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 saw Crispin Glover's \"What Is It?\" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.
Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.
Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.
Perhaps the biggest problem with \"What Is It?\" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.
Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period 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\nI saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat Is It? is a mish-mash of bizarre recurring motifs (snails, Shirley Temple, swastikas, and overtly racist music, among others) unfettered by any sort of narrative or plot or character development. The whole thing struck me as self-consciously \"freak show,\" and I don't mean only the unusual casting decisions. It has the feel of a bad acid trip, far beyond any level of drug use one might attribute to Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs. The only movie to which I can compare it is Eraserhead (my second-least-favorite film of all time), which was by intent much more depressing, but I still found What Is It? a total waste of my time. It's one thing to give me a peek into the inner workings of someone else's mind -- even someone else's chemically altered consciousness -- but quite another to just throw weird visuals at me purely for the sake of weirdness.
\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\nEytan Fox, whilst generally leaning on the apologist side of Israeli politics, has made several quite interesting films in the past such as \"Walk on Water\" and the simply wonderful film, \"Yossi & Jagger\". In \"The Bubble\", however, he has taken this illogical and unfair approach to the extreme.
Far from giving this film a standing ovation, the people at the screening I attended quietly got up and left. I also quietly left, fuming with anger at such a ridiculously one-sided film that translates self-preservation as racist bullying, and racist bullying (and terrorism) as outbursts of justified anger; which implies that Arabs are so wronged by the evil Israelis that they react in anger to a constant stream of one-sided Israeli aggression against them, and that they, therefore, should not be held responsible for their actions.
This film wasn't worth the money I paid for the ticket (indeed, I considered demanding my money back), and was basically an Israeli apeing of the Palestinian film \"Paradise Now\". If you want to be an anti-Israeli, then by all means watch this film, as it really justifies just such a belief system. The fact that this film was made by an Israeli director and, even worse, such a talented Israeli director, is a crying shame. Indeed, just how Israel can be surprised to be regarded as a pariah State when Israelis themselves make such anti-Israel propaganda, beggars belief.
What a shameful, horrid little 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\nThis film essentially deals with Inspector Gadget's arch-nemesis Doctor Claw who has returned after many years to the now-peaceful city of Metropolis. Claw's plan is to foil Gadget once and for all by using a newer \"cooler\" crimefighter to help destroy Gadget's popularity. Sadly the film fails miserably, the series was great, but it was revived nearly 20 years later with tragic results. Without the voice of Don Adams as Inspector Gadget it just doesn't cut it anymore; Dr. Claw is not only visually less frightening, but sounds more like a wrestler with a cold, than his original intimidating self. Granted this is a children's movie, but the plot is so painfully weak (heaven forbid I mention the animation) that it pales in comparison to the original series. Someone has decided to updated Penny as well to bring her two decades up to speed, she now has some quasi-punk rebellious clothing style and doesn't play half the role that she did in the TV series. The Gadgetmobile talks, as well as including a plot angle that focuses entire ON talking cars. Maybe I'm just a kid who loved the show who's grown up jaded, but I thought that the live-action version was more pain than I could bear, but now they go and spring this complete watering-down of the quality TV series on us. It's more than I can take.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI got this DVD well over 2 years ago and only decided to watch it yesterday. I don't know why it took me so long as I do like the Inspector Gadget show and even the new Gadget and the Gadgetinis. While it may have a bright color pallet and all the technical sophistication of a modern animated movie, there are some old things missing that bog this Gadget right down the toilet.
First of all the classic Inspector Gadget theme song and music is completely absent. The composer tries to compromise by doing a score that sounds similar but it's still just no good enough. The Gadget-mobile is now a talking car, not a car that can turn into a van. Plus it looks a lot cuter and rounder instead of being plain cool. Penny no longer has her computer book and she and Brain hardly make an appearance at all.
The plot is non-existent. There's something about a transformation formula and Doctor Claw using for some never revealed evil but that's all I got. What the deal was with the short/giant Italian guy I will never know. It had nothing to do with anything.
And if the title is anything to go by, his last case is wrapped up in no way whatsoever. And he stays on the force so why it's called 'last case' is a mystery also.
I wasn't impressed at all. This is an affront to a great animated show that is strangely absent on DVD, but don't let that prompt you into buying whatever Inspector Gadget DVDs you can. I sold this mere seconds after finally watching it. No kid will like or appreciate this and no fan of the old show with tolerate 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\nthis animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 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\nDear Friends and Family,
I guess if one teen wants to become biblical with another teen, then that's their eternal damnation - just remember kids, \"birth control\" doesn't mean \"oral sex\", I don't care what the honor student says. On the other hand, even if the senator's aid quotes himself as a \"bit of a romantic guy\", he's still only hitting on a high school girl. If she was my sister, I'd eat this guys kneecaps.
Other than that I found out that Mongolians don't kiss the same way the French do and that baseball players named Zoo like delicate undergarments.
I think I'd almost rather watch Richie Rich one more time than suffer the indignity of this slip, slap, slop. Thank you, and good night.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAny film with a title as ridiculous as \"The Bagman\" should automatically attract the attention of any bad movie lover, but the plot is far different than what one may expect after viewing the DVD cover. The Bagman is by no means a good movie. It falls into the category of films that seem to have been (and probably were) filmed on a home video camera. The acting is awful. I haven't heard and seen such wooden acting since Troll 2. There are plenty of scenes with nudity and sex, but they are clearly jumped into too fast. The characters are morons and entirely forgettable. The ending (which I will not spoil) can be easily anticipated after watching the very first scene. Due to the cheesy nature of the film, nothing aside from the awful production values is truly scary (awful attempts at realistic gore, a driving scene where the car is clearly stationary, etc). Recommended for bad movie aficionados only.
\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 bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.
We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.
IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is the freshman effort of Stephanie Beaton and her new production company. While it suffers from a few problems, as every low budget production does, it is a good start for Ms. Beaton and her company.
The story is not terribly new having been done in films like The Burning and every Friday the 13th since part 2. But, the performances are heartfelt. So many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions, its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft.
The story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. The others are sworn to secrecy, but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. Ten years later, the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as \"The Bagman\". Who will survive? You have to watch.
If you are Roger Ebert or any number of arrogant critics, you probably shouldn't bother. But if your taste run more towards Joe Bob Briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft, then check out \"The Bagman\".
\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\nFollowing the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of \"Eddie\" and \"Marilyn\" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a \"typical\" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining.
\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\n96 minutes of this is cruel..and I love the old Munster's. Yes, the plot is thing; yes the lines are trite; but whoever was at the helm of this was not a fan. There is so much 'intrigue' (and I use that word with great pause) that I wonder if it's an old Starsky & Hutch episode. I lost count of the number of times I noticed that makeup had missed a spot near the collar. Refusing to acknowledge that any time had passed since the mid-60's (ludicrous) the producers simply replace Marilyn & Eddie with younger actors. Why not let them grow and age? The addition of an Addam's Family style reunion does not add to the flavor of the Halloween Party.
Grandpa & Herman fly to Transylvania and back in a few hours (preposterous.) Sid Ceaser is the most, yes the most unbelievable character (I am including the bad robots) since he babbles an unwild combination of gibberish & yiddish but claims to be an ancient Arabic ruler. And yes, it looks like the laugh track is missing. In fact, there are several spots where there is dead air, as if the laugh track was to be inserted later. The actors seem to wait on the faux audience. It's not laughable; it's sad. Oh, and the best part! Yvonne DeCarlo has a line that just goes to show you how out of touch the writers and producers were. Marilyn says something like: \"Where could Uncle Herman and Grandpa be? They could have been in an accident. They could have been hit by a car...or a train!\" Lily says responds with something like: \"You're Uncle Herman will be here if he has to drag himself off the train track.\" What's amazing about this is: Yvonne DeCarlo's husband was a stuntman in the early 60's and lost a leg and was nearly killed in a train stunt. He never recovered and this financially devastated her family. (check out Biography's fantastic review of her life and career) This line could have been easily changed to be more sensitive to her.
If you are a real fan of the Munster's then you'll have to RENT this mess. It illustrates how some things are better left alone. Even with the (nearly) original cast, this is almost as bad as the attempted remake of the show a few years ago.
\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 sad, sad sight indeed is The Munster's Revenge. The Munsters are brought back one last time(Fred Gywnne received a huge paycheck to come back to the role of Herman Munster)in this made-for-TV movie about a pair of wax replicas of Grandpa and Herman that are robots \"terrorizing\" the city as preparation for a robbery of a mummy's stash at an exhibit. With the police on their heels, the two elderly television icons try to find out who is actually behind the crimes in order to clear their names. We get to see them dress in drag as waitresses(a minor highpoint in the film), grandpa turns into a bat with attached wire a couple times(one time even flying to Transylvania with Herman somehow invoking his frequent flyer miles I guess), and a most annoying relative \"the Phantom\" constantly sings and breaks glass ad nausium! What is most sad is hard to pinpoint: is it that Gywnne(especially) and Al Lewis look so haggard in every scene and so indifferent to the material. Is it the hokey costumes of the robots that have that school production values look about them. Maybe it is the ridiculous script. Sid Caesar's crazy, mostly unfunny antics. Or perhaps it is seeing something which brought me joy and fond memories as a child being treated to a super K-Mart fashion makeover. At any even, the result is decidedly disappointing and silly even for Munster standards. As for the rest of the cast, Yvonne De Carlo is adequate in a most vacuous role(though showing more cleavage than usual for a woman of her years and experience). K. C. Martell makes an ever-so-not affable Eddie Munster. Jo McDonell is an attractive Marilyn. Bob Hastings as the aforementioned Phantom looks and acts and speaks in the most absurd manner. The film has a real cheap feel about it even for a made-for-TV 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\ni saw switching goals ..twice....and always the same feeling...you see the Olsen twins make same movie....they like play different sports and then fall in love to boys..OK now about the movie....first off all such little boys and girls don't play on such big goals...2.football does not play on time outs...3.if the game is at its end the referee gives some overtime (a minute or more)...and the finish is so foreseen....i think that this movie is bad because of the lack of football knowledgement....if it were done by European producers it would be better..and also the mane actors aren't the wright choice...they suffer from lack of authentic..OK they played some seasons in full house but that doesn't make them big stars....you have got to show your talent....and that is what is missing in the Olsen twins
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYes, you guessed it. Another movie where identical twins switch places. I think now that the Olsen twins are getting older they should try and make the plot less predictable and less like re-runs of 'Full House'. If you plan on seeing this film, don't. Watch 'The Parent Trap' instead. It's more entertaining.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was definitely not one of Mary-Kate and Ashley's best movies. I really didn't like it, and I was kind of disappointed in that movie. For some reason, it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. In some parts, it got so boring that I had to fast forward it. It didn't have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was awesome!! (Not quite as good as the Leif Garrett masterpiece Longshot) but still awesome!! I thought Ashley looked freakin' huge compared to Mary-Kate in this film. I wonder why. Who woulda thought they could swith places like that and almost get away with it. Dad was kinda a jerk though and Mom was a little too chummy with Helmit Head. I give it 4. Any one who likes this movie shoudl check out Longshot.
\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\nSo I finally saw the film \"My Left Foot\" last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is... The central performance of Day-Lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing, but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less.
The fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man; the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. On the one hand I can see that this is a logical correlation; mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable, and disability shouldn't obscure that. I just wish that impartial onlookers wouldn't be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. They don't. Acting out is normal, and so yes, disabled people act out - but they don't do it because they're disabled; they do it because they're being unreasonable. A physical impairment doesn't afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public, just because someone you love turns you down.
There are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able-bodied. Giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (Admittedly, I did once save a penalty from the school's star striker with my face, but I already belonged by then. It wasn't for acceptance.) Engaging in a bar brawl is another. Revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you've proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. All of these things are stupid, and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn't make them any less foolhardy.
So yes; just because you've overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn't make you any less of a jerk... Being a good person takes priority; setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was utterly disappointed by this movie. I had read some of the other reviews here and had much higher expectations. I expected a drama with more intense character development. But that never happens in the movie. Daniel-Day Lewis is a good actor, but not as good as some reviewers here would have us believe. I tought he repeated the same set of 4 or 5 movements in the movie. I would rate his performance 6 out of 10.
Acting: 6 out of 10 Direction is 5 out of 10. Script is the worst: 2 out of 10.
I deleted the movie from my DVR at 70 mins. into the movie. Much better movies out there than this...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe novelty of hearing clean-cut Jay Leno spout four-letter words is the only memorable aspect of this formulaic mismatched-police-partners caper. In COLLISION COURSE, the pelican-faced comedian teams up with the late Pat Morita to track down a stolen prototype turbocharger (think car lover Leno played a hand in the plot?). The two leads try hard, they really do, but Leno is no actor and Morita's fish-out-of-water routine gets old in a hurry. The film carries a bit of cheesy '80s appeal, but its worthy moments become increasingly scarce as it fills out its overlong 100-minute running time. Fans of Leno's considerable comedic talents will feel let down; everyone else will just be bored.
\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\nCollusion Course is even worse than the typical \"evil white male corporate capitalist\" movie of the week. This movie is less pleasant than a toothache. Jay Leno can act. He's good in his underrated debut movie, The Silverbears, in which he gives a performance consist with the demands of his character. This movie is so bad Leno's character, a sanctimonious buffoon, is less annoying than Morita's character, a sanctimonious fool.
\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 is a reason why Jay Leno himself will not acknowledge this film. It consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. The acting is horrible, the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn't seem sure on which way to take this film. \"A buddy film,\" \"an action/comedy,\" \"mystery.\" Seems half way through, he gives up, and is just along for the ride. Jay Leno and Pat Morita are talented and dedicated performers. It is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. Jay Leno and Pat Morita prior to involving themselves with this, had spent years pounding out their crafts on the Hollywood circuit. Mr. Morita had already been a star in his own right, acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult TV and movie classics as \"Happy Days,\" and the dismal but affable \"Mr. T and Tina.\" And won the hearts of America with his roles in the powerful film, \"Midway,\" \"The Karate Kid,\" and a host of others. Mr. Leno can been seen on TV shows dating back to the mid 70s. And was a top performer in the comedy clubs of America. He can be seen in countless TV spots and in major films. It is a shame, that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense.
\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 AWFUL. I haven't laughed so hard at a movie that was unintentionally funny in a long time. Leno should've stuck to stand up and late night tv. The cars in the movie were cool, but the movie by itself is the dumbest movie I've ever seen. it's pathetic, the acting is horrible, and the plot could've been written by a 4 year old. don't get me wrong, jay leno is hilarious, but not in this movie!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a really stupid movie in that typical 80s genre: action comedy. Conceptwise it resembles Rush Hour but completely lacks the action, the laughs and the chemistry between the main characters of that movie. Let it be known that I enjoy Jay Leno as a stand-up and as a talk show host, but he just cannot act. He is awful when he tries to act tough - he barely manages to keep that trademark smirk off his face while saying his one-liners which, by the way, aren't very funny. And seeing him run (even back then) is not a pleasant sight. In addition, I have a feeling that Pat Morita - at least by today's standards - doesn't give a very politically correct impression of the Japanese. Don't even get me started about the story. I give it a 2 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 dreadful film assembles every Asian stereotype you can imagine into one hideous package. Money grubbing, devious Japanese business men send goofy but loveable policeman Pat Morita to recover industrial secrets in Detroit. Here he encounters a down at heel Jay Leno, who promptly refers to a murder victim as a Jap and calls Morita Tojo. It's all downhill from there.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRichard Dreyfuss is, indeed, in this flick, but in a rather small part. He is NOT the \"obsessed\" filmmaker - he's the group's business manager/accountant. Even the box describes the film inaccurately. There are no erotic scenes with Sondra Locke, as advertised, unless one uses the term \"erotic\" quite loosely. I would not have considered viewing the film without Richard Dreyfuss being in it as a major character. I might have, however, had I realized that the famous 60's anthem, Leonard Cohen's \"Suzanne,\" was an artistic influence. Other than the brief recitation of lines from the end of James Joyce's \"Ulysses\", and an interesting visual reference to the end of Ingmar Bergman's \"The Seventh Seal,\" I found it a poor attempt to meld symbolic elements and moods immortalized in films like \"Last Year at Marianbad\" and \"Un Chien Andalou.\" If you like the idea of the eccentric artistic troupe, there are many superior films, ranging from \"Bye, Bye, Brasil\" to \"Cecil B. Demented.\"
\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\"The Second Coming Of Suzanne\" is yet another one of those surrealistic films that tries to come across as extremely sophisticated, yet all it does is put the viewer to sleep. Like other movies of this type, there is limited dialogue. Everyone is much more interested in the visual aesthetic of the shot. However, the cinematography stinks so there is nothing at all to keep your attention.
The video box states that this film is \"one of the most exciting visual adventures ever seen on film.\" Yeah...sure. It's right up there with watching such stimulating events as a bucket of ice melting or a turtle walking for a mile. 1/10
\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\nit was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.
this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.
the plot.
I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.
\"Logan\" is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. \"Suzanne\" the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane \"artist\" character. \"the artist\" is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping \"the man\" character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate \"the man\" back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid.
\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....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being \"generous\" that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed \"frustrated\" as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of \"big\"...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the \"actors'\" mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures \"scenes\"), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRichard Dreyfus is not the star here. He has about three 20 second cameos and what is Gene Barry doing all over this movie? No idea, the director was probably his brother! This is a movie that makes no sense whatsoever. The inept writer/director (same dude) butchered up everyone's talent with his horrendous uh...work. I got the DVD for a penny so can't complain! But it's weird!And it makes you feel weirded out and in not a good way. This was the 70's and looks like the director was on a bad acid trip and wanted everyone to experience what it's like to be inside his head. It has a somewhat interesting and controversial concept, but like a scratched record, it quickly plays foul. It has that \"Manson family on acid\" vibe to it.
I have no idea how the other reviewer got all they did out of this movie? Maybe they worked in it back when? At any rate, be prepared to lose 80+ min of your life you'll never get back. Yes, it's that awful!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was exactly what I expected it to be when i first read the casting. I probably could have written a more exciting plot, it's a pity that they left it to a pack of Howler Monkeys. Alberto Tomba was surely a good skier but he has to thank God (and we too) that he does not have to rely on his actor skills to earn his living. He can't play, he can't talk, he can't even move very good on mainland without his skis... Michelle Hunziker is a pretty blonde girl, and that's all. She obviously wasn't chosen for her astounding competence in dramatic roles but most probably for her nice legs. Nevertheless I must admit that she could be the Tomba's acting teacher, because he's even a worse actor than her, and that's funny, especially considering that she isn't italian. I laughed all the time, watching this movie. I found it so ridiculous and meaningless that it actually made me laugh, loud, very loud.
\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\nProbably somebody heard of Alberto Tomba. A former policeman, a former sky champion, and, now, a TERRIBLE actor. \"Alex L'Ariete\" was planned to be a TV \"mini serial\", but the Italian television itself refused to show the movie on its channels. Now it's a, believe me, ridiculous movie. The script it's simply hilarious (it's supposed to be a dramatic movie), something like a 5 years old kid work. But what really blows you away it's the amateurish acting: Alberto Tomba, who actually was not believable as a policeman himself, plays terribly a totally silly character: a special operations italian policeman specialized in smashing doors open! (\"ariete\" is \"ram\"). This super-guy will try to save a young nice girl life (an actual italian \"little\" TV showgirl, married to the singer Eros Ramazzotti): nice but absolutely inept in the acting. Lose this one and make yourself a favour. A movie that is a shame to Italian cinema industry: only John Travolta in Earth Attack got close..
\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 sentimental school drama set in Denmark, 1969, \"We Shall Overcome\" offers a pathetic Danish take on US culture. Frits (Janus Dissing Rathke), a flower-power obsessed, naive 13-year-old, exits with half his ear hanging off from brutal master Lindum-Svendsen's (Bent Mejding) office. Lindum-Svendsen, a school director, portrayed as a fascistoid tyrant, has the local community in control. Lindum-Svendsen's gone too far this time, and with his father, recovering from a mental breakdown (sure, there wasn't enough drama already..), and overly stereotyped hippie music teacher Mr Svale ('Hi, call me Freddie'), Frits stands up for justice.
Tell you what. It's so unconvincing, over-(method-)acted, and so full of misery, that as a 'family' picture this grotesque -filled with cliché's- excuse for a movie fails miserably to convince non-Scandinavian audiences. Sorry, kind danish readers, to crash like this into your sentimental journeys.. But it's definitely NOT a tale about a 'boy becoming a man by fighting the system'. The boy never becomes a man, but rather remains a naive, big eyed cry-face. If you call a church of small minded small town folk, led by a dictator like cartoonish character \"the system\", I'm sorry if I'm missing something.
If you're into family pictures, go see Happy Feet instead..
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen the folks at Kino Video assembled their fine \"Slapstick Encyclopedia\" collection, a multi-cassette selection of silent comedies, someone decided to kick off the first installment with ONE TOO MANY (1916), an obscure one-reel farce made in Florida starring the very young Oliver Hardy. As enjoyable as the set is over all, this decision was an unfortunate one, for ONE TOO MANY is a very poor film which almost discourages the viewer from watching further. Like any typical farce, this one involves deception inspired by greed, panic when plans go awry, and complications escalating to the point of absurdity, but unlike the good ones, ONE TOO MANY is incoherent, unfunny, and downright annoying. It's hard to tell at this point whether the hopelessly confusing plot is the result of missing footage or inept film-making, but whatever the cause, by the halfway point even the most alert viewer has no idea what the character relationships are or what is happening, and by the end one no longer cares.
The only point of interest here is seeing the 24 year-old \"Babe\" Hardy, who appears considerably heavier than he would a decade later when he teamed with Stan Laurel, but who is nonetheless full of youthful energy. In the opening scene, awakening with a hangover, Babe performs a highly athletic backward roll off a bed. Trust me, that's as funny as this movie gets. If you read this before seeing the first cassette of Kino's \"Slapstick Encyclopedia\" I suggest you fast-forward past this one and skip to the good stuff.
\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\nOliver Hardy awakens with a hangover and soon learns that his uncle is coming to see Ollie's new wife and baby. The problem is, they don't exist--Ollie apparently made them up! So, it's up to him and his pal to locate a lady with a baby who will agree to pose as his family.
This isn't a particularly unique story idea, as I've seen at least a couple other silent shorts with this exact plot. The best of these was Bobby Vernon's DON'T KID ME. It is much better than ONE TOO MANY--probably much of this was due to it being made a decade later--when comedy became a bit more sophisticated and relied less on pointless slapstick. Now I am not against physical comedy, but in some slapstick films, people starting shooting guns wildly, kick and strangle each other, etc. with little provocation. Sadly, at the end of ONE TOO MANY, that's exactly what they do. None of it makes sense and it was as if they'd just run out of story ideas.
Overall, not exactly a milestone in entertainment. There's just not enough payoff to merit watching it unless you are an obsessive silent fan like myself.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the worst piece of crap I have seen recently. There is nothing good about this movie. The plot is plain stupid, dialogs don't make any sense, humorous scenes never heard anything about the real humor. Actors just don't play, the worse they don't even try. The script itself is somewhat which is in the same league with Ed Wood and Uwe Boll. There is only one good thing in this flick, the fights. They are well choreographed as one would expect of the Hong Kong guys, and are the only reason to watch Prince of the Sun. Although I believe the fights are just supposed to fill the empty space so that the screenwriter didn't have to bother thinking about the storyline. However, this weak and absurd plot may prevent you from watching it to the end. Avoid it unless you are fan of the dragon lady Cynthia Rothrock.
\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\nDon't bother trying to watch this terrible mini series. It is a six hour bore, an unbelievable love triangle between three people who have absolutely no chemistry for each other. There is no heat in this story, no real passion, no real romance. It is a dry, boring, drawn out, and uninspired as they come. And it doesn't even meet the expected level of technical proficiency. Take those six hours of your life and use them for something more worthwhile.
\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\nTom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio.
Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the \"phantom.\" He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as \"hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat,\" etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.
We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the \"little guy.\"
These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.
\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\nJerry spies Tom listening to a creepy story on the radio and seizes the opportunity to scare his nemesis.
I didn't find this particular episode that funny: the humour seemed rather constrained and the whole set up was kinda lame (Jerry is essentially the 'bad guy' in this one, tormenting poor Tom for no particular reason).
There is the occasional flash of inspiration (such as Tom's literal 'heart in mouth' experience, and the moment when his nines lives are sucked out of his body), but, on the whole, this effort lacks the frenetic pacing, excellent animation and sheer wit of most of T&J's other cartoons.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"