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\nI had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is \"How We Get Rid of the Others\"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called \"the common good\", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).
Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.
The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.
Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).
In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.
3 out of 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\nThis movie could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThey probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere will be a time where kids will have grown up without ever seeing the one and only Bugs Bunny kiss (technically) another man on the lips. There will be a time where it won't be Duck or Rabbit season. There will be a time where the Tazmanian Devil will be dubbed politically incorrect.
But so help me now is not that time.
Nobody really wants an 'EXTREME' version of our beloved Loony characters. Whoever it is in marketing who comes up with \"Corn Nuts: Corn gone wrong\" and \"Extreme Doritos\" and evidently this festering turd should know that just because they have a degree in business or advertising or whatever doesn't mean they know jack about kids.
I think that they're doing a disservice to children, depriving them of one of the greatest and most iconic shows of all time. This show disgusts me, and it's not just the dated artwork or terrible dialogue. They misuse good voice talent, like Phil Lamarr, Michael Clarke Duncan, Candi Milo, and so many others. It lacks style, humor, character development, and most importantly, heart.
The show, like it's repackaged characters (Slam Tasmanian, Rev Runner, Ace Bunny) is but a shadow of it's former, timeless and beautiful self.
\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\"Well Chuck Jones is dead, lets soil his characters by adding cheap explosions, an American drawn anime knock off style, and give them superpowers\". \"but sir?, don't we all ready have several shows in the works that are already like this? much less don't dump all over their original creators dreams\". \"yes! and those shows make us a bunch of cash, and we need more!\". \"but won't every man women and child, who grew up with these time less characters, be annoyed?\". \"hay you're right! set it in the future, make them all descendent's of the original characters, and change all the names slightly...but not too much though, we still need to be able to milk the success of the classics\".
Well that's the only reason I can think of why this even exists. If you look past the horrible desecration of our beloved Looney Toons, then it looks like an OK show. But then there is already the teen titan's, which is the same bloody thing. All the characters are dressed like batman, they drive around in some sort of ship fighting super villains, they have superpowers, only difference is they sort of talk like the Looney tunes and have similar names and character traits.
This kind of thing falls into the \"it's so ridiculous it's good\" kind of category. Think of the Super Mario brother's movie, and Batman and Robin. If you want to laugh for all the wrong reasons, check this out. If you are of the younger generation (what this thing is actually intended for), and can look pass the greedy executives shamelessness, then run with it and enjoy.
If you enjoy this cartoon I don't have a problem with you, it's the people who calculated this thing together that I am mad at. You know how they say piracy is like stealing a car; this show is like grave robbing. They might as well of dug up all the people involved with the original cartoon, shoved them on a display, dressed them up inerr pirate costumes, and charged money. If this show wasn't using characters (ones that didn't resemble the Looney Toons in anyway whatsoever) that have already made the studios millions, then this would be fine. But no! For shame Warner brothers, for shame.
If I saw this thing as a 30 second gag on an episode of the Simpson's or Family Guy, I would love it. As it is I just can't believe this was ever made. I would bet anyone that 80% of the people who work on this show hate it. But whatever it doesn't really matter, in 10 years this show will have been forgotten, while the originals will live on foreveror at least until the world ends.
\"Coming 2008, Snoopy and the peanut gang are back, and now they have freaking lasers and can turn invisible! Can Charley Brown defeat the evil alien warlord Zapar? Tune in and see.\"
\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\nLoony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny \"Duck Dodgers\". The latter time was with this  um  effort. \"Loonatics Unleashed\" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.
The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the \"city-planet\" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.
In each episode, the super sextet  amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter  fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh  the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always  ALWAYS  laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.
In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as \"Bugs-like\". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish \"Teen Titans\", including its overly \"modern\" animation \"look\", but with animals. Feh.
The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam  as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits  as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain  and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities.
Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers.
\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\"Loonatics Unleashed \" is the worst thing that could happen to the classic characters created by Chuck Jones . The \"Loony Tunes\" have many spin -offs and different versions , some were good ,others not very much .But \"Loonatics \" it's the worst .The concept is stupid and derivative of shows as \"The Power Rangers \" and \"Teen Titans \" . There wasn't any similarity with the original characters and the stories are boring and poorly made . The new designs are ugly and the animation is pathetic . This show just doesn't work .This horrible waste of animation is a complete failure and this shouldn't have be nothing more than a bad joke . Lame ! Zero 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\nI think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose.
\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\nGod, I am so sick of the crap that comes out of America called \"Cartoons\"!
Since anime became popular, the USA animators either produce a cartoon with a 5-year-old-lazy-ass style of drawing (Kappa Mikey) or some cheep Japanese animation rip-off. (Usually messing up classic characters) No wonder anime is beating American cartoons!
They are not even trying anymore!
Oh, I just heard of this last night; I live in the UK and when I found out this show first came out in 2005,well, I never knew the UK was so up-to-date with current shows.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.
\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 in NEW York city. I was waiting for a bus the next morning, so it was 2 or 3 in the morning. It was raining, and did not want to wait at the PORT AUTHORTY. So I went across the street and saw the worst film of my life. It was so bad, that I chose to stay and see the whole movie,I have yet to see anything else that bad since. The year was 69,so call me crazy. I stayed only because I could not belive 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 saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.
Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?
I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.
Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to \"Annie Hall\" or \"Manhattan\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy would a person go back to a person, who kicks them in the teeth, not once, not twice, but over and over again.
This film teaches us that in order to find love we must accept abuse (not just forgive it, but fully accept it). Gosh! No wonder my first relationship only lasted ten years. I obviously wasn't embracing my inner masochist.
As Bucatinsky's writing debut, there are many wonderful aspects to this film; however, in order to justify the reunion of Eli and Tom, more character development would have been helpful. We are never acquainted with Eli's masochism, in fact, we are led to believe that he is not a masochist, although Tom's psycho-emotional sadism is highly evident.
\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 thought this was a truly awful film--I found myself actually yelling at my tv a couple times. One or both of the gay male leads was miscast; there was absolutely no chemistry between them and Richard Ruccolo looked like he'd rather be kissing a dog. The movie covers their long and tortured courtship, highlighting each break-up and make-up, but not developing the reasons in-between in any detail. These reasons would make for some interesting characters, not the fight or the make-up scene in bed (lame even if you liked the movie).
Andrea Martin and Adam Goldberg shine as their characters, but it doesn't make the film worth renting. Save your money.
\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\nDemi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.
Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting.
\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 be short and to the point. This movie was an insult to any one with a room temperature IQ. Sorry liberals, feminists, etc. No women will ever be a Seal. They can forget about the draft or being in combat too. Ain't going to happen. You see, hard as it is to understand or accept, men and women are physically different.Regardless of the fact it is 2007,reality cannot change things in order for people to avoid having their feelings hurt. Men can't give birth or breast feed babies( Oh-I forgot about San Franfreako ).
Women lack the physical strength to be on par with men in a combat or other physically challenging situations. How many women play in the NFL or NHL? Lastly, I couldn't give a bloody hoot in hell if what I just wrote upsets you.Come to think of it - if this does upset you that only warms my heart more. I didn't write one thing that wasn't the truth. This imbecilic movie is nothing more than a comedy and a lousy one at that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWatching this movie was a waste of time. I was tempted to leave in the middle of the movie, but I resisted. I don't know what Ridley Scott intended, but I learned that in the army, women get as stupid as men. They learn to spit, to insult and to fight in combat, and that's also a waste of time (in my opinion). And, anyway, what the hell was that final scene in Lybia? Are they still fighting Gadafi or is it that it's easy for everyone to believe islamic people are always a danger?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter reading through many of the reviews, I don't know what movie some people were watching, but clearly it wasn't the same one I saw.
This movie is horrible. The acting, primarily Moore's, is just terrible. The woman cannot act. Nice tits, but she just can't act. At no point did she come across as the actual character. Instead, it was spoiled Hollywood actress goes to the beach to play make-believe with the boys.
And that's what this movie ultimately is -- Hollywood make-believe. The training sequences are over the top. The politics -- over the top. The political correctness -- over the top. The combat scenes -- you guessed it, over the top. Your mission is to get in and get out without being detected. So what do you do? Why shoot off as many rounds and make as much noise as possible, of course. Oh G.I. Jane, you can be my wing man anytime.
The premise is good, but as soon as Hollywood gets a hold of it, we end up with Top Gun with tits.
What more is to be expected from commercial US films anymore? Not much I guess.
\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\nNaturally I didn't watch 'GI Jane' out of choice. I was more or less forced to watch this film round my ex-girlfriends house.
GI Jane loses its credibility straight away by trying to convince the viewer that it is potentially a real scenario, which of course it isn't. The result of this is that the story becomes automatically bound by constraints, restricting the amount of humour (of which there is none) or entertaining action scenes, and soon becomes too serious. The film therefore becomes extremely boring and predictable.
'GI Jane' fails where other action films succeed, mainly because films such as James Bond, Dirty Harry and various others are larger than life, yet never proclaim to be otherwise. They are escapism, and therefore entertaining. 'GI Jane' tries to be real and fails.
This is a very disappointing film from Ridley Scott, with a very non-credible storyline, unremarkable acting, and the only reason I give it 2/10 instead of 1/10 is for some of the technical work.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think that movie can`t be a Scott`s film. That is impossible. Do you remember Blade Runner? And Alien? Two greats movies versus a one. I hope didn´t see ever it. good bye!!
\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
How this film ever got a 6 star average is beyond me. The script is so banal, and frankly an insult to whomevers life it is based upon. The cinematography comes straight from the slick world of advertising, and the talented Ridley Scott should be ashamed. Demi Moore however, shows none a surprise by participating in this film, if one looks at her tracklist. All in all, a \"high concept\" style film that even Don Simpson would be ashamed 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\nA recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment \"A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's\".
This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.
No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.
\"G.I. Jane\" is Hollywood fluff.
\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\nHmmm...where to start? How does a serious actress like Demi Moore got involved in such crap? \"First blood\" might be rated as bull***t but this type of nonsense is just Rambo with tits, point. Of course if you are interested in the crapstory (Demi Moore just wants to prove that a woman can be part of the NAVY Seals) that is the most stupid cliché one I can think of, you'll say \"GI Jane\" is a great movie. Just the performance from Viggo Mortensen made this movie bearable but hell, I can't think of Demi Moore being Rambo (especially not during the last, useless, 30 minutes). Ridley Scott doesn't deserve the credits to make this movie one that comes up for women with equal rights, it's just brainless propaganda for the American army and to make it more attractive they dropped Moore in it. Awful 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\nA real disappointment from the great visual master Ridley Scott. G.I. Jane tells the story of a first female ever to go through the hellish training at the Navy SEALs. The training is the most difficult and hard in existence as the instructor says in the film to the lead character O'Neil played by Demi Moore. There is no particular message or point in this film or then I couldn't reach it properly. It may be a some kind of a statement of female rights and abilities but it all sinks under the tired scenes and stupid gun fight at the end of the film.
I really can't understand why Ridley uses so much zooms in that mentioned last gun battle at the desert?! It looks sooooo stupid and irritating and almost amateurish so I would really like to know what the director saw in that technique. When I look at his latest film, Black Hawk Dawn, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the battle scenes (which are plenty) and they are very intense and directed with skill. The whole finale in G.I. Jane looks ugly and is nothing more but stupid and brainless shooting and killing.
This is Ridley Scott's worst movie in my opinion and there are no significant touches from which this great director is known. Still I'm glad I saw this in Widescreen format because there are still couple of great scenes and samples of Scott's abilities, but they are very few in this film.
A disappointment and nothing compared to the classics (Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Alien and so on..) of this talented director. So I'm forced to give G.I. Jane 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\nThis movie is very much like \"Flashdance\", you know that dance flick with Jennifer Beals. That film is probably the most boring film I have ever seen since it's not even bad enough to be funny. \"G.I. Jane\" is much better than that film, but that doesn't say much. Here Demi Moore sweats a lot and there's high music and we get to see her fight and everything, but it is certainly not very engaging. I really think the idea behind the film is kind of interesting, but the script is too clichéd and Ridley Scott can't do anything about that. Well, like I said... It's better than \"Flashdance\"... (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\nThis is easily the worst Ridley Scott film. Ridley Scott is a wonderful director. But this film is a black mark on his career. Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, both totally miscast in an overaggressive film about a girl going to the army. Very stupid. And there is never one scene that is convincing in any way. It is really not difficult to make a film such as this. Everything the crew makes could have been an idea of just anybody. The writers didn't have much inspiration either; many foolish dialogs that made no sense at all; and some brainless action. I strongly recommend to stay away from this rubbish. I hope that the many talented persons involved in this project realize this type of film does not deserve their attention, and that in the future they will work on more honorable and more intelligent movies than this useless mess.
\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 basic premise is a political cartoon. I suppose for those who know nothing about the realities of the military this is probably a \"feel-good\" film on gender equality. Indeed a recent commentator stated: \"it lets women know that they can do anything they want to do.\" What claptrap! No one, man or woman can do anything they want to do, and unfortunately Demi Moore \"buffing\" up for SEAL Hell Week in the early 27 week BUD/S program by a few sessions at the local gym and her desire alone to be a SEAL is simply not going to make it so. There is approximately an 80% dropout rate in what is arguably THE roughest military training program - those are the ones who voluntarily drop out, can't compete on a physical level, suffer frequent physical injury during the training or can't handle the psychological harassment. I never got beyond the shallowness of the contrived, purported message of this film. In the real world, Demi wouldn't last the first 24 hours in this harsh and sustained physical training. Wishing alone won't do it. Skip this film as wishful thinking, and better spend your time reading \"The Warrior Elite\" by Dick Couch (Crown, New York 2001)for the best description as to what really goes on in this training. Ring the bell, Demi!

\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\nStrained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh, brother. The only reason this very irritating film avoids getting the total \"bomb\" from me is because it's at least historically noteworthy as the first Three Stooges film (when they weren't yet on their own and were still saddled with that painfully unfunny Ted Healy). But even as a longtime Stooges fan I'd have to say that young Moe, Larry and Curly are badly used here as three zany assistant janitors to Mr. Healy's taller boss janitor. They're not featured steadily through the movie and their silly on-and-off-again stints paint them more like zany overactive cartoon characters trying too hard to be amusing.
Most of this toothache deals with Jack Pearl seeking in vain to get some chuckles from the audience himself as a man who impersonates Baron Munchausen (here's a good example of the level of humor: \"I object!\" \"On what grounds?\" \"Coffee grounds!\"). His sidekick is none other than a young Jimmy Durante, but even the schnoz himself is a bore.
\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\nAnyone familiar with my reviews on the Internet Movie Database will know that I can be a grumpy bastard from time to time. There are a lot of films I don't like which, for some unfathomable reason, I've felt the urge to review. However, if anyone out there is curious to know the name of the worst film I've ever seen, look no further than Transylvania 6-5000. Without question, this takes the title of the all-time no. 1 awful film. I can't believe that I actually made it from the start of this clunker to the finish!
It is clearly meant to capture the flavour of Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein, but where that film was a funny take on horror movie traditions, this one is a desperately strained and misguided attempt to wring laughs from embarrassingly weak material. Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr look ashamed to be here as a pair of journalists in modern day Transylvania (perhaps they realised early on that they were doomed in this dud). During their research, they come up against all the chief monsters from past horror favourites, such as vampires, werewolves and mummies.
Anyone who manages to brave this film right through to its end may pray that a stake be driven through their heart to relieve them from the agony of boredom. It marks a career nadir for everyone involved and proves that when comedy fails in a big way, it results in awesomely dire entertainment.
\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\nHorror spoofs are not just a thing of the 21st century. Way before the 'Scary Movie' series there were a few examples of this genre, mostly in the 80s. But like said franchise most of these films are hit or miss. Some like 'Elvira, Mistress of the Dark' mostly rise above that, but other like 'Saturday the 14th' and it's sequel fail to deliver the laughs. But out of all these types of films there is one particularly big offender and that's 'Transylvania 6-5000,' a major waste of time for many reasons.
Pros: A great cast that does it's best. Some of the dopey humor is amusing. A corny, but catch theme song. Some good Transylvanian locations.
Cons: Threadbare plot. Mostly tedious pacing. Most of the humor just doesn't cut it. The monsters are given little to do and little screen time. I thought this was supposed to be a spoof of monster movies? Lame ending that will likely make viewers angry.
Final thoughts: This is a comedy? If it is then why are the really funny bits so few and far in between? Comedies are supposed to make us roll on the floor, not roll our eyes and yawn, aching for it to be over. I can't believe Anchor Bay released this tired junk. I'll admit it's not one of the worst films ever made, but it's not worth anyone's time or money even if you're a fan of any of the actors. See 'Transylvania Twist' instead.
My rating: 2/5
\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\"Transylvania 6-5000\" is an insignificant but occasionally funny and charming mid 80's horror parody with some very familiar names in the cast and a handful of genuine opportunities to chuckle in the script. Two bozo journalist of a gossipy tabloid newspaper are sent, very much against their will, to Transylvania to do a story on the alleged return of mad scientist Frankenstein. There are some adorable little gimmicks and details to discover left and right in the film, like a little guillotine for hard-boiled eggs and laboratory test tubes that are being used to put in cream and sugar at the breakfast table. The wholesome of the film, however, is not as successful as it could and should have been, with jokes and parody situations that are way too overlong. The Roger Corman production \"Transylvania Twist\", which came out four years after this, is a lot funnier and much more recommended. The film is particularly parodying the classic Universal milestones of the early 30's, so you better make sure you've seen those if you want to grasp all the tiny gags and references. There's a pretty original twist indicating that the Frankenstein character only behaves like a mad-raving evil scientist when he enters his laboratory. It's also revealed that he's actually more of a Father Damien sort of messiah who's only concerned with the condition of exiled monsters. Michael Richards, the freaky guy who plays Kramer in Seinfeld, stars as a psychotic butler who appears and disappears at the most inappropriate moments. I'm pretty sure John Turturro's character in \"Mr. Deeds\" was inspired by Richards's role here.
\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 comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)
\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 originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.
In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.
I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.
\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\nWere I not with friends, and so cheap, I would have walked out. It failed miserably as satire and didn't even have the redemption of camp.
\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 give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight
\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\nKevin Kline and Meg Ryan are among that class of actors which I am always interested in seeing, despite reviews. I have always found Ms. Ryan to be a charming and winsome actress in nearly all her roles, and Kevin Kline is almost always worth watching.
I say \"nearly\" and \"almost\" in large part because of this movie.
First off, Meg Ryan does not play a likeable character, she plays a weak-willed whiner who begins grating on your nerves shortly after the opening credits and doesn't give up until several days later. That said, Kevin Kline's character is even more annoying and less likeable. So, even if you normally like these two actors, I recommend your give this movie a pass.
\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 premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd.
Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.
For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.
This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.
\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\nUn-bleeping-believable! Meg Ryan doesn't even look her usual pert lovable self in this, which normally makes me forgive her shallow ticky acting schtick. Hard to believe she was the producer on this dog. Plus Kevin Kline: what kind of suicide trip has his career been on? Whoosh... Banzai!!! Finally this was directed by the guy who did Big Chill? Must be a replay of Jonestown - hollywood style. Wooofff!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film looks super on paper. A romantic comedy in which a frantic lover gets dragged into a smuggling thriller should be generic cross-breeding gold, especially with this excellent romcomic cast.
I'm afraid Lawrence Kasdan simply gives his two stars too much rope though and they duly go and hang themselves. Adam Brooks' script may well be to blame but you'd expect better from the Kevin Kline of A Fish Called Wanda. Instead the two ping-pong off one another and the unlikely burgeoning romance is never reconciled satisfactorily with the reason either of them are in and dashing around France.
Jean Reno co-stars amiably as the cop-with-a-heart and I guess wishes he was a star-with-a-part. Mind you he went on to do those Pink Panther remake(s!) so perhaps he was OK with this... 3/10
\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\nOne of the those \"coming of age\" films that should have nostalgia for adults and promise for the kids. This movie has neither. It is a poor excuse to let Sylvia Kristel's body double frolic with a dorky Eric Brown. To make matters worse, the movie is either silly or stupid when it tries to be funny, sexy, or dramatic. Laugh awkwardly as we are supposed to believe that a teenager would go alone with burying a dead woman in his front yard. Ponder vigorously on why a woman famous for Emmanuelle needs a body double. As the movie went on and on, I started to imagine a hybrid of Private Lessons and Little Miss Millions that had Sylvia Kristel seduce Jennifer Love Hewitt as Howard Hesseman makes us nostalgic for WKRP. Watch this to laugh at other people's stupidity, or for Ed Begley Jr.'s committed performance, or to wonder what Sylvia Kristel would look like with Jennifer Love Hewitt. But I can give you an idea of your lesson, stay away from movies staring Sylvia Kristel that are not Emmanuelle.
\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\nBack in my days as an usher \"Private Lessons\" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.
The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.
Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His \"scared\" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.
And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.
The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.
**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.
I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"