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\nThis is probably one of the worst French movies I have seen so far, among more than 100 french movies I have ever seen. Terrible screenplay and very medioacre/unprofessional acting causes the directing powerless. with all that it doesn't matter how nice western french scene and fancy music can add to the story.
One of the key weakness of this movie is that these two characters do NOT attract people, as an audience I don't care what happens to them.
It amazed me how this movie won jury prize in cannes, man, I love almost all the awarded movies in cannes, but not this one. A major disappointment for me.
\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 first ten minutes of \"Just Looking\" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.
Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like \"Kids\" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.
Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. \"For Better Or Worse\" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 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\nAlthough a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. Lucky me.
The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt. Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would. They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. so let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember).
Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed. The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it. Anyway. I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it.
What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades. And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that?
They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves. And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it. Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels. And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Really? Who think up this crap.
I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you 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\n...for the Lt to have chosen this one. First, the film wasn't horrible, it was just Hollywood. Worst case I-need-this-to-happen-or-we-have-no-movie scenario: if Willis' mission was to save the doctor, but she was adamant that her \"people\" make it out of the missionary, he would have put her on that first chopper and marched those refugees to the border without her. He would not have compromised his package for the refugees. That's not how it works. But, as I pointed out, this is Hollywood, we must have drama. This is why we make movies, because reality isn't quite so complicated. However, I did think that Willis and the good doctor had workable chemistry. That said, there are also some well done battle scenes in the film. It's not a waste of time, \"Tears of the Sun\" is worth the dvd rental fee. Check it out on a rainy day and you'll be satisfied.
\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 like to be entertained, do not go see this movie. If you like to see heroics of war, do not go see this movie. If you like to see good acting and an excellent screenplay, do not go see this movie. If you like typical hollywood war films that end just in time to give a politically charged appeal to the public about the greatness and glory of war, GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Otherwise, don't waste your time. I am always interested in war movies because I think that if they are done well, they can TEACH us something about the paradoxical and worthless qualities of war. This film shows a bunch of guys running around the countryside, saying whorrible cliche lines, doing the most predictable things, and defending the oppressed with the same exact force and brutality that was being given to the oppressed. This film is a disgrace to filmmaking and to the United States of America! Can you imagine being a person from Europe or Africa, or any other country and watching this, being told that this is how Americans truly are? No wonder everyone hates us! Please, please, please, don't waste your time on this piece of junk; if you must, wait and rent it. 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is just typical Bruce Willis, action movie schtick. Watch it with some popcorn and your buddies. Rent it, to save money.
None of it is realistic. The battles aren't realistic. The soldiers aren't realistic. The victims aren't realistic. And why was Tom Skerritt's character talking to Willis from the DECK OF THE CARRIER? What's up with that? He can't do that from inside the ship?
Of course, Bruce W. gets a machete wound. There's a bunch of average explosions.
If this movie accurately represents the Navy SEALS, then don't get stuck in Africa expecting them to come rescue you!
The noble attack on the village bothered me the most. \"Front row seats to an ethnic cleansing\"...as Bruce looks at the slaughter going on in town. So what does he do? He crawls into town on his belly. Yep. How many died while they were putzing around? Oh well...a body count was needed, I guess.
And if that one African guy was so important, why didn't he get on the chopper with the elderly and children? Can he say \"Duh?\"
Finally, the movie was very dark. Not just in plot, but so much happens at night it was difficult to make out what was going on.
Rent 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\nConsidering the risk of showing same-sex relationships before the late 1980's, Personal Best could have done better to play the same-sex relationship between Hemingway (Chris Cahill) and Donnelly (Tory Skinner) as a more than experimental phase of Cahill's life.
It seems to me that the creators of this movie threw in the same-sex relationship between two fairly attractive women in order to attract viewers. Also consider the 90 seconds of exposing the crotches of several women jumping backwards over a high jump pole. This random scene had VERY LITTLE relevance to the movie and it appeared as though this was done merely to keep the audience interested in this bland movie. I suppose the producers were trying to counteract the boring plot and the even more boring setting of the movie (the 1980 Oregon Track and Field Competition).
This review may seem harsh, but it is the truth. The exploitation of young Muriel Hemingway's body and the same-sex relationship ruined any credit that I would have given to this film.
Pepper Thompson
\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\nBob Clampett's 'Porky's Poor Fish' is a so-so cartoon populated by appalling puns and one or two nice moments. Set in Porky's Fish Shoppe, 'Porky's Poor Fish' occupies an uncomfortable area between a standard black 'n' white Porky cartoon and one of the books-come-to-life Merrie Melodies that were popular at that time. Typically of many of the early Porky cartoons, Porky is far from the star, appearing only in a rather stilted opening musical number and the climax of the film. For the rest of the time the star is a scraggly cat who sees the fish shop as an opportunity for a free meal but gets more than he bargained for. Unfortunately, the audience gets far less than they bargained for. As was sometimes the case in the books-come-to-life series, the spotlight is thrown on punning signs which could have worked just as well in a non-animated medium. Laughs are scarce and, while the cartoon is just about saved by Clampett's energetic direction, there is very little at all to recommend 'Porky's Poor Fish' over any of the other below-par early Porky cartoons.
\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\nAs a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this \"British Little Big Horn\" was truly boring.
The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into \"staging\" and were determined to get their money's worth.
Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.
There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBilly Crystal co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this extremely safe and comfy comedy-drama about fathers and sons, adult irresponsibility, and growing old. Billy plays a heart surgeon who has a heart attack (ha ha) which causes him to seek out his estranged father (Alan King), a movie-extra who fancies himself a big star. The script is sub-Neil Simon nonsense with one-liners galore, a flat, inexpressive direction by Henry Winkler (stuck in sitcom mode), and family-conflict at the ready. Crystal and King try their best, but King is over-eager and frequently over-the-top. JoBeth Williams has another one of her thankless roles, but manages to bring her innate, down-home class to the proverbial girlfriend character. It's a comedy, I guess, but one that blinks back the tears...shamefully. ** from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of clichés and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor.
\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(BIG SPOILERS) I've seen one other Takashi Miike film, and that was the very disturbing and brutal 'Audition', which was an examination of the Japanese ideals of femininity! In 'Visitor Q'- which I think means 'Visitor Question'- he examines, in a very disturbingly gross way, the family unit. Miike's surreal vision of a dysfunctional family almost tries to be Lynchian in terms of confusion and film-making, but ultimately lacks the style and intrigue. We, the audience, are introduced to a bizarre array of scenarios from the opening scene with the father figure (Kenichi Endo- who was actually quite good) paying for sex with his displaced daughter (Fujiko). Then, as the father returns home, he is struck on the head by \"the visitor\" (Kazushi Watanabe) wielding a fairly sizeable rock, and for some reason, they both end up back at the family home. The mother (Shungiku Uchida) is beaten and bullied by her son (Jun Muto) who is also beaten and bullied by his school peers. When the visitor enters the home, he somewhat menacingly establishes himself as part of the unit. Eventually, the family begin to improve their relationship, with assistance from the visitor, through milking breasts, murder and retaining a sense of family pride.
And there are other crazy scenes that somehow bring the family closer together. It's has uncomfortable humour, but is equally frustratingly silly, and over-the-top in its weirdness. There is a necrophiliac scene that is utterly disgusting, but ends up being ridiculously funny as the scene progresses. Partly because of the situation itself, and partly because you can't believe the filmmakers and the actors are actually doing this! The style of the film is poor to say the least, and the plot is stupid and unbelievably weak. The characters themselves are all over the place, and while I understand this is not meant to be realistic, there is hardly any interest in these confronting characters and situations as all of them border on the absurd! The camera-work is sloppy, and doesn't have that cinematic feel that Lynch's work entails. It's hard to take this film seriously on a surrealist level, or on an interpretation of examining the family unit in Japan. It just seems that Miike was out to shock, and the film seems self-aware that it's \"trying\" to be shocking, and it becomes almost comical to be taken seriously. All in all, I would say that this film is a bizarrely dark comedy, but it looks and feels amateurish, and seems to unnecessarily want to shock. Miike's previous film, Audition, was finely balanced between disgusting horror, character development and technique- which established more intrigue in the way the film was crafted to allow the viewer to become engrossed with the plot. 'Visitor Q' is a step down as it tries too hard to be outlandishly bizarre and intentionally confronting, without really having much to say in the process!
** out of *****!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnyone who could find redeeming value in this piece of crap ought to have their head examined. We have the submissive, heroin-addicted, part-time hooker wife with lacerations all over her body, lacerations received from repeated beatings by an abusive son. Now, she is squirting breast milk all over the kitchen floor, the release so gained somehow akin to Helen Keller placing her hands in running water. We have the husband who starts out by patronizing a prostitute who just happens to be his daughter (she's upset with him because he came too quickly)and ends by murdering his female colleague, having sex with her corpse, and then chopping her up. We have the kid who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates and who comes home and beats his mom. You see, it's all circular. Deep, huh? The only decent moment in this horrendous pile of tripe is when the dad murders his son's tormentors. It's a good thing this turkey was shot on video because otherwise what a waste of expensive film it would be. If that guy who thinks artists ought to be interested in this slop is really serious, no wonder most people think artists are insane. We saw this lousy movie, then put on \"Zero Woman, The Accused.\" Oh my God, it was a tossup as to which one was worse. What is going on in Japan these days? Sick, sick, sick.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI actually retired from Asian horror films some time ago after becoming completely sick of seeing samey ghost story rubbish. However, I've been getting more and more into exploitation flicks recently, and so decided to give them another chance. My first port of call was highly rated director Takashi Miike's highly rated 'Visitor Q'. I'd already seen Audition, and while I didn't like it much, I do rate it as one of the better modern Asian horror films. So, I went into this with sensible expectations; and unfortunately, found only boredom. I suppose this movie is actually really clever and it just went over my head, but what it seemed like to me was simply a collection of violent and nasty scenes with little or no coherency between them. Any comparisons to the work of Luis Bunuel and David Lynch is blasphemous as far as I'm concerned; all Miike has done here is make a film; any intelligence surrounding it has been implemented by pretentious fans, desperate to find some kind of meaning. My headache set in about 10 minutes in (after a father had sex with his daughter for some reason), and it didn't subside until the movie finally ended; at least twenty four hours later, or so it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against violence in movies and in fact actively seek out the most notorious films around; but while this may be violent, it's also pointless and boring and I didn't get one ounce of enjoyment out of it. Takashi Miike may have a lot of fans, but I'm certainly not one of them; and I certainly hope this is the last time I'll come into contact with one of his films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is a twisted nonsense of a movie, set in Japan about a dysfunctional family who end up with a strange violent guest who just sits back and watches the 4 members of the family at their worst. Nothing is sacred in this movie, with sex drugs and violence stretched to such a limit i'm surprised it got past the censors.
Overall, i think it will appeal only to those whom we shouldn't be encouraging, rather than any supposed underlying message coming out for the rest of us to consider. A film that panders to the worst element in society and is in anyway utter gash... A disappointment from a man who made the sublime Dead or Alive and Audition 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\nOkay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.
\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 stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping.
\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\"Visitor Q\" is a failed attempt at black comedy which focuses on what might be the world's most dysfunctional family including physical abuse from beatings to murder to incest to sodomy to necrophilia to a lactating mom who nurses her husband and adult daughter, etc. The film is so outrageous it garnered some critical praise and established a small cult following. However, with home video quality and a slapdash production, \"Visitor Q\" just doesn't hold up even as a curiosity. Genitals are blurred out and sanitary appliances clearly visible, make-up is awful, and everything else is amateurish at best. A waste of time. (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\nThis movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment.
\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 know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking \"When the F*** is this film ever going to END???\" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).
Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So \"Arty\" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.
I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk.
As you may have worked out by now - I hated 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\nHis first movie after longtime friend John Belushi's death, Aykroyd shows much fatigue trying to pull off a character that would have been a snap for Belushi.
Instead, \"Doctor Detroit\" gives us bookish professor Aykroyd masquerading as a weird, violent pimp to ward off a rival known only as Mom. That's bad enough, but he also has classes to teach, a school dinner to host, four ladies of the evening to protect and a Pimp's Dinner (or something like that) to attend. No wonder Aykroyd seems stupefied most of the time. Why should the viewer be alone?
It was on this film that Aykroyd met future wife Donna Dixon. At least some good came out of this chaotic mess.
One and a half stars. You want good Aykroyd, see \"The Blues Brothers\". You want bad, see \"Doctor Detroit\".
\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 so bad, it can only be compared to the all-time worst \"comedy\": Police Academy 7. No laughs throughout the movie. Do something worthwhile, anything really. Just don't waste your time on this 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\nThis is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. It is not funny. It is not interesting and should not have been made.
\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 dumb comedy really does a good job of wasting comedic talent. In particular, Dan Aykroyd and Howard Hesseman are misused badly here. I might have chuckled once or twice during this film, but in general, it's a boring movie, with a little bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure. The premise, although routine, still wasn't bad, but once the plot was set, the film went nowhere. Don't waste your time with this misfire.
\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\nHorrendous pillaging of a classic.
It wasn't written convincingly at all why Mary should develop such sympathy for Bates. He may be more stable until they start playing pranks with him, but he still doesn't help himself at all with his actions. (inviting a comparative stranger to stay alone with him in his until recently disused motel; telling the attractive young girl of his past mental issues; lying about the knives, etc... ) This, in addition to her previous knowledge should have kept Mary extremely wary of him, but this somehow doesn't happen just so they can play the 'mistaken-identity-murder-game later on. Which in itself is also ridiculous: 'So-and-so is the real killer - plus her as well - also him! There were too many contrived twists in order to slap a story on screen when the narrative didn't need extending.
It was good to see Perkins reprising his famous role again, but that's about the only small pleasure to be had. It's definitely not a patch on Hitchcock, and if you have no intention of even trying to get close then you shouldn't be bothering at all.
\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\nAn interesting change from the first one. there was more mystery to this movie then the first. Even when it ends your asking yourself what happened who was the killer. There are some good parts through the movie, the first half starts off slow and then in the last half the pace picks up. All up the movie is enjoyable. The story is 22 years after the events that occured in the first film, Norman Bates is out of an asylum and back to the Bates motel, but when a woman turns up claiming to be his real mother, things start going wrong. Perkins plays an aged Norman well again and the scene at the end was excellent, he swang that spade awfully hard.
\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 Running Jumping & Standing Still Film\" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night\".
Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70£ to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.
The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles.
\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\nPeople love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI rented this film thinking it was the sobbingly sad 1959 version I saw as a kid. It was not. I was therefore very disappointed with what I felt was marginal acting, poor character development, and most of all, failure to highlight the relationship between the boy and his dog. In this version... the \"Dog of Flanders\" is just a cute \"aside\" to the movie. Get the 1959 version!
\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 scenery is pretty and the dog is cute. Other than that, this film has absolutely nothing to recommend it. Jack Warden is pleasantly genial as usual, but the script is so awful that even he comes off badly. The plot makes no sense, the dialogue is dumb, and there are numerous smaller faults. But the dog is cute...
\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\nAbsolutely one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time! It starts off badly and just deteriorates. Katherine Heigl is woefully miscast in a Lolita role and Leo Grillo manfully struggles with what is essentially a cardboard cutout character. The only cast-member with any enthusiasm is Tom Sizemore, who hams it up as a villain and goes completely overboard with his role. The script is dire, the acting horrible and it has plot holes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through! It is also the most sexist movie I have ever seen! Katherine Heigl's character is completely unsympathetic. She's seen as an evil, wanton seductress who lures the poor, innocent married man to cheat on his wife. It is implied throughout the movie that she's underage, and the message that accompanies that plot-strand just beggars belief! At the end, she isn't even able to redeem herself by shooting the man who's obviously (ha!) become demented with rage and guilt, but the script allows him to kill himself, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of males everywhere. Horrible. Don't waste your 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\nWhile it does crack the odd good joke, the humour is generally quite dry with members of the panel frequently pulling faces or resorting to coarse language and waiting on the crowd to applaud lame enough jokes.
Unlike what an other comment says I don't think this is the best RTE have ever made, its really dry and sarcastic. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, there are few truly funny intelligent gags that would make you genuinely laugh out loud. People seem to be convinced by the comedians well known names rather than by judging the quality of the gags which aren't really that good. Overall its mediocre with some good laughs to be had but often it can be fairly mediocre. Its not as good as Jasper Carrot or Dave Allens stuff. I find Benny Hill funnier.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, I'd be lying if I said that this could easily rival Spiderman or the Batman movies. Still, it was more appealing to me for it's moral value. I first bought the VHS when my son was about 2 years old and it immediately became his favorite. My wife and I are avid supporters of Robert Townsend and have been since he used credit cards to finance his first movie, \"Hollywood Shuffle\". True, he needs to take advantage of the talents and knowledge of technical advisors to make the films more believable, but his movies are still fun.
Meteor Man provides a hero with an Urban Contemporary feel. I always felt that, if there were superheroes, they wouldn't provide the same scenarios as depicted in the comics. Meteor Man is realistic hero with real problems: Car broken into, bad neighborhood, local drug-dealing gangs using children for distribution, etc. The scope of his mission stayed pretty much within the community.
What I found to be truly entertaining, outside of James Earl Jones' \"young forever\" performance, was how the neighborhood responded to his newly discovered powers. It wasn't long before they had a full agenda lined up for him, without his input, of course. It was hilarious to hear them offer to lend him out to other communities where their extended families lived.
Yes, the plot was weak, the movie was predictable, there was bad acting and continuity was rotten, but it ranks #1 with my kids. Robert Townsend works to bring movies \"home\" so to speak. I doubt he'll ever truly be recognized as the talented actor/producer/director he truly is, but there are and will always be, those that love him for his efforts.
One point to ponder about the film, which I find amusing: Throughout the entire battle with Simon, no one bothered to call the police???? Also, what mother and father do you know that will watch their son fight from a window? My mother would have been right there, scrapping by my side, toe-to-toe. Dad would be loading his pistol. lol
Rent it and check it out. It's worth seeing at least once and good for those of you that are fans of Sinbad, Luther Vandross, Bill Cosby, Big Daddy Kane, etc. Great job with the cameos Robert!
\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\nLet me tell you something about this movie. I have seen it twice. The first time I was a kid and the movie was quite entertaining to me. I really liked it. I thought it was funny and interesting and the main character was kind of cool.
I saw it again a few days ago. It was horrible. Really. I don't know why I thought it was funny before but now... I didn't laugh at all. There was nothing even slightly entertaining. It was just dumb. The story was weak. The acting was nothing special. There are great actors in this movie but still the acting is mediocre at best.
What is the worst is the fact that this movie is racist. Really. Don't get me wrong, usually I don't complain about racism in movies. However I have seen people complaining about the lack of black men in movies like 'The Shaolin Temple' or about the fact that the only black man in 'The Street Fighter' is one of the bad guys or... Whatever, you get the point. There are people seeing racism everywhere. I wonder how would they react to a movie like 'The Meteor Man'. Why? I will tell you why. There are no Asians in this movie. There are no white people among the good guys. In fact there is only one white guy in the entire movie and he is the leader of the bad guys. All the good guys are African Americans. Don't get me wrong, I don't care is the good guy is black or white or yellow or pink or green... What I do care about is the fact that we can barely see a white person in this movie. This is the only movie like that that I have ever seen. It is just not realistic. If there is only one black man in a Japanese movie which is the case with 'The street Fighter' there is no problem - in Japan most of the people are Asians. But if there is only one white man in an American movie there is some sort of problem - in USA most of the people are white. It is like filming a Japanese movie with entirely white cast and only one Asian as a bad guy. Just not real.
That is it. I am giving the movie the rate of 4/10. It would be 1/10 if I hadn't have fun with it as a kid.
\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 movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.
Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.
It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.
Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.

\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\nSuperhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...
If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a \"serious\" superhero movie but at least its 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 is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 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\nMy kid makes better videos than this! I feel ripped off of the $4.00 spent renting this thing! There is no date on the video case, apparently designed by Wellspring; and, what's even worse, there's no production date for the original film listed anywhere in the movie! The only date given is 2002, leading an unsuspecting renter to believe he's getting a recent film.
This movie was so bad from a standpoint of being outdated and irrelevant for any time period but precisely when it was made, that I'm amazed that anyone would take the time and expense to market it as a video. It might be of interest to students studying the counter-culture of the 1960's, the anti-war, anti-establishment, tune-in, turn-on and drop out culture; but when you read the back of the video case, there's no hint that that is what you're getting. If you do make the mistake of renting it though, it is probably best viewed while on drugs, so that your mind will more closely match the wavelength of the minds of the directors, Fassbinder and Fengler. Regardless of your state of mind while watching it, I can tell you that it doesn't get any better after the first scene; so, knowing that, I'm sure you'll be fast asleep long before the end.
\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 Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha
Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.
The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.
Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.
\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\nOlivier Gruner stars as Jacques a foreign exchange college student who takes on and single handedly wipes out a Mexican street gang in this obnoxious and racist film which is so horrible that it's laughable. Bad acting, bad plot and bad fight choreography make Angel Town a Turkey.
\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\nTimes are tough for Angel Town, gangs rule with an iron fist and for reasons mostly unknown (Mainly due to embarrassing writing) the gangs want a street kid, Martine to join the gangs, so they beat him up everyday. However due to the presence of an Olympic kick-boxer (Olivier \"World's lamest actor\" Gruner) named Jacques, hope is on the way. Angel Town is seriously one of the most inept message movies ever made (And I've seen my share) it seems to consist of the idea that all gang infested neighborhoods need, are French kick-boxers who can't act. Worst of all there are so many awkward moments it's just truly hilarious. Best of all comes from the exchange between Gruner and Aragon which basically sums up how ridiculous this thing is. To Wit: \"You like the fighting? (Olivier grabs his Asian best friend in a headlock) I could kill him right? When I want him dead he dies! The reason why I don't want him dead is because i'm afraid of him, and I know that if I kill him his son and wife will kill me, that's why he doesn't die!\"
Of course the fact that it's wrong to kill someone, let alone your best friend is of course left out of the equation. Odd.
However don't let me make this sound that I hated this movie, far from it, it's so terrible it's priceless. The biggest laughs come at the end in the disastrous finale which sees Grunner going one on one with gang-members who (the film's biggest logic gap)decline the use of pistols. Also a handicapped Vietnam vet helps out by shooting his machine gun at the gangs, while Gruner kick-boxes the rest. All of this set to the sound of horrible \"Mexican\" accents and surreal energy that make this one memorable for fans of cinematic trash such as this.
The other treat about this movie, is that for some reason Olivier Gruner never attends college despite that's the main reason he's here in the states and not in France getting it on with his girlfriend (In a graveyard in the film's awkward beginning) Angel Town is without a doubt a failure on all conceivable levels but if you laugh at moronic martial arts movies with insane levels of action that make no sense on any level, this is the perfect movie for you. On the other hand make sure to down tequila, like the laughable opening song details \"Ain't no mercy in Angel Town\"
* out of 4-(Bad)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"