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\nFilm makeovers of old TV shows seems to be the norm in Hollywood these days, but this disrespectful, toilet humor, do-you-kiss-your-mother-with-that-mouth foul language, rip-off is a blatant middle finger to all Dukes of Hazzard fans both north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line. From the opening sequence of Bo and Luke Duke making a moonshine run for Uncle Jesse (no shine running in the show because it would put the boys back in jail as a parole violation) to the closing sequence of Uncle Jesse smoking weed with the Governor of Georgia (Uncle Jesse was the moral compass despite his previous moonshining ways) this disappointing waste of film is an open faced insult. I can't tell you how many parents I saw get up and remove their children from the theater within the first 15 minutes of the movie when they realized that they had been horribly deceived. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a family show with basic moral values. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a kid safe, Hemi powered, show of fun that parents didn't have to worry about teaching their kids George Carlin's seven words. I have read reviews stating that the show and the movie are nothing but racist. Those commits might be correct about the movie. Those commits are ABSOLUTELY incorrect about the show. The show, if anything, was about how to get along and be friends with ANYONE. Hollywood has finally come out in the open about their disdain for those of us, Yankee, Rebel, or otherwise, who still believe in honor, loyalty, trust, family, and doing the right thing even if it is not the popular thing. Hollywood has finally brought to light its belief that those of us in the heartland are stupid, uneducated, beer swilling, foul mouthed, trash that will buy any piece of garbage they are willing to sell. Prove the Hollywood Elitist that they are wrong. DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Boycott the sponsors. Fill Warner Bros. email and snail mail boxes with complaints that we don't appreciate them destroying one of the greatest T.V. shows of all time. Save your money and buy the DVD's of the original show, but whatever you do DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE
\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...then you'd better not watch this movie. They've completely ruined the premise of the show. In the movie the Duke boys are idiots, Daisy is trampy, Roscoe is sinister, Boss Hogg is capable, Uncle Jessie is a criminal...only Cooter and Flash are true to the original characters. At least Enos is kinda close.
At one point they open the doors to get into the General Lee -- nuff said.
The original show may not have been great TV, but it was entertaining and the characters made sense. This movie is like Dumb & Dumber meets the Simple Life.
\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 Hazzard County, Georgia, cousins Bo and Luke Duke (Scott, Knoxville) and their cousin Daisy Duke (Jessica Simpson) run moonshine made by their Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson) while avoiding the local authority, Boss Hog (Burt Reynolds). Their problems with the Boss are only beginning as they learn he's been plotting to strip mine the town for valuable ores found below it.
I have never seen the TV show and after watching the movie, I'm not going to start any time soon. I like stupid comedies but this one didn't offer many laughs. It was a pretty dull picture with the first hour being really hard to sit through. The second part was a little better but this film was still a missed opportunity. The film focused on Bo and Luke way too much. The characters in general weren't very interesting and the actors portraying them didn't do a very good job.
The acting wasn't very good. I wasn't expecting it to be good in the first place but none of the leads were very funny. Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville both give below average performances. The latter was pretty good as Stifler but he tries way too hard here. The latter just seems to be looking for a paycheck and nothing else. Jessica Simpson isn't known for her acting nor is she really known for her singing. She's famous for having her own reality show and for saying really dumb things. She is pretty but she's a weak actor. It doesn't matter though because she doesn't really appear in the movie and the character she plays isn't complex or anything. Willie Nelson also has a minor role and he doesn't do anything special.
The screenplay was written by John O'Brien and he made two films prior to the Dukes of Hazzard. The first one was Cradle to the Grave, which was okay. The second one was Starsky and Hutch which was pretty funny. He doesn't do a good job here though as the story is a mess. He also forgot to add jokes and a few other things that would have made this film work better. The movie is also pretty long for a comedy. Okay, 106 minutes isn't exactly long but it feels so much longer because there's very little humor in the first hour. I think comedies should be kept short or else they have to find a lot of material to cover the entire running time. The Dukes of Hazzard barely has enough funny gags to keep it going for thirty minutes let alone 106 minutes. The car sequences were average and they don't save an already troubled film. In the end, Dukes of Hazzard may appeal to a few people but most people will probably find it dull and it's better if you just skip it. Rating 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a snore-fest.
Of all the bits of nostalgia that Hollywood has decided to remake and update, this is by far one of the most pointless. This was a totally pointless show in the first place, and we REALLY don't need a 'modern' update.
Never mind the bigotry and sexism inherent in the system from the beginning, so many advances have been made, socially, since the show ran that the entire point of the show (if it ever had one) has been lost.
Also, what is the point of having a character named Boss Hogg if he's NOT overweight?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor this review,a list of good points and bad points.I'll start with the bad.
Bad points:The casting choices(especially Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg),the acting of said badly chosen cast,the storyline,the idea of setting the film in the modern day,the direction,the editing,the soundtrack,and above all,the whole idea of making a feature film out of a television series that wasn't that great to start with,despite it's popularity.
Good points:Jessica Simpson in a red bikini............that's it!
One might make an analogy here.In the scene where Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke struts her way up to Michael Weston as Enos,and asks the question,\"Enos,where's Boss Hogg and Roscoe?\",in his clouded judgment, tells her where they are.She might just as well have asked,\"Enos,is this a good movie?\",the red bikini would have clouded his judgment into saying yes,even though in his right mind he would have said,\"No, not really.\"As good as she looked in the bikini,she could have been stark naked,and even that would not have saved this horrible piece of film-making.Stay out of Hazzard!
\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 say that I am not a Dukes fan, but after this movie the series looked like Law and Order. The worst thing was the casting of Roscoe and Boss Hogg. Burt Reynolds is not Boss Hogg, and even worse was M.C. Gainey as Roscoe, If they ever watched the show Roscoe was not a hard ass cop. He was more a Barney Fife than the role he played in this movie.
The movie is loaded with the usual errors, cars getting torn up, and continues like nothing happened. The worst example of this is when the the General gets together with Billy Prickett, and the General is ran into a dirt hill obviously slowing to a near stop, but goes on to win the race.
\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 sucked ! They took something from my childhood ,and raped it in an outhouse! This movie was so bad I wanted to go home and hold my \"Dukes\" dvds and cry in a corner. The cast was terrible ! It wasn't \"The Dukes\", it was Stiffler and Jackass driving a car. When was Boss Hogg evil? When was Rosco a tough guy? They never were ! Boss Hogg was greedy and Rosco was an idiot. When did Jesse smoke pot? He never did ! Now don't get me wrong,I'm very liberal and there's nothing wrong with a little chiba, but it had no place in this movie! The only thing good about this movie was the trailers before the movie and the end credits. It was a waste of money time and air. Avoid at all costs!!!!!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'll tell you what happened, some people with money thought it would be nice to ruin one of the best shows that was on TV. Did we really need a big screen re-make? Did they ask the fans? I wonder how all the fans would feel if they did a remake of \"Rocky Horror Picture Show\" with actors like Ashton Krutcher, Steve Martin, Britney Spears, and Kiefer Southerland, took out all the music, and made it a drama. Do you think they would like that! This movie does not have the same feel to it that the original had. Sure the original was a bit corny at times, but Bo and Luke were always nice, they got into trouble because they were always set up to get into trouble, and their main objective was to help people that passed through town. None of that mattered to the people that made this film, they might have never even seen the original show all the way through. My big question is, what will they ruin next?
\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 this movie should be renamed, it should be \"The Jackasses of Hazzard.\" To sum it up, this movie is nothing but 88 minutes of two immature country punks joyriding the famed 1968 Dodge Charger around town and in the country, chasing the girls and eluding the law.
I have been a fan of the \"Dukes\" and what tarnishes the movie is the characters are out of key. The overindulgence of profanity, sexual references, and drug use, has made the good name of the \"Dukes\" into trailer trash.
Side from comparing it to the television show, the acting was horrible. The only actor that got it right was the famed 1969 Dodge Charger named General Lee. The others have exaggerated the character's role which tarnished the movie.
The \"Dukes\" have been another casualty of the 21-st century Hollywood television-to-big screen transition tragedy. Skip this movie and just buy the television series on DVD.
My grade: F
\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 understand why making remakes has become the trend. Every remake I have ever seen is awful, and this is no exception. If any of you have seen the quote from Ben Jones, that it is a \"sleazy\" piece of trash, he is quite right. Why they would take a wonderful television show, which I loved, have never missed an episode, and own seasons 1-4 on DVD, and ruin it, I'll never know. The television show was a family show, and although Daisy has the body, it was really flaunted, or even addressed in the show, save the outfits. A family show has been turned in to a dirty piece of garbage, and I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. Another thing I didn't like was that John Schneider and Tom Wopat are excellent actors (along with the rest of the original cast), and they are also extremely cute. The new Bo and Luke are not even a little cute. That was one of the drawers for the show. The casting is terrible. They could have at least gotten a brunette for Daisy. I don't think Burt Reynolds is a qualified Boss Hogg, either. Every other role he has ever played is totally opposite this role. The only role they cast halfway decent is Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse, but still it is no comparison. Denver Pyle is an actor all his own, and that made him perfect for the role. I think that the casting is awful, the story is awful, and all in all ruined a wonderful show and turned it into a dirty, terrible movie. I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. I only saw it out of curiosity, plus there was a free ticket in season 4 DVD. I would never have paid to see this movie, but it was free. DON'T PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE.
\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\nWhen a movie like \"The Dukes of Hazzard\" brings in over $75 million it makes some incredibly sad statements about the condition of our own society. Either we are collectively too stupid to stay away from trash like this or maybe I'm just not realizing how many people this kind of no-effort trash will appeal to.
Hollywood has had no incentive to make good movies since if it puts out trash then people will see it anyways since there is nothing else on screen. This is that. I walked out despite getting a free movie pass. The dialogue could not be dumber. The stunts could not be more over-the-top and outrageous. Perhaps this \"bigger that big\" image appeals to Texans but it didn't appeal to me nor anyone else in the theater. None of the \"big names\" were in this career-ending flick, except for Burt Reynolds, which says all you need to hear. Jessica Simpson -- don't make me laugh.
I wouldn't even recommend this film for video, even if you were desperate. This was all about fooling the public to make enough money after opening day to equal or do better than it cost through marketing. They did despite the public being forewarned. Stupidity abound.
\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\nHave I seen a worse movie? Perhaps only \"Manos: The Hands of Fate\" dragged more than \"Dukes\". I had more fun poking at the gigantic plot holes than the movie gave me at any point. Let's touch on a few...
There was a noticeable script death and rebirth when Sheev is talking to the Dukes and they don't respond. He shrugs and moves on, since neither the Knoxville or Scott know what he's talking about (nor do we). It was like the engine died and was restarted.
The few times the General Lee flew through the air weren't even that exciting. Nothing I haven't seen on the TV Series.
Very little chemistry between Knoxville and Scott. The best part was when Bo is upset at Luke for stealing the girl he liked. The only reason this works is that the script actually forshadowed it (although roughly). The rest of the time it seems distant and forced.
Seann William Scott's awful, horrendous accent (or lack thereof).
I hated Willie Nelson's performance. Were bad jokes supposed to be endearing? I wanted him to disappear.
Jessica Simpson comes across splendidly on the big screen. She actually felt like one of the better actors in the film. That's telling you how horrible this movie is. She's a goddess.
During the climax of the film, I was rooting for Boss Hogg and the bad guys to flatten all of Hazzard County, starting with Willie Nelson and his accomplices. A nuclear bomb would have sufficed.
This is not meant to be a coherent dismantling of the film, but a release of frustration at the abysmal writing and execution of what could have been a truly heartwarming film.
If only we could erase and start over...
\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 we all love the daisy dukes, but what is up with this cast. Lets start, Jessica Simpson as Daisy, there is not one thing country about this girl and Daisy was not ditzy! Uncle Jesse was probably the closest one to resemble the original. No offense to Burt, but I never noticed Boss HOg being so tall. That was part of the humor of Boss Hog was his size. Did they even try someone like Danny Devito?!? OK , now get this they cast Jessica Simpson did anyone take a look at her husband? He matches Luke Duke to a tee!!!!!! Cleary these producers did not look at the appearance of the old cast members. The screen t's were never present on the dukes!! This made the movie a turn off from the beginning. I give this a HUGE thumbs down.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe Dukes of Hazzard will academy awards!! Best actor and actress 4 the persons who can say with a straight face that this was a great movie.
This \"movie\" was a torture to watch. So sad how an weekly half hour entertainment was destroyed by these amateurs.The only good thing about this crap was the car! I remember when Daisy was a real threat to look 4ward 2. Who's the moron that decided that Jessica Simpson is hot?! We know she can't act but come on. In the TV show Daisy was a fox and brunette.
All members who contributed in these waste of time please please please don't even think about makin a sequel, a prequel or anything that's got 2 do with a former TV show.
I gave a empty DVD so this \"movie\" could be burned 4 me. I sat trough it and i want my money back!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had suspicions the movie was going to be bad. I'm a Duke's fan from way back. Have three years of the TV series on DVD. Well I was right. Took the family to see it. I really wanted to see the General jump again and some of the chase jump scenes were good. But to sum it up, the movie was a dumbed down tarted up version of the TV show.
Jessica Simpson was pathetic. While I can honestly say that the original Daisy's outfits were just as revealing, Jessica Simpson's interpretation of Daisy was simply awful. Sorrel Booke and Denver Pyle must be rolling in their graves as well.
Don't waste your money. If you are an old tried and true Dukes fan like me and my three kids are you will be very disappointed.
\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 wont go and give them my 10 bucks i went and bought the fourth season of the original and the best. At least my kids enjoy it and can watch it without me worrying about what they are seeing. I have a teenager and she thinks the previews are ridiculous and would rather watch the original. And she thinks Jessica Simpson is a horrible daisy in fact she thinks she looks more like a slut than daisy duke. Those shorts she might as well not be wearing anything at all. And since when is American Pie have anything to do with the Dukes SHAME ON them for putting that nasty line in there about having sex with a car. That in itself should have gotten the movie a R rating. The only good thing that might come out of this is a reunion movie with the originals. Lets all hope. So the people out there that went and seen the movie will see how it should have looked
\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 Geez... There are so many other films I want to see out there... I got stuck with my nephew for the weekend and this is what he wanted - Yeah...
I used to watch this show when I was in college...it was mindless, kinda fun, and somewhat action-oriented. The show had a good heart tho...and the characters were cute; no one ever got killed or even hurt badly... it was like a cartoon come to life. Cut to 2005...What happened? This one doesn't work. As others have said, there simply isn't a cohesive story and the performances are weird...almost annoying - definitely not faithful to the original characters...the whole thing is a like a Mad TV skit and it lasts over 100 minutes! This was one of the few times I've been EMBARRASSED watching a film. What were they thinking? As best I can tell, must've been for the product marketing, toys, etc. All I can say is, let this one die a quick death. It makes the original Dukes of Hazzard seem like Masterpiece Theater...
I think the only remake left to do from TV is Gilligan's Island... Good Luck!
\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 have to say many people have argued that some of us need to get with the times cause the new \"Dukes\" movie is a modernized version. OH PLEASE. If this is what you consider modernized then Hollywood can keep it. Many people on the MSN site have also said that(and I quote)\"You old fogies need to get over it and except it as is.\" Well let me tell you something, I am 24 so I am a long way from being and OLD FOGIE, and I won't get over it, it was a DISGRACE TO ALL THAT IS HAZZARD COUNTY. The only thing right in the movie title was \"HAZZARD.\" Was all the profanity, smoking, and drinking really necessary. The cast was terrible. Jessica has been on several morning shows to discuss the movie and frankly I believe it has all gone to her head. She is in NO way a Daisy Duke, a fluke maybe, but definitely no Duke. I love Sean Williams Scott, but not as Bo. They should have included the original cast as at least cameos, but even Hollywood knew they wouldn't approve of the script. I mean come on people even todays actors and actresses are voicing a negative opinion so why are some of you giving positive remarks.
\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 ever watched the Dukes of Hazard you know that you never had to worry about drugs or cussing or crude behavior being seen by young children. If you've seen the movie you know that is no longer the case! This movie was HORRIBLE! Main characters doing drugs and thinking it is funny and cool is certainly not what I call entertainment. They took a wonderful show and just turned it into trash. Daisy who was a little flirtatious in the original show now looks and acts like she belongs on the street corner getting paid for her services. I was so excited about seeing this movie before it came out, 15 minutes into the movie I was ready to leave. I stayed thinking it had to get better but instead it got worse by the minute. I wish I had never seen this movie. It trashed a good show and left nothing but horrible taste in my mouth when I left. Do yourself a favor, go see something worth your money, cause it's not only a waste of money but a waste of 2 hours of your life you will never get back!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe 1980s TV show, updated with fresh female flesh, and raunchy language. \"The Dukes of Hazzard\" passed me by; it was not repeated whenever I was in front of the television in either New York or California; or, I probably would have watched. Still, from somewhere (like the clips accompanying this film's updated 2005 release), I knew it was about a fast, orange Dodge Charger - and, the \"General Lee\" is still good to go.
Hunky cousins Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville (as Bo and Luke Duke) are the New Riders of the Orange Sage. Beautiful Jessica Simpson (as Daisy) fills her skimpy short well - but, even her arousing pink bikini can't beat off the competition from a dormitory full of bouncing, topless coeds. The too stupid plot involves a graying Burt Reynolds (as \"Boss\" Hogg) threatening to turn Hazzard County into a strip-mine.
** The Dukes of Hazzard (7/27/05) Jay Chandrasekhar ~ Seann William Scott, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson, Burt Reynolds
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU LOVED THE CLASSICS SUCH AS TOM WOPAT, JOHN SCHNEIDER, CATHERINE BACH, SORRELL BOOKE, JAMES BEST, DENVER PYLE, SONNY SHROYER, AND BEN JONES! THIS MOVIE WILL DISSAPPOINT YOU BADLY! First of all, this movie starts out with Bo and Luke running moonshine for Jesse. Bo and Luke would not do that ever on the real series! This movie portrays unimaginable characters doing things that never would have happened in the series. In the series, Uncle Jesse was honest, and law-abiding. In this movie, he is a criminal who is making moonshine and smoking weed with the governor of Georgia. Plus, if this was an extension adding on to the Dukes of Hazzard Reunion! and the Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood, I have one question: HOW COULD UNCLE JESSE BE MAKING MOONSHINE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE DUKES OF HAZZARD IN Hollywood MOVIE? AND HOW IS BOSS HOGG ALIVE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE REUNION MOVIE IN 1997! MOVIE AND ROSCO RAN HAZZARD? IT SEEMS MAGICAL THAT THESE CHARACTERS CAME BACK TO LIFE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR 11 AND 8 YEARS? If Hollywood really wanted to make a good movie, they should have brought back James Best, John Schneider, Tom Wopat, Ben Jones, and Catherine Bach like they did in 1997 and 2000 and made a family friendly movie with the living original characters that made the show what it was and still is compared to this disgusting, disgraced movie! If you want to see good Dukes movies, either buy the original series, or go out to walmart.com and buy the DVD set of 2 that includes the Reunion, and Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood movies! They both star the original cast, and are family friendly! Don't waste your time on a movie that isn't worth the CD it's written on!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOnce again, like Charlie's Angels, Inspector Gadget and Thunderbirds, a TV series is turned into a full length film and gets ruined for all the hundreds of people that watched. Basically the Duke cousins, Luke (Johnny Knoxville) and Bo (Seann William Scott) in Hazzard County, spend a lot of time driving very fast in \"The General Lee\". But they need to get their act together and stop their family farm being destroyed along with almost the whole town by nasty Jefferson Davis 'Boss' Hogg (Razzie nominated Burt Reynolds) to make way for a huge coal mine. They get help along the way from their sexy cousin Daisy (Razzie nominated Jessica Simpson) and Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson), while being chased by equally mean Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane (Lost's M.C. Gainey) and the police. Also starring Joe Don Baker as Governor Jim Applewhite, Jack Polick as Deputy Cletus Hogg, David Koechner as Cooter Davenport, Michael Weston as Deputy Enos Strate and Lynda Carter as Pauline. I think the only reason I give the film an extra star is because of a couple of impressive car stunts, and of course the gorgeous body of Simpson (I'll admit her legs aren't quite Catherine Bach, but still!), but besides that it is pretty boring. It was nominated the Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Director for Jay Chandrasekhar, Worst Remake or Sequel, Worst Screen Couple for Simpson & Her \"Daisy Dukes\" and Worst Screenplay. Pretty poor!
\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 Dukes of Hazzard is quite an achievement  a $53m film that's worse than any given episode of a downmarket 25-year old TV show. The plot is serviceable enough but the mindless fun is rarely to be found and the casting is pretty atrocious: Johnny Knoxville is more passenger than protagonist, M.C. Gainey's Sheriff Roscoe is a bland thug, Michael Weston's Enos tiresome, a seemingly ideally-cast Willie Nelson just seems to be waiting for the check to clear and Burt Reynolds, stuck in some purgatory where he's doomed to relive his old movies as a bit player, is a curious choice for Boss Hogg to say the least but does have one good moment with a heckler and a hundred dollar bill. You know a film is in trouble when Seann William Scott and Jessica Simpson are the most charismatic screen presences But worse than the script or the casting is Jay Chandrasekhar's hopeless direction: seemingly born with no conception of comic timing, unable to do much more than basic two-shots and seemingly clueless as to how to shoot a car chase let alone the couple of decent stunts in the film, he seems determined to sap the film of any signs of life before they materialise. There are a couple of neat post-modern moments revolving around the Confederate Flag and Daisy's stereotypical role in every episode, but no film that makes you pine for the days when Hal Needham was directing this sort of thing (and badly) can be a good thing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'll say one thing about this film: there are no lulls. You can't get bored watching this. The problem is that it is TOO intense. There is too much action and it NEEDS lulls! That is the risk you take in modern action films. You want it interesting but not overdone. This is way overdone.
Even though the acting is fine and features a couple of \"names\" in Gary Busey and Roy Scheider, it still has the feel of a \"B\" film. The best part of it is Scheider's dialog: the only \"A\" part of this \"B\" film.
The rest of the story is strictly Rambo mentality but did have a few standout scenes. One in particular was a very innovative scene featuring land mines. That was memorable. Not enough of the other scenes were to make this a keeper for long.
\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, sorry for the mistake on the one line summary.......Run people, run!! This movie is an horror!! Imagine! Gary Busey in another low budget movie, with an incredibly bad scenario...isn't that a nightmare? No (well yes), it is Plato's run...........I give it * out of *****.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is enjoyable and fast-paced.
There is no way on Earth that the actor playing Mat could be eighteen. However, the main thing is that he does act eighteen very convincingly. It must be a credit to his audition that he convinced them to cast him. I quite soon accepted him as being a naive young country boy.
While his was the best performance, most of the others were also very engaging. In particular, the interplay between the policemen was natural and well-balanced, and worked very well.
It is only about 45 minutes long, so the plot is not complex. More key is the style of the whole thing. It is very slick and vibrant, and the backdrops are atmospheric, especially from the fact that all the colours are extremely rich. The gangland is identifiable to foreign audiences, but still manages to be distinctly Australian.
\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\nExcept for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated \"Movie of the Week\" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.
Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than \"us\" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of \"oddness\" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.
It's difficult to hear the phrase \"A dingo took my baby!\" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.
Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.
Haunting questions, with or without the 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\nIt's a real challenge to make a movie about a baby being devoured by wild canines and the mother being wrongly accused of murder funny but against all odds this one succeeds. Meryl Streep gives the performance of her life, melodramatic, overwrought but with that comic genius that keeps you laughing even as a mother struggles with the ultimate horror.
If comedies about the infants being eaten by dogs are not your cup of tea you might be uncomfortable watching this and, yes, it is an odd choice of topic for a farce but really very little of the movie has anything to do with that as it focuses on giving Streep a showcase for her Aussie accent and facial contortions.
Throwing in a slam at media bias and sensationalism and disregard for either the truth or ethics gives the movie the chance to make the daring point that those things are bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen Ben (Red Foxx) discovers his wife Beatrice (Pearl Bailey) has run off with his own brother, he rushes to his son Norman (Michael Warren) to unload his tale of woe--only to discover that Norman has a secret lover: the effeminate Garson (Dennis Dugan.) Needless to say, Ben does not take it well, and numerous complications follow--including Ben's attempt to get Norman over being homosexual by fixing him up with a hooker (Tammy Dobson.) Unfortunately, this description of the movie sounds a great deal more entertaining than the movie itself.
Originally written for the theatre by Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick, NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? was an absolute disaster on the New York stage. To give the play its due, I actually saw it staged in the 1970s as a community theatre production--and while no one would accuse it of being anything other than a shallow farce, the cast played so broadly and in such drop-dead manner that it proved quite amusing. It is a pity the cast of this film didn't do the same.
This is an atrociously performed motion picture. Red Foxx, one of the most hilarious comics of the 20th century, is about as funny here as yesterday's wash, Michael Warren (who later appeared on the television series HILL STREET BLUES to much better effect) competes with Foxx to see who can give the worst performance, and Pearl Bailey is not far behind; truth be told, only Dennis Duggan, Tammy Dobson, and a cameo by Wayland Flowers have any spark--and sadly, that is only in comparison with the rest of the cast.
Not only is the film badly performed, it looks bad. According to film lore, this was the first big screen effort to be filmed in videotape, which was then transfered to celluloid for project purposes--and believe me, it shows. The film has the look of a bad 1970s sitcom right down to the painted skyline seen through the windows of Norman and Garson's apartment.
Some films are so bad that they become funny, but NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? isn't one of them. I can sum up my reaction to this film in two words: miss it. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Just back away slowly and then run like hell.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
\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 have no idea as to which audience director George Schlatter hoped to sell this comedy-of-ills. With Redd Foxx in the central role and enough pimpy outfits and polyester to carpet the entire 1970s, \"Norman\" plays like a blaxploitation picture combined with any number of silly sitcom episodes involving comic misunderstandings, not to mention an elongated cameo by Waylon Flowers! Based on a play by Sam Bobrick and Ron Clark, this tale of an estranged married couple (Foxx and Pearl Bailey) learning the hard way that their son is secretly gay--and living with a mincing, prancing white homosexual--has enough limp-wristed jokes to shame any early episode of \"Three's Company\". Bailey keeps her dignity, and Foxx's sheer confusion is good for a couple of chuckles, but the rest of the performers are humiliated. * 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 snarky, homophobic thing was dated in 1976. It seems particularly mean-spirited now, filled with gay stereotypes, and characters that are meant to be laughed at, rather than with. Redd Foxx does his standard schtick, Michael Warren at least tries to bring humanity to a one dimensional character, and Pearl--Pearl what were you thinking--? Pearl Bailey deserves far better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the second British Rank film to adapt the stories of Sommerset Maugham to film. All but one story from 'Quartet' does not travel well into the contempory era; and the actors speech is decidedly \"clipped\", as only British pre-1950's actors delivery can be. In anycase 'Trio' seems tighter and more filmic than the first film adaptation.
One of the problems these two films can't overcome is that their source material was written 25-30 years prior to the films. Consequently, by the 1950's Maughm's (pre-war) popularist \"small morality\" storyteling seemed rather quaint, if not downright coy.
\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 fortunate enough to meet George Pal (and still have my DS:TMOB poster autographed by him) at a convention shortly after the release, and asked him why he chose to do the film \"camp\". Before he could answer, two studio flacks intercepted and lectured me on how the studio \"knew best\" and how \"no one will take such a film seriously\". I had been reading the Bantam reprints for a couple of years thanks to a friend (ComiCon attendees of the 1970s will recall Blackhawk and his band? I was in a couple of years of that with him), and had higher hopes than what we got.
The flacks insisted that no high adventure would ever be done seriously, and so doing 'camp' was the only way. Several other fans jumped in on my side, with Pal listening as best he could. At the end of the little event, Pal came up to us and apologized, wishing he could have done more and better.
STAR WARS put the lie to the flacks, and a year after Pal's death, Spielberg and Lucas proved that Doc Savage could have easily been the next major movie franchise...if it hadn't been for the flacks.
Tear out the memory or history of Doc, and the film would have been worth a 6/10 rating as nothing more than a mindless popcorn seller.
But destroying the legacy like that was no less an abomination than killing a baby in the crib.
Doc Savage can still come to the screen, and survive the inevitable comparisons by the ill-informed to Indiana Jones, but it would have to be done in all seriousness and earnest to reclaim the glory that we should expect from the First American Superhero.
SIDENOTES: Yes, there was a second script for ARCHENEMY OF EVIL, and it's a lot more serious. Yes, there was simultaneous footage shot, but mostly establishing shots and very little with actors. And, yes, there _is_ a one-sheet of Ron Ely leaping over a brick wall and blasting at something over his shoulder with a specially built bronze pistol. Ely's wearing a duster over a button down white shirt with a bronze tie, and the words \"DOC SAVAGE: ARCHENEMY OF EVIL...Coming Next Summer!\" POSTSCRIPT: If anyone knows who the studio flacks were that accompanied George Pal in 1975 to San Diego for the convention, smack the idiots up the side of the head and call them the idiots that they are. At the time, they were doing dorkknobs and Fu Manchu in stripes and baggy canvas pants, and carrying Paramount portfolios.
\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\nDoc Savage: The Man of Bronze is a horrible movie. Poorly scripted, over-acted, and just plain silly. That being said... it is actually an enjoyable movie on some level. This movie begs to be watched in a group with an ample supply of cheap beer. It's one of those movies like \"Santa Claus conquers the Martians\" or \"Yor, the Hunter from the Future\"... so bad it is almost good. If you have the right group of people this movie is a blast to watch. It's campy. It's fun. It has a theme by Sousa. If you're looking for a good movie though, look elsewhere. 3/10.
BTW, I've heard rumors some studio is exploring the possibility of a remake...
\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\nFantastically putrid. I don't mean to imply above that only a few people should avoid \"Doc Savage.\" Almost every demographic group would be bored by this trivial, TV-movie-quality production. It's a little like the 60's \"Batman\" TV series, except it's not funny. Even accidentally. You're better off taking a nap.
\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\nDOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF BRONZE (1 outta 5 stars)
Dreadful, dreadful movie... based on the pulp magazine/paperback series by Lester Dent/Kenneth Robeson... about a super-heroic adventure hero in the '30s and his five assistants, all experts in some field of endeavor that allows them to combat evil. It was a pretty hokey series... but kinda fun to read when I was a teenager. I knew they made a movie version in the '70s, starring Ron (Tarzan) Ely... but I never got a chance to see it. It never played in theaters where I lived and was never shown on TV. Now that I have finally seen the film I can understand why. The plot and characters are never treated seriously... it's all kind of tongue-in-cheek and campy... kind of like the old Batman TV series... only without the benefit of being funny... or having any visual flair. Corny dialogue, cheesy special effects, dumb stereotypes, crummy action scenes and bad, bad acting. Actually, I find it kind of fascinating in its badness... what could they have possibly been thinking? Arnold Schwarzenegger was rumoured to be starring in a modern-day remake... but I don't imagine that would have turned out to be much better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter having seen the movie the first question arising in my mind was: Is this supposed to be irony or not? After reading a few comments about the character Doc Savage and the comic series, I knew this film was not meant to be ironic. So, the story tells us about an US-American Super-Doc saving a south American republic from evil. Sounds like a typical story. But this one comes in such an unrealistic way that it becomes ridiculous. The mandatory end-fight shows the worst presentation of martial arts I have ever seen. The film might be interesting for low budget movie designers as a bad example.
\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 film in its premier week in 1975. I was 13 years old and at that time I found it adequate and somewhat fun. I then came to discover the WORLD of Doc Savage through the Bantam novels of the old pulp magazine stories. I had no idea before any of this of the realm of Doc, but I fast became one of the most avid Doc Savage fans you could ever meet. I read (and still own) all of the Bantam books, I started going to comic book cons (along with Star Trek and Doctor Who and all manner of geeky fat kid events) and had a wonderful time with each adventure I took with Doc and the ORIGINAL Fab 5. Philip Jose Farmer's Book - The Apocalyptic Life of Doc Savage became a bit of a bible for me and to this day I have very fond feelings regarding my Doc phase. In so saying I have to admit now years later that this film really missed the boat. It is a film that did not know what it wanted to be when it grew up. The screenplay was infantile and bore little resemblance to the pulp story. These stories from the 30's were short and if one looked at Lester Dent's (AKA Kenneth Robeson) outline for writing them, they broke down into PERFECT 3 act dramas that screamed for screen treatment. One would have thought that with George Pal and Michael Anderson at the helm, it would have turned out better. The spoof elements miss the target and the more serious moments almost get there, but then fall short. It is interesting to watch though in that they hired second-string character actors (guys that had really been only bit players and extras before this film) who all acquit themselves very well. Paul Gleason of course has gone on to be a fine utility player in all facets of entertainment and Bill Lucking is a television perennial. All the rest have fallen off the map sadly. I do wish to own a copy of this film as it is the only movie version of my hero, but I fear I will not watch it much as it is too painful. I would say 0 but I give it 2 out of 10 instead for some of the period art direction (Doc's answering machine at the end was a nice touch) and the cast of 3rd stingers getting a moment in the sun.
\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\nCynthia Rothrock,(China O'Brien),\"Manhattan Chase\",2000, made this film enjoyable to watch and of course,e this cute petite gal burned up the screen with her artistic abilities and hot sexy body. China O'Brien gets upset as a police officer and decides to call it quits and go back home to her hometown and get back to her roots and her dad, who is the local sheriff. Her dad is getting older and the town has changed, gangsters have taken over the town and started to get the local women to start turning tricks and the city people were getting sick and tired of their town going to Hell. Well, you almost can guess what happens, and you are right, China O'Brien fights back after great tragedy strikes her life. Bad acting through out the picture, but Cynthia Rothrock brings this film to a wonderful conclusion.
\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 actually saw China O'Brien II before I ever saw the original China O'Brien. And I have to say that the first incarnation is actually worse. But: worse = funnier! And funnier = better. If you're a bad movie fan like I am, this is great material. If, however, you are looking for any sort of meaningful plot, acting ability, or movie-making skill, this is best avoided. The best part is how they filmed all the fighting sequences in stuttering fast-forward. Hilariously bad. See it for a laugh, see it for mindless entertainment, but whatever you do, see it for free on TV.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"