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\n-SPOILERS------------ I am a fan of 60's-70's french cinema but not necessarily of the more modern,so to be honest i watched this because of Bellucci.She is very young here,extremely beautiful and on top of this supposedly this movie is where they met with Cassel,so it gives it some extra importance.
The movie begins with a very nice style reminiscent of DePalma.Then suddenly we are thrown to flashback,and the back and forth goes on which gets tiring.I don't mind one flash back,but do it and get it over with man!!!Anyway,the movie is still interesting to me until a point when the first and definite hole in the plot,that allows for the rest of the story,never lets me enjoy the rest.I can allow for little holes here and there,but not to base an entire plot on hot air.This is the story of a man who is literally searching for an old flame.This is the main plot.I will go along,when the story at some point will convince me that there are really mysterious things going on,but in this story there's nothing really mysterious.Bellucci-Cassel are a couple ,then Bellucci urgently has to leave for some job in Italy(not the farthest place on earth from Paris)and she leaves him a message,which for reasons later explained he doesn't get.OK,so what?Don't these people have phones?Supposedly she was away for 2months(not a century exactly) and wouldn't she call her boyfriend in Paris to see how he's doing? Of course not.Instead,even after she gets back she forgets all about him.And thats fine,but later in the movie she tells her friend that it was her greatest love and was ready to commit for the first time in her life.Yet she failed to give him a call for 2months and then never tried to get back with him.And what about Cassel's character?He was supposedly unable to locate her in Italy,really hard to find someone in Italy,its probably like Siberia,especially an actress who is probably listed even in the arts papers.And after 2months when she would be back,really hard to find her and ask for an explanation. One thinks she wanted to avoid him,but no,we find out they simply couldn't meet.So hard to meet in Paris. OK,i don't need to go further,because this is the incident where the entire movie is based. What is even worse,Bellucci is not really the star of this movie but this other girl Bohringer is.
\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 admit to a secret admiration of the original Love Thy Neighbour TV shows - mostly because they exhibit the kind of exuberant brashness and bad taste synonymous with so many programmes of their era - but I'd be lying through my teeth (very uncomfortable position) if I pretended that this big-screen spin-off is anything other than an abomination. The opening scenes of wanton vandalism are not only pointless but baffling as well - it's never explained why the film opens with a tracking shot of people trashing each other's houses - and nothing improves from there. By the time the film unearths the oldest joke in the book - the horrible dragon of a mother-in-law turns up unexpectedly to stay - is followed by the crashingly obvious revelation that she's developing a soft spot for the black neighbour's father, moving her bigoted son to ever greater depths of self-righteous, ignorant rage, most discerning viewers will have switched off. Take that as a warning, unless you're keen on cheapskate spin-offs with terrible acting, static direction and the overall comic flair of a burning orphanage.
\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 was pretty inevitable. This movie borrows from \"The Core\" and from the film it borrowed from, \"Armageddon\", and the films it borrowed from and so on. Except this time there's Luke Perry too. This films version of the familiar save-the-world plot involves super-earthquakes beginning in the Pacific Northwest and extending too the whole ring of fire. Its soon determined that everybody on Earth just might be doomed. So the military and some scientists build one of those high-tech drilling machines to go inside the Earth and fix things (it just wouldn't be as much fun if they didn't have to go somewhere like space or inside the planet). There's even a line the tries to make the journey into the Earth sound more impressive than the journey into space (like the one in \"Armageddon\"). It's a Sci-Fi Network movie, so the script is paint by numbers disaster movie. There is in-fighting between scientists and military guys, there are rock-melting lasers, people die and sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and above all, there are (weak CGI) special effects. Not original and not all that entertaining. This is a movie to watch when you have nothing to do, particularly if you've got beer.
\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 a pretty tolerable guy, when it comes to movies, even B movies. I routinely watch some B movies for fun, and they can range from surprisingly good, to just downright awful. I usually set my expectations really low before watching these types of movies, and even after doing that, Descent was just downright awful. I really didn't mind that they were ripping off the Core to some extent, but they did absolutely nothing interesting with the material. Some scientists are worried about the earth's seismic activity, and must travel into the depths of the earth in order to stabilize the mantel. So what we get is a monotonously long set-up in which two dueling scientists played by Luke Perry and Rick Roberts have to work together on a top secret mission, named Project DEEP. The man in charge, General Fielding played by Michael Dorn, is secretly withholding vital information from Assistant Marsha Crawford, played by Mimi Kuzyk. Rounding out the cast is Natalie Brown who plays Jen, a mission specialist who created the \"Mole\" a drill which is used plunge into the depths of the Earth.
Other than some pretty good special effects, and set designs, nothing about Descent is worthwhile. The movie starts out fairly entertaining, but it gets bogged down quickly in a tiresome story about uncontrollable seismic activity, which has been done to death in other movies such as the Core. Descent also has a poor script, with useless, forgettable dialog between the characters. To make matters worse, there is literally no action, no real threat or danger. The attempts at comic relief are painfully unfunny. The plot has gaping holes and some of the subplots are left untied at the end leaving a bad taste in your mouth.
In closing this movie was just a cheap way for everyone involved to get a paycheck. There was no thought behind this movie, no innovation, it's just there. Other than some nice looking special effects, and set designs, this movie fails on every other level. The story is from the garbage can of Hollywood, and the characters are uninteresting to boot. Descent will simply descend you into boredom, and frustration. Avoid at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just watched Descent. Gawds what an awful movie. Right off the bat they depict a lava geyser and a note says that it is miles below the the surface of Washington State. Folks, there are no geysers deep in the Earth like that. They thought it looked neat and in typical Hollywood style they threw it in. And then there is that well that spewed lava. He dropped a stone and I heard a splash. Steam would have erupted out of that well before a blast of lava could, if ever.
And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.
What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5
It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.
\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\nUsual awful movie... I'll not bother you about the synopsis, just put together The Core, Armageddon, an evil-planner Military Officer and one or two Solve-All Nukes and you'll have the movie, if I can call it that way.
Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives:
the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy \"Insert important city name here\"? Nuke \"Insert another important city here\"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...
In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke...
\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's script is indistinguishable from others, most notably The Core, another bad movie. It's pretty clear why Luke Perry doesn't get much work, but to see the beloved Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn) resigned to something like this is just sad.
I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.
Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on.
\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 a great movie ONLY if you need something to sit and laugh at the stupidity of it. As a geologist this movie gets most of the important facts wrong and uses actors that are too young to even be considered in the top of their fields. It is interesting how it shows spurting lava in massive caverns below the Earth's surface. It also is funny how seismically active areas are shown to have massive destruction from a 6.5 magnitude earthquake. They seem to forget the building standards in these areas would be higher needing a bigger quake to do this much damage. Also it is funny how much they make the coast line of Washington State and also Oregon to look as though they are nice beaches of Southern California. The Jelly donut analogy is very entertaining even if the way it is used is wrong. The director does a good job of adding more comic relief with the 2 \"supossed\" PhD's.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was so awful i don't even know where to begin...The only positive thing i can say about it is that Luke Perry gave a good performance. The entire movie was all over the place, there was no explanation as to the cause(only theories)of the eruptions, or rationals for their solutions or why it would work. It was ridiculous! All the characters and relationship between them was so cheesy, you just wanna laugh!! There was just no background to any of them. The \"love\" relationship seemed to have been added on to the script, it was so awkward. There's an army man; big black general with a permanent cigar in his mouth, with the \"AaarrrGH!i'm the Man!\" attitude, such a pathetic bad guy. The two sidekicks, who are supposed to be geniuses are acting like two 16 year old frat boys. And then to create some action they decide to drop a rock on somebody's shoulder and for the rest of the movie he's coughing as if he was dying of a pneumonia or something...and then plays hero (cheesiest scene of all!!) to help the plan which is to do who knows what... its never a good sign when you find yourself laughing out loud in the middle of THE dramatic scene...in a nutshell; don't waste your time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a Very Very VERY bad movie !
The plot is weak the acting is bad and the science is worse.
The special effects are unconvincing. The dramatic scenes are a joke. Every step of the way you can see coming a mile away. The end is disappointing and there is no suspense. The best aspect of the film is the soundtrack.
The only reason not to give this a lower vote is because it is a TV movie and i believe the budget was low to start of with.
I do believe that the young female fans of Luke Parry will still see this movie however he has done better work. Again this is Terrible. Very very very terrible. If you have a choice, look at something else.
\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 script seems to have been wholesale (ahem ahem, cough cough) \"borrowed\" from a certain other movie involving using a self-propelled manned drilling machine. Scene by scene, the two movies were almost identical. Just enough of the serial numbers filed off in this one to prevent a copyright infringement lawsuit.
But other than that, I have to say I found this somewhat entertaining as I enjoy deep-underground-in-the-earth genre of movies. It's a little bit on the stupid side as far as the science goes, but if one is willing to squint one's eyes real hard and pretend one didn't notice that scientific gaffe here and there and all over, this movie is almost bearable. Far better than \"Supernova\" which was another flick that Luke Perry had a leading role in that was so dumb, dumb, dumb that nothing could save it. A note to movie makers: employ someone who knows something about the subject the movie deals with. It would be a very small part of the movie budget, but it would have a big effect overall in helping prevent your audience from guffawing at you for doing dumb science.
Production values: almost passable. I've seen far worse in my time.
A new thought for disaster movies: instead of them always having a happy ending where the world gets saved yet once again, how about some where things are a tad bit more realistic, where sometimes even the very best efforts still end up in failure. Particularly when the problem that needs to be resolved was caused in the first place by sheer stupidity. Stupidity-caused disaster movies with glowing, heartwarming endings sort of backhandedly justify stupidity by stating, \"No matter how awful a problem is caused by braindead stupidity, it can be fixed.\" Which is definitely not the case. A self-caused disaster movie with an unhappy ending would serve better as cautionary tale of \"Don't be so damn stupid in the first place.\" Should you watch this movie? If you're bored and you've seen everything else in the scifi section at your local video rental store, sure, why not. But do avoid \"Supernova\" as I can assure you that you're not THAT bored. That definitely was not one of Luke Perry's better movies. This one is better. That's not saying much, but it is better.
One dead hoof up for being a deep-underground genre movie. One dead hoof down for naughtily ripping off from the screenplay of another certain movie of the same genre.
\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 Cunningham directs this Sci-Fi Network original. All is not well in Washington state and Oregon; volcanic eruptions and earthquakes threaten to drop most of the Pacific Rim in the ocean. Trying to keep the world from plunging in ecological havoc, a crack team of scientists led by Dr. Jake Rollins(Luke Perry)take a massive earth drilling vehicle called \"The Mole\" to chew its way to the Earth's fiery core to avert impending doom. Technical dialog doesn't really help or speed this movie along. The acting is lame, but then Perry has always been laid back. You can only blame him for taking part. Others in the cast: Michael Dorn, Adam Frost and Michael Teigen
\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 Core\" meets \"Crack in the World\" (1965 made for TV). The acting is stock, the suspense predictable. Once you subtract all of the plot ripped off from \"The Core\" - basically the manned drilling machine - you end up with the plot of \"Crack in the World\". \"Crack\" was a truly excellent movie starring Dana Andrews. His team of scientists, working in South Africa, drilled down to the crust and \"punched through\" with a nuclear device in order to provide a steady source of geothermic energy. One of his subordinates, also a brilliant scientist disagrees. He believes that the blast will not drill a simple hole, but will instead form cracks in the crust. (Possible spoiler) He is right. In order to stop the resultant crack from destroying the earth they must place another nuclear device in the path of the crack.
Although I have placed a spoiler warning, i don't know if I really spoiled anything for either movie. And since \"Crack in the World is only available in very rare VHS format if at all my decision not to reveal whether or not the counter-blast works is probably academic.
All in all, I rate \"Descent' just below average.
\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\nFor sci-fans this will be better than anything likely to be running on TV at any given time; that's about the best you can say of it. Good points; repartee and sense of humour is less dull than usual in such movies, the plot is coherent and doesn't use any magical mystical revelations. Bad points; the writers try to do good science but it falls down in direction and production (eg, a rock drilling mole using superheated rock drilling equipment breaks surface underwater with nary a bubble or boiling cauldron to be seen), the characters are cliché's and the plot unfolding is pretty stock standard. OK for a too-tired-to-do-anything-else type evening; but don't expect any major edification or even talking points really.
\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 got subjected to this pile one Wednesday afternoon when my mother-in-law was watching it. I can't get over someone basically doing a remake of a crappy high budget Hollywood flop (\"the CORE\" with washed up actors like Luke Perry). If the HIGH budget one flopped, what makes people think doing the SAME movie 2 years later with NO budget would go anywhere? I was laughing through most of the movie because of how insanely similar it was (in fact I am shocked it's not held up in Legal rather than airing on TV), and how it was basically the script of the CORE just redone badly, which if you have seen \"the Core\", you know why doing it worse is funny, since the CORE was ALREADY so bad it was funny.
If you enjoy getting a laugh out of REALLY bad movies, this one will be right up your alley. The only thing I can say, is that I wish Luke Perry was able to have a career, because he isn't a horrible actor.. he just lands horrible roles. Crappy made for TV movies that will only run on daytime television is pretty much one step closer to the end for him, if it wasn't for 90210 he would have a career.
\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\nYou'd have more excitement cutting off your testicles than watching this, clearly a trick to get you to rent \"Descent\" instead of \"The Descent\", which is a much better movie.
This is a total rip off of \"The Core\" and much, much worse as regards special effects, I could do better with a box of cornflakes and a roll of tinfoil, I mean come on!....that \"Mole\" thing, bore more resemblance to a vibrating dildo than a subterranean vehicle .
Don't watch it - if you do you'll find the room your in has a funny smell for days after and you'll have this nagging feeling in the back of your head that you should go kill yourself or something.
\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 a bit difficult to believe that this came from the same director that gave us HELLRAISER. Where's the style, the foreboding, and the charm? I mean, HELLRAISER is not a great horror film, but at least it had something. NIGHTBREED is like a large ball of bad ideas poorly executed. From the opening there is a problem with subtlety: the monsters are shown in the first shot! The opening dream sequence shows too much for too long. Our hero doesn't display professional acting skills (but no one expected that from this bastard genre). There are killings that one wishes were more interesting. Then we have David Cronenberg. The man was never really meant to be an actor. He fills the role of the creepy psychiatrist adequately, but what he should have done was step behind the camera and save this disaster. Then we come to Midian, a creepy fake graveyard with an over-creepy fake gate. This thing is not a huge improvement over the cemetery in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It gets worse when we meet the creatures in it. There is nothing really wrong with the character design and make-up effects here (well... except for the guy with no scalp, the guy with a pointy chin and forehead, and the fat guy with dark circles around his eyes), the problem is the way they act and the terrible dialogue that is given them. Barker's photography of the subterranean city is tired and this part of the story could have been made much better. Some might call what follows SPOILERS. After our hero dies and becomes \"nightbreed\" we wait around to see what he'll turn into (there's talk of things that fly and werewolves), but when the time comes for him to change they appearantly thought their hero too pretty to give a decent creature design. With the turn in Cronenberg's \"character\" the story just gets less interesting until the battle of freaks vs. norms (which is just bad). Barker's mythology failed him here. There is no genius and little originality behind any of NIGHTBREED. The picture could have used a larger budget, a serious script, and character design that doesn't leave you saying \"oh...oh, how lame.\" What a waste. Not scary, not cool, not even very dark, just weak.
\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 times like these I truly wish I was a more avid reader of Clive Barker's literary repertoire, since very few things feel worse than not being able to fully comprehend a movie of this stunningly 'visual' caliber. Based on the novella \"Cabal\", the story of \"Nightbreed\" involves a behemothic amount of lavish and bizarre creatures and settings in an underground society of demonic ghouls. A normal guy becomes linked to the strange world, called Midian, through his dreams and his psychiatrist coerces him into believing he is responsible for a series of gruesome murders of families in recent months... Thinking this to be true, he retreats to Midian - located under a rural cemetery - where he is reluctantly accepted. The shrink, however, is right on Homeboy's heals with a diabolical scheme to whip out the community of Nightbreeds...
Wanting so much to love this movie, I was very let down in the long run. I have regretfully not read the story so Barker's fantasy world and the purpose of it and all these monsters was horribly confusing and the premise was painfully uneven. I understand how the final cut was diced to hell and even Barker show's moderate dislike for the overall product, but I just didn't \"get\" it. Even if it is crucial to read the story, I feel like it should at least be translated to film in a way that it is still comprehensible for those unfamiliar with the literature. If \"Cabal\" is as convoluted as this film than Barker really milked a dead concept. Couldn't help but feel a bit bored after a while, especially when things started getting increasingly ridiculous (somewhere around the jail scene I realized just how bored I was) - like a police department fearlessly going to war with Midian like it happens every week! No one seems to think the idea of immortal monsters is a tad... strange. I DID like the visual effects and all that crazy sh*t that went on in Midian, especially that porcupine lady and that big headed SOB... Definitely an epic flick when you consider the massive quantity of effects and convincingly morbid decor. David Cronenberg fills his position well as the loony shrink with his cool zipper-head potato sack mask, but we ALL wish he had done some behind-the-camera work to help save this heap...
So, if you have a boner for Clive Barker material and fully grasp what exactly Midian is, why they show the creatures during the opening title sequence (terrible idea!), and why these creatures reside there and how some punk kid shares a telekinetic link to it, you should probably check out \"Nightbreed\". I'll look for \"Cabal\" one of these days and hopefully gain some perspective... Or maybe I'll just forget this travesty completely... Until then, this is a poorly constructed and fairly tedious mess of a movie... Watch \"Hellraiser\" instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The Vindicator\" is a weird little Canadian B-Movie. At first glance it would appear to be just another cheap (extremely cheap!) \"Terminator\" knockoff, but strangely enough it also shares some qualities with the original \"RoboCop,\" which hadn't even been released yet when \"Vindicator\" appeared (1986). Coincidence? Who knows? Anyway, the story is thus: scientist Carl Lehman seems to be a pretty nice guy who works for a super duper secret government high-tech research lab, reporting to a sleazy boss named Whyte, whom he butts heads with about project funding early in the movie. Carl's got a loving wife at home and a baby on the way, which makes it all the more tragic when he is suddenly killed in a \"lab accident.\" But wait! Carl's not really dead after all! Whyte has extracted Carl's brain and inserted it into his pet project, some sort of experimental bio-mechanical space suit. When Carl wakes up inside his new body, he understandably goes a little nuts, trashes the lab, and escapes. This is a problem because Whyte (for reasons known only to himself) has programmed the mechanical suit with a \"Rage Reaction\" program, which will cause Carl to kill anybody who touches him for any reason. In hindsight, that little addition to Carl's psyche was probably not the best idea.
So Robo-Carl wanders aimlessly through the movie for a while, killing a couple of random muggers and other assorted background characters, till he returns to his home and contacts his wife (this scene is supposed to be heartbreakingly touching, I guess, but turns out comical because Carl's robot voice is so heavily synthesized that you can barely understand a word he says). He of course tells her to leave the city and never come back because she's in danger, but she wants to stay and help him, yadda yadda yadda. Eventually Whyte hires a gang of commando thugs led by \"Hunter,\" an apparent ninja assassin played by Pam Grier (!)to hunt down and destroy his runaway creation, using Carl's wife as bait, and predictable (but laughably cheap looking) mayhem ensues.
I'm a B-Movie kind of guy but \"The Vindicator\" was so half-assed that it turned into high comedy pretty quickly. I'm assuming that a good hunk of the budget went into Stan Winston's robo-Carl suit design, because that actually looks pretty cool, but the rest of the movie suffers from a cheap, made-for-TV kind of look. The script could've used a LOT more work, but then maybe the filmmakers had gotten wind of \"RoboCop\" going into production and rushed to get \"Vindicator\" out so they couldn't be accused of ripping them off. Either way, judging by the other comments here on IMDb, I'm not the only one who's noticed the parallels between \"Vindicator\" and \"RoboCop,\" and obviously \"Robo\" is the superior film, so there's no need to waste your time sitting through this piece of nonsense unless you want to see a film that can best be described, at best, as a rough draft of \"RoboCop\" if it were made by an 8th grader.
\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\nAm I the only one to notice that the \"realism\" of the 19th century ship is erroneous. Actually it's a 15th century, right around 1620 if memory serves me, because the \"realistic\" ship in the movie is the Mayflower, now as far as I know the Mayflower NEVER went to Australia or even attempted a voyage to Australia. I don't know who handled R&D for this film, but using the Mayflower and hoping that no one will notice is a poor job indeed.
They even printed it on the cover art and the DVD. I wonder how may other people noticed this little blunder? Not to mention that the movie itself was just plain awful, I would have expected better from Sam Neill.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis could have been a good TV-movie, but the flashbacks do not make it easier to understand the movie. As they give the viewer informations on the way (will the movie proceeds) i found myself wondering why she never said or mentioned that in the beginning. Then the whole trail would probably not have been necessary.
When the movie ends you understand why she shot, and of course she is not guilty. Too bad that the producer/director used the flashbacks this way, but on the other had the movie would not have been worth while at all.
Nice movie for a rainy day, big bag of chips to kill the evening.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am disgusted and appalled by the positive reviews this movie is receiving. Not only is it hokey, manipulative, and melodramatic. It's also shamelessly offensive. The character of Radio `Gooding Jr.' is paraded around as a cute little stuff animal, like a puppy that's so cute you just want to take him home.' This mentality is shameless; Radio is never treated as a human being, but as a manipulative device to draw sympathies from its audience. Even more atrocious are the film's numerous moments, in which Radio gets hit in the head/trips/falls over/etc. These moments of slapstick comedy had the audience howling with laughter merely purely because, `it's funny because Radio is retarded' This is shameless, Now I do not feel that the word `retarded' is an appropriate word at all to describe the mentally disabled, but this seems to be the stance the film is taking, `Radio is retarded, but that's okay, because he's cute and we like him.' Gooding's portrayal seems better suited for a John Water's film than an inspiring family drama. To add insult to injury the film is incompetent on every level, Debra Winger is uninspired in the role as the `stereotypical housewives' that the very reminder of her heinous monologues insights laughter in all who see the film. The Score by John Horner is pure sap always overlaying its tear some score over the tired cinematography. Ed Harris is decent in a role he could have slept through, but manages to retain much of the audience's attention throughout the film. In conclusion, if you consider yourself a decent human being, ignore this travesty of a film, read the book, but otherwise skip this dire film on an interesting character from American history.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo offense to anyone who saw this and liked it, but I hated it! It dragged on and on and there was not a very good plot, also, too simple and the acting was so so...
I would give this snorefest a 2 at the most
\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 appear to be in the minority, but I thought \"Radio\" was pretty awful. It seemed to contain almost every cliche in these types of \"heartwarming\" movies.
The motivation for the characters falling in love with Radio was never really explained. We were just supposed to accept that everyone was fond of Radio except for a couple of bad apples.
You could see almost all of th big moments in the story from 100 yards away. When the movie wanted you to go \"Awww\" or pull out your tissue, I was rolling my eyes and wished I was watching \"Rudy\" instead.
There were some good performances by the cast. Too bad they weren't given a better movie in wish to appear.
\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\nradio is possibly one of the best films i have ever seen while at the same time one of the worst. It made me laugh in places where you were supposed to cry, and made me cringe at moments you were supposed to laugh. it lacked any kind of character development which is usually crucial to a sentimental flick that this is. some questions, why did ed Harris character take radio under his wing, this was not properly explained, and I'm sure their relationship(which is the main aspect of the film) is the most pointless if ever seen.
who keeps on giving Cuba Gooding junior work, he is a crap actor and should be taunted heavily until he takes up another line of work.
as true stories go, this is not that interesting. p.s the reason i said it is one of the best films i have ever seen, is because, despite it being complete pap, i still enjoyed it. laughing at the script, and most monologues which are truly the work of either am idiot or someone very clever trying to show how easy it is to release a crappy film about a retard who becomes everyones favourite joke. the fact of the matter is, Cuba's character is comedy fodder for the people who watch the football matches.
\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 Joe Bob Briggs would say, this movie relies a lot on the actresses' talents rather than their talent. This early 1990's show-the-babes-in-bikinis-fest has very little to redeem it, other than showing beautiful women nearly naked. Joe Estevez, Martin Sheen's little brother, proves once again that his movie career will be nowhere near what his brother's career is.
Avoid this one unless you like watching beautiful women in skimpy clothing. It's about the only thing that redeems 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 am easily pleased. I like bad films. I like films featuring attractive young women in small amounts of clothing.
This film gives all the above a bad name. Yes, you know going in that what you're getting is not high art, or anything like. But, even for the type of movie it is, Beach Babes From Beyond isn't very good.
Some people have given it 10. I can only assume that these are people who have had the organs which enable rational thought to take place surgically removed.
It isn't very good. It simply isn't very good.
3 out of 10 solely on the grounds of a) novelty value for the famous relatives and Burt Ward and b) some of the girls are cute.
Oh, by the way, did I tell you that it isn't very 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\nYes, it was an awful movie, but there was a song near the beginning of the movie, I think, called \"I got a Woody\" or something to that effect. I would love to find a sound track of that if there is one available. I saw this song on MST 3K, and as awful as it was, it had it's moments, and that song was one of them.
If you like babes in bikinis, this is the movie for you, but if you don't, then don't bother. It was great material for MST 3K, I have to admit though. I would really love to know where to get a copy of the soundtrack though. Not just that song, but a couple more were really funny, and are classics as far as I'm concerned.
\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\nDo you get it? Like the car. These are the jokes, folks. Softcore Beach Blanket Bingo with aliens answers many of life's important question. What do the relatives of celebrities do for some cash? How does a hot tan alien wash herself? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Well, maybe not that one. Linnea Quigley, member of the Softcore hall of fame, provides some comic relief. Nikki Fritz, also a member, show her talents. Sarah Bellomo is not as bad as you might expect from a porn star. This is not erotic, except the shower scene, and not funny enough to make up for the rotten plot. The sequel has a couple of pleasant scenes as well with Miss Bellomo.
P.S. The title is a good example of alliteration.
\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 has to be one of the, if not the worst movies I have ever seen. After watching this piece of sh*t I felt as though I should write to Madonna and demand compensation for my time, but now I feel that I should write Madonna and demand a great 80s album (considering she can't record a good album to save her life anymore) in return for this disaster.
On to the movie itself, which can be summed up like this:
It consists Madonna jumping around acting like a spoiled teenager who lost her way. She is trying to impress this absolute douche of an actor who plays \"the lawyer' in the movie. But, the best was the ending. I was staring with my jaw on the ground into the television as the credits rolled by thinking to my self, \"That's it? That's the ending? What a piece of sh*t!\". If Madonna wasn't a pop icon at the time of this film, this movie would have single handedly destroyed her career. And the funniest thing of the whole situation was that I just watched the damn movie to see where they placed the song \"Who's That Girl\". Well, guess where they placed it?...................................at 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\nThis is the epitome of bad 80's film-making, unless you are a pre-pubescent girl. Riding on a big name like madonna, a story line that physically assaults one's intelligence and humour that is most suited for a nursery school. If there was ever any doubt i think this turd of a movie clearly displays Madonna's absolute lack of acting talent and made me feel highly embarrassed on her behalf. The only thing i can't believe is that they ever let the director near another movie again. Madonna spends most of the movie prancing around like an infantile rag doll, and talking like a baby. It is painfully obvious that the only reason this movie was ever made was due to the fact that Madonna was a big name in pop music at the time. DO NOT BE DUPED INTO SEEING THIS AWFUL ATTEMPT TO CASH IN ON POP STARDOM. Stay away at all costs!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n**********POSSIBLE SPOILER********** Madonna plays an ex-con that needs to recover some valuable information that might clear her from the murder that she was put in prison for four years ago. Griffin Dunne is a tax attorney who's marrying his boss' daughter. Together, the two of them are supposed to come together in a world where chaos keeps you from getting on the bus...
When you get down to it, this is a stupid movie. Without trying to give away the plot ****POSSIBLE SPOILER****, the bad guys in the movie are trying to protect their boss by retrieving the information that would incriminate them for the murder that Madonna was sent up for. What kind of bad guys don't commit murder by trying to hide the original murder?!?!?!
Then there's the cops who are trailing Madonna who follow the bad guys in a limo, where they have the brides-maids all tied up! And let's not forget those same brides-maids who fought from the front gate to the front door, still all tied together! And I hate to say this, but that patagonious feline sure looks like a cougar! There might be only four of them in the New York City area, so they might be endangered there, but I know there's plenty of them in the Rocky Mountains (see \"Charlie the Lonesome Cougar\" if you really want to see a large \"cat\" in the movie). And let's look at the old man who falls asleep on his feet... NAW!
The plot is there, but that's all there is to this movie. I was barely out of my teens when this movie originally came out and I was some-what of a fan of Madonna, but that was the only reason I liked the movie, but since then, she's fell out of popularity with me, and I've faced the fact that she is just a terrible actress (good thing she's got that singing career to fall back on). It rated maybe a \"5\" back then, but it's fallen to \"barely making a 2\" over the years.
\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\nfor people who have absolutely no idea of what a comedy is. That not only includes the people who liked this movie, but the people who made it. What could they possibly have been thinking? Madonna playing Judy Holliday? Please, she can't even play MADONNA (if there actually IS a Madonna). I hope Griffin Dunne was paid well. He deserved every penny he got, because if this didn't kill his career, nothing will. I'm sure that the few people who actually paid to see this movie left it feeling like their pockets had been picked. Madonna is apparently past the point of feeling embarrassed by her virtually complete lack of talent as an actress, but you can't help feeling embarrassed for her anyway. She has no connection with the rest of the cast; it appears like she showed up on the set and said, \"OK, I'm here, I'm gonna embarrass myself by doing the absolute worst Judy Holliday impression anyone's ever seen, now stay the hell out of my way\" and then proceeded to do exactly that. I know the phrase \"rotten Madonna movie\" is redundant, but it certainly fits this. It's painful to watch a totally inept and talentless \"actress\" make a complete fool of herself, but it apparently doesn't bother her, as she does it again and again.
The only remotely funny thing about this \"comedy\" is that she actually managed to find people who gave her the money to make it. Now THAT'S funny.
\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 actually planning to see this movie when I noticed it in my TV guide but after about 5 minutes decided time is definitely more precious than \"Who's That Girl\" could ever be worth. Describing how bad Madonna's acting looks like is impossible and the end result is one of the most annoying characters ever captured on film. This crap is an insult to movies and intellect. I almost never! rate a movie I don't see from start to finish, but in this case the former is impossible. 2/10
\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\nAn ear-splitting movie, a quasi-old-fashioned screwball romp designed to showcase singing star Madonna's comedic attributes. She does indeed go far out on the proverbial limb here playing a beyond-vivacious parolee attempting to prove she was framed for murder (a body was found in the trunk of her car after she ran a red light...big laughs). After an energetic animated credits sequence--which is much more fun than the rest of the picture--we have nothing to look at but Madonna's black mascara and red lips set off by her platinum hair and pale complexion. What else is there? Griffin Dunne seems defeated playing Maddy's keeper, while the poor-choice supporting cast struggles to get laughs with lousy dialogue. It's an unfortunate set-back to the talents of director James Foley, who unwisely allows his star to run rampant in the spirit of the nutty slapstick films from the 1930s (but even Katharine Hepburn in \"Bringing Up Baby\" had a human side). Wretched. * 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 laughs are few and far between in this dull movie, and I can't help but wonder about how this mess ever got made in the first place. About the only good thing in this movie is the talent of Griffin Dunne, but his best efforts were easily overshadowed by Madonna's obnoxious performance. I was able to sit through this without getting TOO bored, but that's probably the nicest thing I can say about this time-waster.
\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 first time I watched this movie I was ten years old. I thought it was bad then, and at that age I had no cinematic taste whatsoever. I watched this movie on Cinemax about 3 days ago and was reminded why I hated the movie in the first place. Madonna's character, Nikki, is annoying and obnoxious. There's no way that the main character would ever fall in love with her. The jokes were corny and the dialogue was worse than a t.v. soap opera!! I'm glad that I didn't see this movie at the theatre, or rent it. I feel bad for my parents who had to endure watching it with me! Madonna is not necessarily a bad actress, but in this role she is portrayed as a complete idiot.
\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 Errol Flynn; I like biographies and I like action movies. This featured all three of these....but I didn't like this film. It just went on too long although the last 20 minutes was excellent, especially in the photography with some great low- angle shots. However, I seemed like it took six hour to get to that point, and I really can't say why I feel this way.
The action is interesting, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland are fine. In fact, it was refreshing to see de Havilland actually be supportive of Flynn instead of her normal role as antagonist to him. Yet something is lacking in this movie.
The film has been roundly criticized for its historical inaccuracy but I don't hear that same criticism for a lot of other films which have done the same. In fact, its RARE when a film is historically accurate. For some reason, this revisionist history offended most critics. If the film had made General Custer a lot worse than he really was, they would have probably liked it. Well, too bad. In their twisted way, critics prefer villains to heroes.
I really wish I could have enjoyed this more but I'll take a lot of other Flynn adventures over this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"