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\nRipping this movie apart is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's too easy. So I'm going to challenge myself to acknowledge the positive aspects of Little Man. First, I'm impressed with the special effects. It really did look like Marlon Wayans' head was attached to the body of a little person. I never doubted it for a minute.
Secondly, I loved some of the unexpected cameos. David Alan Grier played an annoying restaurant singer, and his renditions of \"Havin' My Baby\" and \"Movin' On Up\" were priceless. John Witherspoon, who, coincidentally, played Grier's father in 1992's Boomerang (if you remember, he \"coordinated\" the mushroom belt with the mushroom jacket) now plays Vanessa's father in Little Man. So that was fun.
Beyond that, this movie is about as believable as White Chicks. How dumb is it when even the doctor can't tell that it's a 40-year-old man and not a baby? He's got a full set of teeth!!! How is it possible that no one seems to notice that it's not a baby? Little Man is so bad that there's a Rob Schneider cameo. And please, if you're stupid enough to waste $8 on this movie, at least do me a favor and DO NOT bring your children. This movie is way too sexual for small children (lots of jokes and innuendo about sex, going down, eating out, etc.), and I felt embarrassed for the parents who brought their kids to the screening I was forced to endure. If you insist on seeing an idiotic film, as least spare your children the pain and suffering.
\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 just realised that by watching this film I have lost valuable precious moments of my life I will never get back. Thsi film isn't just poor its dire. It reminded me of every stereotypical black sitcom ever made.
I regret watching this film.
Flixmedia reckons its a race issue, apparently \"White\" people don't like it because it doesn't have white actors. Mate, I think you'll find the reason why no one liked this was because watching paint dry is far more entertaining and funnier then this pile of drivel.
Please stop making crap films
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I saw that IMDb users rated this movie the bottom 250 movies, I thought it was too harsh but little did I know that the low rating was absolutely correct.
I am a big fan of the Wayans brothers. I loved their Scary Movie 2 and even enjoyed White Chicks. Little Man, however, had very few laughs and the jokes were stale.
Obviously, the joke will revolve around Marlon Wayans, who plays a grown midget that was recently let out of prison. He and his partner, Tracy Morgan, steal a diamond meant for a gangster. Things go awry and the midget has to place the diamond with an unsuspecting couple played by Shawn Wayans and Kerry Washington. In order to get the diamond back, the midget pretends to be an abandoned baby left on the unsuspecting couples doorstep. Of course, he is taken in and the drama begins on quest for the diamond.
The movie has some actors and actresses from Saturday Night Live like Molly Shannon and Rob Schneider as well from In Living Colour. All these talents, however, cannot help the poor script and the jokes which simply was not funny.
The special effects to make Marlon Wayans to look like a midget was OK. I mean, it was not 100% believable but it was OK...nothing great. I just wish that the Wayans brothers had put more effort into developing a script with good jokes rather than trying to shore up their poor script with cameos from their famous comedic actors and actresses.
Wait for it on cable or television. It really is not worth any amount of money.
\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...Ever. This is the bottom. I am not joking. The theater should've had a warning of some kind. 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' would've been fitting.
I don't have the words to describe accurately the hell that this movie is. Its debilitating stupidity even fails to amuse. This movie is definitely aimed at some of the slower turtles in the sandbox. The story was blatantly stolen from a 10 minute Bugs Bunny cartoon and then stretched like Mr. Fantastic to 90 excruciatingly painful minutes.
I remember when the Wayans's were funny. I guess the pressures of Hollywood for them to produce produce produce are to blame for the poop that churns out at a consistent rate. I'm sad and offended that they think we are stupid enough to enjoy 90 minutes of kick-in-the-balls jokes with a thin plot based on a cartoon.
I disliked nearly everything about this movie. I won't spoil anything but the baby is actually a midget with Marlon Wayans's face poorly superimposed over the midget's body. What I DID like was the ending. Not the movie's resolution, but the actual end where we all stood up and walked out.
I gave this movie one star, but it clearly deserves less. I don't feel that the six minutes they spent writing the script is worth a star. This does deserve a Razzie and I pray to God it gets it.
When are people going to learn; if you stop paying to see this idiocy they will stop pooping it out. Seppuku is a reasonable alternative to this film. Avoid it at all costs. You have been warned.
\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 was a Bugs Bunny cartoon titled \"Baby Buggy Bunny\" that was EXACTLY this plot. Baby-faced Finster robbed a bank and the money in the carriage rolled away and fell into Bug's rabbit hole. He dressed up as a baby to get into Bugg's hole to retrieve the money. The scene in \"Little Man\" where he's looking in the bathroom mirror shaving with a cigar in his mouth is straight from the cartoon. This was a hilarious 5-minute cartoon; not so much an entire movie. If you are really interested in this, buy the Bugs Bunny DVD. It's was much more original the first time (1954). Plus you'll get a lot more classic Bugs Bunny cartoons to boot!
\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 are some extremely talented black directors Spike Lee,Carl Franklin,Billy Dukes,Denzel and a host of others who bring well deserved credit to the film industry . Then there are the Wayans Brothers who at one time(15,years ago) had an extremely funny television show'In Living Colour' that launched the career of Jim Carrey amongst others . Now we have stupidity substituting for humour and gross out gags(toilet humour) as the standard operating procedure . People are not as stupid as those portrayed in 'Little Man' they couldn't possibly be . A baby with a full set of teeth and a tattoo is accepted as being only months old ? Baby comes with a five o'clock shadow that he shaves off . It is intimated that the baby has sex with his foster mother behind her husbands,Darryl's, back .Oh, yea that is just hilarious . As a master criminal 'Little Man' is the stupidest on planet earth . He stashes a stolen rock that is just huge in a woman's purse and then has to pursue her . Co-star Chazz Palminteri,why Chazz, offers the best line: \"I'm surrounded by morons.\" Based, without credit, on a Chuck Jones cartoon, Baby Buggy Bunny . This is far too stupid to be even remotely funny . A clue as to how bad this film is Damon Wayans appeared on Jay Leno the other night,prior to the BAT awards and he did not,even mention this dreadful movie . When will Hollywood stop green lighting trash from the Wayans Brothers . When they get over their white mans guilt in all likelihood .
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's here. finally a movie comes out that I can honestly say is worse than Larry the cable guy: health inspector. Yet I'm willing to bet the the wayan's brothers(hilarious) will make more money than I ever make in my whole life on what is sure to be one of the top five worst films of all time, outside of my fifth grade outside the class re-enactment of romeo and Juliet. I mean really WHY would anyone ever ever see this movie unless they were paid to. The comedy is weak and all even remotely funny jokes from the flimsy plot were surely revealed in commercials. Final word is this movie was a terrible letdown for me. And the commercials looked so promising...
\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\nLike some of the other reviewers have alluded to previously, I'd like to know what moron actually read the script and went', \"Yea!!! This is it. This is the next film we are going to green light!!\" And whoever that person is, should have his or her head examined for actual brain activity. Because whoever is responsible for actually dishing out money to have this made after reading the script, well, I'd love to give you my email address and maybe you'd like to just give away some more money. This film is atrocious in every way.
The Wayans are funny, at least they can be. They have made some good films and had some incredibly funny performances along the way. But in here, not only does the premise defy all logic, not only is the acting terrible, not only is the entire movie offensive from start to finish, not only is the direction as amateurish as you can find, but they actually want you to pay to see this film. Maybe if it was free...naaah, it would still be a waste of time.
Usually I'd be inclined to write some long winded, detailed review about why this film is so bad, but just suffice to say that let my brevity do the talking. This is the lowest common denominator film making and it is about as unfunny as a heart attack.
0/10..makes my top ten list of worst films of all 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 movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole \"Little Man\" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a \"Black Comedy\". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!
\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 exactly the reason why many people remain homeless . . . because stupid producers pay their money to make awful films like this instead of donating if they can bother!
This film is even worse than white chicks! Little Man has a lame excuse for posing a character midget as a baby. Story is awful considering it was written by six people. The idea still wouldn't be too bad though, if it was original and not a rip-off of a cartoon episode. it has funny moments but some of them are way over-done and some are just stupid. The acting was very, very bad. So was the directing. Anyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves. it is racist and very offensive to midgets. I mean, instead of showing sympathy to them, the film-makers make fun of them! It really disgusts me how they do it. They see midgets being just like babies. And for a character who is a midget, pretending to be an abandoned baby just to get a diamond from a certain family. That is its lame excuse for showing something like that. It just was not worth it. Don't watch this film. It is a huge waste of time and money.
\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\"Little Man\", now on DVD, is a Wayans Brothers flop. It's the tale of a smaller than a midget criminal played by Marlon Wayans, who hides a diamond in a lady's purse after a heist. He and his partner Tracy Morgan cook up the genius plan to disguise Marlon as a baby and plant him at the lady's home. He then goes through all sorts of \"Home Alone\" or \"Child's Play\" like mayhem to get the jewel back and be treated like a baby. I was surprised by how low the humor was in this film. The jokes have been done in other places so many times, that they aren't cute or funny. I almost think the movie might have been funnier if they didn't use CGI and used the small actor who Marlon's face was pasted over. In watching the deleted scenes (minus CGI) this actor was funny in a Mini-me like way, but they chose a different route. A few cameos and Tracy Morgan make some funny scenes..Spend your rental fee $ on Borat if you want some real laughs these days.
http://mcmusicnotes.blogspot.com
\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\nAmerica. A land of freedom, of hope and of dreams. This is the nation that, since its independence, has striven to bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the entire world, for the good of all mankind. There are times, however, when one cannot help but wish that the American's would just stay on their side of the Atlantic.
This 'movie' (and I use that word with some reservations) evokes these feelings with an intense purity. This vision of hell follows the adventures of Calvin, a freakish jewel thief who was created by attaching the severed head of Marlon Wayan onto the body of a two foot-high dwarf. After inadvertently dropping a large diamond into the handbag of Vanessa, a career-woman who is reluctant to have children, Calvin realises that in order to recover the diamond he must ingratiate himself with her. So, as any normal man would, Calvin dresses himself up as a 2 year-old and parks himself upon the poor woman's doorstep, where he is discovered by Darryl, the broody husband of Vanessa.
Darryl incongruously falls for Calvin's disguise despite the fact that the 'baby' has a full set of teeth, stubble, a tattoo, a knife-scar, and the sex-drive of a 16-year-old. Even more absurdly, Vanessa doesn't see past Calvin's baby-wear either and actually attempts to breastfeed the diminutive pervert. This wretched assault upon the soul of mankind attempts, and fails, to find humour in rape, scatology, sexual assault, and paedophilia, however, in a dishonest attempt to transform itself into a piece of 'family-entertainment' the Wayan brothers stir in a sickening amount of sentiment and flawed morality.
The brothers dim attempt a Freudian rehabilitation of their thieving rapist by revealing that he \"had a bad father\". Repeatedly hitting Darryl in the crotch enables Calvin to develop the loving father-son relationship that both he and Darryl have always wished for. As if this wasn't ridiculous enough, Calvin's attempts to sexually assault Vanessa somehow convince her that it is selfish for a woman to indulge herself with a successful career, and that instead she should spend her life playing the role of the housebound little-woman, who spends her time alternatively squeezing out babies and cooking for her husband.
In this movie the Wayan brothers have mixed their crass and twisted form of humour together with the clichéd sentimentality that has infected much of Hollywood's recent body of work. Additionally, they are endemic of the current generation of black comedians who are responsible for transforming African-American humour into a poor and wretched shadow of itself that over-indulges in fart-jokes and crude sexual gags. By rights these two should be legally barred from picking up anything even remotely resembling a camera ever again.
Unfortunately the current artistic and moral bankruptcy of American cinema means that by this time next month they will undoubtedly have filmed two sequels and be making millions of dollars from tacky merchandising deals.
\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's the point of reviewing a movie like this? It's painfully and embarrassingly bad, not even in a way that allows you to make fun of it.
Movies like \"Little Man\" depress me. They represent film at its most disposable. This movie was made for a bunch of 18-24 year old dipsh*t frat boys who the studio was hoping would come out and see it on opening night before word leaked out about how bad it was, so that the film could quickly recoup its investment.
A hundred other filmmakers with great ideas probably couldn't get their films made because resources were going toward making this puddle of vomit.
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\nI was not impressed about this film especially for the fact that I went to the cinema with my family in good faith to see a film which was certificate rated 12A here in the UK. To my dismay, this film was full of embarrassing sexual jokes. (Which is not a problem to me as an adult, but not good for watching with children). This film at times was very crude at times with fart jokes, getting hit in the groin etc... and for the most part of the film not very funny.
The premise of the film is that Calvin Sims who is a 2inch midget, gets out of jail and steals a giant sized diamond but is then forced to put it in a womens handbag. So the rest of the movie sees him passing himself off as an abandoned baby, getting into this womens house so he can get this diamond back.
Up until now, I have enjoyed most of the output from the Wayans Brothers - but this film is certainly taking the biscuit.
A Bit of good advice - wait till it comes on TV or Cable
\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 catogoricaly and unequivocally say that in all my 51 years on this planet that is the worse (supposibly children's) film i have ever seen in my life.
I took my three grand children to see it and even they were struggling to raise a smile during the all tortuous 90 mins. The sexual indendoes i will leave for another day but they were as tasteless as the film. They should pay YOU to watch it not you pay them. It's truly truly awful, there is no other way to describe it. The people that made this film should be brought to task for taking money under false pretences.
Aplogise for my spelling mistakes but i am so upset that it spoilt the time i had with my grandchildren Regards, Stephen
\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 think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called \"jokes\" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face
\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\nSince this picture is classified a \"pure entertainment\" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.
\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 watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not.
The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.
\"But its a comedy \" some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ?
\"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs\" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more.
If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man.
\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 piece of crap, since I can't call it a movie, can be summed up by the following.
-Stereotypical black criminal with black midget partner get in trouble -Black Midget pretends to be a baby with a fully developed adult face, body hair and genitalia -Black midget is mistaken(somehow) by man and woman who happen to want a baby -Black midget than goes on to commit acts of physical and sexual violence, demean white people wherever he sees them, and commit more crimes -Happy Ending
Honestly, it could have been a good satire if it hadn't been directed so shallowly and had such talentless bastards star in 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\n'SherryBaby' is quite a painful and sordid melodrama set in Jersey, the story of a young mother who is out of jail on probe after a drugs-related conviction and fights to stay clean, to find a place for herself in life and especially to win back the love of her kid daughter who is being taken care by her brother's family. The only reason the film is to be watched is Maggie Gyllenhaal, an actress at the top of her career, who fits very well in the role and carries the whole film on her shoulders. This is not enough however, as the story line is too simplistic and expected, and the emotional emphasis is put on the wrong place - I kept asking myself all over the picture whether I am supposed to be sorry about the ex and maybe future drug addicted mother as the director and script-writer wanted, or about the innocent kid who is in the middle. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal's acting could not convince me that I should not care more about the kid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a simple tale but it feels very manipulative. It lacks pathos for it does not leave a room for imagination or a personal thought or time for reflection.
The animation is well done but I feel like it is too presentational. I would have preferred more images from behind, more space in the background and maybe then this would not feel so kitsch to me.
But for a Hollywood style film it works OK but it is very derivative of Aardman films and this is bothering to me. Perhaps a longer film will test if this maker can do without the voice-over.
I think the voice over is too glib.
\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 see the guys doing the budget preparation for this flick. \"Well lets see now, we spend 50% getting Dirk Benidict, cause Battle Star Galactic and the A-Team were cool. The we spend 40% making a Demon Costume, never mind that the Demon is supposed to be incorporeal in the script. And we spend the rest making the movie.\" This was pretty bad and VERY cliche.... Have a loved one present when watching (or bring a good book)
\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 gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because I think \"The Wild Women of Wongo\" is worse. This is an exercise in patience. It's like having your teeth cleaned by a bad dental hygienist. There's no plot. There's no logic. There is certainly no acting (although the shark has some quality dialogue). We don't wonder about anything. We don't know how people got where they got. It's always amazing to me how things like this even get released. I agree with the previous writer that it isn't even funny bad. I know. It's about 90 minutes long and that will fill up about that much space on a DVD collection. It's like a paperweight. Or a bad painting you bought at a starving artists' sale. It covers the crack in the wall.
\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 really bad movie. I've racked my brain and I cannot come up with one positive comment to make. The acting is atrocious. I've seen more believable performances on cable access. The plot is ridiculous. Stolen diamonds, secret recordings of the President, and a shark that attacks anything that gets near it should have made for cheesy fun at the worst. Night of the Sharks isn't even so bad it's good. The dialogue sounds and is delivered as if it were written seconds before it's filmed. And to top it off, Night of the Sharks has the worst soundtrack I've ever heard. I'm surprised my ears didn't start bleeding from the 80s techno synthesized sounds that someone actually bothered to record.
From everything I've read, the Italian film industry was dead by 1987. Night of the Sharks is like a final nail in the coffin.
\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-SPOILES- Lame south of the border adventure movie that has something to do with the blackmail of a big cooperate executive Rosenlski the president of Unasco Inc. by on the lamb beachcomber David Ziegler who's living the life of Reilly, or Ziegler, in his beach house in Cancun Mexico.Having this CD, that he gave to his brother James, that has three years of phone conversations between Rosenlski and the President of the United States involved in criminal deals. This CD has given David an edge over the international mobsters who are after him.
The fact that James get's a little greedy by trying to shake down Rosenlski for 2 million in diamonds not only cost him his life but put David in danger of losing his as well. Ropsenlski want's to negotiate with David for the CD by getting his ex-wife Liz to talk to him about giving it up, Rosnelski made a deal to pay off her debts if she comes through. David is later killed by Rosenliski's Mexican hit-man Tony, with the help of a great white shark, who just doesn't go for all this peaceful dealings on his boss' part.
Tony had taken the CD that Liz left for his boss at a local hotel safe and now want's to murder James, like he did David, and at the same time keep the CD to have something over Rosenlski.
David who had secretly hidden the diamonds that James had on him at the time of his murder is now the target of Tony and his men to shut him up for good. David also wants to take the diamonds and at the same time give his boss Rosenlski the impression that the CD that David had is lost but use it later, without Rosenlski knowing who's behind it,to blackmail him.
The movie \"Night of the Sharks\" has a number of shark attacks in it with this huge one-eyed white shark who ends up taking out about a half dozen of the cast members including Tony. David who's a firm believer in gun-control uses knives high explosives and Molotov cocktails, as well as his fists, to take out the entire Tony crew. Even the killer shark is finished off by Tony but with a hunting knife, not a gun. When it came to using firearms to save his friend and sidekick Paco a girlfriend Juanita and his priest Father Mattia lives from Tony and his gang guns were a no-no with David; he was more of a knife and spear man then anything else.
The ending of the movie was about as predictable as you can make it with David thought to be killed by the one-eyed shark later pops up out of the crowd,after Rosenlski was convinced that he's dead and leaves the village. David continues his life as a free living and loving beachcomber with no one looking to kill him and about two million dollars richer. to David's credit he had his friend Paco give Rosenski back his CD but under the conditions that if anything happened to him his cousin, who Rosenlski doesn't know who and where he is, will shoot his big mouth off and let the whole world know about his dirty and criminal dealings.
\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's to like about this movie???
It is in colour!
It has some impressive underwater photography!
It has a rhythmic musical score in the background that works well at times!
So 3 out of 10!
Sometimes the music is speeded up! Especially when the shark or the baddies are about to move in!
Sometimes it is slowed! As if to convey to the audience it's about to be time for sympathy!
As another one bites the dust! As if in a \"spagetti Western\" this has much similarity to!
It's not that the Italians can't produce quality productions! There was a series of TV movies with a heading like \"Octopus\" numbered about 1 to 7, screened on SBS TV in Australia in the 1990s about mafia-type conflicts! And they were excellent! But alas, you won't find it here!!!
I assumed it was made about 1960s! Sadly it was 20 years out of date, as evidenced by a funeral scene near the end!
Then there was the razor-sharp bite of the speedy shark that makes for a red dust repeatedly emerging in the bluish waters!
Amidst it all, either in bar-room brawl or in observing the latest sea-side bloody demolition by the relentlessly hungry shark, the mate of the hero looks on through his glasses of little concern, as if he too was bored in his relentless role amidst a lack of much evidence of plot or anyone's character development!
At least the hero indicates a fleeting concern belatedly, for his ex-wife!
But of course, even if the music fails to awaken our realisation, we have the sinister sound in the baddies' voices, as if to nudge us that another dark deed is about to emerge!
And near the end, someone thought of a twist! Just when we thought it was all totally predictable! But stay tuned, folks, for you may find another twist! If you are watching closely! To, more or less, warm your heart!
Follow the advice of the hero, and have a few beers along the way! It'll make your viewing of \"Night of the Sharks\" more enjoyable!
Then you'll be ready for something like a \"007\" movie to ease your way back into reality when this is over!!!
\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\nDespite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe \"Fatty\" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in \"meet cute\" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.
\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 isn't one of Arbuckle's or Keaton's better films, that's for sure. Fatty's wife is tired of all his heavy drinking, so she takes him to a sanitarium where a psychiatrist (Keaton) claims to have a guaranteed cure! Well, once there, Arbuckle accidentally eats a thermometer and is taken to surgery. Then, he escapes and is chased about the place where he meets a cute girl who also wants to escape. Finally, despite staff chasing them about, they escape at which point it becomes apparent that the girl is crazy and Arbuckle is soon recaptured. However, he awakens and everything AFTER the surgery has all been a dream--there was no sexy crazy girl and Dr. Keaton isn't as big an incompetent as he seemed in the dream.
A lack of humor is the biggest problem with the film. Sure, making fun of mentally ill people is pretty low, but in its day it was guaranteed laughs. I'd laugh, too, if there was just something funny to respond to! A lot of energy and that's all.
FYI--during one of the chase sequences, Fatty wonders into a race for men over 200 pounds (wow, what are the odds of that?). And, shortly after this, he backs into a post on which the number 5 was just freshly painted. As a result, the five is now on the back of Fatty's shirt and he looks like a regular participant. HOWEVER, the number SHOULD have appeared backwards on Fatty's shirt but came out front-ways--a mistake, as they should have realized the mirror image would have been a backwards 5.
\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\nMan oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon!
\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\nPeter Fonda is so intentionally enervated as an actor that his lachrymose line-readings cancel out any irony or humor in the dialogue. He trades sassy barbs and non-witty repartee with Brooke Shields as if he were a wooden block with receding hair; even his smaller touches (like fingering a non-existent mustache on his grizzled face) don't reveal a character so much as an unsure actor being directed by himself, an unsure filmmaker. In the Southwest circa 1950, a poor gambler (not above a little cheating) wins an orphaned, would-be teen Lolita in a botched poker game; after getting hold of a treasure map promising gold in the Grand Canyon, the bickering twosome become prospectors. Some lovely vistas, and an odd but interesting cameo by Henry Fonda as a grizzled canyon man, are the sole compensations in fatigued comedy-drama, with the two leads being trailed by cartoonish killers who will stop at nothing until they get their hands on that map. Shields is very pretty, but--although the camera loves her pouty, glossy beauty--she has no screen presence (and her tinny voice has no range whatsoever); every time she opens her mouth, one is inclined to either cringe or duck. *1/2 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\nWanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths.
The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAny movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.
\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\nBeaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda \"Nevada\"(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.
That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.
If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI rented this movie because it falls under the genres of \"romance\" and \"western\" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.
Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.
I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.
\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\nQuite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill \"One-Take\" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville.
\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 came back from \"El Otro\" playing here in Buenos Aires and I have to say I was very disappointed. The film is very slow moving (don't get me wrong, I enjoy slow moving films!), slow to the point of driving you crazy. All you hear is Julio Chavez breathing heavily throughout the whole film. This is a poorly made film, but more importantly, it is a film without a lick of inspiration, I felt nothing for the story or its characters.
\"El Otro\" was made only for the sake of making a film... making it forgetful. I would advise you to pass on this one, if you want to see good Argentinian films, look for films by Sorin.
\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\nGuy walking around without motive... I will never get those two hours of my life back. The guy kept on assuming identities and cheating on his pregnant wife. What was I thinking? How did this win a price anywhere? I understood he loved his father but other than that the movie was completely senseless to me. What was the purpose of walking so much and going to the funeral of a stranger for no apparent reason. How did this enrich his life??? Why did we have to see the dying old lady on her underwear????!!! Why???!!!!
I though it would be deep or about something more interesting. I do not recommend the movie even to leave on while sleeping...
\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 finished watching \"El Otro\". I have always taken my hat off to Julio Chavez's performances, as he is a great actor, but this movie is really depressing and slow. I guess that it would have been even worse if it wasn't for Julio. Anyways, this is definitely a film that you will never understand if you are not from Argentina, and even if you are, I would advise you not to rent this movie in order to have a nice time with your girlfriend, boyfriend, family or friends... it is really depressing and incredibly slow, and the plot does not make a lot of sense neither. Probably the director wanted to show the fragility of the human life, but what he does is bore and impress the audience with scenes that shock you a little bit. It gives you something to think about, but not in a good way. Overall, I definitely didn't like this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe title should have been \"The walker\". That was only he did walk.
There was nothing on the movie that was good. The description of the movie doesn't really comply with the plot.
The only thing that I can get from the movie is that he was a good son, but a low life terrible person.
I'm sorry that I expend my money and time, on this movie. I saw people leaving the theater in the middle of the movie. I stayed hoping that it will better....what a mistake. I got worse.
If there is a suggestion that I can make to he producer is to re-direct his life to another field, because making movies is definitely no his cup of tea
\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 title should have been the walker. The guy expend 90% of the movie walking. He doesn't know what he wants, or what he is. Go through life stealing peoples identity for nothing. He gets no benefit, no money, nothing pretending to be another person.
No body was able to understand why he was pretending to be somebody else.
The only thing that was clear in this movie is that he love his father and was a good son. But the rest was crap.
May be director is a looser that would like to be somebody else. But what he really should do is to get a real job, because after his movie, I don't think he has a chance to make as a movie producer.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"