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\nWow, I knew this film was going to be bad but not this bad. Spoilerific comments ensue.
Roddy Roddy Piper is sickly sweet retired cop (cliche!), helping out everyone - smiling like a post-op lobotomy patient through-out and lamenting over his dead son. His adopted son returns from Armed Forces \"Special Ops\" and because he's \"seen things\" - portrayed by clenching his teeth if anyone mentions anything about the past. Time to clean up the streets from another guy who once knew Piper and his dead son (who the bad lad killed) and his adopted son.
Oh, the love interest is a pretty young lady who decides for no reason that she wants to jump the bones of the ex-Army bloke. This happens in about 2 minutes of 1 scene.
The action could have saved this film, but it's even worse than the storyline and acting. It's all been done before, it's all been done much much better (Ong-Bak is a prime example). This is the worst film I've ever seen - and I've seen Waterworld, twice.
Erm, the film is called HONOR (Spelt Wrong for the Americans) and the tag line has \"from the makers of Bloodsport and Kickboxer\" - check out Director David Worths other films and you'll soon realise why they put these 2 films on there, even though they are over 10 years old. Such classics as \"Shark Attack 3: Megalodon\" - says it all really.
I'll give you £10 if you don't go to see this film.
PS - Apologise for not know character names, tells you something though.
\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\nAbsolute garbage, worse fight scenes than a 20 year old van damme movie or American ninja etc.
Truly dire acting, not a skill in sight in the entire movie its like a cast of wooden sculptures.
Watch it just for how truly bad this film is, it may have been acceptable in the 80s but this is a 2006 movie, i don't have much love for this movie as it wasn't born in the 80s.
If you like real fight movies then check out tony jaa in ong bak and the protector, those are proper martial arts films.
have a laugh and watch this today you may see the unintenional humour at how grim it is.
\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 not yet seen anyone slate this film and i think i may be the first.
It was awful. I actually didn't watch the end of it. It was like watching a boring soap or a really good one (all soaps are crap). The actors were poor and storyline was bad. The person who rated it 10/10 has no idea what he is on about. The script was awful. 2 People was in an angry conversation together involving threats and you expect the good guy to say some thing really good and beat the crap out of him but no. He says \"If you do that ... I will hurt you\" Hahahahaha. If comedy is your thing, watch away. Please do not watch this film because ... It's CRAP!!!
Summary: Poor acting, bad fights, bad script.
Don't watch! Of course this is in my 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\nI'm a big fan of Italian films from the seventies, and I wouldn't hesitate to list the beautiful Barbara Bouchet among my favourite actresses of all time, so I did go into this film with some hopes. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is a largely pointless film that isn't going to go anywhere. Clearly nobody would go into this expecting much more, but the fact that this is pointless gets more annoying when you consider that it's also rather dull and none of the characters are interesting. As the title suggests, the film focuses on a 'rogue'; in this case one that steals, womanises and smuggles stuff. That's basically all the plot that this movie has. The film does have a real 'seventies style' to it and the idea of it all being very carefree gets across well. It sometimes seems like directors Boro Draskovic and Gregory Simpson were trying to put across some sort of point, although whatever that point is doesn't come across very well. Seeing Barbara Bouchet on screen is always a pleasure, and that is the case here too; she's definitely the best thing about the film and the sequence in which she hangs out of a car naked is the best part of the film. Overall, The Rogue will probably have some appeal for people who love the seventies style, but unfortunately it doesn't have much else to offer.
\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\nWow this movie sucked big time. I heard this movie expresses the meaning of friendship very well. And with all the internet hype on this movie I figured what could go wrong? However the movie was just plain bad. It was boring and the character development was never there. Space Travelers was also a horrible movie, if you didn't like that movie there is no way you will like 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\nMay I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched \"Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America\". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of \"What's up Tiger Lily?\"
\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\nWoody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, \"Melinda and Melinda\" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.
My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back.
\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\nAnd how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in \"Celebrity.\" It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.
This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am so disappointed. This movie left me feeling jipped out of my time and mental energy. Here was the quintessential Woody Allen film all over again: the neurotic upper-class Manhattanites debating whether or not they will cheat on their spouses. Woody, I've seen these characters already, I've seen the storyline from you ten times already. Where did your creativity go??? You need to open your eyes and look around you. The world has changed dramatically since Annie Hall - and you need to change along with it.
There are far more interesting and funny scenarios to which you can apply your brand of angst and neuroticism - why not try them out instead of rehashing the same old slop over and over and over again.
When I hear that Woody Allen has a new project coming out, it does nothing for me - because now I've come to expect his old standby: the couple who are growing tired of each other and end up cheating. Depressing and same old, same old.
If Woody wants to win his fans back, then he has to understand that our sense of humor and intelligence has to be stimulated - not insulted.
\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 I accidentally stumbled across this script in textual form i would read it and maybe laugh. I would not, however laugh at the points in the film where the director would seem to want me to laugh. Although I am still not altogether sure where these are. I don't care if this is Woody Allen, this writer cannot write dialogue, or at least he cannot knowingly write dialogue then draw performances from actors capable of drawing laughter from even the most ticklish of clowns. For example:
(paraphrase) \"I'm an art historian, i'm looking to get a job in an art gallery.\"
OK, so it states the fact but honestly, do you know of any art historians who would say that? How would you answer?
\"Really? An art gallery? who would've thought it?\"
The entire script is littered with the kind of tawdry quasi-intellectualism that i would not have expected from such a respected character writer. I admit that I have no knowledge of Allen's other work and, judging by this one i don't want to start learning. The characters are loathsome without exception, an attempt to illustrate that we all suffer from the human condition? Or really really poor character writing? You be the judge.
\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 couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, \"Say it like this...\" Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have 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\nWoody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with \"Melinda and Melinda,\" where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.
The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful \"Celebrity\"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.
The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years.
\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\nFor a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.
Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it.
If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love 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\nI've always been a great fan of Woody Allen and always will be for most of what he did in the past, but only a blind lover could ignore how dull, meaningless, pretentious and most of all horrendously acted this movie is. A vacuous mental masturbation based on inconsistent grounds. And what a disastrous idea to artificially recreate a presumed \"actor Allen-clone\", that is putting into Will Farrell's mouth and gestures what Allen would have done in Farrell's place had he been 30 years younger. The outcome was obviously ludicrous. And not to speak of the dialogues... what was intended to be philosophical reflections turned into an involuntary mockery of intellectual pondering, unaware of its comic effect. How sad...
\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\nPossible spoilers.
Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a \"He Said, She Said\" premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.
The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've seen my share of Woody Allen's movies, and while they're not always great, you can usually be sure you're going to be entertained. Probably the last really good ones were Bullets Over Broadway ('94) and Mighty Aphrodite ('95) - since then the ones I've seen have been patchy but watchable. And so when I was invited to see the new Woody Allen movie Melinda and Melinda, which I wasn't even aware had been released yet, I went along happily. I hadn't really heard much about it so I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.
What I got was definitely the worst Woody Allen movie I've seen. The premise is over-explained, the cast is terrible, the script is slow and lifeless. Too many scenes said nothing and yet were stretched out, I assume to fill out what would have otherwise become a 15 minute short film.
I don't mind the concept behind this film - two directors discuss how a simple situation could be interpreted as a comedy or a tragedy, and obviously the film proceeds to show us that, by playing out both scenarios. The problem is neither of these 'two films' are any good at all. The comedy isn't funny and the tragedy isn't very tragic. It seems like Allen came up with a good idea but then ran out of steam, or time, to actually complete the film.
The general level of acting is notably bad also - Will Ferrell is the only one who brings anything to the table, and it's basically a Woody Allen impression. Previously good actors like Chloe Sevigny just come off as annoying, and the worst of the bunch is Radha Mitchell as Melinda (which is a shame, because her character is in nearly every scene!).
To be fair to the actors, the script they are working with is lacking if not non-existent. Definitely a long way from the Allen we know and love from classics like Manhattan or Annie Hall.
\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\nWoody Allen has made some of the greatest comedies ever and I would seriously consider saying that Annie Hall is the greatest movie ever but if I really think about it I will probably think of one or two that are better, but it would be hard. He has had of course some films that aren't quite good but not that bad either like Manhattan Murder Mystery and Sweet and Lowdown but he has never before had a film quite as bad as Melinda and Melinda. Not quite so tired and so unfunny, his films are usually witty and hilarious but how did this happen, is it still our good old Woody? The plot runs around four friends who are having dinner together. Two are play writers and one of the others mentions a funny story that happened to a friend of hers. It is about a young woman who bursts in on a dinner party unexpected. We never hear the rest because the two play writes start to debate whether it would make a better comedy or tragedy. Than we begin to see the two points of view. Both center on this woman named Melinda who is having trouble both with drugs and with her ex-husband. In the tragedy she is an old family friend who after attempting suicide decided to show up at her old best friends front door for no apparent reason. The comedy is about Melida who stumbles in on the dinner party after popping 28 sleeping pills. Both go on a wild whirl wind of events that never really make sense or fit together, or make you laugh more than once or twice. There are some nice performances by Radha Mitchell and Will Ferrell but they can't fit it together on there own. They cam't stop it from sinking farther down than most of the other films this year.
\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\nUtterly pretentious nonsense. The material is dull, dull, dull, and most of the cast wouldn't even have made understudies in Allen's earlier films. And to have to listen to the unfunny Will Ferrell do his Woody Allen imitation makes me loathe the second-rate (though mysteriously popular) Ferrell even more. It appears that the morose 70-year old Allen should have knocked off work when the clock rang in a new century.
I truly tried to get involved in the film, but it was just impossible; my snyapses couldn't fire that slowly. So, rather than doze off and kill the afternoon sleeping in an upright position I got up, left my wife and daughter in the theater, and went out to the car where I had a really good book to re-read (George Bailey's great tome of 30 years ago, \"Germans.\") The day turned out pretty well after all, no thanks to Woody.
\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 will probably always go to see a Woody Alleb movie, as one never knows when he just might make a real return to his past greatness. Just one or two great moments or lines could make it worthwhile. sadly however this film just does'nt make it on any score. Saying thar actually makes me sad and even a little guilty. I'm sure my reaction is much like a lot of other fans of Woody, but what can one say? It's probably time for him to concentrate on his Clarinett, which in my opinion, he is rather quite good. Saying all of this, I'll still probably go to any new film Woody may come out with in the future. There's always hope and I'll continue to love and respect The WOODY!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.
Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.
Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.
Sad, very sad.
\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 just an excuse for the writer to make a film out of 2 failed scripts.
its characters are just an assembly of characters with cliché tragic or comic attributes the sum total of which is neurotic dialog like only woody Allen could write. woman love this because its like looking in the mirror so they will enjoy this film probably
this movies was not enjoyed by me however because there was no car chase and also the film didn't have any fights. there was also no drug lords or gang bangers. Not to mention a lack of snakes. This film had no snakes. Not my cup of tea and maybe not yours ether so think about what I have said before you find yourself watching this film.
Unless of course you resemble a female have weight issues man issues enjoy sex and the city and ally mcbeal then this is meaningful for you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.
Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments  I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!)  but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing  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\nPerhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.
I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy 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\nI picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation (\"If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!\") on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like \"Death Proof\"... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue.
Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.
The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the \"art\". I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle.
\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\nEast Palace, West Palace reminded me somewhat of The Detective, with Frank Sinatra in the role of the cop, and William Windom is the boy. It's a progressive film for China, I guess, but it also perpetuates myths about the femininity of gay men: much is made of Chinese myths in which men take on female roles. The movie focuses on an effeminate man who wants desperately to be dominated and hurt by a macho guy. He cruises the park without fear--he hopes to be taken into the stationhouse by the officer. And that in fact happens. Then he tells the officer his entire life story while being subjected to mild torture: made to squat for a period of time, handcuffed, slapped. This is what the gay man wants, and, implicitly, the gay man is challenging the cop's self-image as a manly man. The story's about the gay man's life (which include flashbacks) are tolerable, but when he starts describing old Chinese myths and dramatic works, the movie becomes unbearable. It becomes a cry of pity for China's gays, who only want to fulfill a traditional role in Chinese society. Sorry, I can't relate.
\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 kind of movie i fear the most. Arrogant and Irresponsible, it presents a sketch of the colombian conflict so cliched and dumb it represents an insult to all Colombian people. The performances are godawul, from Grisales (her naked scene is absolutely pitiful), to Bejarano, to Fanny Mickey (who looks right out of a Tim Burton nightmare), to Díaz, who makes a notable effort to bring life to a character so one-dimensional, so cliched and so badly written all he´s left to work with is a mustache. Not to mention the gratuitous ending, a gore fest so cheesy that it would make Ed Wood cringe. It fails in all ways, cinematography, art direction, costumes, makeup, editing, and most of all directing, Jorge Alí Triana has always been a lousy filmmaker but at least his previous movies had some dignity. I can't say anything good about this waste of money, except that i hope Colombian filmmakers learn a lesson about honesty, integrity and responsability from this mean-intended fiasco.
\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\nAll of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior \"film\" (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of \"this is my roommate, I trained him well\". WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.
If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka \"Killer Workout\". But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar.
\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\nImagine the worst A-team episode Add even more bad taste Remove humor and you might get an idea of how despicable this movie is ! Looks like a teenager stole Daddy's Camcorder and filmed the explosion of his little sister Barbie model house. Pathetic.
\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 one features all the (bad) effect of Prior's cheap-o movies, but is so overtly racist, nasty and unpleasant that it is difficult to give this piece of dreck any redeeming feature. Unless you plan to enlist in the Marines, skip this one. Oh, and even if you do, avoid it at all costs.
\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\nUpdating of the Bliss theme is merely the latest in a lengthening queue of bad-to-average local comedies which appeal to the conservative cinema-going set. (For the record, this list, all of the films on which appear to be attempting a Castle-esque miracle, includes, Strange Bedfellows, Thunderstruck, Bad Eggs, The Honourable Wally Norman, Horseplay, The Wannabes and The Nugget. The only one to have worked has been Crackerjack.)
Here, the performances never mesh, as John Howard doesn't even look like he's in the right film  though perhaps that was the intention, as Franklin plays sleepy, conservative suburbia against its more interesting inhabitants. 20-year-old virgins who live with their parents are becoming rarer on-screen, but this is hardly a reason to watch the film. In fact, the only reasons may well be (1) Howard's bizarre  but quite fun  performance, and (2) the 'suburban nightmare' theme, which has run through Somersault, Strange Bedfellows, Tom White, Alexandra's Project, Danny Deckchair, The Rage in Placid Lake, Traveling Light, Teesh & Trude, Swimming Upstream and Lantana, many of which are very good/excellent. Enter at own risk! May be one for people who titter at the word 'penis'. 4/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is a real shame that nearly no one under 30 knows the \"over the top\" writing of Michael O'Donoghugh- magazine articles and SNL skits that were genius for the time...and so it is a true shame that anyone who may take the opportunity to research his work will no doubt take the easy way out and watch videos- thus leading them to MR MIKES MONDO VIDEO.
This movie has clever elements that never fully connect to the funny bone. The viewer experiences such things as cat diving/swimming with the man who thinks he's found feline happiness by hurling these kittens into a pool which the camera follows in slow motion and montage sequence. Then we are taken to an island to where all past fads are retired (hula hops, pet rocks, rainbow dread wigs etc.) Then we enter the music world (punk was a new variety of music at the time of this film) where \"D\" rate bar performer Rootboy Slim performs \"boogie till you puke\" in his own lazy style of dirt and eclectic sleaze. Now the real beauty of all this is the back ground music. In many different styles with many different instruments the sound of TELSTAR plays and replays- for those who don't understand Telstar was the first American Satellite launched into space and the theme was created to celebrate mans genius and triumph. MR MIKES seems to have been meant as a signal of societal decay ridiculous wastes. Now one thing the theater offered that the video release does not was a live performance of Sid Vicious (ex sex pistol not the wrestler) singing MY WAY. His version is very different than Sinatras as one might imagine but frankly I feel it is very much worth the listen...it's good! That is the sad part- in the VHS release Paul Anka refuses the rights of his song and the viewer is forced to experience 3 1/2 minutes of silence with an explanation rolling across the image of the singing dead sex pistol.
I would give the theater release a 5 or 6 the video is closer to a 4 and now that so much is passé I can see where many people would give it a 3 or 2.5. If you want to see a good O'Donoghugh script watch SCROOGED...it is a better tribute to the mans insight and talent.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie in 1979, I was 17 or 18, when it was released. The theater was perhaps 1/4 full when the movie started. Ten minutes into the movie me and the friend who went with me to see the film were the only two people in the theater. The movie was really weird and had no plot or reason to its script and people demanded their money back. We decided to stay for the ENTIRE movie.... why endure such torture??... here's why. We wanted to be true movie critics... to have a standard to base all other movies on it is hard to justify saying you have seen the best movie (a 10)they always come up with something better. But, it is easy to be able to base all other movies off of the worst movie ever made (and this is it... a 1 at best). There may be other movies out there that truly qualify as a 1, but I have yet to see them. I now base all movies I see on a scale based on this worst....I AM A TRUE MOVIE CRITIC...he he.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI actually saw this movie at a theater. As soon as I handed the cashier my money, she said two words I had never heard at a theater, before or since: \"No refunds!\" As soon as I heard those words, I should have just waved bye-bye to my cash and gone home. But no, foolishly, I went in and watched the movie. This movie didn't make ANYONE in the theater laugh. Not even once. Not even inadvertantly! Mostly, we sat there in stunned silence. Every ten minutes or so, someone would yell \"This movie SUCKS!\" The audience would applaud enthusiastically, then sit there in stunned, bored silence for another ten minutes.
\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 looked forward to seeing this movie when it came out, since I was a huge SNL fan. When my boyfriend and I went to see it, the people coming out of the early show were yelling, \"Don't waste your money!\" But of course we had to find out for ourselves.
While there were a few funny bits (Laser Bra 2000, Root Boy Slim), most of it felt like it could have been severely edited down to an amusing 1 hour show. It was pretty bad.
When the opera singer came on, many people got up and walked out. This made me laugh, because I realized that O'Donoghue was just pressing people's buttons on purpose with this movie. Or else he was just insane. Whatever - you don't need to waste your time watching it, it's that bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called \"PKO Productions\" gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three \"Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories\" from SNL. Plus, the \"cat swimming\" section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 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\nIf you enjoy the original SNL cast and shows then avoid this movie at all costs. When this first came out my friends and I waited in line for over an hour to get in to a sold out movie house. half way through the movie the theatre was 3/4 empty. We refused to leave thinking it would get better. When the movie ended we were the only ones left in the theatre. The movie lasted only one day in all theaters then vanished from sight. In interviews with \"Mr. Mike\" he refused to comment on this film. The film was an inside joke on the episodes of SNL that came out right after the films release and closing in one day. We all tried to contact \"Mr. Mike\" by phone and mail to get a refund but were totally ignored.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this cinematic wretchedness in a dollar theater with a friend in 1979 (back when the tickets actually sold for $1). This is the only film I have ever walked out on (with my friend, while the idiocy that is the \"Laser Bra 2000\" sketch was on screen). Evidently, my and my friend's reaction to the film was a common one. It is not that I found the film offensive (either as an 18-year-old or now), but rather that it is mind-numbingly stupid and patently unfunny, devoid even of the unintended humor that makes a Ed Wood film watchable. This is the real reason why NBC refused to air it, rather than a failure to comprehend Mr. Mike's \"vision\" (unless, of course, his vision was to drive the film's backers into bankruptcy).
I remained surprised to this day that this film does not seem to have made any published \"10 worst films of all time\" list. It certainly makes mine. 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\nWhy does this movie fall WELL below standards? Ultimately, the answer lies in the poor, humourless script. A slim/average looking Travolta (looking rather dapper in black I must say, even with a HUGE mullet) and Gross both act very well as two young-ish 'slick-dressed' but nevertheless dimwitted New Yorkers eager to open their own nightclub. Other than that, the rest of the film is just boring to watch. It is SO dull that it's really not worth knowing what happens in the film's climax on any level. Kelly Preston obviously exudes sex appeal and the sexually charged dance with her husband-to-be Travolta is one of the film's few pleasures. Charles Martin Smith is quite fun to watch as struggling KGB honcho \"Bob Smith\". Personally, I think the movie would have been better if the plot was altered a little so that the settings did not change from NY to 'Indian Springs, Nebraska' (which is in the former Soviet Union?)--you'll understand if you see the movie... Apparently, this movie was filmed in 1986 ready for a 1987 release. I guess Paramount stalled on releasing the movie until January 1989 because of the unbelievable plot. It was reported they deemed it \"unreleasable\". Nevertheless, this $6,000,000 film garnered a little over an embarrassing $163,000 in revenue as it was released only BRIEFLY in places like Texas and Colorado before heading straight-to-video. This is testament to the overall BAD quality of 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\nI thought this film would be a lot better then it was. It sounded like a spoof off of the spy gener, and the start of it reminded me of Pleasantvil, but this film came up short.
The plot is just to ridiculous. The KGB and Soviet Union in Russia have started up a spy school to teach their spies' how to act like Americans, but the town they set up in it for training is a bit dated, so they grab two yanks from the US to spice things up. I don't know, but this seems just to out there. It gets really odd when next to no one in this all Russian town speaks in a Russian accent. Someone screwed up in the casting job.
Also, for a comedy this is painfully dry. There is one, two funny spots tops, and they are nothing to sing and dance about. The film in the end will likely put you to sleep.
And, as a twisted punch in the face, this film is so pro the US it makes me sick. The movie keeps on saying again and again, the US is God and Russia is the devil. This is the kind of smear campaign that was done against the Japanese in World War 2. It's films like these that makes everyone think that the US is full of itself.
This gets a 4 out of 10, and I'm being kind. It should really get a one, but the dance scene was funny, but then again it dragged far to long to be really funny.
\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're in the mood for some dopey light entertainment, this will pass the time. If you expect one jot of plausibility, don't bother. To me, the dance scene looked like it was exaggerated for comic effect; it didn't look especially hot or skilled.
\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\nOne of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.
Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon \"Amazing Grace\" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.
Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss (\"But it's one a.m.\" \"I don't care, get him on the line\") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.
Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why \"Amazing Grace\" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, \"I never told you this, but I'm proud of you.\" Cue hug.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"