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\nWhat a dreadful film this is. The only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of Miss Eleniak. The painful overacting of Mr McNamara, which became embarrassing at times, ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. Mr McNamara is no Tom Cruise, the actor he obviously wants to be.
\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 down-shifts from 4th into 1st without bothering with 3rd or 2nd, grinding gears all the way to the sappy, b-movie finish-line. The con at the beginning is easily the best and cleverest part of the movie. That is worth seeing. The scene with Harlow in the bathtub occurs so fast, you may miss it. Definitely not worth all the ballyhoo provided by Robert Osborne in his TCM intro to this bad-to-mediocre confusion. There is no real conflict, and all of the characters in this supposed fringe society turn out to be saints - especially the unbelievable character, Al. I wonder if he's got a job for me in Cincinnati?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the very worst films Clark Gable made. Only PARNELL was obviously worse. It is just so painfully clichéd and the dialog is so lousy that it is something neither Gable nor Jean Harlow should have been proud of making.
Gable is a heel whose illegal activities result in his girl going' to the slammer (like the gangster talk?). She holds out hope that he'll do the right thing but he just leaves her there--unknown to either of them, gosh, that she's \"in the family way\". Eventually, the rogue returns to do the right thing and somehow they tie this all together into a happy ending! They seemed to have forgotten about Gable's needing to take the rap and spend several years in the hoosegow. Leonard Maltin says \"the stars are at their best here\". By what standard? Best at producing unintended chuckles? Gimme a break!
PS--after saying this, my wife thinks Leonard Maltin is going to find me and kick my butt. Hmmm. However, despite my comment, I think Mr. Maltin is the finest reviewer and human being on the planet (I hope that appeased him).
UPDATE--2/2/08. Because I disliked this film so much the first time (especially the ridiculous ending), I decided to watch it once again. After all, sometimes when I watch a film again I like it much more and realize that I was a bit too harsh. While that has been the case with several films in recent months, I still disliked this film--even the second time. Most of it was not because of the first half of the film. In the first half, Harlow's character was amazingly stupid but at least it was believable. But when she was sent to prison, it was all clichés until the final ridiculous marriage scene occurred. The bottom line is that this sequence is embarrassingly dumb--it just makes no sense at all and is akin to turning the movie into some wacky fairy tale instead of a love story about two cons. I stand by my original review (despite all the \"NOT HELPFULS\") and think that aside from PARNELL and possibly POLLY AT THE CIRCUS, it might just be the worst Gable 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\nOh yes, Sakura Killers is a goofy, horrible ninja movie, make no mistake. But it's also an incredibly enjoyable one. This is largely thanks to the awesome presence of one Chuck Connors, who is billed as starring in the movie but really only shines in a few scenes. I suppose he's supposed to be sort of an Obi Wan Kenobi type (\"The tough ninja-buster\", the box copy exclaims) but his 'wisdom' is laughable. \"Move without thinking\"??? My friend says this is the sign of mental retardation, not of supreme concentration.
But really, his two aides, Sonny and Dennis, have such horrible dialogue that 'Brooklyn', as we call The Colonel, tends to shine in comparison. Especially watch for Dennis' logic regarding the 'genetic splicing' the Sakura are involved with. If you know anything about cloning you will die laughing. And yes, this is a major plot point, folks.
A terribly fun movie, Sakura Killers is a hard-to-find gem. I won't spoil the 'trick' ending for you either, except that it's a perfect set up for a Sakura Killers 2. Too bad Chuck Connors died. :-( Because he does have a the smoothest ways of blowing away ninjas.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm in awe! Wow, prepare to be blown away by the uncanny ways of the ninja. Watch them as they pounce, crawl along the ground (on their backs or stomachs) like a caterpillar, fly through the sky, climb buildings, hide and spring from trees, throw about ninja stars, role out blue welcome mats, disappear in smoke bombs, make a lot of swoosh noises with their blades and quickly sneaking or trotting about on their toes. What a sight! Really I could go on about the many traditional actions, but I'll be here all day. Oh not to forget we even get the legendary Chuck Connors popping up now and again, and watch him dispatch some ninjas with his shotgun with little ease. What class! What a badass! Anyhow the ultra-cheap 'Sakura Killers' is some stupid, but cheesy ninja action fun that only fanatics of the genre would get anything out of this shonky b-grade debacle.
A genetic lab in America has a very important video that's stolen by a couple of ninjas. Two Americans are sent to Japan by the Colonel (Chuck Connors) to retrieve it.
The opening of the feature sets it up nicely. Get ready for the laughs! Afterwards it slows down, but soon after the two main protagonists learns about the ninja and goes through the training it gets a head of steam as they break in costumes and fled after the stolen beta tape that contains a very important formula. This is when the violently swift action and aerobic marital arts really come in to play. It's not too shoddy either, (like the moronic script and daft performances). The final climatic showdown is very well done.
In the slow stretches it has the two Americans (Mike Kelly and George Nicholas) looking in to the case, sharing brainless conversations and encountering some minor problems. What made me laugh was how the ninjas were put off by how brave and clever these two were. These were supposed to be professional killers? Director Dusty Nelson ('Effects (1989)') does an earnest job with what he had and plays it for what it is. He centres the on-screen activities around striking Taiwan locations. The score is a chintzy arrangement.
\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\nSAKURA KILLERS (1+ outta 5 stars) Maybe in 1987 this movie might have seemed cool... if you had never ever seen a *good* ninja movie. Cheesy '80s music... cheesy dialogue... cheesy acting... and way-beyond-cheesy martial arts sequences. The coolest scene is at the beginning... with an aged Chuck Connors playing golf on a beach... several black clad ninjas try to sneak up on him and it looks like he is too intent on hitting his ball to notice... suddenly he reaches into his golf bag and... naw, I won't spoil it for you... if you ever have the misfortune of seeing this movie you'll thank me. The story is a lot of nonsense about some stolen videotape or something. A bunch of dim-bulb Caucasian heroes are trained in the ways the ninja because \"only a ninja can fight a ninja\" or something like that. Strange, these guys don't seem to fight any better after their training than before... oh well, the movie does move along pretty briskly. The fight scenes may not be great.. but they are plentiful... and the overdone sound effects are good for a few chuckles.
\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\nTwo old buddies are sent to Japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape, which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. First they just have to learn some ninja skill, because \"only ninja can beat the ninja.\"
Sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja-flick but fails that badly. The whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it: Same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before, characters are too briefly drawn, direction is dull and script doesn't offer anything surprising, even in the ending scene, which by itself reduced movie's (trash)value.
Even 80's ninja-flick-fan, who understands the esthetic of trash-movies, is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. It simply doesn't offer anything new to viewer, neither in visual level nor in plot. Shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging, but it's not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes.
It's hard to recommend movie to anyone. Even Franco Nero's clumsy performance in \"Enter the Ninja\" falls behind Sakura killer's American-ninjas. Even in visual level movie doesn't have any balls and it's waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie: There isn't any. In all, one of the most futile ninja-flicks, I've ever seen. Doesn't interest even in curiosity. Trust me on this one.
½ out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie's one of my favorites. It's not really any good, but it's great to laugh at. The dialogue can become incredibly ludicrous and poorly acted (eg, \"Manji, can we ask you a few questions?\" \"Sure.\" \"We think you can help us with the answers.\") Any fighting is more or less surrealistic. Make sure to watch for Brock, the oafy white guy who attacks the main characters. He only has two lines, but he's one of the best guys in the 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\nSkip Mission: Galactica and watch the original Living Legend episodes instead. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful Fire In Space episode. Although Galactica suffered from network-controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production, Living Legend is the best of the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the worst episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the difference in quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi.
\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 Derek's have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title \"worst movie of all time\", and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. In fact, this film can be regarded as belonging to the \"so bad, it's good\" category, right up there with the products of the likes of Edward Wood Jr. or Doris Wishman. This explains the IMDb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks.
Anthony Quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time, but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad, it has to be seen to be believed.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this obvious schlock fest on a video store shelf. And before i got my first VCR I figured I'd christen it with this little gem and it's bad film-making at it's finest!
The dialog is inadvertently hilarious. And it contains a cameo with Donald Trump. Anthony Quinn is in it inexplicably. And much like Christopher Walken seemed to want to star in every bad movie in his later years. This movie is Mr. Quinn's Country Bears.
It features lines like, \"Shut up and let me FIGHT!!!\"
And \"You're saying a lot of sh_it!\"
And the priceless comeback: \"Unfortunately it is sh_it, tough angry sh_it!\"
You'll be awed by a fight scene as Bo does a SOMMERSAULT across a billiard table! And does a nice kung fu kick when she comes up from the roll! Chop socky action and T and A thrills!!!
What schlock movie fan could ask for more? Oh, and when Mr. Quinn's character commits suicide and and comes back to haunt Bo as a ghost she asks him why he killed himself rather then deal with his debilitating illness? He says, \"Real men don't eat quiche.\"
Uh, aaa, yeah. If Bo was a smart cookie she woulda called for an exorcist right then and 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\nThe Dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for Bo after \"10\".
I used to work for a marine park in the Florida Keys. One day, the script for \"Ghosts Can't Do It\" was circulating among the trainers in the \"fish house\" where food was prepared for the dolphins. There was one scene where a -dolphin- supposedly propositions Bo (or Bo the dolphin), asking to \"go make eggs.\" Reading the script, we -lauuughed-...
We did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility, although our dolphins -were- in \"The Big Blue!\"
This must have been very close to the end of Anthony Quinn's life. I hope he had fun in this film, as it certainly didn't do anything for his legacy.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've now watched all four Bo Derek vehicles directed by her husband, John; all are quite terrible, of course, but this is certainly the pits. Featuring the usual flimsy plot, bad scripting  by the director, naturally  and acting, not to mention gratuitous nudity by the star, it deals with her losing much older husband Anthony Quinn (she accepts his shotgun suicide by saying he had always admired Hemingway!!) but who continues to appear and talk to her. In fact, he wants to come back in another, younger bodybut actually does so only in the very last scene! Derek is lovely as always, and still playing naïve(!)  especially during a muddled mid-section which has her pursued by a hired killer at a spa. Quinn, too, is typically larger-than-life (read: hammy) here, but this easily constitutes his nadir; besides, for much of the duration, he acts from behind a piece of shiny plastic (presumably suggesting his being in some sort of limbo)! His 'replacement', then, is obviously a handsome-looking stud who hasn't a lick of talent or even personality. Also featured in the cast are Hollywood veterans Don Murray (as Quinn's best friend and Bo's business consultant) and Julie Newmar (as Quinn's guardian angel in the afterlife)  plus a surprising cameo appearance by billionaire Donald Trump (who presumably needed this on his resume')! It also goes without saying that John Derek was his own cinematographer on the film, that the end credits are filled with useless (and corny) expressions of gratitude to the many people who lent a helping hand, and that GHOSTS CAN'T DO IT swept the board at the 1990 Razzie Awards!
\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\nWith a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno 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\nMichael Caine has always claimed that Ashanti was \"the only film (he) did purely for the money\" as well as \"the worst film he ever starred in\". Hold on, Michael, weren't you in The Swarm and Hurry Sundown? And weren't both of those films a good deal worse than Ashanti? Perhaps Caine remembers only too begrudgingly the physically punishing demands of filming an action film in searing 130 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures (the director, Richard Fleischer, was hospitalised as a result of sun-stroke during the shoot). What Ashanti actually emerges as is not the career low-point of Michael Caine. Instead, it is a very average chase thriller with a talented cast, exotic locations, boring stretches and a highly formulaic storyline.
Dr. David Linderby (Caine) is a W.H.O medic who is left devastated when his black wife Anansa (Beverly Johnson) goes missing during an aid trip to an African tribal village. Linderby gradually realises that his wife has been snatched by slave traders - led by Suleiman (Peter Ustinov) - and he sets off on a continent-wide pursuit which eventually leads to the Middle East.
Along the way, big stars pop in for ineffective and superfluous guest roles. William Holden has a poor cameo as a chopper pilot; Omar Sharif displays little of his customary charm or grace as a pampered Arab millionaire; Rex Harrison looks rightfully bored during his brief role as a helpful contact who assists Caine in his quest. The film is based on a best-seller entitled Ebano, by the little-known author Alberto Vasquez-Figueroa, but the suspense that made the book so popular is largely absent in this adaptation. Ustinov is charismatic as the slaver (he seems in all his movies to be incapable of giving bad performances), and Caine generates believable anguish as the man who thinks he'll never see his wife again. There are occasional flashes of action, but on the whole Ashanti is quite slow-moving. All in all, it is a resistible piece of action hokum - not by any stretch as awful as Caine has frequently suggested, but not a very inspiring film and certainly a let-down from all the talent involved.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this recently with my wife and discovered it's better than Caine believes, although it's not much cop. Britain's greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role, which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. Rex Harrison seems even less bothered, perhaps unsurprisingly, as his character is very poorly written. William Holden is better, but his screen time is fleeting and, again, his character is not well scripted.
Beverly Johnson is as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, but is given very little to do, the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. Ustinov steals the show, but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film's serious tone. The music is poor and Omar Sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now).
Richard Fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively, he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director, and this is one of his weaker 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\nIf Ashanti had been a serious attempt at a film about the institution of slavery, still prevalent in third world countries the film might have been better received. Instead it turns into a star studded disaster of a movie where the stars came in, said their lines, and picked up their paychecks without much conviction.
Michael Caine and his wife Beverly Johnson work for the United Nations World Health Organization and are busy doing their humanitarian thing in East Africa. Along comes Peter Ustinov who can barely summon enough ham in him to make a go of the part as a Moslem slave dealer. As Johnson is black he grabs her anyway along with a lot of children and a few adults as well.
Of course Caine doesn't take kindly to the kidnapping and the rest of the film is spent in a rescue attempt. The rest of the cast has such folks as William Holden, Rex Harrison, Omar Sharif and Indian film star Kebir Bedi in parts and looking so incredibly bored with the whole thing.
Usually in something like this talented people like those mentioned above will just overact outrageously and feast on a diet of scenery. But Ashanti doesn't even have that going for it.
What an incredible waste of time. The aroma of tax write off is permeating the air.
\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 worst, and chock full of people who really ought to know better, (the cast have six Oscars between them). It's set in 'contemporary' Africa, (it was made in 1979), and is about the slave trade. It's appallingly scripted and acted, (Michael Caine, Peter Ustinov and William Holden reach a career low in this one), and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. It's also ludicrously plotted. You don't for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. Richard Fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. This is as bad as it gets.
\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 seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70's. And the fact that I cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off-hand is a measure of their impact. These are what novelists would call 'pot-boilers'. They are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie-stars in the public eye.
We have Micheal Caine, Peter Ustinov, Omar Sharif, Rex Harrison and William Holden; more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. Every taste in hero is catered for. Though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed.
Their talents are simply thrown away, and I wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. This sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a CV. Sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round.
It was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. That ludicrously mismatched jaunty-jazz theme music, which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed, had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator Muzak. Who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central Africa, or the endless Sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop? Definitely a serious goof-ball. Ennio Morricone would have known what to do; and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. This director should have taken the trouble to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia', or even Sergio Leone's westerns; he might have learnt a few things. But then again, probably he wouldn't.
Alfred Hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film 'Frantic'. It was later remade with equal panache staring Harrison Ford. In each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. Here, when Michael Caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado, Rex Harrison kept popping-up out of no-where like some wily old genii, to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled.
At least the photography was rather good, with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. But then the dumb music must pipe-up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created.
Action scenes were also contrived and stilted, with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first-year drama class. And, of course, the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment - as you do.
And that's about as much comment as this item deserves. Except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well.
Stick with your hobby on this one. Even if it contained your favourite movie-stars, you're sure to be disappointed 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\nThe story at the outset is interesting: slavery in the (late) 20th century from west Africa to the Arab Middle East. The problem with it is that it intentionally castigates two of director Richard Fleisher's favorite enemies: Arabs and Germans. To make us believe that very Arab-looking men would be free to roam around and easily catch Blacks in West Africa is as believable as Whites hunting for slaves in \"Roots\". Obviously both trades are/were run by locals and involve(d) much more sophisticated networks. While Arab countries are complicit in today's child and sex slave trade, Israel is one of the worst violators according to Amnesty International. So why only point out Arabs and then choose a German as the only European buyer? It's obvious bias and hatred of those people by a Jewish director.
The acting is above average, especially by Peter Ustinov (Suleiman) and Kabir Bedi (Malik). Michael Caine (Dr. Linderby) is good as always.
\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 hope the viewer who regards 'Dream Machine' as one of Corey Haim's finest and the \"best movies of the century\" was kidding. Undetected sarcasm on my part? I sincerely hope so.
'The Dream Machine' marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of Corey Haim's career (except 'Prayer of the Rollerboys' which was surprisingly decent). Here, Haim plays nonchalant college boy, Bernie, who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl's attention. Lucky for Bernie, a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband, hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner--Bernie--with a gift: a slick Porsche Turbo. However, unbeknownst to the woman, and unfortunate for Bernie, is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. Now, being that in this movie, bodies don't seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk, Bernie is unaware of this. In fact, the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. In particular, a grizzly man follows him around, desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected.
This is a low-grade action fizzle as many of Haim's films like this are (see The Double O Kid). Despite being part action, part romantic comedy, this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty-five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i.e. Bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body, and a hit-man finding out that the Porsche is going to be hard to find). After which, and thanks to poor acting by Haim (I loved this kid, too, but it's not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn't act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between Bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result, inappreciable. To add injury to insult, the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self-evident songs you would hear in Team America (see the 'date' montage).
Loyal Corey Haim fans, however, should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. However, others understanding that Haim's career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered, might expect mediocrity, as will viewers just looking for early 90s b-comedy fluff to pass the 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\nThis week, I just thought it would be fun to catch up with Corey Haim, with just having seen the two \"Lost Boys\" films last week and all. Not that I'm a fan-boy - not by far - but I did like those two Coreys in some films back in my early teen days.
So, I prepared myself for three films starring him. Unfortunately, I picked \"Dream Machine\" as a first (never seen it before), and it was so godawfully horrible, I just decided to lock Corey back in my closet and let him sober up again first, before I pop in something else of his. But I managed to struggle my way through this film first. I had the impression it desperately wanted to play in the same league as \"Ferris Bueller's Day Off\" (1986) but got caught up in its own delusions. Practically the whole film it wants to be a comedy and near the end it hopelessly tries to be a thriller. The only good thing about \"Dream Machine\" is the premise: A dead body in the trunk of a Porsche. All the rest fails so badly, it's embarrassing. Even the most for Haim. I can dig him being his young, enthusiastic self, but at least when he comes with some form of directorial guidelines. This clearly wasn't the case in \"Dream Machine\". So, we have a perfect car, yes, that black Porsche. Haim's perfect girlfriend? Just a blonde chick who hardly has any lines in the film. The perfect murder... almost? Some dude that falls flat on his ass as the villain of the film, trying the whole movie to steal the body back out of the trunk, never really succeeds, and then at the end of the film thinks he's Michael Myers (minus the white William Shatner mask) and mistakes Corey Haim for Jamie Lee Curtis. Don't think they could have made this flick any lamer if they tried. A stupid, unfunny film with a story that leads to nowhere directed by a director that doesn't know how to direct his cast. Great accomplishment!
One last question for Mr. Haim: Who's idea was it to have you smile directly into the camera in that last shot of the movie? Yours or the director's? So not done.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm a big Porsche fan, and the car was the best star in this film.
Haim, the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80's is bland as per usual, and commenting on back up from minor characters/actors would be pointless; needless to say they were all very average. It's a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80's - with some weird clothes, some good shots of the Colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot.
All in all, please don't waste your time watching this unless you love 80's movies, Corey Haim, or like myself, love old school Porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life's too short to watch crappy 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\nWell, TiVo recorded this because of Angelina Jolie. It had 2.5 stars. It seemed promising. It went downhill fast.
There is much overacting, even from Angelina. She's about 20 and playing a 16 year old. There are three characters that are supposed to be Italian. Everyone else is Italian- American. The native Italian accents were good, I thought. The young male lead is cute, my wife says. Everyone else in this movie is a fat Italian woman. Even the men.
I should have known that when Dick Van Patten was cast as a randy doctor, that that was a bad sign. The two couples chasing their kids around are like the four Italian Stooges.
My wife would not let go of the remote. Hopefully she was not taking makeup, clothing or decorating tips. It was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. It was hidegarishous.
Cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. If this movie shows up on your TV, do yourself a favor and ram your head through the TV screen instead. You'll be glad you did. The only movie I've ever seen that was worse than this was \"Hamburger: The Movie\". Or maybe \"Deadly Friend\".
\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\nOMG this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot I'm a Film student. I don't understand why Angelina Jolie would be in this movie? Did she need the money that badly? I love AJ and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. It was SOO bad! not even good bad, just bad bad. It had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. I cant even say AJ looked good in it because well she didn't. The plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet then its not. All round disappointing. Maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise I really don't recommend it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI only saw this movie once, and that was enough for me. The movie has very little if any plot and seems to be nothing but continuous scenes of psycho-sadistic violence and very little of anything else. I wanted to see this movie because it starred Zoe Trilling of the second \"Night of The Demons;\" and I wanted to see her playing someone normal. Unfortunately, the Tobe Hooper script barely begins and goes nowhere as Robert Englund dominates the film and chews up the scenery and plot. Zoe, I know where you are now; hiding from this 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\nI don't know much about Tobe Hooper, or why he gets his name in the title, but maybe he shouldn't have bothered. As another commenter mentioned, there isn't really enough horror or erotica to bring in fans of either genre. The plot is incoherent, the Sade sequences are gratuitous, and most of the acting is so-so. Englund was doing his best with weak material, and Zoe Trilling has a really great bottom, but neither is enough to carry this film. This one's a tape-over. Grade: F
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe Marquis De Sade, Egypt, ancient Gnostic cults, Robert Englund in a dual role, gratuitous sex and nudity, murder and mayhem... on paper Tobe Hopper's Night Terrors sounds like it should be at least a fun, entertaining flick given the ingredients. It's not. It is a plot less, incoherent shambles that brings little entertainment. There is basically no plot beyond some vague stuff about a cult that follows the work of De Sade who for some unclear reason feel the need to seduce the daughter of a local Christian archaeologist and kill her. That is pretty much it- I think it has something to with the Gnostics but who knows what the writers were thinking. Most of the movie is a meandering mess as the heroine is exposed to various weirdness, dream sequences and erotic encounters, intercut with scenes of Englund as the imprisoned De Sade in the 19th century chewing the scenery. It seems like the makers were trying for something serious but whatever their pretensions were they are buried in the cheesiness, bad acting, sleaze and fake looking decapitated heads.
There aren't too many good points. Robert Englund is fun to watch, as always and the lead actress, Zoe Trilling, whilst not very talented, is attractive and in various stages of undress through the movie but watching Night Terrors is a chore. At least I got to see the movie from which the \"When you're as criminal as I\" bit from the Australian film certification ratings guide that was on the front of so many VHS tapes from the nineties came 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\nGenie (Zoe Trilling) arrives in Egypt to visit her hypocritical, bible-quoting archeologist father (William Finley) and attracts the attention of a group of cultists led by a descendant of the Marquis de Sade (Robert Englund). Englund also plays de Sade in flashbacks, ranting in his cell. Genie is led astray by Mohammed (Juliano Merr), who rides around naked on a horse and Sabina (Alona Kamhi), a bisexual who introduces her to opium smoking, which leads to a wild hallucination featuring topless harem dancers, a woman simulating oral sex on a snake, an orgy and her father preaching in the background! Meanwhile, black hooded cult members decapitate, gouge out eyeballs and slit throats. When Genie is slipped drugs in her tea, she imagines de Sade hanging from a cross, a gold-painted woman in a leafy g-string and herself bloody on a bed covered in snakes. It's all because she's the reincarnation of de Sade's lost love.
This typically sleazy Harry Alan Towers production is redundant, seedy and pretty senseless, but the sets, costumes, cinematography and location work are all excellent and at least there's always something going on.
Score: 3 out of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTobe Hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. Like any other horror fan, I loved the Texas Chainsaw, but I think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title, you should have at least more than one hit movie. I can't really think of any other movie Hooper has done (on his own, don't count Poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. And this movie, Night Terrors, just backs up my point.
Poor Robert Englund, I give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. He did what he could. As for the movie itself? Pure drudge. Unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes, a story that must have been penned in an our, and really just awful scenery, music, and cinematography. Nothing in this film is redeemable. Don't waste your time.
Overall, 1 out of 10. I feel sorry for Hooper, his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. I hope that he's able to pump out at least one more good flick, that way he can do his cult status some justice.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of those movies you see in the video store that you just HAVE to get because it just looks so horribly bad. And indeed, we couldn't take most of it. There was a lot of fast-forwarding going on.
But then we came across a scene where Robert Englund seduces the female protagonist (her name somehow slips my mind at this time). CRIPES. I've never watched a single scene from a film so many times (I'm estimating forty or so). And I've never laughed so hard in my life. You see, Englund has this thing for showing off his loins. I last saw the film a couple months ago, but I can't stop laughing as I type. Anyway, the scene is a montage of shots-- Englund ripping off the lingerie of the girl, Englund riding a horse naked, and some mysterious woman fellating a snake's head. This is absolute genius. You've got to see it for yourself.
\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 found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. I never had to read this book (thankfully), or it would have been a painful experience. I got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn't worth my time, or my friend's. I think this story is not worth telling. It's like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). The lives of the main characters were painful to watch, one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. However, I think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. I've always been a big fan of Ellen Burstyn. I'm writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given, which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.
The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.
We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.
When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.
In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of \"super soul,\" the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break.
\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\nYuck! And again I say...YUCK! The original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. The original movie had a lot to say and didn't go out of its way to say it. And, it had a naked chick on a motorcycle.
This version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. It looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. The movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. It is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife.
There was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry...
\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\nMovies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of 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\nThis is just plain bad. Sometimes remakes, even if they stray from the original, are good on their own. They can bring another viewpoint and achieve a certain interpretation that makes them unique and enjoyable. This was as poorly thought out and carried out as can be. This wasn't any good even standing on it's own. Viggo Mortenson is a top-notch actor, but some of his selections of roles and projects leaves something to be desired. The original \"Vanishing Point\" was such a thrilling, psychological adventure; this is not an adventure at all, and is not enjoyable or entertaining whatsoever. This was made from a by-the-numbers approach to film-making, stuffing in plot points that someone in Hollywood believes will please what they see as today's film-going audience. Basically, they see us as a bunch of idiots. It's insulting that someone will put this out as a feature film, and even attempt to remake a cult classic this sloppily. The manipulative plot devices, the \"make-it-obvious-so-they-don't-miss-the-point\" aspects, ridiculous dialogue, stereotyped characters, amateurish direction...
This is plain bad....
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up.
It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved.
The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.
Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one.
\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 represents the times it was made in as much as the original, i suppose. Which is really sad, because at a deeper level, the title 'Vanishing Point' the original, is so ironic. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but the original was filmed in 1970, and released in 1971. The REAL 'VANISHING POINT' was the end of an era, which pretty much ended in the early 1970s.
In this remake, all the counter-cultural elements have been stripped away, and been rendered more PC in an attempt to reach a broader audience, presumably. \"Sanitized for your Protection\"
Inserting the American Indian scenes was gratuitous, and the idea of a 'noble purpose' to the trip was subtraction by addition. I'm glad I watched it however, it made me appreciate the original that much more. The original is a cult classic and golden. This remake is dreadful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"