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\nWhile watching the film, I'm not sure what direstion it was to take. There's a reason a writer shouldn't direct his work and even act in it as well, you can't do it all. I felt the story really suffered in this film due to the director wearing so many hats. Ms. McTeer is the film. To add to her amazing talents, her portrayal of this woman was why I was engaged. Here is a British actress who can do anything. In my view, conflict is what makes drama and a great story. I felt this film didn't have that. Everything was somewhat easy for the characters, there were no real obstacles preventing the chahracters from getting what they wanted. Watch the film for the sweetness, but most of all for Ms. McTeer's brilliant performance.
\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\nWe've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel.
\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 Bank\" (1915, Chaplin) \"The Bank\" was one of Charlie's 1915 Essanay films. While these group of films are more watchable than their 1914 counterparts, this one seems a bit below average. The gag with the janitorial double combo-locked vault and the tough-luck ending that has Charlie waking up from a dream, in which he is stroking the lead lady's hair, only to be stroking the head of a mop he had used as a quasi pillow, are both classic Chaplin moments. They are both ironically the beginning and the end. The middle is filled in with fighting with the rival co-worker janitor and busting up a bank robbery to win the girl. The mop is probably the greatest physical prop of this movie and Charlie uses it to expert comedic effect whether while it is the intention of his character or not. The mop seems to be Charlie's alter-ego doing things he wishes he could do but wouldn't with his own two hands. Interesting stuff but there's better.
\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 refused to watch this when it originally aired, treasuring the memory of the late, lamented 1960s series with Mike Pratt and Kenneth Cope, but I can never resist a challenge. I should have known better. Not quite a remake, and more of a parody than a homage, this show didn't quite know how to play it, and plumped with infantile comedy and cartoon plots and characters. The three main characters were little more than caricatures of the actors, and only Emilia Fox could act (Bob Mortimer is painful in a straight role). The supporting cast were merely comedian-acquaintances of Vic and Bob's wanting to be part of the in-joke, and far too aware of the situation to be convincing. And the CGI, though the effects couldn't help be an improvement on those available 30 years earlier, merely dazzled the viewer with lights and camera work, and did little to mask the poor quality of the scripts and dialogue. All style and no substance. (And whereas the 1960s show is mocked for being very much of its time, this 'update' is now also very dated, with 'Matrix'-style fashions, obligatory 'girl power' scenes, and less than subtle tension between the two living leads.)
\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 video guide was the masterpiece of the year 1995. Beautifully done! Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston have major on-screen chemistry when they talk about what the Start button does. I'm waiting for Microsoft to release a Special Edition DVD complete with deleted scenes, Bill Gates commentary, a documentary of how Windows 95 compares to Windows XP, and more!
Overall: 10/10 (Should have won at least a Golden Globe)
\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 can deal with historical inaccuracies, but this film was just too much. Practically nothing was even close to truth, and even for the era, it was seen as silly.
In defense of ford, it was revealed on an old talk show, that he was operating on the story as told to him by the real Wyatt Earp, who was obviously old, senile, and replayed the scene his own way. Earp told the director about the stagecoach, and how it was planned to happen during the stagecoach arrival, so despite what other historians claim, Wyat himself asserts that it was premeditated.
This movie portrays Earp as an honest man, and also his brothers. History doesn't exactly say they were or weren't. Most people like to interject a bit of deceit and lawlessness into their characters, but that is nothing new. The truth is probably closer to them being the law abiding sorts of GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. Men who saw it as a career, and believe me, in the old West, you didn't have time to think about too much else.
Characters that don't exist, characters depicted dying at the corral who really didn't, all make this a weaker film. It is further weakened by Mature, who really didn't make a convincing Doc. He may be the worst cast choice ever for Doc, but at the same time we must remember that older movies were closer to the era and closer to a feel for the truth. After all, ford did get information first hand from Wyatt Earp.
It is also weakened by the all so predictable events involving the Mexican girl. Hollywood was very pro Nazi in those days, and ready to kill off brunette women in very predictable fashion to show their patronage to Hitler idealism. This occurs in most movies until the eighties. It is no excuse, and does cheapen the art, however.
The actors who play the Earps do well, and Brennan is always a thrill. In fact, Mature may be the only acting downside of this flick. Still, it is the weakest of the old OK Corral movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo put it simply, I am not fond of westerns. And having never sat through one from beginning to end, I decided to watch \"My Darling Clementine\" and see it all the way through, no matter how painful it was for me. At first it was excruciating as expected. I found the acting to be laughable, the scenery (your standard dessert, horses and cowboys) boring and the music and its timing teetering on the edge of painful. However, after mentally pep talking myself to struggle on, after the first 20 minutes it began to be quite a bit easier for me to endure. Focusing in on the cinematography, and how John Ford managed to make even the dullest situations (dull according to me that is) look quite stunning at times, made it a lot more interesting.
In conclusion, I can't go so far as to say that I enjoyed the movie by the end of it. However it was made well enough for me to sit all the way through to the very end, and that in itself impresses me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a fantastic premise: A movie about the Berlin Airlift. It should have it all. Tragedy. Suspense. Comradeship. Rivals. Berliner Frauleins and tough US pilots. love and Tears. What we've got, is a film with none of the above. Heino Ferch tries to impersonate John Wayne or so, but he fails miserably. He acts so wooden, that at any given moment he should crack. He tries to play the tough guy, instead of being a tough guy! Why would Bettina Zimmermann's character fall in love with him? Cause they were throwing stones in a lake? Cause he brings her coal bricks? The SFX are very, very well done. Too much though. The hundreds or so planes over Berlin, look like an attack-fighter-formation-squadron rather than an organised airlift  as it actually was. Interestingly enough, the White House, the Kremlin, and General Lucius D. Clays office seem all to be one and the same dark and dusty set. Notice the same drapes, hanging deep down the windows, as if a protective shield against nuclear fallout. Why is almost every scene INSIDE dark and dusty? By the way, GENERAL LUCIUS D. CLAY, comes across as a small time, insecure, looser General, who doest trust in his own noble idea the airlift. He was very much the opposite. So you combine all those individual blunders and the result is a film with that builds toward no passion, no suspense and no historic accuracy. Sad, it started out so promising
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe idea of making a miniseries about the Berlin airlift seemed to me as one of the more interesting German (post)war movies. It is a theme that has not been explored much as yet. However, the makers of this series stuffed it with clichés. It starts already with the DVD cover of the movie, which is a direct copy of the cover of 'Pearl Harbor'.
Luise Kielberg (Bettina Zimmermann) gets to hear that her husband, who is a doctor, (Ulrich Noethen) has died in Russia and after the war she's struggling to survive. She finds a job at the American base, gets to work for the coolest and highest ranking officer (Heino Ferch) in town, falls in love with 'm, gets pregnant, and all of a sudden her husband turns up again. Come on!!! We've seen this once too often. Heino Ferch and Ulrich Noethen play their role quite well; Bettina Zimmermann however never really seems to convince. For some reason it always seems she's somewhat too late in giving the right emotional reaction to the scenes. It just didn't work for me.
The action scenes with the planes and the air lift, we're sometimes exciting, more often not. Nasty things always seemed to happen to the same pilot.
Unless you're a big fan of WWII movies, I suggest you spend your money on something else: chocolate ice-cream brings a lot more satisfaction!
4 out 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\nHeavenly Days commits a serious comedy faux pas: it's desperate to teach us a civics lesson, and it won't stop until we've passed the final exam. Fibber McGee and Molly take a trip to Washington, where they see the senate in action (or inaction, if you prefer), have a spat with their Senator (Eugene Palette in one of the worst roles of his career), get acquainted with a gaggle of annoying stereotypical refugee children, and meet a man on a train reading a book by Henry Wallace. Henry Wallace!! A year later, he was considered a near communist dupe, but in 1944, he was A-OK. Add in some truly awful musical moments, a whole lot of flagwaving hooey, and a boring subplot about newspaper reporters, and you've got a film that must have had Philip Wylie ready to pen Generation of Vipers 2: D.C. Boogaloo. Drastically unfun, Heavenly Days is another reminder that the Devil has all the best tunes.
\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-note comedy that probably sets modern day feminists' teeth on edge. Department store clerk Betsy Drake is in love with the idea of babies and marriage, pinning her hopes on women's magazines until she spies super-bait in the form of sleek bachelor Cary Grant. The rest of the film plods from one ploy to the next as the relentless Drake pursues her quarry. I guess the word \"perky\" just about sum's up Drake's approach to the role. She does have a charming smile, but after 20 minutes of memorizing her dentures, I began to overdose. Grant's role is basically secondary and minus his usual flair. There is one scene, however, that almost salvages this slender exercise. Drake queries the hapless Grant following his lecture to a roomful of respectable ladies. Here her perky manner has an unforced freshness that is really quite remarkable, and had the production not rubbed our noses in that upbeat grin for 90 minutes, the film might have amounted to more than a girls' camp day-dream, circa 1948.
\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\nStalker is right! Girl sees guy, girl wants guy, girl contrives mundane ways to keep bumping into him, girl won't leave him alone, girl pretends to be a patient, girl can't stop talking about him, girl pretends to love another guy (or two), he doesn't pay attention to her because she's annoying, girl STILL won't leave him alone. Played right, Drake's character could have been charming but she's completely, wholly, unrelenting in her pursuit of Cary Grant's character, her girlfriend-in-cahoots is dull, and sadly, Drake's attempt at playing, \"charmingly screwball\" comes off as, \"disturbingly demented.\" Grant is himself, as usual, which is fine for Cary but it's as close to a phoned-in performance as I've ever seen from him. The direction is lackluster and the dialog is just plain dim.
Screwball comedy is very difficult to do successfully and when it fails, like in this stubbed-out butt of an attempt, it just stinks. Worse still, Drake spends the entire film in need of a lot of Valium and a restraining order. She ruins any humor to be found in this drier than mummy dust relic.
\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 among millions who consider themselves Cary Grant fans, but I can't think of a single reason to recommend this movie.I don't understand the casting of Betsy Drake and it appears no one else did,if we're to judge from the small number of films in which she played afterwards.
Most fans will agree that Katharine Hepburn was superb at chasing and catching Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby.Here the director or writers try to rehash the idea,but it fails miserably.I've read comments about how \"creepy\" Drake was,but I thought that was far too mild a description. Franchot Tone walked through this one as if he were hungover.A casting disaster is one thing.This film is a total disaster.
This one doesn't deserve 10 lines of comments and I don't know why that's a requirement.Too bad this one was preserved when so many worthwhile films lie rotting in vaults.
Unless you want to torture someone,give this one a wide berth.
\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 woman never stops talking throughout the movie. She memorized every line, and delivered all without a bit of natural emotion. She also has a most uncharming lisp, and the pitch of her voice sounds like nails on a blackboard. This film has WAY too much Betsy Drake, and not enough Cary Grant, who carried what little was left of the film entirely on his own.
\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\nRemade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.
Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since.

\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 always found Betsy Drake rather creepy, and this movie reinforces that. As another review said, this is a stalker movie that isn't very funny. I watched it because it has CG in it, but he hardly gets any screen time. It's no \"North by Northwest\"...
\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\nMaximally manipulative Anabel Sims (Betsy Drake) sets out to trap her ideal man, aided by her co-worker, Julie. Esteemed pediatrician Madison Brown (Cary Grant) goes from bemused to betrothed in the space of 90 minutes on film, but to the viewer it's all eternity. Can a movie receive less than one star? This one is a prime candidate.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went in to this movie thinking it was going to be the next Clerks, but left feeling let down. The humor was weak and the characters fairly flat. That isn't to say it was all bad, the idea of the dating service in the grocery store seemed like pretty fertile material, but the director switched focus to the cliche'd \"save the Mom-and-Pop store from the evil corporation guy\". I felt like if he would have just stuck with the dating service plot, he would have come out with a much more memorable movie. Now, to do the film justice, I am from the Rochester area and loved the way he portrayed Webster. In fact, the best Kevin Smith (of Clerks) homage here was giving props to his hometown. Webster, NY is to Checkout what Red Bank, NJ is to Clerks. The director wisely threw in a date at Nick Tahou's. Trust me, as far as things to do in Rochester, a garbage plate is at the top of the list. I was lucky enough to see this film at the Little in Rochester so everybody knew when the odes to the town came up and appreciated them.
\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 should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not \"good, clean fun.\" the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made.
\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 movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).
I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews.
Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?
I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...
Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking...
\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\nCQ is incredibly slow, and I'm a David Mamet fan. The movie follows around a young filmmaker who is making a very Barbarella-esque film. After that the movie started to lose me. Deep and profound? Not really. The movie \"Dragonfly\" being made in CQ has the problem of having no ending. This greatly parallels CQ, which also lacks an ending (in my opinion).
I was lucky enough to catch this movie at the SxSW film festival. I had fairly high expectations having just watched Y Tu Mama Tambien and several other great movies. I was also looking forward to Jason Schwartzman's performance. But it was not an easy film to get into. If you're not into 60's sci-fi or slow movies that go no where, skip it.
CQ feels like a student film. If you want a recent sci-fi-esque indie film rent Donnie Darko, it won't put you to sleep.
\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\nCQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a \"twist\" or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy.
\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\nOkay, the film festival crowd probably loved it. But your average, popcorn munching movie goer who has scraped to-gether the ten or fifteen bucks it costs to see a movie these days will probably wonder why he or she made this choice. If it's stamped \"Copolla\" it's automatically great stuff, right? Wrong! It's a neat spoof of filmdom's pretensions. But it's terribly \"in.\" I worry when film makers are more concerned about entertaining themselves rather than the public. It's interesting as a cinematic curio and it does have a chuckle or two in it. But once it's run its course in the movies and on TV, the dust will grow thick on the film cans and tape boxes holding it. Hardly either epochal or an epic!
\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\nCQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: \"CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker.\"
\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\nStyle but no substance. Not as funny as it should be. Not as deep as it wants to be.
This is another in the genre of films about the difficulties of filmmaking. A young filmaker is hired to finish a campy 60s sci-fi movie called Codename:Dragonfly. Think Barbarella, or Danger Diabolique.
But Jeremy Davies is an angst-ridden filmmaker. He's no hack he's an artist. The movie he wants to make is a diary of his life. Hardly original.
All the characters outside of Jeremy Davies filmmaker are as thin as rice-paper. Characters that might be interesting, such as his father, his doppelganger, or Jason Schwarzmann as a hack director are introduced and then shown the door without adding a thing.
This movie is full of eye candy but when compared to other films about filmmakers such as Stardust Memories or 8 1/2 it pales in comparison. Those movies are funny, provocative with well-developed characters. Those movies have lessons that apply outside
The movie wants to be comic and campy but its just derivative and there is not one funny scene. The filmmakers describe it as a send-up but what's the satirical target? The actors say it's an homage but I think I would rather a full-length version of Codename:Dragonfly.
Coppola is clearly amused by the setting as is evident by the visual humor of the sci-fi movie within a movie. But he fails to share why we should be amused.
Outside of the sci-fi movie its just a mess. There are continuity errors, the filmmaker chooses a sci-fi weapon after its already been chosen. What?
Just because he has a scene were the filmmaker is confronted by the critics complaining about the lack of story, lack of a point, a scene where he admits empty cleverness does not mean that he has addressed those criticisms.
I guess if your Roman Coppola you can get away with making a movie about an angst-ridden idealistic filmmaker who doesn't know what he wants to say and so ends up saying nothing. In that sense it may be considered autobiograhical.
I would watch it at Circuit City on a wall full of TVs if I had a choice. Watch the 15-minute Codename:Dragonfly movies included on the DVD as extras and then send it 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\nFrom the nepotism capitol of the world comes another junk flick in a fancy wrapper. \"CQ\" tells a lame, disjointed mess of a story which is little more than a bunch of silly caricatures, a babe, and straight man Davies running around trying to make a stupid sci-fi flick. I can't think of any reason anyone would want to spend time with this ridiculous attempt at film making. (D)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really love the sexy action and sci-fi films of the sixties and its because of the actress's that appeared in them. They found the sexiest women to be in these films and it didn't matter if they could act (Remember \"Candy\"?). The reason I was disappointed by this film was because it wasn't nostalgic enough. The story here has a European sci-fi film called \"Dragonfly\" being made and the director is fired. So the producers decide to let a young aspiring filmmaker (Jeremy Davies) to complete the picture. They're is one real beautiful woman in the film who plays Dragonfly but she's barely in it. Film is written and directed by Roman Coppola who uses some of his fathers exploits from his early days and puts it into the script. I wish the film could have been an homage to those early films. They could have lots of cameos by actors who appeared in them. There is one actor in this film who was popular from the sixties and its John Phillip Law (Barbarella). Gerard Depardieu, Giancarlo Giannini and Dean Stockwell appear as well. I guess I'm going to have to continue waiting for a director to make a good homage to the films of the sixties. If any are reading this, \"Make it as sexy as you can\"! I'll be waiting!
\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 you need to know about this film happens in the first five minutes: it looks cool, it has a solid original soundtrack reflective of the late-60s period, and all but a couple of its characters are unlikeable. Once you get that message, you may as well switch to another film.
Davies's protagonist ignores his beautiful girlfriend, one of the few people in his life who cares about him. Then by the time he takes her advice to join her in the real world--instead of living a fantasy film of which he's the imagined director--he does so by pushing her aside and pairing up with an actress he's idealized beyond reason. A couple laughs and some thoughtful art direction are the only things worth watching here.
The film is also interesting as documentation of Jason Schwartzman's fall from Mount Rushmore. In Rushmore, Schwartzman's annoying brattiness was something to be overcome, but here it's his character's only quality. Schwartzman's family connection clearly landed him in this role; here's hoping his choices improve.
\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 the film started the first 4 minutes seemed like a travelogue of California, I was wondering if I got the tapes mixed up. Then I breathed a sigh of relief to see Paul Thomas in a scene with the lovely Joanna Storm and Laurie Smith. This is being spied on by Jimmy (a young Tom Byron). Jimmy's aunt (Honey Wilder) is concerned about his behavior so she hires him a private teacher (Kay Parker). I could do without the animal, robot role-playing, or the incest aspects.There's one good sex scene, between Byron and Parker, but it's not good enough to save this film.
My Grade: D+
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams \"Afterschool special\". Anyhoo.
Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.
We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.
But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering \"Jay Jay, what am I doing here?\" made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.
Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here.
\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\nYes, about the only thing this film is memorable for is that it starred a youngish Tom Hanks who only a few short years later would be a relevant star in Hollywood. Here though is not a movie that is going to showcase his talents much at all and the only other thing that might be considered somewhat entertaining about this flick is the scene where he thinks he sees a monsters and runs a guy through. Yes, this movie is about the evils of playing a game that makes a group of people use their imaginations and try to come up with interesting scenarios. Basically, an after school type special about the evils of the game Dungeons and Dragons cleverly retitled here as Mazes and Monsters. Apparently, the makers of this film thought that nerds should not have fun of any sort unless they were going to go out and do underage drinking, drugs, having lots of unprotected sex and harass other weaker children like all the popular kids were doing. No, these bad people were playing a game that actually required one to use there brain, heaven's no! Not that, if they have a brain they actually may be able to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by certain groups out there. Yes, I think this movie is utterly stupid and a waste of time. Granted, it could be a movie against addiction, but there are a lot fewer people who died taking Dungeons and Dragons to far in its entire existence than than say what drunk driving claims in like a month.
\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\nHoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End
\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 tried to like this slasher, like I try to enjoy all slasher films. I mean mindless slaying mixed with a little nudity and some suspense, how can you go wrong. But Unhinged I think is an example of that formula going wrong. The main issue is the horrible acting of the main three girls that landed up in the house. It was as if they were under sedation, and it stopped me from ever getting interested in their plight. The film aims for suspense and creepiness but the by the numbers direction saps it of those, and leaves the movie pretty dull. It's a shame, because if the movie was better executed, it would have have been ace. The story and characters are pretty creepy and there are some dark and bizarrely humorous moments of interaction between the mother, the girls, and the daughter in the old house. There's some good nudity, and occasional splashy bloodletting, just not enough to give the film the kick it needed. The finale is pretty twisted and fearsome, and does give the film a big lift but sadly, its too little too late. So, in my opinion, one to avoid, unless you really love obscure slasher films. There's a fair amount of potential, but the film delivers too little to be worthwhile.
\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 banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...
this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.
there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.
i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.
banned... what a joke...
\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\nUnhinged was part of the Video Nasty censorship film selection that the UK built up in the 80's. Keeps the gory stuff out of the hands of children, don't you know! It must have left many wondering what the fuss was all about. By today's standard, Unhinged is a tame little fairy tale.
3 girls are off to a jazz concert... and right away, you know the body count is going to be quite low. They get lost in the woods, & wind up getting in a car accident that looks so fake it's laughable. They are picked up by some nearby residents that live in the woods in a creepy house. One of the girls is seriously injured and has to stay upstairs. Then there's talking. Talking about why the girls are here, and how they must be to dinner on time because mother doesn't like it when someone is late. And more talking. Yakkity yak. Some suspense is built as a crazy guy is walking around and harassing the girls, and someone's eyeball is looking through holes in the walls at the pretty girls in something that looks like Hitchcock's Psycho. I digress because there is so much blah blah in this film, that you wonder when the killings are going to start. In fact, one of the girls gets so bored out of her mind that she walks in the woods, alone, looking for the town. Smart move. She probably knew about the lonely virgin walking alone in the woods part, but just didn't care. More talk continues after this as we wait, wait, and wait some more until the next girl may or may not be killed.
And then there's the twist ending. The \"expected\" unexpected for some viewers, for others a real gotcha. Quite possibly the ONLY reason why someone would really want to watch this. I don't care how twisted it is, nothing in this movie makes up for the most boring time I had watching it. Even with the minor impact of the ending, the director just didn't have what it takes to really deliver a good story with it. It would have made a much better 30 minute - 1 hour TV episode on say, Tales from the Darkside.
If you really must get this for any reason, perhaps just to say you've watched every slasher movie, do yourself a favor and have the fast-forward button ready. Since the movie has so many unimportant scenes, just zoom through them, and in no time, you'll get to the \"WOW, that's what it was all this time\" ending. Oh and halfway through the movie there's a shower scene with 2 girls showing boo-bees. Horray for boo-bees. Those beautiful buzzing honey-making boo-bees.
\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\nTwist endings can be really cool in a movie. It's especially interesting when the twist is right in front of our eyes, but we just don't pay attention. Those type of twist endings are the one's that make people think. Then we've got twists like this film has. Twists that, whether or not you pay attention, you have no clue what's going to happen. When they reveal this kind of random twist, instead of shock, it's somewhat a dumbfounded reaction. This film starts off like it's going to be an interesting take on horror, but after about 20 minutes, it's nothing but boring dialogue and a stupid twist.
Three young women are going to a concert, so they get lost traveling through the woods, and hit a tree trunk. They end up at some old creepy lady's house, who hates men, and they are greeted by her homely daughter Marion (Laurel Munson). Strange goings on happen as these girls stay at this house for several days instead of trying to leave or get home, and the suspense progresses into a dumb slasher.
This film is too caught up in it's dialogue, and it's always between only a few characters. We have the main three girls, the creepy spinster and the old lady, and conversation of any importance does not go beyond these five. To make matters worse, they never have anything interesting to say. It's actually quite maddening sitting through their conversations. We want to know what's going on, and instead they just talk and talk and talk (about nothing).
Plot holes are abundant here. The house these girls stay at when they get in their car accident is apparently three miles from anywhere...wow, three miles! A two hour or less walk will kill them. Why didn't they get a ride with the worker for this household who was driving into town? Did he have a one seater? How come these girls never question leaving and just willingly stay, rarely even checking up on each other? Why did this have to have so many dumb twists? Maybe the answers are in the boring script.
Having a slasher film with five characters is really a bad idea. It's not thrilling, it's not scary, and the ending is definitely out there, but undoubtedly dumb.
My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 79 mins. R for nudity and violence.
\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\nEver watched a movie that lost the plot? Well, this didn't even really have one to begin with.
Where to begin? The achingly tedious scenes of our heroine sitting around the house with actually no sense of menace or even foreboding created even during the apparently constant thunderstorms (that are strangely never actually heard in the house-great double glazing)? The house that is apparently only a few miles from a town yet is several hours walk away(?) or the third girl who serves no purpose to the plot except to provide a surprisingly quick gory murder just as the tedium becomes unbearable? Or even the beginning which suggests a spate of 20+ killings throughout the area even though it is apparent the killer never ventures far from the house? Or the bizarre ritual with the salt & pepper that pretty much sums up most of the films inherent lack of direction.
Add a lead actress who can't act but at least is willing to do some completely irrelevant nude shower scenes and this video is truly nasty, but not in the way you hope.
Given a following simply for being banned in the UK in the 80's (mostly because of a final surprisingly over extended murder) it offers nothing but curiosity value- and one classic 'daft' murder (don't worry-its telegraphed at least ten minutes before).
After a walk in the woods our victim comes to a rather steep upward slope which they obviously struggle up. Halfway through they see a figure at the top dressed in black and brandishing a large scythe. What do they do? Slide down and run like the rest of us? No, of course not- they struggle to the top and stand conveniently nice and upright in front of the murder weapon.
It really IS only a movie as they say..
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've never really considered myself much of \"student\" when it comes to watching films, I watch them, form an opinion and that's it. But Unhinged changed all this. This film is without a doubt the most inept attempt at film making I've ever seen. Every kid who rocks up at university thinking they're gonna be the next Spielberg or Tarantino needs to be handed this film with a handbook titled \"How Not to Make A Film\". Not only is there no story to be had, the film makers weren't even competent enough to make a film worth watching. It's been a while since I saw it, but all I can say is watch the overhead tracking shots in the opening scenes. They are never ending! It's almost like having your teeth pulled, only not as much fun.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"