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\nIf it wasn't for some immature gullible idiot I know insisting that I watch this \"documentary\" I would never have seen this comedy! This film is full of bad scripting and laughable moments. One in particular is where the Afghan police / soldiers arrest Don Larson for filming in the streets while they allow the cameraman to carry on filming his arrest and then drive away, still filming, presumably to his plush hotel. Then there's the scene where a car crashes into another car which has been turned upside down and parked nicely on the side of the road without any evidence of it being in a crash or explosion.
I am surprised this has currently got the rating it has (5.8 / 10). I thought IMDb users had more sense.
\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 fails miserably on every level. I have an idea, let's take everyone involved in this movie and ship them into a hot zone in the middle east. Maybe if we're lucky they'll all be shot and killed and we won't have to ever have our time wasted by them again. Did I mention that I have never been so bitter about a cinematic pile of crap in my entire life? My god, I can't think of anything I've ever seen that was this bad. I'd rather watch Ishtar 25 times in a row than sit through 10 minutes of this sorry excuse for a film. If I ever happen to meet anyone who was involved in this film, I'll spit in their face and then beat them senseless. That's my two cents.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, basically, the movie blows! It's Blair Witch meets Sean Penn's ill conceived fantasy about going to Iraq to show the world what the \"War on Terror\" is really about. The script sounds like it was written by 8th grader (no offense to 8th graders); the two main actors over-act the entire film; they used the wrong kind of camera and the wrong type of film(not that i know anything about those things--but it just didn't look like real documentaries I've watched), and worst of all Christian Johnson took a great idea and made it suck. It reminded me of the time I tried to draw a picture of my dog and ended up with a really bad stick figure looking thing that looked more like a giant turd. I'd rather watch the Blair Witch VIII, than sit through that 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\nAmateurish in the extreme. Camera work especially overwrought - documentary camera operators needn't spin around ALL THE TIME.
The script is truly inane, and the acting is even worse. On top of that, the story is disjointed and meandering - with some gaping holes in logic. At one point the lead wishes to get thrown in jail in order to rub shoulders with suspected Al-Quada operatives, and thus get an interview with Osama. I found the story entirely unbelievable as a result of so many flaws. The \"filmmaker\"/lead role really portrays a rash, idiot frat boy. The only item of interest really, is that the filmmakers did in fact film on location. It's truly a shame they wasted their opportunity to make something interesting.
Who financed this crap?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was going to get up and leave at Tape 4 but I stuck it out. I now consider myself a Masochist! Afghanistan? Come on guys! Who's the idiot who forgot to hide the Sanskrit billboards? I thought the lead actor(George Calil) was particularly inept. Apart from the bad acting and over zealous camera shake, I thought using the events of 9/11 as a reason to make \"Larson the Lunatic Implodes, all over a screen near you\" disgraceful and irreverent to the victims of 9/11. Using a phone call from Larson's wife, Sarah, supposedly from one of the terrorist held planes on that day, was appalling. The camera shake didn't make me feel sick, that cold hearted stunt did.
\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 got back from this free screening, and this \"Osama Witch Project\" is the hands-down worst film I've seen this year, worse than even \"Catwoman\" - which had the decency to at least pass itself off as fiction.
In \"September Tapes,\" a \"film crew\" of \"documentary journalists\" heads to Afghanistan - despite being thoroughly unprepared for the trip, the conditions and, oh yeah, the psychotic and ridiculous vendetta of their filmmaker leader to avenge his wife's death on Sept. 11 - to track down Osama bin Laden.
They \"made\" eight tapes on their journey, which now \"document\" their travels and, of course, their attempts to kill the terrorist leader. (The eight tapes, thankfully, all end at points significant in the narrative, which is convenient for a \"documentary.\")
The psychotic, idiotic protagonist - who is given to long, significant speeches that he probably learned watching \"MacGyver\" - cares nothing for his own life or the life of his innocent crew as he gets them further and further into danger through a series of completely dumb mishaps. I don't know why he didn't just wear a sign on his back that said \"Shoot me.\"
The crew's translator, supposedly their sensible voice-of-reason, does little more than whine and gets baffled as the idiot hero leads them into doom.
You wish they'd brought along someone on their trip to call them all morons.
Around \"Tape 4,\" I began rooting for the terrorists to shoot the film crew.
\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 complete Hoax...
The movie clearly has been shot in north western Indian state of Rajasthan. Look at the chase scene - the vehicles are Indian; the writing all over is Hindi - language used in India. The drive through is on typical Jaipur streets. Also the palace is in Amer - about 10 miles from Jaipur, Rajasthan. The film-makers in their (about the film) in DVD Bonus seem to make it sound that they risked their lives shooting in Kabul and around. Almost all of their action scenes are shot in India. The scene where they see a group singing around fire is so fake that they did not even think about changing it to Afgani folk song. They just recorded the Rajasthani folk song. How do I know it because I have traveled that area extensively. They are just on the band-wagon to make big on the issue. I do challenge the film makers to deny 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\nA Blair Witch-War Movie that is as much of a letdown as Bwitch was! The title says it all, save your money and your time and spend it on a good movie such as \"Once Upon a Time in America\", \"The Shawshank Redemption\" or \"Enemy at the Gates\" (if you want to watch a GREAT \"war\" movie) etc.
This movie, if it were a baseball team and the Major Leagues were the pinnacle and Single A was the rookies, then this movie was High school ball. It was filmed as if it were a High school drama club filming with their daddy's old camera. Sure they went into a hostile area (to make a film) but I don't call that brave, around here we call that plain stupid! This is a pass all the way! Now go watch it and then you tell me what you think.
\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 have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion.
\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\nGrand Central Murder (1942) Dir: S. Sylvan Simon
Production: MGM
This mediocre 'B' mystery was one of only five films released in 1942 with Simon as director. Surely he could have fit another Red Skelton film or two on his schedule! Anyway, Grand Central Murder is a shameless rip-off of the Thin Man films minus the wit, charm, and chemistry of the leads. We are treated to a paper thin plot that can barely support its 73 minutes, bad acting and weary gags.
Van Heflin and Virginia Grey play Nick and Nora Char--er, Rocky and Butch Custer. He's a PI and she's his wife and sleuthing partner. They engage in \"humorous\" banter with each other. See? It's completely different already. Heflin's the only one here who hints at bigger and better things, although he's real close to being a jerk in this. Virginia Grey was in Another Thin Man, but again, let me stress, THIS FILM IS NOTHING LIKE THAT ONE, no sir. And just in case we start to think that this film is absolutely nothing like another film (say, THE THIN MAN) we actually like, Sam Levene pops up as the lead detective who's kind of dim and has to have Van Heflin subtly direct him toward all the important leads. Hmmm.
Quickly, the 'murder' is that of bitchy schemer Mida King, who likes to trade up on rich men until she finds an even richer one. She's played by Patricia Dane, who's like a C- version of Hedy Lamarr, until she opens her mouth and turns into an F. There's a whole array of wacky suspects, all with their own motivation for wanting Mida dead. There's the society type, the tough talking dames, the thug, the ex-lover, and a shady theater impresario (Tom Conway, here saddled with the unlikely character name of 'Frankie Ciro'). Roman Bohnen plays a nervous, jittery type, something I believe he may have done before. Millard Mitchell plays an idiot cop who, in a running gag that won't quit, can't stop thinking about the piece of ass he's got waiting for him once this case gets wrapped up (that's right, Millard Mitchell, swordsman). Finally, in a completely ground breaking method of storytelling, something we've never seen before, all the suspects are gathered up in one place where they tell their stories (as flashbacks) to the detective, as Rocky takes mental notes, until eventually the guilty person is compelled to dramatically blurt out a confession.
On top of the actual picture being a dud, I naively thought going in that there might be a couple of location shots of the actual 1942-era Grand Central, but alas, no. There's merely one very brief shot at the beginning. Thanks for nothing, Grand Central Murder. So, to sum up, a wee bit formulaic, but Heflin was okay.
*½ out of 4
\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 watched 3/4 of this movie and wondered why it got such horrible reviews here. It was fairly easy to watch (at 3am). It had good casting - Kevin Dillon's role of the sociopath serial killer was very believable - he was both charasmatic and chilling. The rest of the main characters weren't so bad either.
This is your typical stalker/suspense movie. A married couple cannot conceive so they go to a fertility clinic for help. A sociopathic \"genetic material\" donor fixates on the recipients and, in typical stalker form, intrudes into their lives.
As I said, most of the movie was fairly good.. we see \"Conan\" grow more and more obsessed in raising his baby and creating the perfect family with the mother. Of course things don't work out for him the way he planned. Not a bad plot line.
But, the last 15 minutes were just horrible. I am pretty tolerant with movies (especially at 3am!).. but, I was just amazed at how bad the ending was written. I actually scoffed outloud!
All in all, not the worst movie I've seen, but I wouldn't be able to sit through it again (unless I skipped the ending). The only redeaming quality here was Kevin Dillon's role - - one of the best serial killers ever.
Try looking around at the other channels before watching this.. But, if nothing better is on, I'd give it a try.. =)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRoutine suspense yarn about a sociopath (Dillon) who gives his sperm to a clinic of human reproduction and starts to harrass the lives of the woman (Antony) and his husband (Mancuso). Extremely predictable, far-fetched and with undecided tone all the way. Don't lose your time with this one...make a baby instead!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAction, violence, sex and coarse language are the things that the characters do during the whole movie. And everything they do is done without reason. Mark L. Lester is (un)known for his violent (without reason)movies (Commando, The Base). The story is weird but stupid. The actors play their stupid characters very well...I'm not telling they are stupid but I mean they are very bad actors. It's another low-budget unknown B series action movie. If you saw something like Operation Delta Force, Drive, The Patriot, Sanctuary or something like these bad movies from the same kind than Misbegotten...don't rent it...and, by the way, don't rent any of the movies I mentioned....I give it 1and a half out of5.
\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\nMore of a mystery movie with some gratuitous horror elements thrown in; mediocre overall.
It starts with a woman having a nightmare in which her sex partner gets out of bed, goes into the room of her crying child, and kills it. She wakes up. Then, that man is dying in a hospital, spitting up blood. His estranged daughter arrives, and he manages to contact her through her dreams (I think), and he wants her to find out who killed him before his body entirely decomposes in its grave.
There's not too much mystery about who did it, or even how; most viewers will have figured that out long before it is revealed. I'm not sure the way he was killed would really have worked.
Anyway, the horror elements get in through: a gory autopsy, the recurring dream of the man killing the boy, a nightmare in which a plate of eggs turn into eyes which are then cut, and several shots of the decomposing man both in nightmares and actually in his grave.
I was a little surprised to see a dedication in the end by Fulci to Clive Barker! Interesting.
\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\nHe really lost the plot with this one! None of his distinctive trademarks here at all, an uninteresting plot and completely terrible acting make this his worst film (in my opinion). Even his trademark gore is gone, bar one scene in an operating theatre. Oh well, at least his next film 'Nightmare Concert' showed that he could still shock when he wanted to...
\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 definitely not one of Lucio Fulci's better flicks by any stretch of the imagination. The plot is pretty bad, a millionaire is murdered and his spirt calls upon his daughter to find out who did it. But the biggest problem i have with this (besides knowing who killed him within 10 minutes of watching the movie) was wondering why anyone should even care? The father comes off as being a really big jerk to everyone he came across (including the daughter who he asks to help him) which made it quite hard for anyone to care who killed him. But no one really watches a Fulci flick for a good storyline, to do so would be like watching a porn for incredible script writing and acting. Typically his movies try to compensate for this by adding excessive scenes of gore but even that is lacking in this movie. If you're looking for a good Fulci flick, check out The Beyond.
\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\nSeeing a photo of a man being attacked by zombies gave me hope that Lucio \"Zombi\" Fulci might be up to his old tricks. Unfortunately, other than the close ups of a rotting corpse, there's little to recommend in this story of the murder of a wealthy man and his daughter's quest to figure out who killed him. None of the characters are appealing and by the time you find out how they did it (that twist, at least, was cool), you stop caring. The only good thing I can say is that it made more sense than Nightmare Concert!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm a big fan of Lucio Fulci; many of his Giallo and splatter flicks are amongst my favourites of all time, but this made for TV movie is extremely sub par and not what I've come to expect from the great Italian director. The film is neither interesting, like some of Fulci's more tame Giallo's, or gory like the majority of his cult classics; thus leaving it lacking in both major areas, and ultimately ensuring that the film isn't very good. The film works from a plot that has been used many times previously, but still it's an idea that always has the chance of springing an interesting story just because it focuses on the theme of the afterlife, which is the ultimate unknown. This film focuses on Giorgio Mainardi; a man that isn't exactly well liked and after he dies of an apparent stomach hemorrhage, there aren't many people that are sad to see him go. This means that his ghost is trapped somewhere between life and the afterlife, and so he decides to try and get to the bottom of his death, and his only ally in this endeavour is his daughter.
The video that I saw this film on is proudly proclaimed that the film is \"in the style of HP Lovecraft\", and that's one of the most blatant attempts to sell a film I've ever seen. There is nothing even slightly reminiscent of the great horror writer in this tale, and the reason for that tagline would appear to be because of title similarity to the Stuart Gordon/Lovecraft film, 'From Beyond' - which is a lot better. The film does benefit from a distinctly Italian style, and the score is rather good. Unfortunately, however, Fulci has seen fit to positively roast every scene in it - and so the theme quickly becomes annoying. The plot plays out in a really boring way, and most of the scenes simply involve the ghost 'desperately' trying to find things out, or the daughter placing her suspicions over her family members. This movie was made for Italian TV, and so it's not surprising that it's all rather tame. There's a little bit of gore and a nightmare sequence with zombies; but this isn't the Fulci we all know and love. Overall, this film is extremely mediocre and not a good representation of Fulci's talents. Not worth bothering with, unless you're a Fulci completist.
\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 am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.
\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\nALMOST GOLDEN: THE JESSICA SAVITCH STORY
Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
Sound format: Stereo
Bland, soap-opera dramatisation of the rise and fall of America's first female TV news anchor. With a tighter script and direction - and a better cast - this might have passed muster, but the flimsy story really wasn't worth the effort. A good documentary on the subject might have been the best way to go. Typically strong production values in the TV movie conveyor-belt manner, but it's all as superficial as old fluff, and just as engaging.
\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 know that in this episode there's other stuff apart from what I am going to discuss, and in fact I think it has some virtues; for example, the fact, after we had been given a very negative opinion of Jin from seeing Sun's flashbacks in \"House of the Rising Sun\", we get to see Jin's side of things and get a new, more balanced understanding of his life.
But there is an element in this story that made me so deeply uncomfortable that it greatly dampened my enjoyment of the whole episode. Before now, in the scene where Jin appeared with blood on his hands and shirt, it had been hinted that Sun's father was someone who was getting rich through shady, illegal methods. I thought maybe he was a mob boss, even; mobs operate in Korea, just like in almost every other country in the world, so it was a reasonable possibility. However, in this episode we learn that Sun's father is in fact the boss (or a top executive) of a Korean automotive company, and that what Jin had been doing was physically attacking a government official (who was actually going to be murdered) on his behalf.
I may be especially touchy about this because I happen to work in the automotive industry, but I would say it is SPECTACULARLY offensive and racist to even suggest that this kind of thing goes on in Korea; that huge, serious companies like Hyundai or Kia (which must be the model for this fictitious car company, as they are the only ones that actually exist in reality) operate with these mafia-like methods, instead of like any normal automotive company of the West. it is just unbelievable to me that the writers would have the gall to write something like that into the story, and that there hasn't been an uproar in Korea over it. It feels like extraneous \"Buy American!\" propaganda, portraying foreign car companies as criminal, untrustworthy, third-world outfits.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDear Richard, I know we all loved you on Home Improvement with Tim Allen. But seriously, do you not have anything else to do besides lame sequels to Air Bud? I would have thought Tim might have actually give you a bit role by now or even becoming his personal assistant. I know that seems ironic, but the pay benefits are much more rewarding.
Everybody would see you around Tim and instantly think \"Tool Time\". You would even get roles with Bob Vila more often. Instead, you appear for 10 minutes with a Golden Retriever and smiling. I know there wasn't much of a script, but you could have added to it. I mean, come on. Tim owes you one.
But seriously, this movie does nothing for the Air Bud line. Quite the contrary, the fake talking puppies are cornier than actually seeing the dogs play sports. The original was better. And you, Mr. Richard Karn, know that more than anybody.
This is an \"F\" 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\nMy 7-year-old daughter loved it, as Disney execs crassly calculated that she would. That's the problem with \"Air Buddies.\" It's a strictly by-the-numbers children's film filled with carefully calculated cuteness, a couple politically correct morals, and enough potty humor to avoid the dreaded G rating. As a parent, or even as a 10-year-old, you've seen it all before, and done better before. Think \"101 Dalmatians Meets Home Alone\" and you get the general idea. I'm of the opinion that a good children's story is a good story, period. \"Air Buddies,\" which is about as original as recycled paper, fails to meet that standard. It isn't the worst video your child could watch, but there are megatons of better ones.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough this is generally a cheesy jungle-adventure movie, it does have some highlights - the settings are quite beautiful, and the pacing of the adventure is good. You won't be bored watching it.
Keith is as breezy as possible playing the eponymous lead, an unabashedly drunk jungle guide shanghai'd into escorting rich boy Van Hoffman and his gorgeous wife Shower on a hunting expedition in cannibal country. He never takes things seriously . Shower is there as decoration and Keith makes extensive use of her - she doesn't really have to act much. She's not the only female to show off her body and the prurient aspects of the film make it about halfway to a T/A picture.
There's nothing in this film that would draw specific attention to it, or away from it. Produced to be shlock, it succeeds without too much fuss. A good 2 AM cable programmer.
\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\nLooking through the other comments, I'm amazed that there aren't any warnings to potential viewers of what they have to look forward to when renting this garbage. First off, I rented this thing with the understanding that it was a competently rendered Indiana Jones knock-off. What I got was one of the most offensive movies I can remember trying to sit through, made all the more shocking by the movie's comparatively high production values.
I don't think this is a spoiler, but if it is, be warned...
If your idea of entertainment is watching Bimbo getting raped from behind by Fearsome Tribal Chief, while she is staring into the dead eyes of her significant other's severed head, by all means, rent this flick. If not, I'd advise you to look elsewhere for entertainment.
Come to think of it, that scene so succinctly sums up the movie that there's nothing else I really need to say about 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\nIn the unlikely case that some aspiring directors are reading these comments, I'd like to offer some advice (free of charge!), from a viewer's perspective. If you want to make a serious exotic adventure film, do it. If you want to make a spoof of exotic adventure films, go ahead. DO NOT try to make both at the same time, it doesn't work. For example, having a goofy \"comic relief\" character killed and beheaded and following it up with a monkey shaking a tree and dropping a coconut on a cannibal's head just makes you look like you had NO IDEA what kind of movie you wanted to make. This one is boring, meandering, cheap, racist....you get the picture. A couple of smart moments and a few glimpses of nudity from Kathy Shower (way too prissy here) are hardly worth your trouble. There is a reason everyone has forgotten about this film's existence. (*1/2)
\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 acting wasn't great, the story was full of simplistic turns and transparent characters. It's about the repercussions of the struggle between right-wing Flemish block voters on the one side and the Moroccon people living in the Belgian city Antwerp on the other side. Is it a political analysis ? Is it some kind of Belgian West Side Story or modern Romeo and Juliet ? The film just isn't strong enough to answer both questions (supposing those were the director's questions, too). Still, some of the scenes could function as a kind of Ken Loach film, set in Antwerp. After all, this city has been the starting point of the extremist right-wing Flemish Block party and is struggling with a lot of problems and tensions between different populations and cultures. It's very difficult to make a film about this situation, and this one isn't successful, unfortunately. Still, it's telling a story about a very real and complicated situation in present-day Belgium. The few foreign viewers watching should try and enjoy it and realise it's not the actual film that is important but the social dividing lines behind it that haunt Belgium, a 10 million people country, in the 2000s
Dries Van Dongen
\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 about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10
\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\nSince Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon came along, there's been a lot of talk about a revival of the Hong Kong movie industry. Don't believe it. The people now making movies in HK give new meaning to the word crass. Running Out of Time 2 is a perfect example. Ekin Cheng is the name draw, here, but he spends most of the film just grinning idiotically and flipping a coin. He flips the coin over and over and again and again. Why? Who knows? Sean Lau plays a cop who chases after the coin-flipping pretty boy. But once again: who knows why? There's a pretty actress in the female lead who runs some sort of company and she has to pay a ransom or something but she mostly just looks like she would rather be at a spa or shopping centre than in front of a camera. Nothing makes any sense. There is no action. There is no sex. There is no comedy. All there is is a name: Ekin Cheng. And you know what? Who cares?
\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 previous poster obviously worked on the movie. It's a joke how bad it is and no one would review this kind of movie the way he did.Mentioning all of the actors' names and what they were in previously is a sure sign that he's involved with it in some way.
It's on Cinemax right now and I was sure this was some movie where porn stars (the one called Ava is gorgeous and well-endowed) were forced to make something else for some crazy tax reason.
Also, when I first saw it, I was sure it was made in about 1986, and I was born in '73, so I thought I knew what i was talking about...but no...it was made in 1993!! Unbelievable!
Though I would call it one of those so bad it's good movies. Like watching a train wreck.
\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 unsure whether or not Andy Sidaris could repeat his success with the cinematic hit \"Malibu Express.\" With his film Fit to Kill he has proved that Sidaris is a serious filmmaker and not just a one-shot director. The plot written by Sidaris, which was ungratefully passed up by the Academy, is a complex screenplay involving many unseen twists and turns. The main characters composed work for a sexually based radio station known as KSXY. Cleverly, KSXY is actually their secret headquarters. In \"Fit to Kill\" they confront their long-time nemesis Kane, who is trying to steal one of Russia's most prized diamonds. A well-written screenplay is not all, excellent acting by the cast helps to ensure this film as a cult classic. Panned by the critics and the box office, this film will be appreciated in years to come. It is now suffering the same fate as Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver did, but in the future will undoubtly become recognized. I am disappointed no critic circles have recognized Andy Sidaris's trademark filmmaking. The costumes, the special effects, all help to compliment this already beautiful piece of filmmaking. It may do you best to ignore the dismal 3 rating on this film and go out and rent it for yourself. My personal rating is 10/10. The drama is as thick as the blockbuster Runaway Bride, and the action better or equal to the cinematic masterpiece Last Action Hero. Andy, keep up the good work.
\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 want to see women's breasts, get a porno. There is no plot, but the last 45 minutes of this movie focus on resolving some sort of dangerous plan. The only value this movie has is that sometimes its so bad its funny, and, yes, boobs are boobs.
\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\nUnbelievably awful film. I watched part of this on T.V. recently. My jaw dropped as I watched a horrendously conceived plot and listened to mind-numbing drivel. Not a single line from the master of one-liners could come close to producing anything resembling a chuckle. It was so bad it made me want to exhume Rodney Dangerfield's body, slap him around and scream, \"How could you?\" I know many films are done in haste, hoping to cash in on the popularity of a given actor or theme. But please, Hollywood, show a little respect for your audience. It's sad and scary that people were expected to pay to see such tripe. The bottom of the cesspool, even by Sunday afternoon television standards.
\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\nHaving watched 10 minutes of this movie I was bewildered, having watched 30 minutes my toes were curling - I simply couldn't believe it: The movie is really awful. In fact it is so awful, that I had to watch all of it just to be convinced(!). During this, I came to realize that it reminded me of a bunch of Danish so-called comedies from the 60's and 70's. The pattern is as follows: Take one extremely popular comedian, make a script putting this comedian in as many grotesque situations as possible, add a bunch of jokes (especially one-liners), and spice it up with a couple of beautiful young girls - film that, and you have a success! I wouldn't know if this movie was a success, but unlike the Danish tradition which died quietly (with a few great comedians) it seems that there is a market for this kind of movie in the US.
\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\nRodney Dangerfield is a great. He has done a lot of great works. But this one....is awful. The whole plot is whack. It could have been much better. The jokes in the movie aren't funny....their stupid. This was very not so hilarious. He can do much better than this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was so bad, outdated and stupid that I had rough times to watch it to the end. I had seen this Rodney guy in Natural Born Killers and I thought he was funny as hell in it, but this movie was crap. The \"jokes\" weren't funny, actors weren't funny, anything about it wasn't even remotely funny. Don't waste your time for this! Only positive things about this were the beautiful wives :) and Molly Shannon who I'm sure tried her best, but the script was just too awful. That's why I rated it \"2\" instead of \"1\", but it's definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen.
\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 have to confess right off that I have never been a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. Indeed, from me he gets \"no respect.\" I watched this only because my wife wanted to see it, and found exactly what I expected: a stupid story without any real humour. It's full of lame, crude jokes and a totally ridiculous plot revolving around a developer's (Dangerfield) plans to build a ski resort in Utah that just didn't capture my attention at all.
In addition to Dangerfield the film starred a weak cast, including the likes of Andrew Dice Clay and the totally over the hill John Byner (I didn't even know he was still around until I saw his name in the credits for this.)
This truly is a Dangerfield disaster.
2/10
\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 almost burst into tears watching this movie. Not from laughing but from the memories of a great Rodney Dangerfield movie. Candyshack was his first and stole the movie, Easy Money had him at his best, and Back To School is by far an 80's classic masterpiece. Then there was Ladybugs and that's when it started to show. Poor Rodney was getting old (Meet Wally Sparks was a slight step up from Ladybugs but not saying much).
In My 5 Wives Rodney plays Monte (a name he must love since that was his name in Easy Money) a rich (isnt he always) guy who loves women and gets married like its nothing. Well now he inherits a huge piece of land and since the land was run by the Amish, he inherits 5 Wives. This sounds like a great idea for a Dangerfield movie. The problem is EVERYTHING. The script is so poor that Rodney seems to be saying his one liners to the camera and all the side characters have nothing to do. The movie looks like it was shot on video with some really poor stunt sequences that are obviously not Rodney. Andrew Dice Clay plays a gangster who looks like he is dying to say the F word (which he should since the film is rated R but plays as if it was PG) and Jerry Stiller has a nice 2 minute cameo. Don't get me wrong, at times I did laugh at a few of Rodney's jokes but the poor man is getting way too old and way too slow. We can see his jokes coming from miles. And the film turns way too PC which thanks to the horrible 1990's, the 70's and 80's Rodney just doesn't work anymore.
\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 was a watchable movie, but plot was a little weak and most of the jokes were from some of Rodney's earlier movies. With that said, it was worth the time to watch. I gave this a 5 out of 10. So basically, its one of those movies that you do not go out of your way to see, but if you find it on the tube, take a chance.
\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 Rodney Dangerfield is on a roll, he's hilarious. In My 5 Wives, he's not on a roll. The timing of the one-liners is off, but they're the best thing going for the movie. The five women who play the wives don't add up to one whole actress between them. The plot is very weak. Even the premise is pretty weak; there are a few jokes about having multiple wives, but the situation has little to do with anything else in the movie. Most of the movie could play the same way even if Rodney's character had only one wife, so the premise seems more like an old man's fantasy than a key part of the comedy. Another old man's fantasy: we're supposed to accept that Rodney's character is an athletic skier.
Jerry Stiller seems to be phoning in his role just to do a buddy a favor, and the rest of the name actors must simply be desperate for work.
The odd nods to political correctness later in the movie don't really do anything for the movie. For those who like their movies politically correct, the non-PC humor is still there in the first place, and the seeming apologies for it still don't get the point. For those who hate seeing a movie cave in to political correctness, the PC add-ins are just annoying digressions.
This has to be the mildest R-rated movie I've ever seen. There are some racy jokes, and the bedroom scenes would have made shocking TV 40 years ago, but that's about it. Maybe it was the topless men (kidding).
The DVD features interviews where the cast members seem to find depth and importance in this movie and in their roles. I kept wondering if they were serious or kidding. They seem to be serious, but I kept thinking, \"They must be kidding!\" There's also a peculiar disclaimer suggesting that since the movie never actually names the Mormons or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, that somehow it's not about them. Never mind that the movie features a polygamous religion in Utah, and makes reference to Brigham Young.
In short, My 5 Wives was a disappointment. I was hoping for Rodney on a roll, but the best I can say for the movie is that Rodney was looking pretty good for a guy who was pushing 80 at the time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs much as I love Rodney Dangerfield, this was a terrible movie. The plot was kind of a holistic rip off of various movies, but unfortunately they forgot to rip off any good jokes. In addition it was annoying and boring and that's being kind. If you're looking for a good laugh, rent a copy of Private Parts.
\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 seen Rodney Dangerfield's previous movies and performances, you'll recognise several of the jokes made in this odd piece of dreck. Written like a sitcom, this movie fails to strike any sort of likeable chord throughout, from the self-help doctor played by the aways sexy-as-chopped liver Molly Shannon to the 'I'm fat, and therefore funny' John Linette. The 5 wives themselves are likeable enough, and if this had been done as a pilot for an action-adventure series, it might have worked. Instead, it comes off like a male fantasy that's trying hard not to be politically incorrect.
\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 features two of my favorite actors in Kilmer and Downey. It also boasts the always enjoyable Larry Miller in a too-small part. Despite this I found it to be nearly unwatchable. Michelle Monaghan may be pretty but she is nearly charisma free and the reasons for Downey's character's obsession with her character is not at all understandable in terms of the information the film presents or the way it's portrayed. The ending seems pretentious and though the intention seems to be that the audience should join in the nod and wink the film, having failed to bring us in on the side of its protagonists leaves us unwilling or unable to do so.
Fans of the film say that those who disagree simply \"don't get it\". I don't think this is so. The plot was not complicated or beyond understanding. It was simply uninvolving and clumsily and obviously manufactured. I \"got it\". I just didn't like it. Paddy Breathnach's \"I Went Down\" and Guy Ritchie's \"Snatch\" and \"Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels\" are much better realized examples of the kind of film-making that director Shane Black fails to achieve.
I share a birthday with Shane Black but a look at his credits (mostly as a screenwriter)makes me want to dissociate myself from any other connection.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
The movie \"Slugs\" is unique because the titular vermin are actually the good guys in this horrific tale of nature gone awry. You see, these poor slugs have been mutated through the pollution of evil humans and don't mean to do anything malicious, they're just slugs- slugs with sharp teeth who eat flesh and excrete poison, but slugs none the less. The real bad guys are the humans, who either actively try to destroy our beloved slugs, or overreact when they encounter them.
For example, take the scene where the guy puts on the glove full of slugs. They were just hanging out in a comfortable work glove when out of nowhere this giant hand came at them, and they reacted instinctively, defending themselves and biting the guy. Now, instead of seeking medical attention for his slug bite, this guy runs around his greenhouse screaming like an idiot, spills some highly volatile chemicals, starts a fire, knocks a bookcase over on himself, and cuts off his own hand- then the fire and volatile chemicals mix and his house explodes. How can you blame that on the slugs?
This movie paints a portrait of humans that is less than favorable. The characters in this movie include the dumb sheriff who hates everybody, the drunk hick who's mean to his dog, and the lumpy sidekick whose wife is at least forty-five years older than him. There's also a set of drunken teens
that get attacked while copulating, and we have to see the skinny long-haired freaks' genitals. Meanwhile, there's a guy who looks like a demonic Leslie Neilson who yells \"You don't have the authority to declare happy birthday!\" for some reason. Finally, this parade of loathsomeness is rounded out by the guy from the MST3K classic \"Pod People\" whose face explodes after eating a slug-laces salad (another easily avoided fate blamed on the helpful, harmless slugs).
Humans are portrayed as greedy, stupid, racist, alcoholic, and, in one pointless scene, as would-be rapists. In the movie's climactic scene, the villainous humans try to burn the slugs who are cowering helplessly in the sewers, Well, since they're idiots, the humans succeed in BLOWING UP THE ENTIRE TOWN. They alone do more damage than the slugs ever did!
If you hate humans, and I know I do, you'll appreciate \"Slugs\". If you're a fan of bad cinema, you'll also appreciate this crapfest from the director of \"Pieces\" and \"Pod People\". There's enough bad acting, silly dialog, illogical plot twists, lame special effects, pointless scenes, and poor dubbing to hold your attention.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"