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\n{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie \"Gwoemul\" (aka \"The Host\") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film \"Shiri/Swiri\", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}
The only \"reason\" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 \"Dragonheart\", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember \"Dungeons & Dragons\" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.
In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem \"Arirang\" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).
\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 sorriest collection of clichés, strung together on a straight line, with no discernible plot or any decent way of acting I've seen in a long time. Canibalising scenes from Star Wars, Reign of Fire, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, it went for an all out war on the viewer intelligence. Was this movie good? It wasn't a movie at all!
Even if it doesn't go so low to actually be funny and achieve cult status as a comedy, the movie does offer some laughs. The trick is to put the copied scenes in the context of their original films. Gandalf can be funny talking Korean, the basilisk looking snake hilarious if you compare it to a kitten and the evil henchman can provide a lot of fun switching back and forth between Sauron and Jaja-bing, or whatever his name was.
Bottom line: any pleasure derived from this movie is completely dependent on the state of intoxication and imagination of the viewers, not on the director/writer. Shame on you, Shim!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.
I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.
The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.
This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend
-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park three
overall D-Wars is a pile
\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\nWhatever his name is (the writer and director) should be locked away in hopes garbage like this is never made again. This one is in a battle with some of the most awful movies of all time. Sometimes movies are bad in a way that they're actually sort of good. Not this one. This was so bad I got angry. Seriously. A drunken 10 year old could have come up with a better script. What a waste. ALL the actors were completely uninspired to work at all, the CGI was barely acceptable, the sequences of scenes were completely retarded and hurt the little bit of story there was, it's like he just decided, \"I want this to happen and this to happen, but I don't care how we got there, just shoot it and put it in. Whatever, I'm going back to my trailer to pick my nose, if anyone calls for me, I'm not here.\" Shame on you whatever your name is. Shame on 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\nI hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. Hyung-Rae Shim is lucky that bad film-making isn't a capital crime or he'd be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. I'm amazed that this film had a $75m budget, but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop, that Shim will hopefully, never get to make another movie the rest of the life and, therefore, not waste any more of filmgoers time. I would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now.
With the effects resources available to them, a great film could have been made with this budget. As usual, the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. \"Transformers\" was another visual feast with a weak script, but this makes it look like \"Citizen Kane\".
\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\nBased on the Korean legend, unknown creatures will return and devastate the planet. Reporter Ethan Kendrick is called in to investigate the matter, and he arrives at the conclusion that a girl, stricken with a mysterious illness, named Sarah is suppose to help him. The Imoogi makes its way to Los Angeles, wreaking havoc and destruction. With the entire city under arms, will Ethan and Sarah make it in time to save the people of Los Angeles? Written by Anonymous I think he should have included the following
This is the worst movie i have ever seen the best actor in the whole thing was the CG dragon and overall it s u c k-ed i am p i s s-ed at not only with the people who made it but myself for watching save yourself the time read a book or something maybe a little Dr Seuss that should be more stimulating.
no wonder the guy is anonymous sorry for the format this site has a lot of rules this is the only way i could get this out without adding more
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.
The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.
I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.
For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.
Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war?
\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 only gets a second star because i work downtown and liked seeing it destroyed. the effects were pretty good- i hear it was the most expensive Korean film ever made. being the most expensive and still absolutely horrid makes it a massive waste of money. i rented it so i won't complain too much about what i paid, but it was a couple hours that i'll never get back. plot holes abound. terrible acting all across the board. i do not recommend giving up the time to watch this movie, life is too short. if your friends want to watch this, run away. i can't stress enough how bad this film was.
where the hell did the second dragon come from? why didn't he show up sooner? how did they have rocket launchers on dinosaurs just 500 years ago?
\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 knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.
The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can become one with a good dragon or something I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.
It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.
I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the \"Lord of the Rings\" trilogy in 90 minutes You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars 90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.
Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the \"silly\" or \"stupid\" choices.
\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\nSqueamish 11-year-old Luke Benward (as Billy \"Worm Boy\" Forrester) moves to a new town. At his new school, young Benward is picked on by the other boys. They put worms in his thermos. Getting his gag reflex under control, Benward tosses a worm on freckle-faced bully Adam Hicks (as Joe Guire). Benward bets he can eat 10 worms in one day - without regurgitation!
Tall, teased Hallie Kate Eisenberg (as Erika \"Erk\" Tansy) uses her archery skills to help Benward. Director and former SCTV writer Bob Dolman promises, \"No worms were harmed in the making of this movie.\" In a related note, SCTV star Andrea Martin has one funny scene. \"How to Eat Fried Worms\" is loosely based on Thomas Rockwell's popular novel. Pre-teen kids into gross-outs should enjoy the film.
**** How to Eat Fried Worms (8/25/06) Bob Dolman ~ Luke Benward, Adam Hicks, Hallie Kate Eisenberg, Alexander Gould
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.
It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.
This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have to admit I did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. I watched it with a room full of kids, who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. The director, Bob Dolman, seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that I grew up with. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM FOR KIDS! Besides the fact that the content is so crude, the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. What a waste of a perfectly good story. If you read the book when you were younger and loved it, then don't waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. Buy your kids the book 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 just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was, 'oh god not again!'. it's so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason, though, i stayed and watched it 'til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors, hoping they'd give me something to cheer about.
and surely, ken and helena can act. also, the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point.
helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that's just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh's character...this was a triumph of acting, the movie itself is nothing unique.
see if you are an acting student...if you're looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it's sean penn serious! oh my, that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes...not for escapists 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\nSpoiler!! I love Branagh, love Helena Bonham-Carter, loved them together in \"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein\" - but THIS -
I can understand an actor's desire to stretch, to avoid the romantic stereotype. Well, they did, but really - the script droned on, Bonham-Carter's clothes were tres chic, and the occasional speeded-up \"madcap\" sequence could have been an outtake from a Beatles' movie, or the old Rowan and Martin Laugh-In.
I never got the point - other commenters say the Branagh character was a dreamer. I never felt that. He was a loser, and not very bright, and certainly not endearing. The business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. Certainly not amusing.
Bonham-Carter's realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of Lancashire accent in \"Full Monty.\"
The poetic ending, with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. Was there a choir of angels, or merely a soundtrack?
Go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. Donate this to PBS.

\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 still don't know why I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. This \"film\" wasn't worth the Memorex DVD-R it was burned on; I thought I was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents' camcorder. This is by far the worst movie ever made. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, want to sue Aaron Yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life.
So apparently, it's supposed to be bad on purpose; However, if you should end up in Hell and are forced to watch this 90-minute coil of doo-doo, you'll see that Yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. The actors attempt dramatic kick-ass performances comparable to Crimson Tide but come closer to The Marine.
The crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. The camera angles are awful. The story is C-movie at best-- the plot isn't even good enough to be considered B-movie caliber. The dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty, but is crap like everything else. Rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. Plus, the techno score is annoying... not because it's techno, but because it's NON-STOP. That's right, the music plays in the background THE WHOLE TIME, acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. I don't care what the disclaimer claims, I don't buy it. BOTS was not made this bad on purpose, because it takes itself WAY too serious for what it was: a joke.
This \"film\" was very low-budget. But that is no excuse for its record-setting suck factor. Great films are born of substance, not budget. BOTS had neither.
Allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90-minute waste of time: if I were having a three-way with Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel in front of a TV and Blood of the Samurai came on, I'd be out of there quicker than Steven Seagal in Executive Decision.
Undoubtedly, some people will try to defend the movie. Two, maybe three. They'll say, \"it's grindhouse chop-socky!\" or \"cheesy in a good way!\" or \"it's so bad, it's good!\" Those people are idiots. A movie is either good, or it's bad. There's no such thing as a good bad movie. But there ARE such things as idiots that like crappy movies. Don't get me wrong; there are lots of cornball not-to-be-taken-seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. Slither is one. BOTS is not.
This suckfest runs about an hour and a half, and in my humble opinion, it's 90 minutes too long. The best thing about this \"film\" is the DVD cover, so next time you're near the Wal-Mart DVD bargain bin, take a look at it-- DON'T TOUCH IT, just look-- and quietly walk away.
\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 no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. Bad acting, horrible cinematography, and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. The WWF style cinemtography will make you cry...where's the tripod?! The filmakers aimed high, but sorely missed their mark.
\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\nTrash/bad movies usually ain't bad because I will find them enjoyable. This one is so bad that I am out of words to describe it - its below \"bad\". There is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. Needless to say, the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn't help me seat through the entire film. One tagliner compares this one to KILLBILL which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. Obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this DVD.
If you are considering renting this one, put it down! If you are thinking of buying, Dont think! If you unlucky to have this dvd, dont play it, throw it in trash bin immediately.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are no spoilers in this review. There's nothing to spoil.
No plot, nothing; most clip shows at least try to tie the clips into the plot by some tenuous stretch, but this didn't even do that. Clips, three lines to lead into the next interminable sequence of dull clips... OK, so perhaps they were short on production time, but they'd have been better off skipping this episode entirely. What a waste of time.
I'm not sure how this got made, in fact. Scrubs is usually much better at subverting tropes, but somehow this got through....
Thank heavens they were back on form by the next episode.
\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 only reason I am commenting is because I finally figured out why Dr. Cox was bald. Although we probably all realized it at the same time this week, Dr. Cox is bald because they showed these episodes in a different order than they filmed them. The latest episode when our favorite grumpy, Jesus-loving Nurse Roberts dies Dr. Cox shaves his head. The must have showed them out of order for some odd reason and forgot they slipped up the continuity. For shame, Scrubs. They've made mistakes like this before. I remember when Elliot is trying to date Scott Foley and her hair is wet 2 seconds before water hits her. I try not to notice these things, but my favorite show needs to step it up.
\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 it was not the best re-cap episode I've every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the Brendan Fraser moment...*sigh*). It was nice to see Cox outside of the incessantly brittle \"Coxism State\" he is in these days, if only for brief moments. I also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character's hair (or height, in case of JD) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. I can also see how Zach might be well on the way to a very Chevy Chase/or is that Matthew Perry? prat-fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on Conan). A little side note, the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor-induced dance montage was \"Diner\" by Martin Sexton.
\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\nBut, lets face it... it got a few nostalgic sighs out of me.
The show is just so consistently great that it is allowed to have a few hiccups. I get a new season, and just power through them like I have 2-days to live. I like the idea of wrapping it up, but it was much more of an end of season episode which would explain the following:
Dr.Cox isn't supposed to be bald for a couple more episodes, only explanation I can think of is they changed the rotation of the episodes or had to re-shoot the beginning.
and that my friends, is why the hell cox is bald.
Anyways, the show is awesome...bring on the 7th season.
\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 debated as to whether or not I should tick the spoiler box. Since 99% of this show has probably already been seen by any follower of Scrubs it probably doesn't come under the category of a spoiler.
Clip shows. Grrr. We all knew Friends was going down the tube when they started with clip shows...and five and a half years into Scrubs they've gone and fallen down that hole.
I have to wonder if the writers just couldn't be bothered writing that week and just said to themselves \"let's show the other funny stuff.\" It didn't work.
For starters, showing all the times that people have fallen down isn't funny when taken out of context. It's not funny to see Todd dangling by his banana hammock unless we know WHY he was dangling by his banana hammock.
Second, for what was supposed to be a compilation of JD's fantasies, one was Turk's dream, another also wasn't his fantasy, although I forget which.
And that's the problem. This episode is totally forgettable. We've seen all these things before. And the collection of clips of people dancing? Why? That's not funny.
Finally, I must admit two of my favourite Scrubs moments were shown in the last compilation...Dr. Cox realising that Ben died...and JD telling him how proud of him he is.
But even seeing those moments again didn't save the episode. The summary says it all.
Worst episode ever. Bill Lawrence, PLEASE don't let your show go the same way as Friends, keep it fresh, keep it funny...or wrap it up.
\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 'My Deja Vu, My Deja Vu' aired last season, I was pleased. Scrubs, I thought, is doing something clever and unique in regards to the clip-show concept. Instead of replaying footage, they're replaying jokes in a self-aware manner, and I really enjoyed it.
I found it really unfortunate that I was wrong. One season later, they succumbed to that which almost all sitcoms inevitably do, the clip show...and it looked like it was put together by the work-experience kid. Dr Cox's shaved head shows just how lazy the editors were in putting it together, as it doesn't appear again until 'My Long Goodbye' some 4 episodes later. I can't imagine that a wig is too much effort when it comes to maintaining the continuity of what was once a well-constructed sitcom. Who knows why it was slotted there, it just seemed lazy and out of place, reminding me (largely) of episodes that have aired within the past year.
Three second clips jammed together with background music is a DVD extra for a (very) rainy day, not an episode of prime-time television.
\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\nTruly bad and easily the worst episode I have ever seen....ever.
They tried to make up for it by giving it the, 'we know we are doing this' routine. That would have been funny if it weren't for the fact that 'The Simpsons' had already done it. And it still wouldn't make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place.
The flashbacks took place as part of the usual character's (mainly J.D's) fantasies. The flashbacks weren't even of actual events that occurred, just compilations of say, J.D falling over or, i don't know.... Elliott falling over. If I wanted to watch a Scrubs compilation i'd go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life.
Scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit-coms have to, and it disappoints me, they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this.
I was hoping that scrubs wouldn't have to be that kind of sit-com.
And just as a passing thought, why the hell was Dr.Cox bald?
\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\nActress Ruth Roman's real-life philanthropic gesture to help entertain troops arriving from and leaving for the Korean War at an air base near San Francisco jump-started this all-star Warner Bros. salute to patriotism and song. Many celebrities make guest appearances while a love-hate romance develops between a budding starlet and a painfully green and skinny Air Force Corporal (Ron Hagerthy, who looks like he should be delivering newspapers from his bicycle). Seems the Corporal has fooled the actress into thinking he's off to battle when actually he's part of a airplane carrier crew, flying to and from Honolulu (you'd think she'd be happy he was staying out of harm's way, but instead she acts just like most childish females in 1950s movies). Doris Day is around for the first thirty minutes or so, and her distinct laugh and plucky song numbers are most pleasant. Roman is also here, looking glamorous, while James Cagney pokes fun at his screen persona and Gordon MacRae sings in his handsome baritone. Jane Wyman sings, too, in a hospital bedside reprise following Doris Day's lead, causing one to wonder, \"Did they run out of sets?\" For undemanding viewers, an interesting flashback to another time and place. Still, the low-rent production and just-adequate technical aspects render \"Starlift\" strictly a second-biller. *1/2 from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster \"Hollywood Canteen.\" This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the \"go-getter\" with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nConsidering its pedigree, this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. Even with a lip-smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast - what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together Lemmon, Lanchester, Kovacs and Gingold? - the entire event is dully paced, drearily shot and, more often than not, witless.
Kim Novak's gifts were not essentially comic, as she went on to confirm in Kiss Me Stupid. James Stewart was a fine comedian, as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from The Philadelphia Story to Harvey. I think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. Except maybe the cat.
\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\nChesty gringo Telly Savalas (as Frank Cooper) is a US-Mexico \"Border Cop\". He serves as a father figure to young immigrant Danny De La Paz (as Benny Romero), who wants Mr. Savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. Savalas is tough, but boss Eddie Albert (as Commander Moffat) may be tougher. Tough is what you need to stop smuggler Michael V. Gazzo (as Chico Suarez). Alliances may be in flux.
If you find the possibility of hearing \"Kojak\" and \"Oliver Douglas\" uttering expletives to be repulsive, you ought to steer clear of \"The Border\". If not, you may not have the stomach for the \"realistic\" cow slaughtering scene. Although it doesn't end up being worth much, Mr. De La Paz and Cecilia Camacho (as Leina) steal the show.
** The Border (1979) Tony Richardson ~ Telly Savalas, Danny De La Paz, Eddie Albert
\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 would like to say that unlike many of the people who disliked this film and found it impossible to understand I was fully able to understand it for what it is.. A very incoherent attempt at a plot line.
I don't like to toss this word around but in this case it fits very well. The director firstly presents the material in an extremely \"arrogant\" way and worse, extremely incoherently. It is incoherent in that it presents the material in a messy dislodged order, making us think that the director was too drunk to remember which scenes come first, and arrogant in that at 2 hours long they expect us, the viewer to CARE by the end of it.
I respect surrealist cinema for what it is. (creating a story around a more than real world that does not tie to real life) But there is nothing surreal about having a story placed in ordinary modern times, and a modern day earth setting, that is most importantly not able to engage the audience but furthermore, simply a dislodged series of events that barely tie together. The most accurate way to describe the experience of viewing this film is like viewing a story; perhaps even a very GOOD story as it was based on a book, but being frustrated by the fact that the camera doesn't seem to capture the necessary moments and tie together any means of coherence.
Let's compare stylistic cinema. Compare Gaspar Noe's \"Seul contre tous\" to this. He gave us a coherent, extremely engaging and intellectually deep story. This movie offers no intellectual study, and while it is very stylistic in it's fragmented presentation, the director has ultimately abandoned the essential art of good storytelling and all we are left with is a mess of events that barely tie in together.
Yes indeed it IS possible to make sense of things.... to a POINT. But as i said earlier the viewer will reach a stage where they simply say \"Who cares.\" It plays out like watching a drab mundane story of a man going to a supermarket and buying groceries in uncronological order. Even with murders it is completely uninteresting and unengaging. Too many people these days will give high marks to something they are unable to understand or make sense of simply for fear of looking foolish, and in every way this film TRIES to make the viewer look foolish.
If you have too much time on your hands, then please watch this film, taking into account what I have said of it. It is a story based on a book that could have been presented in a MUCH more effective way and that is my bottom line reasoning.
\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\nClaire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. \"L'Intrus\" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as \"Trouble Every Day\" or \"J'ai pas sommeil.\"
Now, ever since I saw \"Chocolat,\" I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. \"L'Intrus\" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one.
You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from \"Trouble Every Day\" and \"J'ai pas sommeil,\" Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut.
There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in \"Beau Travail\"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked \"Friday Evening\" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of \"L'Intrus.\" Otherwise, steer clear.
I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In \"Chocolat\" the silence is sublime; in \"L'Intrus,\" it's just dull.
\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 the big thinkers among us, \"The Intruder\" is a maddeningly incoherent movie from France that gives so-called \"art films\" a bad name. The story is something about a bitter old coot, Louis Trebor (Michel Subor), who goes searching in Tahiti for a heart transplant, but beyond that, I have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. With no coherent storyline to boast of, the movie loses us early on, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be SOMEBODY out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film.
This muddled, snail-paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes - though I seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.
\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 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.
There are probably less than 60 seconds of \"blob footage\" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?
\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 a small glob of space age silly putty lands on earth it soon begins consuming earthlings and putting on weight. The only part of this senseless drivel that I enjoyed was all the cool classic cars. This dog had so many holes it could be sliced and sold for swiss cheese. This thing actually made 20 million bucks? And McQueen's salary was 3K? All were vastly overpaid. The 'monster' looked a lot like a large beanbag and the 'teens' looked as though they could have children approaching their teen-age years. And those blasts from the shotgun; sounded like a pellet rifle with a sound suppressor. The ending was pitifully trite; obviously the producers were leaving the door open for a sequel....and there were many. Thumbs down.
\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 least scary film i have ever seen. How the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. The blob moves so slowly that an o.a.p in a zimmerframe could escape it. The blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. If you havent seen this film i recommend you do, its far too funny to be taken seriously.
\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\nDo we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the \"idealistic youths\" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.
This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.
\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\nIs there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as \"The '60s\"?
I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie \"Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam\" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.
The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.
What isn't welcome is how \"The '60s\" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, \"American Dreams\" and \"The Wonder Years\" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that 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\nThe 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.
In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.
On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.
I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"