empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe box to this movie totally misrepresents itself. The cover shows a view of legs & panties in a short skirt. The title is `Tart.' The synopsis on the back of the box made it seem as though Cat, the main character, was an outcast who became one of the popular students, but that popularity lead to a bizarre lifestyle that she could not escape from. Everything that the box built this movie up to was a horrible lie. I expected a sort of crappy, direct-to-video version of `Heathers' targeted at the teenagers of today.
Let me tell you what `Tart' was really about. Yes, this really is the plot; so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading. We have one unlikable, boring rich girl. This unlikable girl's best friend is a skank. The skank gets expelled from school, so the unlikable girl befriends some British girl. This leads to the unlikable girl dating this boring guy, who the box refers to as the `most popular boy in school.' If that guy was the most popular guy in their school, I wish I would have gone to that high school, because I could have kicked the crap out of him. Anyway, as any movie will tell you, the most popular guy in school is invariably a murderer or drug addict or thief, or in this case, all of the above. Anyway, everyone ends up disliking the unlikable main character because she is Jewish. Then the most popular guy in school beats her best friend, the skank, to death with a rock because the skank caught the most popular boy in a homosexual act. The unlikable girl's stoic mother and hypochondriac younger brother are there for her at the end. Oh, and the entire movie is about snotty rich kids and their horrible parents too. Gee, what is wrong with that? That sounds like a fantastic movie! Well, that's what I thought. But you see, there are NO likeable characters in this movie. The main character is boring. The filmmakers made her average, while during the film she keeps spouting off about what a freak she is. The skank is not skanky enough, and has little screen time. The popular guy is nothing to write home about. The popular girls are just your run-of-the-mill rich girls. There are no moral lessons. Cat, the boring main character, is not a freak, does not ever become one of the truly popular girls, and (worst of all) after all the crap she goes through, she thinks she is still too good to befriend the only nice girl, the dorky girl. To be honest, I have no idea why the movie is called Tart. I kept asking, who's the tart? Is she the tart? Are they all tarts? At 94 minutes, theoretically this is not a long movie. But after actually watching this awful waste of a VHS tape, and not knowing who the tart was, I was surprised that the movie was only an hour and a half. The movie felt like it was two hours and some change. After a while, I was hoping the movie would be about pop tarts. At least when you look at a box of pop tarts, you know what to expect.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust once in a while you see a movie so mind-numbingly awful that you have to comment on it. This was that movie. Poorly scripted, acted and totally unbelievable. It's movies like these that show you how good the banal Hollywood trash usually 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 only wish that I had the good sense to turn this movie off in the beginning when I knew it was terrible.
Instead I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited for it to get better.
Don't make the same mistake I did.
The title has nothing to do with the movie. The movie has nothing to do with the real world. The plot has nothing to do with a plot. The acting consists of a guy who wants to be John Cusack, but can't pull it off. The lead is a girl who tries to be Claire Daines. Sadly, she can't pull that off either. They are in love, although god only knows why. And by the end I was hoping that they would all kill each other off just so I could believe none of these kids would ever taint the world again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a rule, I try to find as much in films as I possibly can to enjoy them. I made no exceptions with \"Tart\", doing my very best to appreciate it for what it was. But no effort, no matter how great, could possibly redeem this pitiful excuse for a movie.
It failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cinematography was directionless and ineffective. Secondly, the script reached depths of 'poor' that took it well and truly beyond the 'so bad it's good' category. Thirdly, the acting left mind-blowing amounts to be desired - it was appalling, it really was. Anyone who saw Mischa Barton (seen here as the remarkably terrible Grace, a character so poorly invented and realised that Ja Ja Binks doesn't seem so bad) as Devon in John Duigan's \"Lawn Dogs\" will wonder what went wrong between then and now. Perhaps, had she been given a character worth bothering with, and a modicum of direction, she at least might have given this film ONE redeeming feature. Alas, such was not the case. Finally, the film seemed to have no point whatsoever, expressing nothing, achieving nothing. Really, I wonder why Christina Wayne bothered.
\"Tart\" made a feeble attempt to be something, and failed. The result - a film, sadly, so bad that it's just very, very bad. Don't bother - it really isn't worth 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\nSPOILERS!
I gave this film 2 out of 10 for 2 scenes that I will never forget.....by the way, my husband rented this surprising non-blow 'em up almost chick looking flick...but I guessed why when I saw the cover....girls in school uniforms....duh....lol....ah well, men if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.....;-)
Bijou Philips, one of my favorites on the indie screen...too cute......not only gets into bestiality (her toy dog is the best lesbian in town according to her bubbly outrageous character)..that would be the first worthwhile scene..
Then she enters a restroom in a lovely gown & goes into a stall....after a bit she gets up, goes out to the party she & the pathetically sad 'Cat' character are at,& hands a shiny silver ice bucket to the host of the party...the host looks in her precious silver ice bucket and says, \"oh my god it's poo.\"
I love Bijou Phillips myself for her creativity and unusual movie choices, this would definitely be one of them....and um, I would rent it for the poo scene if I were you.....I am not a big poo jokes fan, but it definitely puts the 'party people' in their place (they didn't look like they were having a good time anyway.....lol)...You will never forget these two scenes...hmm, but is that what we want in our databanks?....Maybe you shouldn't follow my advice at all....lol
Dominique Swain is kind of squirrelly & sad in her confusing nonsensical role in 'Tart'. I don't know, I can't decide if I like her because she is so into indie films?? Indie films are awesome & all but couldn't she pick a few good ones? I am going to check out a few more of her movies and reserve judgment.... but this one was, (pardon the reference to beasts) a dog.....
\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 was so disjointed - it seemed to jump from place to place - and the \"thief\" was obvious. It was a poor man's (not to mention high school) \"Less than Zero\". I would pass on this movie as it has very little to add. So many issues are left unresolved, and that's okay - but the fact that it jumps around to the point where you wonder what's exactly going on is terrible. The voice-over is needed because the movie doesn't work on its own. Avoid this movie, and watch something else about rich teen angst. I'm sure there are plenty of others to watch. Don't waste your time on this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this \"movie\" to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the \"actors\" in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Tart\" is a pathetic attempt at film making which wanders around and among a bunch of Manhattan teens exploring all the usual teen preppie stuff...sex, drugs, and classical music almost completely without story, focus, or purpose. Griffith is in the film for about 2 minutes while Swain dutifully works her way through another in her long list of dog flicks. Nothing in this films works and Wayne should consider getting a real job. Not recommended for anyone. PU! Ugh! (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\nI'm not even going to waste more time describing how bad this movie is. Bottom line: It was horribly acted, had enormous plot holes and went absolutely NOWHERE. The only good thing about it was the description my digital cable gave for the movie: \"A married man with a struggling business has a fling with his secretary.\" Huh?? Wrong movie apparently, although it may have made things slightly more interesting if any of the description were true.
--Shelly
\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 wish they would just make a special section in the video rental stores for movies like this. The section would read: \"Movies for lonely older men who like to watch young girls being naughty and wearing fetish clothes\" I guess dominique swain, after lolita nd now this, is establishing herself as the queen of the dirty old man 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\nThis film has recently been televised by Turner Classic Movies. It may have been considered racy in its time, and may have made money, but even the most die-hard Jane Russell fan will find it hard to sit through this dreck.
There are many movie musicals from the 1950s which can withstand the test of time, even though dated by current standards, but which can still be enjoyed because of good music or dancing or an amusing plot. \"The French Line\", however, fails at all of these aspects.
It doesn't matter that Russell was a fine singer when she is given lousy vocal material. The entire cast is dragged down by a boring, trite plot and dialogue.
It's not even worth recording and skipping through to only the musical numbers--they're crummy.
\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\nJane Russell was an underrated comedienne and singer (see SON OF PALEFACE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES), but you'd never guess it from her display here. A real stinker, produced by Howard Hughes in his all-too-successful effort to kill off RKO Radio Pictures.
The movie kills its first opportunity to show off sexy Jane when it places her in a bubble bath and then has her chastely singing \"I'll Be Switched (If I Ain't Gettin' Hitched)\"--and it's all downhill from there. In her autobiography, Russell apologized for the movie's number \"Lookin' for Trouble\" because it was supposedly so risque--nowadays you could show it on The Disney Channel. (By the way, said autobiography has a jaw-dropping photo of Russell in a bikini, far sexier than anything
\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 Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy 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\nThis is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward \"Why can't I move you?\" near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: \"That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSlow-moving ponderous movie with terrible acting on the whole - but lovely locations & clothes to admire, and, of course, Timothy Dalton, who does a compelling job, as always. I wanted to laugh out loud at the voice-overs - so silly!! But Dalton is always worth watching, even in bad movies, a wonderful actor, older now, but still very handsome and masculine. This movie is worth viewing only to see him....and he seems like he wandered into a bad dime romance novel, poor fellow. Your time would be better spent watching Mr. Dalton in 1970's \"Wuthering Heights\" or the early 1980's BBC version of \"Jane Eyre\". Poor Sela Ward, so lovely, but so wooden.... surely she's been better in other movies.
\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\nReturn to Sender, a.k.a. Convicted, is almost imperfect. The one good thing about this particular film was that I was never bored. That being said, the reviews that hail this movie as a low-budget success may not have watched the same movie that I saw.
Rather than write a review and tell you what happens and what works and doesn't work, I will simply comment that nothing works. There are plot holes in this movie that you can drive a semi through. The acting in the film is not very good, although that may be a result of a script so poorly worded that it could have been ghost written by George Lucas. There was no need for exceptional sets or costumes for this particular movie and everything seemed appropriate. Did I mention that there were some plot holes? By the end of the movie, you are wondering how a blind guy can be such a good shot with a shotgun, why Kelly Preston trusts Aidan Quinn, why she would fall asleep the night before her client is supposed to be killed, how Aidan Quinn can drive 400 miles in such a short time with a car that keeps breaking down during the rest of the movie, why Aidan Quinn didn't by a fifth instead of a bunch of nips, etc.
With all that being said, this is certainly a B-movie, and a terrible one at that. The unfortunate thing is that it just isn't bad enough to be good. If you value your time, please let this serve as a public service message to stay away from 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\nThis was pretty bad - from bad acting, bad technical details, bad camera shots, and bad audio (even though I was watching a DVD, sometimes I couldn't hear what they were saying, sometimes it was blowing my speakers, even within the same conversation). The plot was predictable, and the characters consisted of mostly unbelievable neurotics, bi-polars, and caricatures. Character development was awful... the bratty little sister (why was she even written into the script?), the nagging mom (again - what purpose?) the whiny girlfriend (why didn't he dump her long ago?), the 'dark suits' gang (how original - couldn't think of a better name I guess), the drug dealer's hot girlfriend (gotta have a hot Latina if your going to have LA gangs I guess, but really...), etc etc Can't believe I watched the whole thing.
\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\nDon't get fooled by the 'awards' and the comment below. This is just 1 poor movie. The way George Katt played his character (the soft gangster) makes it very annoying to watch. The conversation in the opening scene is a dramatic display of this. De in the rest of the film the character's head seems to be somewhere else. His emotions don't match with the things that happen in the film.The things he says as a voice-over doesn't add anything to the film. It just makes Zeus an even more spineless character with is head in the clouds.
The story and the film was put together with a total lack of fantasy. All parts of the film were poorly stolen from other modern directors. Let's hope Jon Rosten will use his own style and ideas for his future films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.
Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage!
\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 terrible not only was the plot weak, but the acting was unbelievable bad, and at times pathetic. Very unrealistic dialogs people in real life don't talk like this and there is no emotion or feeling in anything said very monotone except for the almost indistinguishable whispering that constantly occurs. Even the editing is bad the cuts are terrible. The camera work was sloppy and shaky on close ups even sways back and forth during conversations. There is nothing positive about this movie and George Katts needs to be working on heavy machinery or anything where he doesn't have to converse with other humans because he clearly doesn't know how to. How did this movie win/ get nominated for awards oh my god!!
\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\nEveryone's already commented on the obvious fact that the first few comments were obviously from people who either had a stake in the film or had friends/family who had a stake in the film, and that's okay - if I'd made a movie, all of my family and friends would be in there complimenting it, too. In all honesty, there are some good things along with the bad things in this movie. Unfortunately, the bad things far outweigh the good. Good: The overall plot was mildly interesting. The music was overall pretty good. Several of the songs (when you could hear them) were actually pretty cool. The only musical issues I had were: #1) the first suspense scene with some sort of quiet instrumental (it really seemed to take away from the suspense), #2) the song being played when the lead characters went to an outdoor party at a friend's house and #3) the songs that were good were too quiet, especially when a heavy metal song was playing in the background while Danny Trejo hung a man (sounded like a pretty cool song, but it should have ripped out across the scene when Danny Trejo got froggy). Now for the completely bad stuff: The script was atrocious. I mean, HORRIBLE. I've seen smoother dialogue in a Star Wars movie. Advice to the writer from a part-time writer and full-time movie buff: When you write dialogue, ask yourself, \"Is this something that people would actually say?\" Honestly, the script was laughable. I want to slam the acting, but with that kind of writing, it's hard to know if they have talent or not. The mildly interesting plot was seriously hampered by the crappy dialogue. I know it was low-budget, but words don't cost money - if you have a good script, even semi-competent actors can pull it off. This movie didn't seem to have either, but hopefully the director will get a second shot at making a better film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy mom brought me this movie on a DVD. A guy in a rental recommended it. But in fact, this might be the worst movie I've ever seen. You know, I didn't expect much from this film, but it didn't have a good story, it wasn't even funny and it was senseless. I was looking forward to see Christine Lakin in this movie because I loved Step by step. Even she was a huge disappointment. The story was completely unreal. One of the party guys is dead (he wasn't dead in fact, he woke up later), the house looks like there exploded a bomb and there are 2 guys who have 3 hours to handle everything. But then there comes a homosexual, policeman... There is a total mess till the end and the guys managed to tide up and everything in like 15 minutes??? Come on, just be realistic at least. Waste of money. 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 could crap a better movie. This is a waste of time and money. it makes me sick that movies like these are actually getting made and the people making them actually think they're good. I happen to like teen comedies, when they're done well. This movie, however, takes this genre to a new low. With movies like this, people think it's actually okay to make this filth and ask unsuspecting people to pay money to sit through it. It's sadism.
\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 worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I can't believe people actually a) write scripts like this b) have a budget to make a film c) actually expect it to be successful. Words can't even describe how horrible this film is. I enjoy my fair share of teen movies, but this didn't even come close to being funny. In fact, it was funny for the sole reason that it was so horrible. I can probably count one (maybe two) parts in the film where I even managed to squeeze out a chuckle (other than the laughs regarding how bad it was).
Renting this was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. Its been a day since I've seen the film, and I'm still in shock regarding how horrible it was. Avoid at all costs.
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\nIf you liked William Hickey in \"Prizzi's Honor\", he resurrects his character, as Don Anthony in \"Mob Boss\". This is a very weak \"Godfather\" satire with few laughs. Stuart Whitman looks perplexed as to what he's doing in this schlock-fest? Morgan Fairchild's performance is one of the better efforts in the movie, and that alone is not a good sign for sure. Eddie Deezen vacillates between \"Three Stooges\" slapstick and a bad Woody Allen imitation. Fatally flawed, \"Mob Boss\" is so derivative that boredom quickly overcomes comedy and the film drags on with car chases, hidden weapons in a restaurant bathroom, and numerous other nonsense. - MERK
\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\nEver once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThat's about the only redeeming quality in a movie that otherwise insults the viewer's intelligence by losing track of time, plot, and reason for being produced.
Plus, how that guy with the glasses ever got a gig in Hollywood is beyond me.
\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 recently had to watch this for a project in a Sociology class and thought it was absolutely the worst movie I have ever had to sit through. It was like bad a bad cinemax movie with all the \"good bits\" taken out. Bad acting, the fake documentary set up, nonsensical plot, and rudderless direction all combine to make a terrible, terrible film.
The female characters are basically only there to be sex objects. Consider this exchange: \"He's hot.\" \"He has a girlfriend.\" \"Do you have a girlfriend?\" \"No.\" *girl takes boys hand and leads him behind some bushes. boy comes out and sits next to other boy, girl saunters off* \"Did you hit that?\" \"No, I didn't want to take my pants off.\" \"You're stupid.\" Another girl shows up when the boys are going to Beverly Hills, gets in the trunk with one of the boys, and when they get pulled over by a cop, you see the car bobbing up and down.
A homosexual pervert, a trigger-happy Clint Eastwood look alike, and what seems to be a luchador mask all add to the inanity. One of the boys gets caught by a cop, no one cares. One of the boys gets shot, no one cares.
Someone said the dialogue was mostly improvised, and it shows. Just awful. I would never recommend this film to anyone.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLook, don't get me wrong I love independent films but COME ON! I could barely sit through it without wanting to kill myself. the director had absolutely no talent and he turned something that could have been OK to a F***ing Nightmare. I am a punk enthusiast myself and even the music sucked. the acting was crap.
I am usually a bleeding heart for these low budget films but this one, this one didn't even try. Please don't waste your precious time and money. I am sorry to be so harsh but come on! it dragged on and and on and on. Remember when the kids got into that party with the weird cupcakes and the watermelon martinis? how did they just blend in? It made me frustrated how they could just go anywhere they wanted and get into trouble and have sex and a \"meaningful conversation\" with whoever they wanted. I know im blathering but my mind is just buzzing with everything I hated about this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've never been a big Larry Clark fan, but somehow, I've been dragged to almost every single one of his movies. Now, I like independent films, and I grew up very much into punk rock, and I'd like to say that this film is disappointing to both audiences. Not every punk song incorporates \"Oi!\" into its choruses, as they do in this particular film.
But the real problem with this film is that it switches moods every fifteen minutes or so and lacks any kind of cohesion. Clark has made his living pretending that his fictionalized stories are \"how kids really are,\" and as such, you'll allow him ten minute scenes of stupid dialog that go nowhere, because that's the cinema verite feel he's going for. However, when he shoots a ridiculous death scene (pick any of them, save for the opening drive-by), the over-stylized attempts at what I assume is intended to be black humor are completely out of context, ridiculously shot (in most cases, far worse than a student film) and absolutely ludicrous in terms of the story. John Cassavettes and \"Date Movie\" make poor bedfellows, as the forays into the latter style take you out of any kind of reality to remind you that you're watching a movie - a really, really bad one at that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLarry Clark is not renowned for his talents as a writer or a director, but he has made some undeniably important films. Kids, Bully, and to a lesser extent Ken Park all achieve their intended purpose: shock, revulsion, and even disgust. These films are uncompromising in their content and use their controversial nature to expose very serious problems in modern youth. Kids exposed us to the proliferation of A.I.D.S. and sexual promiscuity among the young. Bully touched upon similar issues. Ken Park dealt somewhat ham-handedly with sexual abuse and suburban ennui. Irrefutably, all of these films exposed something horrifying and left a bad taste in your mouth.
Wassup Rockers is about a group of poor Hispanic skateboarders from South-Central Las Angeles who go to arbitrarily go to Beverly Hills to skate. That's it.
Wassup Rockers is nothing.
It has no substance. It has an essentially nonexistent narrative. And, like Kids, it features a cast of first-time actors who were drawn out of the films setting. However, unlike Kids, none of them have any semblance of talent. There is better acting in porn. This film features, without a doubt, the most terrible performances I've ever seen in a feature film. One can respect Larry Clark to exposing these young men to the film-making process, but these kids are absolutely cringe-worthy, folks. Might I add that apparently these gents also produced the soundtrack, which features some of the most dismally inept garage punk you'll ever hear- my advice is to pop a couple of migraine pills before you enter the theater, or you'll regret it afterward.
But then again, it's not like they had much of a script to work with. Every line that is uttered is a contrived, pathetically-delivered, and irritating beyond all measure. The story itself is ludicrous. It starts out reasonably enough, but soon slips quite unexpectedly into sheer absurdity. This begins of course with a capricious sexcapade with a pair of rich white girls, followed by a series of clichéd National Lampoonish encounters, characters being killed off for no reason, and finally resulting in a ridiculous anti-climax. Shots go on much longer than they need to. Be prepared to watch people fall of skateboards for about fifteen minutes straight, overlong, lingering shots of characters doing nothing or skateboarding down streets. But then again, with the script at a scant 32 pages they need as much useless filler as possible. Perhaps Wassup Rockers would have worked better as a short film.
Anyways, I could go on like this. This is the worst film Larry Clark has made yet. For those of you who are interested in seeing a Clark movie if only for his shocking pederast antics, look elsewhere. This is by far the tamest film he's made yet, and it's also the worst. It's flat out horrible. Like, Uwe Boll horrible. Definitely the worst one I saw at the festival.
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\nThere's nothing to say except I want my time back that this movie took from me. I'm not racist against Latinos. Hell, I'm half Brazilian. I loved the movie Kids. It doesn't make any sense. These kids just go around and do nothing. They're not even good at skating. The whole time I'm just waiting for something, anything, to happen! but it doesn't. NOTHING happens the whole movie. Did I mention they suck at skating. I might make a movie called beat up rockers, and the whole premise will be about kicking the sh*t out of poser moron punks like these kids. I'm not even going to get into it, this movie sucks. Please do yourself a favor and burn this movie if you come in contact with it so some other poor soul won't make the same mistake.
\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 starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPick a stereotype, any stereotype (whether racial, sexual, cultural, etc.), and I bet you'll find it in Wassup Rockers. Do you think that all Hispanic teenage boys are stupid, hairy, inarticulate, and dirty troublemakers? Are Hispanic girls sex-crazed, easy, ass-baring sluts? Do Black people all want to start fights and carry guns? Do all gay people throw themed parties with pink drinks and ask young boys to model for them? Are all White teenage girls rich, stuck-up princesses who are bored with White teenage boys and are looking for something a little more dangerous? If you answered \"yes\" to any of the previous questions, you, my friend, are a bigot, and you will LOVE Wassup Rockers.
Director Larry Clark likes to shock his audiences (I was 15 years old the first time I saw Kids and I think that's why I'm still a virgin), but Wassup Rockers isn't shocking it's just bad. He tries to be edgy and realistic with his minimal dialog and body-hair close-ups, but these characters and this story are completely unrealistic.
Simply put, Wassup Rockers is a teenage boy's fantasy. What 14-year-old boy doesn't want to be a skater who gets in trouble, crashes parties, drinks 40s, and is told by the hot, rich, White girl that his uncircumcised penis \"looks dangerous?\" Besides that demographic, I really don't know who's going to enjoy this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n**Possible Spoilers Ahead**
Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing \"You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road,\" just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed.
\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\nSomething strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans.
\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\nOMG, another bad film by Larry Buchanan. That guy did not learn to stop, did he? First, he gives us zero budget sci-fi movies and lies about famous dead people, and now he is exploiting the Loch Ness Monster as being vicious.
The \"plot\" is basically about some southerners of the USA pretending to be Scottish camping out at Loch Ness. Alas, out on the fishing hole, oops, I mean lake of Loch Ness, there is a killer inflatable monster that clams itself to be Nessie, going out of its way to kill people for no apparent reason.
I am surprised that the crew of MST3K never heard of this movie. Yes, it is that bad too.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think this is one of those few movies that I want to rate it as low as possible just to pay it a compliment.
I haven't seen this movie in about 25 years, so I really can't say that much about it. It still seems to be very hard to find on video. But I remember my brother and I stumbled upon it somewhere in the toxic brew of late night UHF channel television of the mid 1980s when I was about 10 years old. So I've never actually seen the beginning of the movie, but I saw most of it. The first thing I remember is this couple is sneaking out of a campsite and they're rowing to an island to make out, and then they get attacked by an insane Scotsman in a kilt with an axe! They manage to escape from him but get attacked by the Loch Ness Monster, which in this movie is just a head and a neck with no body. The eyes and the mouth of the monster don't even move, it looks like a piñata.
I mean I had just literally never seen anything on this magnitude before and it totally blew my mind. I had seen some bad movies on TV in the early 80s but I had never seen something so totally inept and so casually and thoughtlessly constructed that it seemed like the people who made it spent less time and effort on it than we did watching it. I had already seen some of the Troma films and that type of thing that tries to deliberately be \"campy\", but this was the pure and real stuff and it was my first encounter with truly great bad film-making. This movie was like the last gasp of the drive-in era and I caught a whiff of it just in time. Actually when we were watching it, we couldn't figure out if it was made in the 50s or the 70s. Turns out it came out just a few years before I saw it.
Later I came into contact with Mystery Science Theater and found out about a lot of the old B movies and serials, but I had already seen it in this movie. The movie is so funny that I had never even laughed that hard at the Monty Python crew or Bill Murray or any comedian. After seeing this movie I was always trying to search for the \"good bad\" movies and I got a lot of my friends into it. But this movie was and basically is an impossible one to find. I never really found out what it even was or who Larry Buchanan was until the 1990s when IMDb took off and the internet took off and information started getting passed around. But this movie still needs to be discovered by a lot of others who might appreciate its transcendentally bad qualities. Look for 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\nWhat can I say about a movie as bad as this? The people who made this movie, didn't even try to make the monster in it look realistic. You never see more than its head, and the head is just a giant puppet that has little movement except for when it opens it mouth to roar. And the sound they used for the roaring is the best part. At many points in the movie it sounds exactly like a TIE fighter flying over! I couldn't believe that when I first heard it and had to rewind several times to make it sink in. Other than the terrible looking monster and the noises it makes, there isn't much more to this film except for a few corny attack scenes and the crazy Scotsman attacking the kids trying to have an intimate moment in his castle. Still, it's watchable if you like this sort of trash. I know I do....
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the \"Godzilla\" remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like \"The Loch Ness Horror\". And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. \"Loch Ness Horror\" is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. \"Loch Ness Horror\" is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget.
\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 completely forgot that I'd seen this within a couple of days, which is pretty revealing in itself. The umpteenth version of Gaston 'Phantom of the Opera' Leroux's locked-door country-house mystery, I had heard that it was an engaging and witty update. So it appeared from the likable title sequence and a few neat touches in the opening scene, but the film very quickly ground to a halt and became vaguely tedious and wholly unsatisfying.
As a mystery the major problem is that it is fundamentally unsolvable by the audience: like the worst Agatha Christies, it depends on a character appearing in the final act with a wealth of background information that we have not been privy to. As a film, be it comedy or thriller, the crucial problem is that characterisation is almost non-existent. With the exception of the killer, everyone is a face-value version of the typical suspects in the typical country-house murder story - reporter, endangered heiress, suspicious fiancé, scatterbrained scientist father (a surprisingly poor Michel Lonsdale), etc. There's no depth and little of interest, and the frequently over-ripe or misjudged performances don't help. You frankly don't care about anyone in it, so there's no jeopardy or suspense. Only Claude Rich and, in the last reel, Pierre Arditi get anything to work with, and only in the last reel does the film get close to a sense of resonance that is too fleeting to be really effective.
For the rest, we get endless exposition and a couple of ineffective would-be comic set pieces (a promising one with a photographer trapped inside a grandfather clock is just too poorly thought through to pay off), with Dennis Podalydes reduced to Irving the Explainer for the last third of the picture. I'm not fond of country-house movies or Agatha Christie style whodunits, so those who are might cit it a lot more slack, but I found it a poor show. As Rich says when the mystery is revealed, \"It's all rather something of a disappointment.\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"