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\nIn fact, Marc Blitzstein's off-Broadway adaptation of \"Threepenny\" was not so \"bowdlerised\" as is generally believed.
(I have a special interest in \"Threepenny\"; my dad was part of the first full production in the US; U of Illlinois Theatre Guild did it around the end of WW2. HJitler had been so nearly successful in suppressing the play that they had to reconstruct the script and score from recordings in two different languages {neither English}, a German prompter's script and similar sources.) Blitzstein's adaptation -- not a \"translation\" -- which had the full approval of Lotte Lenya -- was a lot closer to the original than generally believed.
The problem is that the version thereof that most people know is the MGM cast recording (recently available on Polygram on CD)(which includes Beatrice Arthur {as Lucy, the \"big complete girl\", and can't i see her hands on hips and shoulders thrown back on that line -- Bea was a major babe in the 50's}, Paul Dooley and John Astin) was heavily censored by Mike Curb, head of MGM Records -- i mean, 17 (i think it was) \"Goddamn\"s got cut to just \"damn\".
(At one time, MGM also offered a 2-LP set of the *entire* play, doubtless as heavily censored.)
\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 fact that most of the budget for this presumably went on the heavy-duty cast list shouldn't have mattered if it had been staged with flair and imagination and some sympathy for the original's satirical intent. Instead we get risibly bad song and dance sequences featuring picturesque beggars and whores, and the final alienation is accomplished by pulling back to reveal the action has taken place on a music-hall stage, appropriately enough for a production that's more Lionel 'Oliver' Blair than Brecht. The acting talent is shamefully misused: Migenes and Walters are good but don't have to try very hard: Migenes at least has a great voice and some feel for the material. Julia looks perfect as Mack, but struggles with the character, straitjacketed by a fake plummy accent. Harris's Peachum is embarrassingly mannered and Polly is atrocious. The adaptations of lyrics, script and music are often awkward: it was a bad move to base the film on Marc Blitzstein's bowdlerised Broadway version, but at least his words were singable, unlike most of what's been interpolated in gestures of faithfulness. And the attempt at overcoming the low budget by filming at claustrophobic angles on mist-shrouded sets lit in garish blues and oranges as if by some bargain-basement Vittorio Storaro fails utterly -- the film just looks cheap, shoddy and thoughtlessly made. Disgraceful.
\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 different in that it didn't show the typical gay stereotypes that I'm used to seeing. But that doesn't change the fact that it totally lacks a storyline. I'm sure that there are many gay men who are just happy to see themselves depicted on screen, since Black gay characters are seldom seen, and when they are the characters are usually not fully developed. But, how hard would it have been for the writer to actually script a story with a beginning, middle and end. Or how about a story that was focused. There really doesn't seem to be a point to this film, and even though it is a low budget film, that is still no excuse for the lack of story or plot.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.
The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.
Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got 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\nChannel surfing and caught this on LOGO. It was one of those \"I have to watch this because it's so horribly bad\" moments, like Roadhouse without the joy. The writing is atrocious; completely inane and the acting is throw-up-in-your-mouth bad.
There's low budget and then there is the abyss which is where this epic should be tossed and never seen from again. I mean, the main characters go to a ski retreat in some rented house and the house is, well, ordinary which is no big deal, but they choose to show all the houseguests pouring over it like it was the Sistine Chapel. I'm sorry but watching 6 guys stare into every 10'x10' boring room with a futon in it and gushing is lame. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bad News Bears in Breaking Training (see hotel room check scene)...wow a toilet !!! yaayyyyy !!!! I don't buy the its all over the top so anything goes routine. If it smells like...and it looks like...well, you know the rest.
Avoid like the plague.
edit: Apparently other more close minded reviewers believe that since I disliked this movie, I am an \"obvious hater\" which I can only assume means I am phobic, which of course is not true. I decided to do this wacky, crazy thing and judge the movie based on the actual content of the film and not by its mere presence (i.e. its refreshing to see...)
Sure, it may be refreshing to see but that doesn't equate into a great movie, just give them some better material to work with and tighter direction. In fact, I applaud the effort. Frankly, I'd rather go listen to my Kitchens of Distinction catalogue than watch this again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'll just be vague about my potential spoiling comments. There are enough canned plot elements in this movie that it's essentially pre-spoiled.
This movie derives a few ideas from a Southern classic, To Kill A Mockingbird. I suppose maybe TKOM got its ideas from some source.... at any rate, after you watch this, you'll say, \"Oh yeah, that is a ripoff\".
I think the truly entertaining thing about these McMovies is once you've identified a plot element, is to figure out whether they'll stick with the original, or try to twist it around. Not a lot of twists in 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\nWhen this film plays on television you might want to save about 90 minutes of your time and change the channel. There's nothing special here that you need to see. Story is about two married couples from Arkansas who go on a trip together to Reno. Couple number one is Lonnie Earl Dodd (Billy Bob Thornton) who is a car dealer and having problems with his marriage. His wife is Darlene (Natasha Richardson) and she has a low self opinion of herself and they haven't been intimate in a long time. Lonnie has been sleeping with Candy (Charlize Theron) who is the wife of his best friend Roy Kirkendall (Patrick Swayze). They all drive to Reno and the four of them stay in one luxurious suite. Roy and Candy have been trying to have a baby and finally Candy discovers that she is pregnant. But Roy phones his doctor in Arkansas and finds out that he's sterile. Candy and Lonnie admit their affair and now the whole trip is in chaos. This film is directed by Jordan Brady and he's made a few other low budget films but this is his first with a cast this impressive. Unfortunately Brady doesn't show much comedic flair but you can't lay all the blame on him. This script is just not funny and one of the glaring problems is that the characters are all written down to a sitcom level. Just because they're all from the south doesn't mean that they have to be naive and idiotic. Thornton's character doesn't have the sophistication to tip the bellboy more than a dollar. And Swayze's character is called stupid and dumb by everyone throughout the film and one of the rare good moments comes when he asks everyone to lay off of him for at least one day. Penelope Cruz pops up as a prostitute and it's a totally worthless and pointless cameo. She barely speaks more than 3 or 4 lines! I think she was fulfilling an obligation to Harvey and Bob Weinstein who are executive producers for this film. The only person who actually isn't to bad is Richardson. We watch her become more confident in herself but this plotline in the film is very obvious and cliche. All of these actors should know better and it's hard to figure that they all read the script and liked it. It's a complete waste of time for these actors but at least they got paid. As for the viewers, your not getting paid so skip 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\n
What an absolutely crappy film this is. How or why this movie was made and what the hell Billy Bob Thornton and Charlize Theron were doing signing up for this mediocre waste of time is beyond me. Strong advise for anyone sitting down to catch a flick: DO NOT waste your time on 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've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).
We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.
Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.
Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.
An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.
I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.
Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?
One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!
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\nBeing a fan of Billy Bob Thornton, and the diversity of his skills, I noticed this movie listed, and was surprised I hadn't heard of it.
I'd traveled more than usual during both the period it was being filmed in 2000, and when it hit theaters more than 2-1/2 years later (that passage of time is the first clue all was not well with the production).
Now Patrick Swayze can't act for sour apples, but Thornton has more than enough ability to make-up for the difference between them. And Charlize Theron is someone whom it would be a pleasure to see, even if it showed her watching paint dry.
Being curious, I checked this site's production info. It made a whopping < $600 per screen its opening weekend, and just over $400 each, after its month's theater run in latter 2002. Overall gross was $261K, which I'd doubt could cover cast and crew's hotel and food for a week on location.
The story is pretty benign, and even the use of the usually interesting locale of Reno is as dull as the rest of the goings-on.
It's something like several SNL bits all pieced together, none individually too great at all, and the overall presentation even worse.
Whatever, the expenses for this production had to be considerable - even if all worked for less than their usual fees - so the one thing which made it a barely tolerable opus was the quality of the filming and Billy Bob's present (albeit understandably somewhat laconic here , compared with his usual work.
Think of the three superb, totally diverse characters he portrayed in \"Sling Blade,\" \"Bandits\" and \"Bad Santa,\" and you know he realized this work was below standard, long before the viewers had the opportunity to confirm this. One star for him, even here, and one because production was better than, say, the typical \"Lifetime\" flick.
\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 hate redneck accents, you'll hate this movie. And to make it worse, you see Patrick Swayze, a has been trying to be a redneck. I really can't stand redneck accents. I like Billy Bob Thornton, he was good in Slingblade, but he was annoying in this movie. And what kind of name is Lonnie Earl? How much more hickish can this movie get? The storyline was stupid. I'm usually not this judgemental of movies, but I couldn't stand this movie. If you want a good Billy Bob Thornton movie, go see Slingblade.
My mom found this movie for $5.95 at Wal Mart...figures...I think I'll wrap it up and give it to my Grandma for Christmas. It could just be that I can't stand redneck accents usually, or that I can't stand Patrick Swayze. Maybe if Patrick Swayze wasn't in it. I didn't laugh once in the movie. I laugh at anything stupid usually. If they had shown someones fingers getting smashed, I might have laughed. people's fingers getting smashed by accident always makes me laugh.
\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\nSimply, I found the TV show \"Mash\" trite, preachy, oh ever so \"politically correct\", repetitious, pretentious and biggest sin of all, and that is,? that it is (was) incredibly dull. You have Alan Alda as the main lead, \"(star)\", who is so in love with himself and his cleverness, that it actually made me uncomfortable to even try and sit through an episode. The original series had both McLean Stevson, and Wayne Rogers, whom I'll happily admit had a certain panache and style to their character presentation. However, Harry (Henry) Morgan, and Mike Farrell, both singularly and compositely together is like eating caviar and fresh oysters with Wonder Bread. Loretta Swit, which I also found dull, also to no fault of her own wasn't a wonder to look at, and Gary Burghoff, who was good in the movie got tired looking and acting as the show wore on. Seeing one show a year showed that to me. Jamie Farr was just low brow \"comedy\" and is not even worth really mentioning here at all. The reason I did not give it a (one) rating, which anyone reading this by now would be wondering, is that ratings of any sort is not only a subjective call, but a relative one. Television, except for relatively few exceptions, is such crud. That relatively speaking, Mash had some production quality, (by television standards) of that era and today, and therefore it is deserved of a two. Rob Ritter
\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 respect the fact that this is a very popular show. However, in comparison with Robert Altman's ingenious, hilarious, zany, and groundbreaking 1970 movie classic, this show was probably destined to be less-than-mediocre... even if it did run for 11 years, that doesn't necessarily make it any good. This show formed an all-too-integral part of my early childhood (it was on re-runs every night, and guess whose parents were watching it and laughing it up), but it's one of the memories I don't miss. And now that I actually have seen the movie, I can give this series an accurate critique. On its own, it's not nearly \"2 out of 10\" bad. However, the characters on this show are nothing like those in the movie. Some of them technically are the same, but they're only similar in name. For instance, since when is Alan Alda anything like Donald Sutherland? His style of humor is totally different, as are his characterization and outlook. The new characters are not that great; they just serve to make you miss the ones that they're replacing. It's the same with the new actors (including Jamie Farr). The only thing that actually transfers to the series is Radar, who's still (even though played by the same actor) merely a pale imitation of the original. What else? Oh, yeah. With a laugh track (it didn't matter whether it was used in surgery scenes or not), it comes across as creepy, due to what's going on in the other settings. And because it lasted nearly four times longer than the actual Korean War, it takes viewers into this bizarre temporal rift that doesn't work outside the world of cartoons. I've never liked this show, and I never will.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was so excited when I discovered this was available! I couldn't wait to see it. What a waste of energy! It's kind of like that rarities CD by your favorite band you found in the back of the rack at your local music store. Being a hard core fan you were certain that it was a valuable discovery. But once you heard it it became obvious why these dogs never made it onto a real album. This DVD is only recommended for 'completionists' who must have everything Lynch has done. \"Six Men Getting Sick\" is somewhat visually interesting but short and repetitive. It lacks the power of Lynch's later work \"The Grandmother\" is quite simply an immature work. It's tedious and looks like a student film. But it was the 70's...It's interesting only if you hope to psychoanalyze the director. But you can see, briefly, the seeds of some of his trademark images and sounds. \"The Alpahabet\" is forgettable (No really! I can't remember this one at all!) \"The Amputee\" is pointless. \"The Cowboy and the Frenchman\" is just plain silly. \"Lumiere\" is the only worthwhile one in the bunch. Without dialog Lynch tells a disturbing tale comparable with his best work. I had to watch this one several times. But it runs less than 2 minutes. Hardly worth the trouble of renting or buying the DVD.
\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 film in its entirety in the 1960s & 70s, yes it IS gruesome, and could be the progenitor of the \"Faces of Death\" series popular in the 80s & 90s. Considering the state of so-called \"driver education\" these days, this one should be required viewing for everyone preparing to learn to drive. When you see violent death in all its gore & horror, you certainly (if you have any sensibility at all) get a truer perspective on the responsibilities required to drive safely, what one instant of thoughtlessness or inattentiveness at the wheel can do. I worked for Bell Telephone in the 70s & 80s, and at one point was assigned to conduct a safety class. I found this film in the company library, showed it at the session, a number of people got physically sick and had to leave the room! Incredibly, most of them later said \"I never knew a car accident could be so terrible!\" This film, and another, \"RED ASPHALT\", is certainly reality in its most graphic form. I'll never forget it, I only wish I could have found a copy when my children were attending \"driver's ed\" in high school!
\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\nSupposedly a \"social commentary\" on racism and prison conditions in the rural South of the 1970's, \"Nightmare\" is full of bad Southern stereotypes, complete with phoney accents. Not only would it be offensive to the sensibilities of most American Southerners, this tawdry piece of work comes off as just a thinly-disguised \"babe in prison\" movie--especially in its uncut original version. Nevertheless, acting is generally above average and the late Chuck Connors, in particular, does a good job of making viewers hate him--even though he looks somewhat uncomfortable in several scenes. There's also a change-of-pace role for the late Robert Reed, who appears as the lecherous warden, and Tina Louise (previously Ginger of \"Gilligan's Island\") made a rather believable sadistic prison guard. My grade: D.

\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\nOriginally aired as an ABC Movie of the Week. This involves two young innocent female college students who are railroaded into a prison camp in a little Southern town. They aren't allowed phone calls and nobody knows they're there. What follows is rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and degradation leading to a very disturbing conclusion.
The TV version was (for its time) grim. No nudity and the beatings were pretty tame but the overall feeling of sleaziness wore one down. The unrated version is even worse--there's plentiful nudity, the violence is extreme and, in one particularly disgusting sequence, we see a crying female prisoner forced to strip while a lesbian guard \"uses\" her. YUCK! There's nothing wrong with exploitation films but this one just goes over the brink. You get the feeling that the filmmakers enjoy having these poor women being tortured and degraded--all this is shoved in your face like you're supposed to enjoy it. The needlessly downbeat ending doesn't help.
I'm giving it a 3 because the acting is good--but that actually makes the movie harder to watch. A sick, sleazy film. Not recommended.
\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 forever left an impression on me. I watched it as a Freshman in High School and was home alone that night. I think I lost all respect for Robert Reed as an actor having been a huge fan of the \"Brady Bunch\". I also thought the role of Chuck Connor was horrendous and evil. However, this movie made such an impact on me that I am now a volunteer in the women's state prison doing bible studies and church services and trying to change womens lives, one at a time. What fascinates me is that so few people actually watched this movie. None of my friends watched it and my family is clueless to this day when I discuss this movie because they didn't see 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\nNow for the truth, its very very weak storyline - for a Walt Disney film its total rubbish. When the robinson appear, the films all over the place, I was shocked how poor it was. It like \"alice in wonderland\" gone wrong!. It feels like they were short on ideas some mashed some crazy rubbish together to try and get away with it - and they don't. After that, I sat there wishing for the end. My younger brother lost interest half way through and was confused by the story. The characters are weak and after the robinsons appear you don't care about the ending, you just want the film to finish. Its a film to forget, and forget quickly. If you've got some spare time, don't waste it on this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie started out with some semblance of a plot, then abandoned it for an endless series of random characters and encounters that have nothing to do with moving the story forward. It was impossible to remain engaged with this film. This movie is a very cynical pile of garbage made by some people with animation skills but totally lacking in creativity or storytelling ability. It is a shockingly bad effort coming from a major studio. Clearly there are morale and motivation problems at Disney, not to mention a complete lack of oversight and quality control. That management allowed this movie to see the light of day speaks volumes about their incompetence and desperation. This movie joins my very short \"worst movies of all time\" list.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.
cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments.
...robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.
All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).
The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.
The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.
The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went to see this with my wife and 3 yr old son. He seemed to like it a lot more than my wife and I did. The writing is surprisingly poor for a pixar / Disney excursion. In fact, I had a very hard time paying attention at all. The movie does look amazing but the story just becomes so weird and long winded that I was hoping my son would fall asleep so I could pick him up and walk out.
Not to say that the film isn't an interesting concept, it's just told so oddly, (bad screenplay?) especially when we \"meet the family\" for the first time. I know we're supposed to get the impression that the family is wacky but good lord, they could've shortened that sequence by a good 15 minutes (seemingly, I didn't actually time it). By that point I was scratching my head looking for an exit.
\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 wanted to like this movie. But it falls apart in the middle. the whole premise is a good one and ties up nicely, but the middle runs off tangent. The people I watched with were getting annoyed while it ran off course, and hoping it would end sooner than it did. Another person actually fell asleep during the middle segment! I found myself day dreaming elsewhere during the Schtick parts that had nothing to do with the plot. I bought it for the eye candy and it delivered that well, but it lacks Pixar's writing and soul. I think kids 8 and under will enjoy the ride at face vaule, while missing the plot. People old enough to follow a plot will find it wonders too far to return quickly and easily. Edit out most of the middle section, make it 50 minutes and it would be a solid flick. I wish I had better things to say. But I don't
\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 kinda liked the film despite it's frenzied pace. BUT, I did not appreciate the comment that Canada was referred to as Montana North. It is definitely NOT Montana North and never will be. Americans wonder why they are perceived as arrogant in the rest of the world, and that is one reason why. Stop teaching the kids of the United States of America to think they own the planet. Such a centrist world view is not becoming of one of the world's great nations. Even in jest. I would never refer to the USA as 'Alberta South'. Walt would never put us down, so why start now. Other than that the film was pretty goofy, better luck next time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting \"Streetcar Named Desire\" in Elizabethan England.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt \"Bartleby, The Scrivener\" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.
\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 production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is \"unfilmable,\" but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.
\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 might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as \"Special Guest Star.\" Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the \"Partridge Family\" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for \"Charlie's Angels.\" As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.
The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their \"range.\" Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see \"McCloud\" and \"Duel\"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can't believe I waste my time watching this garbage! I did because Leonard Maltin gave it an \"AA\" rating, and for TV movies this is usually a reliable indicator of some quality entertainment.
The acting was OK, but whoever wrote it should be forever denied access to any medium of communication. The plot is ludicrous, the motivations of the \"bad guys\" totally absent, and the various family interactions silly and shallow. For example, Dad preaches that violent reaction to aggression is BAD, but he turns out to be an \"admirable\" person NOT because of his \"ignore the idiots\" philosophy, but because he's pretty good with his fists...
The ONLY message I was able to glean from this pap was that the nuclear family is Good and alternate living arrangements are Bad. Oh, and Bad people happen to Good people.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBeing born in the 1960's I grew up watching the TV \"Movies of the Week\" in the early 70's and loved the creepy movies that were routinely shown including \"Crowhaven Farm\", \"Bad Ronald\", \"Satan's School for Girls\", \"Kolchak the Night Stalker\", etc, but this one is just plain dumb.This is obviously the writer's trying to capitalize on the horrific Manson murders from a few years earlier. The movie stars Dennis Weaver of \"McCloud\" and \"Duel\" fame as a father who takes his family camping on a beach. The family encounters some hippies who for some reason decide to terrorize the family. The reason for this is never explained, and Weaver's pacifistic stance is hard to swallow. For God's sake, call the police, beat the hell of them or something, just don't sit there and whine about it. The acting is pretty lame, the story unbelievable, etc. Susan Dey looks cute in a bikini but that's about it. Ignore this if it ever airs on TV.
\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 is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny.
On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.
Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful \"Ninotchka\" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.
It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's \"Camille\", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.
However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the \"chica-choca\" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've never understood the appeal of Garbo. She always comes across in her films as stuck up, not all that alluring, and that annoying voice that could have drowned out the tuba section. She was also a very limited actress, like Gloria Swanson far better off left in the silent era. In this her last film, her performance is very average and even unassured. She tries hard but it all comes to nothing because the script is even worse than her acting.
A would be screwball romcom that is never once believable and never gets off the ground (even though Melvyn Douglas manages to get airborne in the skiing scenes, which are really the only amusing thing here).
There was potential but the script fails in almost every department, wasting every actor in it. Douglas and Garbo had good enough chemistry together but this one isn't even a spot on Ninotchka, which I also found to be extremely overrated.
\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\nPayback is the game being played in this drama and the revenge plot is undone by the absurd story line that sets the stage for the fireworks that come later. Why would a man become involved with the trophy wife of a ruthless mob boss in the gangster's own mansion with suspicious henchmen all around? Why would an unhappy wife encourage the attentions of a complete stranger and expect him to carry her away with him and leave her husband and boredom behind to live happily ever after with her new love? Surely the hero, here Kevin Costner, must have expected a reaction from the cuckold husband that gives the movie an excuse to indulge in senseless gore and violence. Anthony Quinn, great actor that he was, surely deserved better, and Madeleine Stowe is the tragic figure who suffers greatly as she latches on to her prince charming. Stowe is okay but her Spanish accent doesn't work. The cameos of the lesser players are good, especially Miguel Ferrer and John Leguizamo and Sally Kirkland is interesting as a fading rock star.
\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\nFaces are slashed, throats are cut, blood squirts, and in end the three main characters are either depressed or they die. They even blow up Kevin Costner's dog with a shotgun. Why would anyone want to see a movie like this? Violence is valid only when the good guys kill the bad guys, not the other way around. Take for instance Underworld and Underworld Evolution where you can enjoy seeing justice done when the demons are slain. In this movie, the good guys are cut up. See the difference? Why would anyone want to MAKE a movie that depresses the audience? Beautiful photography and skilled editing in a motion picture like this is a waste of talent. Let's put this one into the category of the exquisite corpse.
\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 wastes virtually every actor's talents in what could best be charitably called a \"potboiler\".
Despite it's action-packed 'Top Gun' opening it is all downhill from there with plenty of stereotypes and unlikely situations following each other until you try to choke yourself on your popcorn.
There are so many dead-end story lines in this movie I was guessing at one point it was made by splicing together a discarded TV series.
Quinn's Mexican drug-lord role is laughable and his 'associates' plucked right out of a 1970's Quinn-Martin cop show. Costner's character is wooden and gives us no reason to believe he actually fell in love with Mendez' wife. Nor are we convincingly led to believe the wife is aching for companionship and will jump the first hot body coming along.
Definitely a 'B' movie at best and a huge waste of time for everyone 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 just watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story.
Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie!
Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it?
Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!
Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing!
\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\nRevenge on us the viewing public perhaps. I sat through this 2 hour movie and i was waiting for the second act to kick in so that the movie lived up to its title. But Costner never avenges his lovers fate she dies and the movie ends. I was left wondering where the rest of the movie was. If a movie is called Revenge then the hero better get some by the end of the film. I had a choice of seeing this or Black Rain at the cinema thankfully i saw The other brothers movie at the cinema instead.i caught up with this turkey on video. there was one good thing about the film and was its beautiful theme tune. Listen to the cd.dont watch this its awful. 1 out of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"