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 have seen most, if not all of the Laurel & Hardy classic films. I have always enjoyed there comical stupidly, even after watching it over and over again. This new film attempts to bring back the classic with two new actors who resemble both Laurel & Hardy, however fails miserably for various reasons. One of which is how out of place their cloths are (still early 20th century) however are both portrayed in the 90's setting. Some of the former dialogue was brought back, however it also fails miserably to come close to the classic series. This film could very well be the worst film I have ever seen and should be pulled off the shelf and locked away forever. The real Laurel & Hardy are surly spinning in their graves at such a bad imitation.
\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\nEven if it were remotely funny, this mouldy waxwork of a film would still be soberingly disrespectful. Stopping just short of digging up the boys' corpses and re-enacting 'Weekend At Bernie's'  but only just  producer Larry Harmon and the director of the frickin' 'Ernest' films use holding the copyright as an excuse to crap all over Stan and Ollie's legacy. Gailard Sartain does a fair Ollie impersonation but Bronson Pinchot wouldn't reach tenth place in a Stan lookalike contest; even if they were both spot on the film would be no less detestable. The less said about the surrounding catastrophe the better. Makes 'Utopia' look like a dignified swan song.
\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\nBrief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.
First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.
It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.
Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;)
\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 reviews I read for this movie were pretty decent so I decided to check it out. BAD IDEA! This is another movie about a ghost out for revenge against a group friends. The story is stupid, mix two parts Ringu with one part Prom Night, a sprinkle of I Know what you did Last Summer, and add a tiny dash of Single White Female - now blend until completely nonsensical. There is nothing new to this plot, and revisiting the clichés I've grown so fond of wasn't even entertaining this time. This movie jumps to and from the past too much, and once I made sense of it all I realized it still didn't make much sense. Characters go from sane to psycho killer in the blink of an eye. Speaking of characters, they are all your stereotypical favorites - the greedy selfish lawyer, the egocentric actress, the has-been baseball star, the video voyeur, the bitter girl, the spooky quiet chick, the 'nicer-than-nice' nice girl, a freakin' black cat... and I didn't care about any of them. Perhaps a better writer could have made the movie work, there were some decent scenes in it, but overall this movie was a mess. I should also mention a certain 'video tape' that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot.
This movie isn't the worst Asian horror has to offer by far, but it is still pretty bad. If you just want to see some creepy images in the dark, or just want to laugh out loud at some over the top acting, or just want to yell \"you're stupid!\" at a movie screen, or just want to have another Asian horror flick up your sleeve when someone asks you how many you've seen - this movie is for you.
Those seeking a decent plot look elsewhere.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm afraid that I didn't like this movie very much. Apart from a few saving graces, it's nothing to write home about.
J-horror has boomed for the last five-six years but the films themselves have on more than one account been repetitive and carbon copies of a previous success. This is one of them.
Basically this is a supernatural slasher movie. The beginning is promising with chilling scenes from a morgue where a dead girl has her eyes graphically sewn together, but soon after opens them. However, after that, it's quickly downhill for this flick.
To be kind I will start with the things I like about \"Gawi\". On the plus side, the visuals are gaudy and the movie looks great for it's type. For those who like their horror movies gory there are a few nicely executed (no pun intended) murder scenes. We also get a few good suspense sequences/set-pieces.
However, there are quite a few drawbacks also...
First of all, and my major complaint about this movie, is that the plot skips and jumps forwards and backwards in time with an alarming intensity. Usually that's not a problem for me, but here, where the students look exactly the same no matter what age they are, I was confused on more than one occasion.
The performances are okay I guess (a little hard to tell when you don't know the language), but seem a little stiff. And for a horror movie, I don't think it was scary enough. For a while I was quite bored actually.
Being a fan of giallo movies, I was expecting quite a lot from \"Nightmare\", but unfortunately I was quite 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\nThe following are some of the most blaring problems with this movie: 1) Clichés abound. Seriously, awful \"twists\" are everywhere.
2) The narrative jumps around in time, which would be fine if done well, but it's not.
3) Lame characters that don't develop so much as either remain utterly static, or drastically change for no good reason.
4) Big one: HORRIBLE ACTING. Over the top from nearly every person.
The following are some of the best points from the movie: 1) The lead is damn good looking.
As I see it, there are only two kinds of people who would be into this movie: a) People who can sit through 90 minutes of tripe simply because the lead is attractive.
b) People who often think to themselves, \"I like Hollywood dreck rife with clichés and overacting, but if only I could watch it in Korean...\" There's a lot of good Korean cinema out there, so why waste your time with garbage?
\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\nWe see a body of dead girl in a morgue with the coroner trying to close the eyes of the girl, but whatever he tries they won't stay open. After this we move into the future and we follow a group of former school friends who hide a terrible secret, but suddenly they start getting picked off one by one in many grisly ways. Through flashbacks we learn of this awful suicide of a shy girl who was trying to be one of the group, but she was shut out by them because they dug up her past and found out some weird occurrences. So, is she back from the grave seeking revenge?
Oh what a great and always spooky story! Well, that's what I hoping I could say. And 'hoping' was as good as it got. This is an forgettable, so-so supernatural horror flick that I actually watched before, but I went in thinking it was my first viewing. So to my surprise it hit me when I started picking up on certain things, but like I said it's quite a forgettable mix that it felt like a first viewing again. \"Nightmare' is just another type of it's field that adds a 'few' changes to the gruel. Oh, please give me something that's a bit more fresh. It doesn't have to be entirely original, but this is one formulaic and at times quite tired J-horror flick. Even though it strings along the usual ghost story involving you guessed right an evil looking, vengeful chick spirit.
But in spite of my negativity of it being the same old, same old story and jolts. This one kind of entertains when its being grisly and popping in some creepy visuals. The deaths are vividly displayed with bite and some originality. While, the gloomy atmosphere alienates the audience with it's murky lighting. The first scene involving the spirit terrorising one of the girls is one blood-curdling experience, but really when it's not trying to shock you. I found it rather coma inducing and I thought about getting some shut-eye. That might be harsh, but it just didn't go anywhere of any interest between those shock moments. You could say that because the supposed mystery is really not much of one, the unsure story is just simply flat and the characters are a self-centred bunch that you don't really care what happens to them. The disjointed story should have focused more on the spirit than that of these bland characters who have one unconvincing group relationship. It just overplayed its cards by becoming overly muddled and taking too long to get going that when it comes to the climax it's just plain ludicrous. The film's haunting ending is a high point, though.
The film looks fine, although it could have done without the snazzy, quick fire editing and the music score was a bit overbearing in playing up the mood. The performances tread a fine line, but Gyu-ri Kim is strong in the lead role.
It's nothing new and it shamelessly steals ideas, but if you can look past that it delivers some nasty thrills. Although, I found the handling of it rather lethargic, despite the odd effective chills. A standard effort all round I guess, but still it's equally missable.
\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 appreciate the renaissance in Asian horror, don't bother with Gawi. The film scarcely deserves mention alongside A-list work such as Ringu, A Tale of Two Sisters, Cure, and Ju-On (or even such good material as The Eye or Inner Senses). Those films brim with subtleties, unexpected imagery, rich characters, and a decidedly non-Western take on what's frightening. Gawi is strung together with the leftover limbs and organs of everything that has made American horror lousy for the past twenty-five years.
The film tries to blend Asian ghost story and Hollywood slasher flick, but it's a bad fit. One aesthetic is bound to smother the other; guess which? Having no story of their own to tell the filmmakers loot Ringu for an evil-child subplot, but the situation is hopeless. Clichés, crap characters, witless plotting, a dull ghost, ho hum.
\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 reviewing this film I can only go by my experiences as a weekend warrior doing my basic training in July, August, and September of 1971 in that garden spot of the earth, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Take the High Ground was not anything like I remember basic training.
But one has to remember at the time this was post Korea which ended in a stalemate, but it was a conventional war as we knew them. It was not Vietnam, a jungle guerrilla war where we kept pouring draftees into an endless pit. The draft at that time was an unwelcome, but accepted as still necessary for the country's defense.
Richard Widmark is a veteran of Korea now assigned state side to train the troops to go overseas. The film is about one of his training cycles and the men of the platoon he has to train. They're the usual kind you would find in just about any war film from the previous decade.
One thing I will praise Take The High Ground for is the fact that MGM recognized our army was now an integrated one with the presence of William Hazard as a black recruit in the platoon. It was in keeping with the spirit of the times which were a changing.
But I will say that a recruit like Russ Tamblyn would have been cured of his smart mouth from day one. Richard Widmark would have not risked death or becoming a eunuch in order to give Jerome Courtland confidence with a weapon. And no way would have he worried so much about Robert Arthur deserting. He's have just let the MPs deal with him.
Of course being shot in and around Fort Bliss and El Paso, Texas did give Take the High Ground good authenticity. But view it as an army recruiting film and you can certainly understand why the government so eagerly gave cooperation back in the day.
I do remember the drill sergeants having their little conflicts which you could pick up on when you weren't worried about them getting on your case for something which was 95% of the time. But there ain't no way that Karl Malden would have slugged Widmark out in the open during training in front of several witnesses among the recruits. Both would have realized that would have undermined authority, something the military just doesn't let happen.
I wish I could have said something better about Take The High Ground because I certainly like its talented cast, it's talented director Richard Brooks, even the silly theme by Dimitri Tiomkin and Ned Washington, fresh from their Oscar a year before for High Noon. The film actually got an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and story by Millard Kaufman. It must have been for Kaufman's vivid imagination.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBeing the only movie I was able to see at this year's \"Nordische Filmtage\" at Lübeck, this year's festival will be remembered as a all-time low for me.
This movie, which was announced as an erotic thriller, is nothing more than a sick piece of crap! Excuse the language, but there aren't any decent words to describe it.
First of all, the actors are not the best. But even better actors would not have rescued the movie. E.g. the plot: after the first 15 minutes it was quite clear that John was sick, the neighbour girls were not real and that he killed his first girlfriend. The so called \"sex-scene\" was nothing else but disgusting (hitting each other until blood flows for me hasn't anything to do with sexuality), but unfortunately that were not the only disgusting images to be shown. Everything else was copied by other directors like e.g. Lynch, but of course without their geniality.
So, to summarize the whole film and to save other viewers time and money: guy loses girlfriend, girlfriend turns back home, guy kills girlfriend and becomes mad afterwards, guy imagines hot, but crazy neighbour girls, guy has very disgusting sex with one of them (or so he thinks), in the end he realizes, he is crazy and his girlfriend and her new lover lay in his apartment all the time... bad story, bad actors, pictures, that make you want to vomit...
1 out of 10 (1 point for the fact, that you realize how good you can understand Norwegian if you learned Swedish - at least one benefit of the evening - and you can't choose 0 points 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\nInteresting idea and storyline which didn't quite work.
When you see the film, maybe you will feel as dissatisfied with the ending as I did. I didn't really know who to root for in the movie, Taye Diggs looked bored as the detective, the rest of the characters seem so one-dimensional and unpleasant.
If the victim Alicia(Mia Kirschner) had been more of a nice girl, we might actually have enjoyed seeing the plot unfold and the perpetrator brought to justice. The problem was that she was as bitchy as the other girls, turning from sweet girl to conniving opportunistic cokehead. I can't understand the moral message of this film, and as a detective story and thriller it doesn't 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\nGeez, another Lifetime movie, but once again isn't exactly the worst movie in the world, but far from the best. I think the main problem is that it's pretty obvious who is responsible for what, and it's generally fairly predictable. Worse yet, some of the flashbacks ended up being confusing, and the viewer is left wondering \"Okay, how much am I supposed to care?\" One thing I did like is that the movie goes to show you that it's never THAT simple as \"the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad\", and sometimes it IS evil vs evil rather than good vs evil. Hadley didn't do what she did out of a sense of justice, she did it because she considered herself entitled to a job for being family, AND to eliminate the competition. As for Alicia, it simply proves that a victim isn't always a good person. Some of them really do \"have it coming\", even if \"it\" was a painful, horrible death. \"The Burning Bed\" is a great example of this, but the difference is that the vile man in \"The Burning Bed\" got exactly what he deserved. But, did Alicia \"have it coming\"? Some will say that she did, but others don't agree, and the law generally doesn't either.
As for acting, it's a mixed bag. Some do a good job, like Mia, but others just came across as indifferent to their roles. They were mostly wooden or simply not convincing. The music was pretty cool though and some of the scenes are nice and steamy, especially if you like girl/girl action. The movie isn't badly shot at all, but given its glaring weaknesses, the strengths are in background, unfortunately.
I've heard rumors of a sequel, but given the years, I doubt it'll happen. But, I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel suddenly appeared. If Alicia is as EVIL, conniving and horrible as people say, then I don't think she'll be thinking, \"YAY! I woke up from a coma! Oh, Hadley was responsible? Oh! That's okay! I totally forgive her and want the charges dropped!\" No way Hadley would be in jail for long anyway, if she even does any time since no murder actually happened.
Anyway, worth checking out at least once!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI rented \"New Best Friend\" hoping for a movie similar to enjoyable teen thrillers such as \"Gossip\" and \"The Curve\". Instead, \"New Best Friend\" is much more like \"The In Crowd\", in which there are no thrills and the acting is incredibly phony. \"New Best Friend\" is boring, and the events during the movie are the same. Skip this movie...it's a waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot very interesting teen whodunit saved from being a turkey from some decent performances. The main cast consisting of Taye Diggs, Mia Kirshner, Dominique Swain and surprisingly Meredith Monroe are all good but the story is not very original.
\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\nUnentertaining, uninvolving hybrid of \"Cruel Intentions\" and \"Wild Things\", but it isn't nearly as good as either of those trash min-classics. It's about the acting sheriff, Artie (Taye Diggs) being called in to investigate a near-fatal drug overdose at a posh upper-class Univesity, but to keep it on the down low. As he digs deeper he thinks it's much more than it at first glance seems to be. We follow Alicia, the girl who overdosed in flashbacks as well. At about 90 minutes, if this film was welcomed to begin with, it would have worn it out. This film brings absolutely nothing new to the table. But it IS the only movie thus far that has Miss Swain topless so the grade is higher just for that.
My Grade: D
Eye Candy: Dominique Swain gets topless( fixing a mistake of \"Happy Campers\"); another girl is topless
Anti-Eye candy: more men ass than girl tit
\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\nSmall college town coed OD's? (Why do we care?) Acting sheriff investigates the incident. (Why do we care?) The interviews show us the comatose subject (Kirshner) as different as the opinions of the subjects being interviewed. (Why do we care?) Result? A mess of flashbacks in this mess of a movie featuring a handful of one-hit wonders and B-flick divas which begs the question...Why do we care?
\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 totally disagreed with those comments which said this is a good movie. This is a totally SUCKED movie. I mean SUCKED - S.U.C.K.E.D. The story development is strange. Mia Kirshner changed from an innocent girl to a party-fun seeking chick for no convincing reasons at all. In addition, all the actresses looked way too old for being college students - College students looked like about 30 years old - you figure out the rest. I watched only about first ten minutes and started fast forwarding to look for sex scenes. all the sex scenes are lame, hasty and, most importantly, no frontal at all. All the sex scenes are laughable, considering how many clothes they had on. Do yourself a favor - put it down and save yourself a few bucks. Conclusion: Story - 0, Sex - 0, Acting - 0, Score - 0 out 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\nInteresting film about an actual event that took place during the Civil War in Vermont. It kept my attention to the end and I don't regret viewing it. I haven't ever read any on this raid incident so I was curious to see if the rebels pulled it off. I enjoy historical films from that era.
My major complaint is with the Confederate uniforms. They look too good!!! The acting was a little stiff at times. I like the old man eating the mashed potatoes because he didn't have any teeth. The wounded soldier playing fetch with a hound was a little strange. Overall, it was a descent film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n(Avast, slight spoilers ahead) I got this tape from my local library, which keeps a copy for obvious reasons.
I once went to the town of Matewan, West Virginia, and in a little museum there I saw the schedule for the town theatre citra May 1954. Movies would change at the theatre each day. As there would be no TV for another decade or so in those parts, this was much of the available entertainment in the town. \"The Raid\" seems to have been made for towns like Matewan in the 1950's. Although it wasn't listed for that month, I am sure showed there some Monday or Tuesday night for an audience which probably wasn't too demanding. The historical raid - daring and remarkably successful - didn't seem to have been very well researched, so the movie is full of Hollywood embellishments, including a loose cannon played by Lee Marvin. Marvin uses the opportunity to practice being Liberty Valance. And St. Albans seems to have had more Yankee soldiers coming and going through the town than Washington D.C. had.
What really made me snicker was when the raiders change into their Confederate uniforms. Only in tacky Civil War paintings do Rebel uniforms look so pristine. When Anne Bancroft's son catches Van Heflin in his uniform just before the raid, I expected the boy to think it was Halloween.
And then there's Anne Bancroft herself. While watching the movie I actually looked on the IMDb to see if there was a second Anne Bancroft. The then-studio contract actress looks nothing like in her later films, and has none of the presence she would later have in \"The Miracle Worker,\" \"Agnes of God,\" and of course \"The Graduate.\"
Worth seeing if only 1). you live in St. Albans and 2). you have a couple hours to kill on a Hollywood fictionalization of your home town's biggest news story.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI read the reviews for this and while not expecting a saving private Ryan I was expecting a film of some substance.
The film starts off very lob-sided with the usual intro of history and how the unit came into being. But immediately it's 1944 and you are not sure where everyone is. The accents etc are very poor as this unit is supposed to be Hawaiian/Asian American but everyone speaks in a very poor take on Harvard English imitation of a Japanese person.
I gave this film 3 out of 10 as after 10 minutes I couldn't watch any more of it. The characters were 1 dimensional and even though they were most likely based on real people I had no feeling for them and this left me not caring about them. Very poor direction of a very average TV movie which will be shown at midnight on some cable channel. I'd avoid and look out for better efforts.
This is a good story but it was deserving of a better telling. You got a sense the director had seen band of brothers and thought that that was enough to sell his movie. My advice, avoid and watch band of brothers, Tuskegee airmen, Glory or any other movie like when trumpets fade...
\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 my opinion, this movie's title should be changed from \"Only the Brave\" to \"All About Lane\". I went to a screening of this film a few months ago and was quite disappointed with the outcome. Although, I appreciate that the director made a movie about the men of 442nd - a subject matter that long deserved addressing in the film industry - the acting in some parts of film was quite stale. The performances of Marc Dacascos, Tamlyn Tomita, and Jason Scott Lee were all great. However, the director should have NEVER put himself as the main character in the movie. Sorry Lane, you are just not a film actor. Stick to what you're good at - theater acting. Gina Hiraizumi's performance in this film was also horrible. She should never have been given a speaking role and her looks were unfit to play the part of a Miss Nisei queen. There were other young actresses in the film who were naturally beautiful and whose performances were wonderful... Why weren't they cast for that role? Another major problem with this film were its action sequences. The Japanese-American soldiers don't look like they were fighting German soldiers... let alone anyone. Granted this was a low budget feature, but since this was a war-based film, isn't it important to show some actually fighting? This film was a worthy attempt, but definitely not worth a major distribution.
\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\nWhile I totally disagree with one reviewer who described Charley Chase as unfunny, in this film he certainly is. It's a shame, as I suspect the other reviewer must have only seen a few Charley Chase duds and assumed the guy wasn't funny. Films like MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE and WHAT PRICE GOOFY? are very good Chase films, so he COULD be really funny given good material. Unfortunately, in this film he's given absolutely nothing. Even the inclusion of the usually good Oliver Hardy as a foil isn't any help because the basic premise (boy wants to marry girl but girl's father thinks the boy is a wuss) and the gags are so poor. It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this film but couldn't.
By the way, for those used to the look for Charley from the mid-1920s on, you'll be pretty surprised as Chase sports no glasses or mustache--and looks very little like you'd expect.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.
Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.
There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement?
Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.
I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing.
\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\nMax had the V-8, Trace (Wheels of Fires last and only hero) has a jet engine on the back of his car allowing him to make unintentionally humorous faces as he rockets around the halfway desolate wasteland. Be amazed as Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) is dissected and spliced back together as a new movie albeit filmed in a lackluster manner with bad actors and lousy stunt work.
Why is WoF set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Simple, The Road Warrior was! Actually any questions can be answered by: it was that way in the Road Warrior! Except for the out of work mutant actors from the original 60's The Time Machine film that make a cameo appearance for sake of giving the audience some non-vehicular action to chew on for a few minutes.
In typical 80's fashion, all cars driven by bad guys that are bumped or slightly jostled explode in a huge billowing explosion. Inevitably all car chases will happen near convenient cliff sides and cars will unavoidably fall off of them. Along with this 80's cinematic wild ride is the general rampant misogyny in this style of cheapie film. Generally I waited for Trace's rocket powered car to accelerate and shoot flames so there would be another shot of him scrunching up his face like he is supposed to be tough, which comes off more as him looking constipated. Badly choreographed action coupled with bad acting makes this film a true sinker. The unintentional humor value even manages to wear thin.
Rats: Nights of Terror by Bruno Mattei is superior. And that in and of itself is saying a lot! By this count 2020 Texas Gladiators is a cinematic masterpiece compared to Wheels of Fire. A poor Road Warrior knock off that doesn't have near enough cheese factor to make the film watchable.

\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 curious that the two stars of Meet The People were a pair of movie stars who went into the new medium of television and became even bigger successes and who both went into the production end of things and enjoyed tycoon status on the small screen. Lucille Ball however was not a major star, that would come with television. As for Dick Powell he desperately wanted to get out of doing films like Meet The People and his career salvation would be coming in his next film.
I think the only reason that Dick Powell did the film was because a young player from MGM was cast in a specialty number and he was seeing her at the time. His private time with June Allyson was far better than what we see on the screen. Powell looks crashingly bored and can't summon up any kind of emotion at all.
He was probably tired of doing these musicals with silly plots, the kind he ran from Warner Brothers from. The original show Meet The People was not a book show, it was a revue and it ran in the 1940-41 season on Broadway for 160 performances. When MGM bought it, they scrapped everything but the title and the title song. The rest of the score was patched together from various and sundry songwriters, none of the songs is memorable. Odd when you consider some of the source material is from Burton Lane, E.Y. Harburg, Harold Arlen, and Rodgers&Hart. These guys just must have emptied the trunk for material.
The plot is sillier than even most of the musical propaganda pieces of the time. Powell is the writer of a revue called Meet The People and he's a shipyard worker who wins a lottery date with movie star Lucille Ball. She's interested, he's interested, they're both interested in the revue, but creative differences keep them apart of course until the finale. That's the film in a nutshell.
MGM did give Powell and Ball some good musical acts which are the main reason for watching Meet The People. The big bands of Vaughn Monroe and Spike Jones are here and the highlight of the film for me is Bert Lahr dressed in a commodore's suit like Lou Costello had in the dream sequence in In The Navy. The song Heave Ho is written by Arlen and Harburg who wrote for Lahr, the Courage number from The Wizard Of Oz. And as just about everyone in the world has seen that film, you have an idea of Heave Ho is like.
Dick Powell's next film was Murder My Sweet in which he finally bid a not so fond adieu to musicals. And Lucy would have to wait for television before the world got to see what she really could do.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went into this movie hoping for the best. I like wartime musicals in general. Dick Powell and Lucille Ball did good jobs with their roles; however, the writers gave them boring dialog. The love-interest between the two of them was not given any real growth; just suddenly it was there. I did not think much of the music; the best number was the snippet we heard of Spike Jones with \"Der Fuhrer's Face.\" The one complete number that Spike Jones did had little of his great musical comedy; pretty tame stuff,even with the monkey. Bert Lahr's comedy skits were interminable.
There were parts to enjoy: Lucille Ball was quite a looker, and there was a good selection of bit players who really deserved more time on screen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie after having so much of trouble in downloading it through rapidshare. And I have to say, it did not deserve it.
Parinda was so hyped, that I was really looking forward to watch it.
Parinda is one of those movies which fail to satisfy the standards set by other good Indian film-makers, despite having a great story. It was even more pathetic to know, that the story itself was not original, it was loosely based on the classic \"On the Waterfront\".
Anil Kapoor was irritating, especially when he comes from America. The direction lacked quality many a times, except a few in-between scenes.
Give this script to any of them - Ram Gopal Verma, Deepa Mehta, Mahesh Bhatt, Sudhir Mishra, and I'm 100% sure, they'll make a mind-blowing movie out of it.
I'm not saying Parinda was bad. It was just not good enough.
\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 chilling reminder of Bollywood being just a parasite of Hollywood. Bollywood also tends to feed on past blockbusters for furthering its industry.
Vidhu Vinod Chopra made this movie with the reasoning that a cocktail mix of \"Deewar\" and \"On the Waterfront\" will bring home an Oscar. It turned out to be rookie mistake.
Even the idea of the title is inspired from the Elia Kazan classic. In the original, Brando is shown as raising doves as symbolism of peace.
Bollywood must move out of Hollywood's shadow if it needs to be taken seriously.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst movies i have seen to date, the best part was Christian J. Meoli \"Leonard\" attempting to act jumping up and down outside the bar, kind-of like i wanted to do on the DVD, to spare the rest of humanity the agony of watching this shitty film. It has a great cast so you keep watching waiting for it to get good, i mean with Sean Astin \"Andrew\" (played his part perfectly, did a great job, too bad it was in this film), Kyra Sedgwick \"Bevan\", Ron Livingston \"Chad\", Renée Zellweger \"Poet\" (they put her name on the cover she has a total of 1 line and less then 4 seconds in the whole movie...
If the cast had any dignity, they would go out and buy all the copies of this film and burn them along with Writer / Director George Hickenlooper and Writer John Enbom
\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\nBugs Bunny accidentally ends up at the South Pole while trying to vacation in Florida. Where he meets a little penquin, which he tries to save from an Eskimo. This short tries and the penquin is adorable, but in the end it's a bit too light in the laughs department. The Eskimo isn't really that great of a foil for Bugs and I just seen a lot better Bugs Bunny cartoons frankly, even other shorts when he's paired with other unknown antagonists. So I can't in good conscience recommend this one. However it is nice to see it in it's uncut form. This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the \"Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1\"
My Grade: C
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou can tell a Lew Grade production a mile off  distinctly British in style; epic in conception; peopled by international all-star casts; usually set in exotic climes. It's a formula that Grade and his company ITC employed throughout the 70s into the early 80s, resulting in titles like The Eagle Has Landed, Firepower, and Raise The Titanic! In 1977 Grade produced March Or Die, a remarkably old-fashioned Foreign Legion adventure that models all the characteristics mentioned above. Directed by the usually dependable Dick Richards  who helmed the acclaimed Farewell My Lovely just a couple years earlier - March Or Die is an unfortunate disappointment.
A company of Foreign Legionnaires led by the harsh disciplinarian General Foster (Gene Hackman) is sent to Morocco shortly after World War 1. Their mission is to protect an archaeological party fronted by the dedicated Francois Marneau (Max Von Sydow). The archaeologists are carrying out an excavation at the ancient city of Erfoud, but fear an attack from Arab tribesmen following the decimation of an earlier archaeological group. Foster is not happy with the assignment  he does not consider historical artifacts worthy of his men risking their lives. This creates ongoing tension between himself and Marneau, who believes that the legionnaires should sacrifice their lives to make the excavation possible. The problems heighten when a beautiful woman named Simone Picard (Catherine Deneuve) tags along with the legionnaires. She is hoping to find out what happened to her father, a historian abducted by the Arabs when they wiped out the first archaeological team. Her presence arouses desires amongst the legionnaires, none more so than gypsy thief Marco Segrain (Terence Hill), a charming and courageous rogue who initially shows indifference towards his legionnaire colleagues but gradually grows in stature. Things climax with a huge battle at Erfoud, with swarms of united Arab tribes charging against the handful of legionnaires as they desperately try to defend their lives.
On paper the star duo of Gene Hackman and Terence Hill seem a mismatch  Hackman is the heavyweight Oscar-winning character actor, Hill the handsome but limited Italian heart-throb from numerous low budget spaghetti westerns. One expects Hackman to act his counterpart off the screen. Yet, bizarrely, it is Hackman who gives the weak and uninvolving performance, while Hill raises his game to surprisingly high levels. The film is attractively shot on desert locations, but the pacing is awfully slow and few of the characters are worth caring for. Maurice Jarre's music is uncommonly flat too  very disappointing from the guy who gave us the Lawrence Of Arabia score. It is remarkable that anyone had the nerve to try an old-fashioned adventure of this type in the 70s (it was a genre that peaked in the 30s, and had been all but forgotten during the intervening decades). Sadly, the gamble doesn't really pay off  this homage to the legionnaire flicks of old becomes more of a plod than a march.
\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 opening sequence is supposed to show the Legion arriving in Paris on 13 Nov 1918. The troops pile off the train -- wearing the uniform in which the French Army, including the Legion, marched off to war in 1914! This a sure sign that the war flick you are about to see will be a turkey. (The French Army realized by 1915 that going to war in red trousers and dark blue overcoats was not working. Metropolitan French troops were put into \"horizon blue\" and Colonial troops were put into khaki.) The Claude Van-Damme (sp?) remake at least got the uniforms more or less right. Really is too bad when directors make these sorts of mistakes when they then go to all the effort to get other things right.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Shadrach\" was not my favorite type of movie. I found it overly sentimental and the acting was below par. Harvey Keitel and Andie MacDowell were good but some of the other actors weren't at all believable. I also did not believe that Paul's parents would go away and leave him with the Dabney family, especially when they had a housekeeper living in the home. Their social classes were too far apart to consider this believable. It seemed the Dabney's lifestyle was too exaggerated. There was a scene in the beginning of the movie that showed Andie MacDowell getting out of a car after having sex with someone. Who was it? Her son? What was the scene supposed to show us? Why was the scene even included? It had nothing to do with the rest of the movie and was in fact never alluded to again. It seemed gratuitous and not fitting into the story at all. There were too many inconsistencies in the movie for me. The story concerning Shadrach was nice but I wasn't convinced that the Dabneys would have been as kind and generous as they were portrayed.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap
\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\nWe rented five movies for New Year's Eve weekend and watched this one first. All I can say is that there was no place to go but up after watching this one. It was pointless and vulgar. Harvey Keitel's script must have been easy to write -- just make two out every three words a curse word. Andie McDowell is surprisingly good in a character roll, but the movie has nothing else to recommend 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\nReally, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.
OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.
The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.
My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.
For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.
The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.
I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.
Here Kitty, Kitty...
Tom Willett
\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 bought this on DVD for my brother who is a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan. I decided to watch it myself earlier this week.
It is a reasonably entertaining piece containing two completely separate story lines. The section with Michelle Pfeiffer was by far the more interesting of the two. She plays a rising Hollywood actress who has had many short unfulfilling relationships. She literally bumps into Brian Kerwin (A regular married guy with Kids)after driving her car into the back of his. After being initially hostile to one another he offers to drive her home as she no longer feels comfortable to drive. Romance develops eventually leading to tragedy when his wife finds out. What happens at the end I was not prepared for but the slow pacing and routine TV direction takes any drama out of the plot.
The other section involves an old Studio boss played by Darren McGavin. This section actually has the better cast with Kenneth McMillan, Lois Chiles, Steven Bauer & Stella Stevens. They all want something from the studio boss but in the end when he is asked to resign, they all realize their careers will now be going nowhere.
It passes the time but is not all that interesting and I am glad this was not bought for me. I am not a Michelle Pffeifer fan but she was admittedly the only actor worth watching in this film and even in 1983 she was a decent actress. Overall though unless you are a fan of hers avoid this as it is very routine.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"