plummets somewhere between Airplane 2 and a Roadrunner cartoon.
Imagine what would happen, while teetering on the rope bridge outside of the Temple of Doom, if Indy told Shorty and Willie not to worry because throughout the entire first two movies he's secretly had super powers and can fly them both to safety.
Entertaining? Sure, for a Roadrunner cartoon. But Spielberg would never have done that because it would have destroyed the integrity of the film. More importantly, it would have ANGERED the audience. They'd already sat on the edge of their seats through 3 hours worth of Indiana Jones movies and they were counting on Indiana to get them off that bridge in a believable way. If he were to fly off? People would have walked out of the theaters the same way people did during Ocean's 12.
SPOILERS
1. Julia Roberts'character, Tess, infiltrates a museum by disguising herself as...Julia Roberts?!? A clever twist? By breaking the fourth wall three hours after we've been introduced to these characters? Is this the Naked Gun 33 and 1/3? It's a textbook example of how a cheap laugh can ruin an entire film. But wait...just in case you haven't walked out yet...
2. The suspense builds throughout the last hour of the movie -- how will they pull off the heist -- there are only 10...8...5...2 DAYS LEFT! And then in the last 12 minutes of the film, the ONLY entertaining part of this movie, we see that the heist was made days earlier and took Matt Damon all of 30 seconds to pull off. The past 10 days? A complete waste of your time.
BACK TO INDIANA JONES ON THE ROPE BRIDGE...\"Just relax, Willie! I stole the REAL stones back about a month ago! Besides, I convinced them you were Kate Capshaw!\"
If you haven't already seen it, cut your losses and go see the Polar Express. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but there really is a Santa Claus. Most importantly, you won't feel cheated leaving the theater.
\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\nSPOILER!! Terrible camera work, horrible writing, non-existent plot, and numerous plot wholes. Wonderful acting! Except for Julia Roberts. Who poorly plays someone who is impersonating Julia Roberts, poorly. Catherine Zeta Jones is adorable in this movie.
During the movie, we repeatedly zoom in, on each of the twelve (!) characters. Twelve is too many, even for a classic like 12 Angry Men. And the problem is, we tediously zoom in on the characters, when all of them are in the same room, doing the same thing.
Yep, Clooney's eating. Yep, Pitt's eating. Yep, the \"Jew\" is eating. Yep, the geek is eating. Yep, the bodybuilder's eating. Yep, Mr. Sensitive is eating. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep--Yep. Yep. Phew! This happens at least three other times in the movie. Yep, they're all sitting in cars, bored. Yep, they're all getting arrested, frightened. Yep, they're all being led out of a jail, depressed.
But it wasn't until I was home that I realized how badly they'd \"got\" me on this one. This is a heist movie, right? That's what I went to see, right? But when I walked in and set my car keys in the change jar, only then I realized: NOTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN IN THIS MOVIE! That's right. It's a heist movie, where nothing gets stolen. Oh, they try. They go to try and steal some boring document or something, from some guy's house (whatever), and it turns out it's already been stolen. 20 minutes of my life, wasted. Then they try to steal some egg from some museum (YAWN!), and they screw that up and get arrested.
Then we see how some fairy french guy stole the egg even before they did, and we get all the joy of \"Entrapment\", except this time the person inside the tight catsuit dancing around the fake lasers is... an ugly skinny french guy. Um.
But it turns out he didn't actually steal the egg either. Actually, our heroes stole the egg, LOOOONG ago, in another movie entirely, which would have been a GREAT movie to watch, had they made that movie.
Instead we see a 30 second clip in black-and-white about how they robbed some college student of his back-pack. You heard me... the daring caper, the ultimate heist-- the buildup of this 2 and a half hours of utter boring crap-- is them stealing a back-pack from a college student, by creatively getting into a fight over baseball teams and distracting him, and replacing his back-pack with an identical back-pack? What??
Ugh. I'm telling you, this was so bad, I didn't even realize just how bad it was-- just how badly I'd been robbed-- until I got home.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUnfortunately I think this is one of those films that if you or I took it to the studio and said, 'can I make this great movie with my friends Mary, Mungo and Midge from school?' the studio would have you kicked to death on the spot. However, if a bunch of massive Hollywood names say, 'look, I fancy a jaunt to Italy with my mates, how about it?' the studio writes a cheque.
We kick off with the casino boss from Ocean's 11 tracking down the robbers who made off with his cash, and then Brad Pitt is shagging Catherine Zeta Jones, and then there's some monkeying about in Amsterdam and Italy and such and such and then it all ends somehow.
The film does, however, include the most shameful moment of both Julia Roberts' and Bruce Willis' careers, which is a cinematic gem. I nearly vomited in my lap and tore my eyes out when Julia Roberts, playing Tess in the movie, pretends to be (you guessed it) Julia Roberts! Bruce Willis stands about clearly wondering when he can leave, and how much the cheque will be.
Ah well, to be fair, I'd have done it for the cash, so I suppose I can't really criticize the poor loves, but I'm a penniless slob not a Hollywood legend. I guess what really annoys me about this film is not that it is boring and pointless and has a terrible story, but that I think the actors probably all had good fun doing it! I think the actor's entire job is to project emotion outwards...I feel like I paid to go to the party, but had to stand outside in the rain. Booo!
Watch it if you like Como, or fancy CZJ or something, but otherwise go for a walk.
\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\nTerry Benedict (Andy Garcia) catches up with Danny Ocean and his team and demands that they repay the money that they stole from him (in Oceans 11) plus interest. He holds back from violent action however as he is under the instruction of the world's greatest thief, the Night Fox. The team then have to pull off a series of heists to pay Benedict back whilst testing their abilities against the Night Fox who wishes to maintain his position as the greatest thief ever. Put simply, this film is a complete mess. The masses may argue that it is \"cool\" and that Clooney and Pitt put in great performances but these are the same people who have a subscription to \"Hello\" magazine and think that David Beckham has the potential to be a great actor. The story is convoluted, it is not complex or clever and it does not have intelligent twists and turns, it is just a complete mess that spills out in multiple directions with the hope that the audience will think it is cool and intelligent (Hello magazine readers). Any respectable movie watcher will however see the film for the farce that it is. Whilst Oceans 11 wasn't a great film it had a decent pace, was stylish and had some decent twists and turns. This movie loses its way very quickly and then basically gives up. It is as if the director and cast said to themselves, hey this isn't really working out, lets just have a laugh! Indeed the cast looks like they are enjoying themselves but I was not. I will not delve into the plot as its confused evolution does not warrant any examination. The addition of Catherine Zeta Jones is largely annoying. The scenes where Julia Roberts impersonates herself (with Bruce Willis undertaking a cameo role) whilst mildly amusing appear to be a desperate move to keep the audience interested. The movie is so full of plot holes that it as if Arnie has emptied an Uzi 9mm into the film studio. Credit can only be given to some scenes where the Night Fox uses Caopeira to undertake a heist against the back drop of some funky music but this is hardly justification to watch the movie. The final scene features the team in a nonsensical drunken stupor; this accurately sums up the movie. Stick with the original.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"