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\nThis film is enjoyable if you like poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the \"actors\" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the \"performers\" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The \"New\" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The \"flashback\" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.
The \"filmmakers\" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.
The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.
Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter reading the mostly glowing comments about this movie I decided to rent it despite some suspicions of TV movies. I should have followed my instincts.
I tried so hard to warm up to the movie and find merit in it but I just couldn't. The story never draws you in or rings true and the acting is perfunctory at best and laughable at worst. Everything in this production is amateurish.
Always a joy to watch, Mary McDonnell may be the only performer to escape this disaster without damaging her career or reputation. I won't even bother checking the name of the leading man - hopefully he's back doing commercials.
Even poor Vanessa Redgrave, whom I adore and respect, seemed to be channeling Katherine Hepburn all the time appearing as if she were really drugged in the home. Maybe she needed the money.
If I can save one person from wasting 100 minutes on this tripe I will feel vindicated.
\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\nNaach A more detailed review can be obtained anywhere else in the web. This one is a good portrayal, although I do not agree with it entirely. Taran is a commercial guy and hence views from his angle only.
Ram Gopal Varma (RGV, seems like a political party) has created a marvel in Rangeela, so this one seems like a pale reflection of that one in some parts... I'm not even going to compare Urmila and Anthara.. both are good! The former has better acting talent, although the latter is catching up nicely.
Anyways, I like Anthara's character. She is true to her art, not touched by any unnecessary emotion and definitely not too practical. She is a dance scientist, actually she is so sure of her theories that even comparing her to a scientist would offend her. Hey.. Donald Trump.. maybe you gotta ditch Melania, here is Anthara and you've already built a Taj Mahal... ain't this easy? Abhishek on the other hand is a practical fellow, who wants money, power, fame, etc. Hence these two albeit were struggling to get a break into the film industry, cannot get along, given their different styles and approach to life. This is very typical, but what I like about the movie is that it says what an Abhimaan would say in its total runtime, in one scene! What's new? This movie takes a different angle to the film industry and how different people get into it. There is always something different about RGV's movies, this one is different too, it is way too slow for his standards. In parts, it drags one almost to sleep.
Noticeable It is tough to notice anything other than Anthara in the first half of the movie. I think this skin show was necessary for the dance sequences involved :-) Also, looks like Anthara is a pro in Yoga, she is way too flexible, almost like a Prabhu Devi. Aby Baby is improving as an actor with every movie. I am sure his filmstar blood is paying off rich dividends. The title song was really good, the music overall was above 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\nIn most parts a lethally dull venture, Naach is about this dancer/choreographer (Antara Mali) who regards herself as some kind of auteur, beyond the petty commercial compromises that people around her, including her actor beau (Abhishek Bachchan) build their careers on. Nice idea, only it turns out that she has the most howlariously bad concepts about costumes and dance movements, stuff rotten enough to make even the forces behind those ultra-cheap South Indian potboilers squirm in severe embarrassment.
The story follows a yawn-inducing predictable pattern...dancer and beau meet and have an affair (yes, sex included)...beau gets success, but she spurns his attempts to help her...beau throws attitude and they walk out on each other...dancer meets a most unlikely director who wants her 'to do what she wants'...incongruous effort bags even more incongruous popularity...beau's attempts to reach out are rebuffed until a climax where he bursts out about how he can't live without her...D-uh end.
Actually I didn't really expect this film to be much good. So why did I watch it? Because I have an Antara Mali fetish. She's an actress with IMO sufficient talent to reach grand heights provided she has the opportunity. Alas, her role in the film looks far better on paper than in actual execution, ironic for a film that's supposed to be about an uncompromising character. To give her credit she puts in a game effort, shining well in the few scenes that actually ask of her as an actress. I just wish the movie had been more worthy of her. Abhishek Bachchan also throws in a few good punches, the last scene salvaged somewhat by a simmering turn which pleasantly reminds you of his father.
Only recommended if you can sit through humongous piles of dogcrap for the return of a few grains of good moments courtesy the lead actors.
\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\nRam Gopal Verma usually makes so-so cookie cutter formula fare, lifted from some Hollywood flick. His every film after Shiva is in the cookie-cutter genre. Occasionally, he makes a truly horrible movie like this one.
For the first 55 minutes, we are introduced to the only 2 characters, a struggling gymnast masquerading as a skilled dancer (go figure!) and a wannabe actor trying to strike it rich in Bollywood. They fall in love, zero becomes hero, dancer/gymnast gets no break, gymnastics, angst, the usual heartbreak, more gymnastics, angst, song, dance, angst, some more gymnastics, more ridiculous gymnastics and before you know it, you're fast asleep. And this despite the HOT SEXY HOT HOT SEXY HOT bod of the leading lady-cum-gymnast-cum-dancer.
But hey, you're not alone!! The editor, director, photographer, in fact the whole cast and crew are asleep thru-out the entire production. Only difference being they got paid to snooze while you paid money for this crap, so you lose. Ha, joke's on you. Don't feel sorry for yourself but for our poor broke gal as she tones up daily in her high-rise penthouse in the sexiest of leotards and exercise-wear. Puh-leese, when will the poor thang get a break, she's STARR-VINNNG?!
Antara Mali cannot act. RGV's lost his marbles. Abhishek tried hard but failed. No plot. No story. Nothing. She must've paid RGV handsomely to make this all-nonsense stuff in addition to free gymnastics lessons on his casting couch. What a super deal. No need for an acting career.
Such absolute rubbish can only be \"Made in Bollywood\" of course!
\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\nNaach would have won an Razzie for the Worst Film in 2004 (may be overall too) if it were global. When it comes acting badly (aka showing attitude/yawning/over (not) acting) Halle Berry is no match for Antra Malli. While the catwoman had storeline, supposedly hot actress in microscopic costume, and some action sequences, Naach had nothing at all.
One of those movies which makes me wonder why IMDb does allow one to rate a movie as 0/10. Yet again, I think that movie does not even deserve a 0. It has to be something negative or minus infinity.
OK what about the plot outline? It is a funda-giving, arrogant, full of attitude choreographer meet an useless, skill-less, loafer who aspires to be an actor tale. The story is so short that if just another sentence, IMDb might ban me for writing a spoiler. About the story-telling? Its like a bunch (sorry 2 people for the most part) of people moving in super slow motion. Don't try this movie if you have bought new DVD-player. You would end up believing that either DVD is in bad shape or DVD-player is struck. Not its fault at all.
At the end of it all, you end up giving some credits to the director. At least he realized that both Antra Malli and Abhishek Bachan (at least at that time) can't speak dialogues convincingly, so there are not too many dialogues in this movie. So, you can at least sleep your way through the movie, with some annoying noises from those Antra-malli song sequences.
Do watch this movie if you are new to Bollywood Cinema. Once you have tolerated this movie, you would be able to see any Bollywood movie and enjoy it.
There can't be worse 3 hour torture than 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\nLeonard can write lyrics, but he sure can't sing. Nor has he had an original idea in his life, just a floater. From the looks of this nasty little puff piece (note that his publishers, McClelland and Stewart were involved in the production), he didn't know how to live, either. The woman he loves is only mentioned in passing and no woman is allowed to speak in this nonsensical advertisement. While Irving Layton was given a credit, the other poet interviewed, Earle Birney, was to remain nameless. I come from the generation just after Cohen, where all the boys seemed to idolize him. His lack of commitment was probably just calling to them. I hadn't realized what a disappointing poseur he was back then. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his age.
Whiny, little rich prince, and not one memorable line in his oeuvre. No dedication to social change, outside of the sexual arena.
You don't speak for my generation, Lennie, and not for my gender. Go back to the monastery and stay off the screen.
As for my local public broadcaster, I will let them know what I think of them wasting my time on this guy. Not a has-been, a never was...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film begins in Latvia just after WWI. Being a history teacher, I knew that multinational troops occupied much of Russia during this time. There was serious concern about the spread of Bolshevism and the troops were there ostensibly to protect their nations' interests. However, some times they flew missions or had armed conflicts with the Communist army, as the nations involved really wanted to see the so-called \"Whites\" win. However, the Whites were deeply factionalized--some wanting the return of a czar, some wanting a republic and some wanting something in between. Because of these mixed goals and a lack of a real commitment by the foreign armies, the whole expedition was doomed and left the USSR after only a year or two. However, what I did NOT know was that German troops were also involved. This surprised me, as they had just lost WWI and weren't in the best shape to be mounting such an expedition.
This is the backdrop for the film, but it's also about a pro-Communist rich lady and her ill-fated love for a childhood friend who is among the German troops. She throws herself at him repeatedly but in each case he rebuffs her. So, she then sublimates these desires by various affairs. While none of this sex is all that graphic, this and the underlying reason the man isn't interested make this a rather adult film and one I wouldn't show to younger audiences.
While the setting for this film is interesting, the overall film is as gray and lifeless as any I have seen. I don't recommend it unless you are an amazingly patient person or you are really into overrated German films. I especially warn away anyone who suffers with depression, as it will no doubt make it worse. The simple fact is that there are so many better German films out there waiting to be seen--such as MOSTLY MARTHA, DAS BOOT, MOTHER KUSTERS GOES TO HEAVEN, WINGS OF DESIRE or ALI, FEAR EATS THE SOUL (among others).
\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 fantasy was utter garbage. I thought Michael Moore cornered the market on ridiculous anti-government movies, but this one was far worse than anything he ever did. No wonder critics of the British media complain it's driven by tabloid journalism. This movie is a left-wing loony's greatest fantasy come to life on the big screen. Anyone even slightly to the right of such rabid Bush-bashers should be appalled it ever got funding to be made. I'm sure it will do well in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, though. It's hard to believe that in these days of insane Muslims blowing up innocent commuters there is anyone in the U.K. who thinks Britain should surrender in the war on terrorism. I guess it's no longer the country I admired for standing alone against the Nazis nearly 70 years ago. All hail Neville Chamberlain and the pathetic policy of appeasement!
\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 read a lot of high hopes from readers of the book that this would be a faithful adaptation of Nora Roberts' story. Not having read the book, I don't know if this adaptation was faithful but I do know it wasn't good. Actually, the screenplay was the best part of the movie so kudos to Nora Roberts.
I planned ahead and watched Carolina Moon because of Claire Forlani. I've never been sure if she's a good actress. She's been decent in some movies, average in others and really bad in this one. But, Forlani wasn't alone. The performances were all over the place. Oliver Hudson was wooden and boring. Josie Davis was hammy. Then, amidst all this B-rate acting, there's Jacqueline Bisset! She didn't have a lot to do other than portray bitterness but, even sleepwalking through that, she was miles ahead of the others.
Still, Forlani remains one of the most breathtaking women in movies and I was not disappointed in that capacity here. I believe Forlani can be more than eye-candy but, until she turns in a good performance in a good movie, she continues to excel at that. And, I'll continue to faithfully watch everything she participates in. Fandom is fun that way.
This movie though, Carolina Moon, was pretty bad. In addition to the bad acting (fake Southern accents are really distracting) the direction was pedestrian. It wasn't horrible. It was just the boring made-for-TV caliber you're used to seeing on Lifetime.
If you're a fan of any of the stars you can probably enjoy Carolina Moon for that reason, as I did. If you're a fan of the book you might enjoy seeing the story on the screen, albeit in a lackluster form. Otherwise, this movie is unremarkable.
\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 watched this movie for the hot guy--and even he sucked! He was the worst one--well, okay, I have to give props to that freaky police officer rapist guy too, he was even worse. The guy wasn't that cute in the end, he had the most terrible accent, and he was the most definite definition of hicksville idiot that can't stand up to his mom for the one he \"loves\" there's ever been. Overall, and if this makes any sense to you, when I go to pick up movies at the video store, I think to myself as I read the back of a movie that looks so/so, \"Well, at least it can't be worse than Carolina Moon.\" The most terrible movie, and the most terrible writing, acting, plot--everything in it made my gag reflexes want to do back flips. It was THE most horrid movie I will ever see, with Gabriela way up there too. I hated it, and trust me, if there was any number under 1 IMDb had for rating, I'd choose that in a heartbeat.
\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\nFirst, let me state that I have no idea who Nora Roberts is. So the book may have been great, but the movie isn't.
I have spent my entire life living in the Peidmont region of NC. I have never heard southern accents as ridiculous as the ones in this movie. I have lived in two small NC towns and Charlotte and Raleigh. On occasion, you will meet people with a strong southern accent, but I have never encountered a town where everyone talks like a bad imitation of Gone with the Wind.
In response to Gore_Won from the atheist community. Your comments reveal more about your warped psyche than it does about the movie. If we were to stretch our imaginations and pretend that there is anything realistic in this movie - which there isn't - then the truth is that bad people such as Tory's father will always find some justification for their actions. The author chose religion as a counter to Tory's supernatural abilities. Your supposition that \"the true character of the Gospels\" directs a man to beat his daughter is about the most perverse and misinformed interpretation I have ever heard. Before you start spouting off about the Gospels, maybe you should read them first.
Back to the movie. The dialog is flat, unnatural, and unbelievable most of the time. In particular, many of the things that Kade said to Tory are inappropriate and do not match the mood, context, or way they are said.
The \"exciting twist\" at the end of the movie is lame, predictable, and lacks any credibility. Some have also claimed that Jacqueline Bisset does a wonderful job in this movie, but the truth is that the bitter mother character is also a stale, predictable, one-dimensional character. Is that Bisset's fault? I don't know.
If you have a choice between watching this movie and a twenty year old rerun of the Muppet Show, I recommend the Muppet Show.
\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 story is about a psychic woman, Tory, who returns to her hometown and begins reliving her traumatic childhood past (the death of her childhood friend and abusive father). Tory discovers that her friend was just the first in a string of murders that are still occurring. Can her psychic powers help solve the crimes and stop the continuing murders?
You really don't need to find out because, Oh My God! This was so so so so bad! I know all the Nora Roberts fans will flock to this movie and give it tons of 10's. Then the rest of us will see an IMDb score of 6 and actually think this movie is worth watching. But do not be fooled. The ending was predictable, the acting TERRIBLE (don't even get me started about the southern accents *y'all*) and the story was trite. Just remember....you were warned!
\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 total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother.
\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 don't leave IMDb comments about films but this.... this film was bad. very bad. I fast forwarded through most of it, stopping where I hoped the acting had improved since the last scene, only to continue with the fast forwards. Formula plot -- once the obvious murderers were discounted, there was only the one left. And that was in the first five minutes. Scene by scene it felt as though I'd already read the script before because there were no surprises, no mystery. The Tori character... bad bad acting. A true waste of time on DVD and a definite 'let's go to bed early' option if it's the only thing on television. If you watch this film, you will find yourself realising you'll never be able to get back the time you've just wasted.
\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'Carolina Moon' is an adequate made-for-TV movie about a girl with psychic powers who returns to the town where
she grew up in and where her childhood best friend was murdered. Turns out that every year on the same date another
young girl is murdered and Tori, played by Claire Forlani, must solve the mystery before she ends up dead. Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black, CSI New York) is the female lead and does a pretty good job of it, ably supported by the rather delicious Oliver Hudsom and a still luminous Jacqueline Bisset. The script, adapted from a Nora Roberts novel, is bog-standard and the plot
is tediously predictable. That, however, is offset again by, like I said, the rather delicious Oliver Hudson.
\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 nothing like the book.
Everything was mixed up or changed. Most of the movie was things that weren't even in the book.
This movie never should have been viewed. It was a great disappointment to me when I enjoyed the book so much and then to watch how this movie trashed the entire thing.
I would never recommend this movie to anyone that is a fan of Nora Roberts or J.D. Robb.
Honestly this movie is not worth watching with how off from the book is really 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\nThis owes a great deal to the plot of CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS. Although he is quite grown up, it is partly the story of a wealthy lad who is shanghaied as a crew member aboard a cargo vessel and becomes a man in the process. Moran of the title is a boyish young woman also brought up on a vessel owned by her father. When the cargo burns, she and crew members are evacuated to our lad's ship. However, the captain has smuggling on his mind and his intentions are not honorable where Moran is concerned. The inevitable ensues - our lad falls for the mannish Moran and she for him. In the end evil is subdued and the lovers are united. Some interesting dialogue points out that Moran belongs to no man -\"and no woman.\" (A nod to Sappho here). Dorothy Dalton is appropriately sexless as Moran and not too attractive either. Valentino does well in a romantic, action role. His sexy build and physique are shown off to advantage and the role is quite a masculine one. He is very appealing. This is no great film but it passes the time. What it really showcases is Valentino's beauty and sexiness.
\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\nTrekkies is really not a movie about Star Trek fandom. It's a freak show about those Star Trek fans who have no sense of reality. As a freak show, it's fine. But it is a mistake to think that this movie gives you an insight into Star Trek fans. Most Star Trek fans cringe at what this movie shows.
\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 by far the worst British comedy ever, how it made it past the first episode let alone the pilot is beyond me. The acting is weak from the main character played by Ben Miller to Sarah Alexander (from the fantastic coupling)right through the cast. The plot/story lines were unfunny and very very predictable using many worn out ideas. A very painful series to endure but sadly put in a slot between two excellent shows. describing it as Britain's answer to ' Meet the parents' does a disservice to 'meet the parents' and is as about as fresh as an old shoe that has a run around with the family dog. Britain should have learned that rip offs from other countries never work from looking at America's sad attempts at doing so.
\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\nAlthough this was the first Hunter S. Thompson documentary I have seen it was average at best despite the involvement's of huge star appearances such as Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, Gary Busey, and a few others. I was let down by this and yet it was still a little interesting. What kept me watching was some of the old clips from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam. Not that good mostly because of the old guys rambling and things any fan would already know. I still think they were milking it because it could have been compressed down by at least half. Still if your a fan I would you'll like anything that has to do with hunter. best regards
\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\nDeep Sea 3D is a stunning insight in to an underwater world only a few have had the opportunity to view first hand.
From the opening sequence when a wave rushes towards the audience momentarily engulfing us in the ocean, the filmmakers make full use of the IMAX format. A jelly fish field appears to fill the whole theatre, a shark powers towards us, predators pounce from behind rocks and devour their prey. It is a beautifully captured under sea feast for the eyes.
Our ears on the other hand, are not given the same treatment. The film is narrated by Hollywood stars Jonny Depp and Kate Winslet. Both sound so ridiculous it positively spoils the enjoyment of the visuals. Depp sounds slightly bored whilst Winslet sounds as if she is reading a bedtime story to the village idiot. I was shocked that an actress of her status could have pitched her performance so wrongly. The script is fairly silly and contains very little depth. The soundtrack is filled with strange, unrealistic sound effects which I assume are meant to be funny but in fact detract attention from the material which should have been allowed to speak for itself.
Danny Elfman has provided an excellent score which gives plenty of impact to the ups and downs of life under the sea, when it is allowed to play out without the silly bubble sounds or crayfish footfalls which pepper film.
The film is a technical marvel but with it's childish script, annoying narration and misplaced sound effects it cannot be taken seriously.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHonestly, on the subject of the death penalty, I could take it or leave it. The problem I have with this documentary lies in the fact that it is a complete love-fest for the murderer, with absolutely no sympathy for the family. The Execution of Wanda Jean, with it's completely one sided view, only reinforced my view that she should have been executed for her crimes. It tried to argue that she was mentally retarded, but nothing in the video supported that view. She seemed uneducated, but so did her entire family, but that doesn't mean they were all retarded. I can completely understand if someone is opposed to the death penalty, but to completely ignore the crime, as if it didn't happen, and try to put Wanda on some moral mountain top, is offensive in nature, and that's not the side of the issue I would be associated with.
\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 main portion of this lightweight musical story is located at fictional Midwick College, which Peter Kendricks (Peter Lind Hayes) attends due to the largesse of stage actress Grace Hayes, his real-life mother who fills the same role here, and who manages to supply his love interest through her secretary Mary (Healy) who is his real-life wife. Drably directed from a weak script, and additionally hampered by excessive cutting and poor editing, this film does provide some treasures among its eight songs, including the title number, and has nice turns by soprano Healy, Benny Rubin as a snack shop proprietor, and the dynamic tap dancing Roland Dupree.
\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\nHaving some idle time before going to work, I looked at my \"50 Movie Pack Comedy Classics\" DVD collection and picked the most obscure title in the pack: Zis Boom Bah starring a forgotten Grace Hayes. \"Classics\" is obviously the operative word here since most of the titles I've never heard of and I suspect they're all in the public domain. Anyway, this movie also stars her son Peter Lind and his wife Mary Healy (who I just found out is a New Orleans native from the state I live in, Louisiana) with Benny Rubin as a malt shop proprietor and Huntz Hall, taking a break from the East Side Kids, as Peter's buddy. The plot, about a vaudeville mother trying to turn her rich carefree son into a responsible one with him unaware of who she is, is for the birds and doesn't have many funny scenes though I did like Peter's celebrity impersonations and his dance with Hall in drag. And the songs and dances are entertaining in themselves. Rubin, however, is all over the place with his confusion of the American vernacular of the time and almost everything concerning him makes no sense whatsoever (though I did like his funny dance). Since this was only 61 minutes that I'm sure played on the lower-half of the double feature bill, I'll be charitable and give this one a 3 for the few entertaining bits that I mentioned enjoying.
\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\nOh Gawd. I want to time travel back to Monogram Studios and throttle someone in their 2 room front office for this sloppy musical. It is one watt above flat-lining for 60 of its 61 minutes and then actually shows (for the one thin minute, spread in milli-second blips across the hour) that there is real life talent being badly photographed.I just don't see the point of going to some trouble to actually make this film that could easily be energetic and actually funny and allow lethargy to be the main thing on view. The weird storyline shows cranky vaudeville trouper Grace Hayes bulldozing her blowsy way into a college where her rat-bag son is rich college clown. She's gonna fix his playboy ways, no matter what.Her real life son (weird looking) Peter Hays plays her screen son. His real life wife plays her secretary. Talk about nepotism. I suspect this talent package was almost the raison d'etre for Monogram financing this back-lot musical produced by resident schlockmeister extraordinaire Sam Katzman. As with other Monogram musicals it just looks more like a reason to film recent new furniture purchases and light fittings in order to show off to other studios that Monogram Pictures are 'lavish' in their B grade ways. Have a ghastly look at SWING PARADE OF 1946 for genuine evidence of this: they just constructed this gigantic nightclub set then found an excuse to film actors and musicians running all over it. Story? None. Anyway ZIS BOOM BAH is more BAH than BOOM. Where was Gale Storm and Mantan Mooreland when Monogram really needed them? Probably standing at the boom gate of PRC Pictures wondering if it looked safe to enter there. Junior jive hepster Roland Dupree springs to life to rappety tap his teen legs around two wobbly dance numbers, especially in the 'big show' finale set in the new and expanded malt shoppe/club set. The usual crumpled curtains are loosely hanging on the back wall, and the stage set of mis matched drapery even has one dark main rag that is yanked back and forth as each amateur sequence elbows past the previous one. The chorus girls and their very plain looking partners in this finale just look like Monogram office staff borrowed (from typing and carpentry) for the morning of filming. They have absolutely no dance talent and are so ordinary on screen... ALL the girls look like they are all called Joyce. There is even a costume calamity where they wear frilly hot-pants...on one leg only. It is all so awful and crummy...and actually annoying when one more tweak up by all concerned would result in ZIS being actually FUN. The one strangely interesting thing is the dialog delivery between Grace and her son/daughter in law: it is so casually delivered that it actually works in spite of the script and logic. She has a very life like presence which is the only thing that allows the ridiculous story to be slightly compelling. The Dupree kid is the real star. He can actually do something...in spite of looking like a tubby Liberace tap dancing teen... You read that right.
\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 stage star Grace Hayes stars in this obscure little film. After years of being on the stage, she is going to visit a small college town to check up on her son who is being raised by his grandfather. The kid doesn't know who his mother is and when she sees him in a local malt shop, he's a boorish jerk. Part of the problem is that he is a college clown the other part is that he's really spoiled.
Interestingly, it turns out that Mom is really quite wealthy and has been not only funding her son's life but is a hefty contributor to the college. So, she has the idea of forcing the young man to mature. She talks to the man who's raising Peter and has his allowance cut off completely--hoping he'll rise to the occasion. It also turns out that she puts the screws to the school because she thinks all these kids need to stop playing around and be more responsible.
Now here's where it gets pretty dumb. To show that they know the value of hard work, she hires a bunch of them to sing and dance at the malt shop she just purchased. Talk about contrived!! What happens next is like a long and not particularly good talent show or perhaps a poor man's version of a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musical! I'd suggest the kids try to do something else to earn money...or perhaps sing and dance until people pay them to stop! I know I would pay them.
Considering that the talent is far from talented, Peter is a bad actor and his change from lout to responsible adult is almost instantaneous, the whole thing is a bit hard to take. Not a very good film by any sane standard, this is an obscure film that should have stayed obscure!
By the way, it is interesting that Ms. Hayes' son in the film, Peter, is actually her real life son. The only problem with that is that Peter Lind Hayes is a truly awful actor. He's not handsome enough to be a leading man and he comes off as either dull and uninteresting or downright obnoxious. In particular, all the stupid impressions he does are really bad and he has the charisma of the gelatin that you scrape off Spam. Despite this terrible performance, he did go on to have a reasonably successful acting career. Who would have believed it if you'd seen him in ZIS BOOM BAH--because here, he's about as welcome as the Bubonic Plague!!
\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 feels very stilted and patronizing to a great extent. The whole plot is extremely forced - especially the \"gallant\" effort to save the college from ruin, and the moralistic overtone (especially by the leading lady) grates a bit.
But there are one or two comic moments that do help relieve the boredom, and the dancing is quite fun (especially for alleged amateurs - ha, ha!)
The shop proprietor and the young guy doing spectacular tap dancing were particular highlights. And I liked Peter Hayes impressions of Charles Laughton and Ronald Coleman as well.
\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 will never, ever forget watching this show around the age of 13. Even at the young age I remember thinking, \"This is a Baywatch rip off show without the one thing that makes Baywatch tolerable. The girls in bathing suits.\" Nonetheless I was too small in those days to be the holder of the remote in my house. The high point of Pacific Blue was an episode in which a couple of thugged out gangsters are coming to whack someone with submachine guns ... on bikes!!! As a thirteen year old I never laughed so hard at something that was supposed to be taken seriously. Even I knew that the task of going out and acquiring Uzis (for murder) is a task that should never come before borrowing someones car for the day. That had been the defining moment of this show. Simple Crimes and situations tailor made by hack writing so they could be taken care of by the unsung hero of the crime fighting world The Bike Cop. Does not get much Dumber.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAny chance to see Katharine Hepburn in something I haven't seen or from her early movie career is a treat, and on that level the film is amusing, but she's horrible miscast as a Hill Billy. Her famous New England enunciation slips through, making lines like, \"I'd better rustle up some Vittles\" pretty ludicrous. She's so pretty and so young it almost overcomes this major flaw. The story is an old fashioned melodrama, and there fore, a younger generation may think this pretty corny stuff, but this was the staple of American Entertainment well into the 1940's. It has its moments, but you might need to be a die-hard movie buff to appreciate 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\nKatharine Hepburn as a mountain woman who mixes prayer with positive thinking--and is thought by the local folk to be a witch. Kate works overly-hard trying to convince us she's a backwoods hick (named Trigger Hicks!), but you can see she doesn't even believe in this unintentionally comical scenario. Constantly-smiling Robert Young plays a foreman working on the construction of a mountain dam who becomes Trigger's first crush...but alas, he's married! No amount of white magic can resuscitate this formula, based on a play and brought to the screen by R.K.O. with too broad a hillbilly flourish. It is ungodly, and just about unwatchable. *1/2 from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a really silly job of miscasting--about as bad as Hepburn playing a Chinese woman in DRAGON SEED. The lead part Hepburn plays is a combination of Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies and a faith healer! This film is even worse than Bogart's Swing Your Lady, because at least Bogart didn't play a hillbilly--he was just surrounded by them. And the dialog sounds as if it comes right from a Li'l Abner strip! The problems don't really end with the outrageous casting, though, as the plot is completely muddled and the \"love story\" might make your head hurt. For no reason WHATSOEVER, married Robert Young falls for this Ozark bobcat. Was it her lovely personality that won his heart? I doubt it, as she as the fiery \"spitfire\" the movie was named after and she really seemed to like fightin' and scrappin' and hollerin'! Was it her feminine charms? With no makeup and fashions that looked like they were designed by Ma Kettle, I doubt if this was the case as well. To top this off, in the end, somehow Ralph Bellamy also fell for her, though once again, it really doesn't seem to make ANY sense.
So, here we have two city fellers fallin' for a scrappy unfeminine she-beast played by Ms. Hepburn--now THAT'S a recipe for a good 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**** Spitfire (1934) John Cromwell ~ Katharine Hepburn, Ralph Bellamy, Robert Young
Mountain hillbilly Katharine Hepburn (as Trigger Hicks) is a religious back-woods laundry woman. \"Going on 18\", she begins to attract male attention, and responds by throwing rocks. The arrival of a dam-building construction crew triggers dreams of romance in Ms. Hepburn. She quickly attracts the attention of suave engineer Robert Young (as John Stafford), who flirtingly hides his marital status. Supervising engineer Ralph Bellamy (as George Fleetwood) is also interested in Hepburn, but for different reasons; Mr. Bellamy wants to know more about Jesus Christ, whom Hepburn worships.
After Hepburn employs the power of prayer to heal a child, neighborhood folks suspect she is a witch.
If it weren't so serious, \"Spitfire\" might be more amusing; it is an atypical and wildly inappropriate vehicle for its star, who is thoroughly unconvincing. Of the leads, Mr. Bellamy performs best. However, the best characterization is essayed by Sarah Haden (as Etta Dawson), who appeared in George Cukor's stage version, along with Louis Mason (as Bill Grayson). Will Geer (as West Fry), \"Grandpa Walton\" in the 1970s, has a small role. An unexpected ending helps.
\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 truly unbelievable, in every sense of the word. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and hearing, and I didn't believe it anyhow. Hepburn is probably my favorite actress, but this was ridiculous. Being a hillbilly myself, I know what it should sound like, and it's not Kate's Back Bay accent. The only thing I found funnier was the fact that the guy who played Charlie Chan so many times, Sydney Toler, was cast as another one of the hillbillies, with accent to match. Maybe this was a practical joke, come to think of it. I can think of no other reason for such peculiar casting. Well, maybe this. I noticed that Natalie Schaefer, Lovey Howell on Gilligan's Island, appeared in this play on Broadway. Can you imagine what part she might have played?
\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 someone has already mentioned on this board, it's very difficult to make a fake documentary. It requires tremendous skill, pacing, patience, directorial 'distance,' a plausible premise, a narrative 'flow,' and REALLY believable acting (aka GREAT acting).
Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.
Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.
The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.
\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**** MILD SPOILERS _ BUT YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE PLOT ****
Woman gets raped and decides to take out her rage on all of mankind . Oh did I mention the rape victim was mute ? That`s the problem with MS 45 , Thana the rape victim decides she`s going to kill men but is there any logical explanation to any of this ? Surely the whole film would have better if we had Thana give a voice over as to why she`s bumping off any man she comes across ? There`s just not enough development to this plot
As you`d expect from a film by Ferrara it`s not a complete waste of time . it`s far better than I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and pseudo intellectuals will have a field day pointing out the irony of the woman holding a knife like a penis as Thana goes on a killing spree at the end . But the script is somewhat silly and underdeveloped and hinders any serious comment the film could have made
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSickening exploitation trash plays like a bad (and reverse) \"Death Wish\" ripoff - but the ugly and untalented Tamerlis makes Charles Bronson look like Al Pacino with her performance. As for Ferrara's \"stylish\" direction, when a film is so vile, dumb and deeply offensive, it's hard for the viewer to pay attention to such details.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"