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\nA bloody maniac with cannibalistic tendencies rapes a woman. He's been shot by two policemen and then he is risen from the grave because of some sort of satanic ceremonial rite preformed by an evil heresy. The hunting of women continues by this zombie-demon. The sacrificed baby returns from the grave and wants the maniac dead again, but only with the help of the police this will come true...
A bloody 65-minute mess...Horny zombies, doll-babies, S&M, corrupted and twisted policemen, repented heretics who seek refuge in front of Jesus Christ and three text-screens at the end of the film explaining us what finally happened to the policeman who survived (yes, we ought to know!)... Two decent disemboweling shots can't save the situation. I've seen worst horror-flicks, but this one was pretty bad too. Recommended only for the die-very-hard fans of the 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\ni got a copy from the writer of this movie on soulseek. I have to say it is pathetic and just plain painful to watch the two cops act, but i watched the movie as a joke and since it is a homage to august's underground which i happened to have seen it is in my book as an awesome movie. Its quality and everything about it is pretty bad but its entertaining and something to talk about amongst your friends. Reminds me of troma but good stuff. I recommend seeing this under two conditions, if you are bored and need a good laugh, or high, otherwise just let it be. Recommended download for sure. o and the killings are pretty funny. like when the zombie rips the Satan worshipers dick off and stabs someone in the head with 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\nWell, if it weren't for Ethel Waters and a 7-year-old Sammy Davis, Jr. (here billed without the Jr.), Rufus Jones for President would be one of the worst representations of African-American stereotypes I've seen from the early talkie era and wouldn't have been worth seeing because of that. Ms. Waters is excellent here singing \"Am I Blue?\" and \"Underneath Our Harlem Moon\" while Mr. Davis shows us how his childhood experience in showbiz prepared him for his superstar status as an adult. He's so good tap-dancing here that for awhile I thought he was a little person with decades of experience. So if you're willing to ignore the negative connotations here, Rufus Jones for President should provide some good enjoyment. P.S. This marks the fourth time today I've seen and heard the song, \"I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You\" performed on film, this time by Davis. Must have been a very popular song about this time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis must have been an embarrassment to every member of the entirely African-American cast. Every derogatory, disparaging stereotype of the black American community is featured prominently. I won't reinforce the insults by listing them here, except to mention chickens, watermelons, and dice.
One good song by Ethel Waters (and a couple of bad ones), and the fantastic singing and dancing talents of 8-year-old Sammy Davis bring the total up to something below 1 on the IMDb scale.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBeing a fan of the manga and anime of Go Nagai (DEVIL MAN, DEVIL LADY, VIOLENCE JACK, etc.), I was looking forward to this one. I'd seen neither the manga nor the anime, so I had no preconceived notions going in. Good thing, too. What we have here is a series of silly softcore movies of the type that used to turn up with alarming regularity on cable channels late at night. While it's tame compared to what gets rammed down the throats of regular cable viewers (our hero's naughty bits are either tastefully tucked away behind a strategically glued-on scarf or emblazoned with a ridiculous sunburst effect), there are prolonged scenes of bondage and torture that lend the proceedings just enough smarminess to make it unsuitable for the kiddies. While I have nothing whatsoever against nude female heroes, I do dislike amateurishly made movies (there are at least four in this series). On the plus side, there's at least one stunningly beautiful actress in each of the four episodes I saw. It's no wonder Nagai's TESTICLE BOY never made it...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm going to spend as much time on this review as the writers did on the script. This is easily THE WORST sequel EVER made.
They KILLED Navin Johnson. Not only was Mark Blankfield's performance GOD-AWFUL, so was everyone elses!! The physical comedy was forced, flat and predictable. The script seemed to have been written by mongoloid monkeys using the pen names Ziggy Steinberg and Rocco Urbisci. How the producers managed to squeeze out such vile cinematic excrement is beyond me. They even managed to make veteran actor Ray Walston look like a talent-less buffoon. Director Michael Schultz should be ashamed of himself.
I want the 96 minutes of my life I spent watching this befouled memory of a brilliant comedy back so I can try and convict everyone involved for this cinematic atrocity.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, \"How did it get made,\" because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.
No. The question is \"Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?\" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income.
The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.
And \"dcreasy2001\" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars?
\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 typical 70's soft core sex romp in the Russ Meyer genre, though perhaps less outlandish than some of Meyer's work. This film has higher 'production values' than many of it's contemporaries, suggesting a larger budget. It's plot, writing and acting are straight out the B zone, though. Of late, this film has become a mainstay of B movie channels (such as \"Drive In Classics\") in the 500 channel universe. If soft core is what you are in the mood for, this is as \"good\" as anything else in the B range. Don't expect Polanski though, Sarno is just Sarno. Nothing more, nothing less. Jennifer Welles performance as the \"mother\" is perhaps the best of the cast. None of the actors in the film went on to greater fame, unsurprisingly. Confessions of a Young American Housewife is far from the worst example of it's kind. It is watchable, if this is your type of film. 30 years ago, this would have been an avant garde and riske film. You can see more or less the same kind of thing on Showtime/HBO series these days, and in prime time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh dear, Oh dear. I started watching this not knowing what to expect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were times when I thought it was a comedy. I loved how the government's plan to capture the terrorist leader is to air drop in one man, who is unarmed, and expect him to capture him and escape with a rocket pack. If only it were really that easy. I've finally found a movie worse than \"Plan 9 From Outer Space\".
\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\nSTAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits
Some plutonium's gone missing and some very nasty people now have the means to develop a bomb capable of wholesale destruction- so Josh McCord (Chuck Norris) and his cocky young protégé Deke (Judson Mills, a different actor from the previous film) with the assistance of Josh's adopted daughter Que (Jennifer Tung) set out to stop them.
This was another film that dealt with terrorism a year after the events of 9/11. Filmed in 2001, Norris himself even commented afterwards how eerily the plot line to the film resembled what happened in downtown New York that day, so there'd have been those that would have been in the mood for a film where Norris and his side-kick kick some terrorist ass if nothing else. Other than that, it's as interchangeable as anything Norris has ever been in. It makes you wonder what the original did to warrant a sequel in the first place, and whether if this one could get made a President's Man 3 might come out sometime soon.
If you've seen one Norris film, you've really seen them all and there's really nothing new or unexpected that happens with this one, but at least you know what you're getting and, like I said, it might have been just what some needed to let off some steam. **
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie the first time at about twelve o'clock on a Saturday evening. It really is the perfect time for this one. I have never, EVER seen a movie that was actually more predictable and drenched with stereotypes. If you want to see a thrilling action movie, don't watch it because you might lose the will to live halfway through. However, if you want a good laugh, please watch it! I even bought the Chuck Norris 3DVD collection thanks to my enjoyable Saturday night. What especially struck me is that évery scene that would be expensive to make was copy-pasted from a Discovery documentary or an old TV-special on the US Army. Furthermore I was amazed by the fact that they didn't put the slightest effort in making the production look real. Afghanistan is, as far as I can remember, nowhere near any sea and yet with a single click Deke escapes from the terrorists sand-castle with his jet-pack and is taken away by a submarine (probably Discovery). Later on in the movie, Deke throws an Islam terrorist against the wall. In the slow motion scene you can beautifully see the long hairs of the Korean stuntman flap in the air when smashed against the wall. Gotta love it. I recommend you watch it with some friends and a good amount of beer though, only then you'll understand why I've been mad enough to spend 6,99 euro's on the box.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, \"Sound's great! Original!\" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin.
\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***THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILER(S)***
I'm not a big fan of Chuck Norris as an actor, but I worship him in all other ways. He also have his own fan web site with \"Chuck Norris facts\" that is really entertaining. But this movie looks like someone was joking with the audience putting all those \"facts\" into one movie. I really don't remember when I wasted my time more than with this \"action\". I don't know what's the worst this movie can offer you: unoriginal and thousand-times-made plot of terrorists who are trying to nuke US by smuggling nuke on US soil or perhaps that \"great\" dialogs and Chucks words of wisdom about life and everything else. Someone may find the worst that terrorists actually speak English in everyday life. It's a never ending list of crap. Not to mention huge amount of archive footage used in film, that is kinda annoying. The chief terrorist send his comrades message through the media when he is captured and the only guy smart enough to see the treat is: Chuck Norris, of course. NO ONE else in America is not smart enough to see that! And the whole action in capturing chief is just ridiculous. One man is sent to walk through a whole terrorist camp UNARMED (I'm lying, he had a KNIFE), escapes his stalkers with JET PACK and then para glides for few hundred, maybe even thousand kilometers to nearest shore (Afganistan border is 450 km far away from nearest shore), where he is rescued by submarine. I hoped that at least fighting scenes will be good, but that's even more funny than the plot. If you didn't know, 85% of terrorist are masters of some martial art, but Chuck and CO beat the sh*t out of them. Not only they kill them easily, they can kick and throw them away by a single move and the bad guys fly few meters like dolls. You may ask me did I watch this movie to the end? I did. Why? Because I just wanted to see who, of these two super heroes, will defuse the nuclear bomb of few hundred megatons and size of a MICROWAVE. And then I realized what fool I am. Of course, it's Chuck's movie after all. And not only he singlehandedly defuse nuke with tweezers, but he do it - TWICE!! I could write a book about all the stupid things in this movie, but I would spend my life spawn.
So, makers of this movie made another Chuck Norris fact to be added on his web site: Can Chuck Norris defuse nuclear bomb? Yes and he can do it twice!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow, my first review of this movie was so negative that it was not excepted. I will try to tone this one down. Lets be real!!! No one wants to see a Chuck Norris movie where HE is not the main character.There was a good fight scene at the end, but the rest of the movie stank. I have to wonder if old Chuck just can't hang with the best any more. Has he slowed down so much that he has to turn out junk like this and hope that his reputation will carry him through the entire movie? Chuck is an awesome martial artist, and as we have seen from Walker, Texas Ranger, a fairly good actor, but the trick is to combine both of these qualities in his movies, and this one does not. Very Disappointing for us Norris fans. Chuck, stay as the main character in your movies, because this does not work for you...Gary
\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\nToo bad Chuck Norris has gone to TV. He made some good movies before he hit TV. This is a typical TV movie intended to pass the time. Unfortunately it wastes Chuck's talent as an actor. I hope he returns to the big screen some day.
\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 the standard view, this is a purely awful movie. However, it rates a near perfect score on the unintentional comedy scale. I can think of few actual comedies that make me laugh as hard as I did watching this movie. Andy Griffith's ghost dressed in Native American garb dancing sends me into hysterics everytime. I wouldn't waste the gas or energy driving to the video store to rent it, but if you happen to be laying on the couch at 3 in the morning and it comes on TV, check it out.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is just horrible, really horrible trash. Yes, we've got beautiful naked women dancing and having sex. But while this may work in the mechanism of a porn movie  may have even been a hit as a porn movie  this tries to mask itself as a \"film\" with actual things to say, with real emotion and struggle. It isn't. It's an excuse to get some girls naked and have a fun time. I'm sure all of these women (and men) in this particular movie could have faired decently in the porn movie business of the 1970s . . . but not in the actual movie business.
The acting was hackneyed, so bad, I mean real terrible. The writing was even worse. I can't lay all blame on these actors  they had nothing to work with. The very broad structure or plot of the movie could possibly be done and done well with good writers and competent actors. The very broad structure or plot is that of a psychotic man who spends his time shooting people from afar, as a sniper. These shootings were motivated from men not respecting their women enough. If there was more writing - better writing, much better writing - and less gratuitous sexual imagery we might have something to work with.
This movie should have been shot, made and marketed a hardcore porn movie all along; it would have made more money. It practically is a hardcore porn film already, and it remains the only non-porn movie I've seen that shows a male erect penis.
\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\nMix exotic tropical locations, babes in skimpy attire, explosions, good-looking Dudley Do-Right clones, a movie star with his best years behind him (Martin Sheen), a little martial arts and a sexy villainess (Tracy Lor.....er, sorry...Tracy ELIZABETH Lords) and you'd think you'd be in for some escapist fun. Not so! This is a dreary TV movie and even though it likes to promote itself as a \"Charlie's Angels\" deal,it is nowhere near as good as the original series or even the gawdawful, irretrievably stupid, recent C.A. movies. This abomination is best described as a THIRD RATE Andy Sidaris film. Nowhere near as much fun as Andy's \"Hard Ticket To Hawaii\", although some of the fight scenes are decent enough. The girls spend too much time posing and trying too look prissy and it gets annoying after a while. There's better genre stuff that this out there. Oh yeah, and the \"babes\" aren't as hot as they like to think they are. Terrible soundtrack...when it's there.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYes, this movie has kids going to space camp and it starts out okay enough as you have the kids meeting one another and learning the ropes. Then they introduce Jinx, a robot that could not possibly exist in 1986 as they do not have anything with that kind of artificial intelligence now. Kid becomes buddy with robot and robot repays the kid's kindness by shooting him and a group of other kids in this camp into outer space with a very limited oxygen supply and radios that do not have the signal to reach into space. This camp is also not very fun as these kids are put to real training and the instructors get all over them for failing missions or not doing the right things. Give it a rest, they are there for fun, not to become astronauts just yet, just give them the experience of space flight not a military like camp. However, you do get to see Joaquin Phoenix in a fairly early role. So in the end a movie that tries to be realistic in some areas, but with the introduction of Jinx and other factors you might as well had the kids battle space aliens on top of everything else that was happening in the movie as that would have made the movie a bit more enjoyable at least for me. Probably for a few others as well, who else would like to see Kate Capshaw's face ripped apart by some strange super alien creature.
\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\nRumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.
The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.
This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was in second grade, 12 years ago. I remember it clearly. We were learning about space. All little kids want to go to space, right? Well, after I saw this, I was so scared to death that I would 'accidentally' get flung into space by some psychotic robot with a one track mind. I had no idea that this was a movie. I thought it was some news program or something. I guess it was my own version of when people were freaked out by the radio program 'War of the Worlds.' So, recently, I get this movie again to watch, realizing my favorite actor, Joaquin Phoenix was in it (then known as Leaf Phoenix). I can tell you, I was laughing at the dramatic parts and laughing even harder at the acting. I mean, when Andy is in space, she moves in slow motion, did you ever notice that? I don't think being in space makes you talk that slow or think that slow.
The best part is when Andy is knocked unconscious by the oxygen tank, and begins to float backwards as the security doors close. Little Max is trying to pull her in. Suddenly, we get a major close up on Max's face as he shouts (in slow motion) \"Whaaaaatttt'ssss happpeniiiinngggg?!?!?\" I had no idea.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.
I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?
My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not 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\nSpace Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The \"stars\" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, \"Jinx\", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash.
\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 cannot believe how uneducated this movie is. It's like watching police academy, except it's with people that have no clue of what they are talking about, and...Wait, there is a stupid robot that is supposed to be a sidekick. I can understand suspension of disbelief, but this is just complete stupidity. Not only is there no plot to this movie. It's like watching someone that pretends to be a doctor, throw non-medical words around as if they were chief of staff at a major medical facility. Plus the people are wearing clothes that are un-befitting for a space program. I feel like I'm watching a valley-girls \"b\" movie, in space.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not going to bag this film for all the myriad technical f|u|c|k|u|p|s, it would take two days to outline how the whole thing isn't even remotely possible. Others have pointed out all the relevant stupidities already.
Given all that, I still could have sort of enjoyed it, if only they hadn't included all the maudlin, nauseating, infuriating, Disneyesque sentimental crap, which is so out of place anywhere, but nowhere more than out in space, where the tiniest mistake can mean instant death.
The \"crew\", as well as the \"real\" astronaut were equally guilty of putting all their fatuous nonsense ahead of everything else. It completely ruined any value the production may have had left.
I'm surprised NASA let this garbage out so that so many people would get so much misinformation about something so important to them. If you haven't seen this yet, save yourself the irritation. Watch Apollo 13 again. At least that tried to be sort of real.
\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 should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.
Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.
There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.
A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, \"Back to the Future\" is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.
I don't 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\nHere's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey.
\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 rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.
The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point.
The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really.
The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than 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 film is self indulgent rubbish. Watch this film if you merely want to hear spoken Gaelic or enjoy the pleasant soundtrack. Watch for any other reason and you will be disappointed. It should be charming but isn't - it's just irritating. The characters are difficult to care about and the acting is poor. The stories within the film are also charmless and sinister. I was expecting a heartwarming family film but this also held no appeal to my fourteen year old daughter. It is rarely that I cannot see a film through to its conclusion but this one got the better of both of us.
Although the film is set in current times it has the look and feel of a cheap East European film made during the Cold War. There isn't even enough in the way of beautiful Scottish scenery and cinematography to redeem it. A real shame because as a film this is an embarrassment to Scotland.
\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\nBirthday Girl doesn't know what it wants to be - is it a comedy,, is it a drama...it just doesn't know. What could have been a very funny or touching film ends up in no-man's land. The premise is original enough to have warranted a script full of interesting scenarios but hardly delivers any and ends up petering out. This is a real shame if you look at the cast - it's very solid all the way through but they don't get the chance to shine. Very disappointing.
\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 seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.
\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's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!
The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting \"comedy\" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.
This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their 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\nthis movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script.
\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\nNothing in this film interested me. I thought the actors were asleep while they were performing. That's not laid-back Stanislofsky method, that's just walking-through and saying lines, I'm afraid. Kidman's performance is sad. The story is, however, mildly entertaining if you want to put up with the bad acting.
\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 features Ben Chaplin as a bored bank employee in England who orders a mail order bride from Russia, recieves Nicole Kidman in the mail and gets more than he bargained for when, surprise, she isn't what she appears to be. The story is fairly predictible and Chaplin underacts too much to the point where he becomes somewhat anoying. Kidman is actualy rather good in this role, making her character about the only thing in this film that is interesting. GRADE: C
\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 really have to watch this movie because your girlfriend is in a romantic mood, let it be boy. But prepare yourself by bringing your hp if it comes with a radio.
After having watched such a good movie as Arisan (2003), it is terrible to see what they come up with again in Indonesia. It seems that the only idea is to make money, but no one seems seriously to work on the image of Indonesia in the world of entertainment. That it is a 'global' world doesn't seem to come up in the minds of those who make movies in Indonesia. And since the Indonesian public swallows everything that is presented to them as 'Made in Indonesia' with a flavor of the west, they get away with it.
OK, the story is nice to begin with. And it could have developed into a nice flick. But did the director never think about the fact that a musical needs first of all live music OR at least good playback, and secondly good choreography? In this movie, the playback is SO BAD that it makes you wanna cry right there in the cinema. Every single word you hear is followed seconds LATER by the actor or whoever sing playback, and it is extremely annoying while watching the movie.
The choreography is as if they planned to make a movie about morning gymnastics, but in the end thought it would be nice to turn it into a musical... They only forgot to change the choreography. It is hardly dancing you see, they jump here and there, throw their legs up in the air, and that is about it.
Well, at least there's a happy ending.... But if you can convince your girlfriend that a nice candlelight dinner is much more romantic, DO 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\nWhat's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.
This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.
Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.
The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes...
\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 wonder who, how and more importantly why the decision to call Richard Attenborough to direct the most singular sensation to hit Broadway in many many years? He's an Academy Award winning director. Yes, he won for Ghandi you moron! Jeremy Irons is an Academy winning actor do you want to see him play Rocky Balboa? He has experience with musicals. Really? \"Oh what a lovely war\" have you forgotten? To answer your question, yes! The film is a disappointment, clear and simple. Not an ounce of the live energy survived the heavy handedness of the proceedings. Every character danced beautifully they were charming but their projection was theatrical. I felt nothing. But when I saw it on stage I felt everything. The film should have been cast with stars, unknown, newcomers but stars with compelling unforgettable faces even the most invisible of the group. Great actors who could dance beautifully. Well Michael Douglas was in it. True I forgot I'm absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Nothing like a Richard Attenborough Michael Douglas musical.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw the original \"Chorus Line\" on Broadway God knows how many times and felt the passion, despair and joy come from this live experience in the theater. Michael Bennett knew he would have to re-imagine \"Chorus\" for the screen but could never figure out how to do it. If the man who came up with the show is stumped - that should answer your question. There are some shows that are simply made to be seen live - with an audience. However, Richard Attenborough fresh of the musical work of \"Ghandi\" and dancing with animals in \"Doctor Doolittle\" ended up directing this film which bore little to no resemblance to the stage show. Horrible songs were added (Surprise! Surprise!), great songs were dropped or given to other characters (which didn't make sense). Michael Douglas was mis-cast. People that couldn't dance tried to act and there was the sexy \"Landers\" woman who couldn't sing, act, or dance - I guess she had just finished being Ghandi's wife. The dances by Jeffrey Hornaday look like nothing more than schlock from \"Flashdance\" rejects and nothing works. I sat there stunned at how something so riveting and emotional could be drained to nothing. If you truly love this show and it is coming back to Broadway in 2006 - see it but don't think that the long running musical event that was \"A Chorus Line\" has any thing at all to do with 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 admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.
This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting \"drama\" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOn Broadway, A Chorus Line was pure magic. From the second the show opened with a spectacular burst of energy to the truly grand finale, a joyous curtain call of all those chorus members who we grew to love during the course of the show, we were totally engaged - captivated by the intensely personal stories, some funny, some clever, some stirring, of this chorus line. The movie is another matter entirely. The focus is now on the director - and WHAT an ogre he is! Every time the film switches to Michael Douglas, there he is with a bitter, sour expression, barking out questions and orders, screaming and yelling whenever he gets the chance. Yikes!! That changes the dynamics of the story. On Broadway, the director was indeed an imperious offstage presence, but he was also sort of a theatrical device to allow the stories of these amazing strong/fragile/intriguing/hilarious chorus line members to be told with insight and clarity. There is a reason this work won the Pulitzer Prize! And actually in one of the only moments the director appears, he is there to comfort the young Puerto Rican Dancer after we hear that dancer's heart-breaking story. He appears again to ultimately express his genuine affection/ concern for Cassie. But in the movie, from the second Douglas' director starts bitterly barking orders, the chorus line members' stories become secondary. It's like they are in a lousy profession, where a jaded director instead of showing the joy at creating a new exciting theatrical show, is jaded, exhausted, furious at having to audition these chorus members. On stage, there was ALWAYS the excitement of the show. Here in the movie practically from the word go, you feel sorry for everyone involved. During the course of the musical, we desperately wished every single one of those chorus members well, and how happy we would have been if they had all gotten the job! But of course that couldn't happen. But in the Finale when they all came back in glorious costume with those amazing spinning mirrors on stage, sometimes reflecting us in the audience, in our hearts, and we know, also in the hearts of all those chorus members both accepted and rejected, they were on stage forever dancing in a profession they loved so much, bringing magic to the theatre. In the movie, after all the misplaced story lines and emphasis, that magic becomes totally diluted. All we feel (even with the exact same curtain call), is that some of the members got a job with a mean-spirited director. So they all come on the screen and are dancing again. Big deal.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a \"nice\" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score 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\nIf you were to judge based on the movie alone, the committee that gave the stage musical \"A Chorus Line\" a Pulitzer Prize, and Broadway audiences that kept the war horse running for 15 years, were all on heavy narcotics, because one singular sensation this film certainly is NOT.
What possessed anyone to think that Richard Attenborough was the right fit for this material utterly mystifies me, but he makes a musical that is almost entirely about movement just sit on the screen like a lump of clay.
Not content with the original score the way it was originally written, someone decided that what the film really needed was a brand new song to give the movie some zip. Thus we are assaulted with the Oscar-nominated(!) \"Surprise, Surprise.\" Well surprise, surprise, the song stinks, and so does the movie.
Grade: D
\n
assistant\n0
\n"