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\nReleased in 1965, but clearly shot years earlier, this is an inept little crime melodrama with some inept sexploitation up front. As usual for grindhouse flicks of era, there's a fair amount of undressing and dressing for no reason complemented by lousy music, annoying narration, and awkward editing. The coffee shop scene lays the excruciating groundwork, as we chop back and forth between characters to avoid actually seeing them speak their lines. All we get are reaction shots to the off-screen character's voice! 50s-pretty Misty Ayers strips to her French-cut panties a couple of times before the action gets started. She's accompanied continuously by what is apparently stock music from romantic to western to mother-does-the-dishes, mixed randomly to produce, among other things, the most thrilling cigarette lighting ever captured on film. Watch as he taps it! Watch as he strikes the match! Will he inhale or will he be captured by Apaches? Only time will tell!! The film tells the sordid tale of how Sally gets tricked into working in a whorehouse, falls for a dope, and can't escape. For some reason, we're treated to some of the most bored and boring hookers ever committed to film, literally doing their nails or knitting rather than entertaining the clientèle. Some stupendously lame comedy (boozy dame accidentally drinks milk! Har dee har!) and silent film acting doesn't help. This is one of the worst feature films I've ever seen, even on the Something Weird Video marquee. It's really more of a film curiosity for those interested in the history of cinema--very bad cinema.
\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\nObviously made to show famous 1950s stripper Misty Ayers \"acting\" talents. Too bad she can't act.
Boring little tale about sweet, innocent Sally Down (Ayers) being drugged and forced into white slavery (prostitution). Then she meets likable Tommy Cole who instantly falls in love with her. He wants to help her escape but can he? You really won't care.
There's no real skin here--Ayers just strips down SLOWLY to her underwear (twice). The rest is just a boring little tale chockful of bad acting, atrocious \"comedy\" (never thought prostitution was funny but what do I know?) and terrible post-dubbed dialogue. I admit there was a twist at the end I didn't see coming but that's not enough to sit through this. Also Ayers' attempts at acting are hysterical! A real bomb. Avoid.
\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\nMisty Ayers had a smoking body, and that's all this movie was about. Pure exploitation flick. I started playing a game with myself, counting the number of times they looped the stock orchestral music. And of course the music is completely unrelated to the scenes. Case in point: casually walking into a room and saying \"Hello\" was scored with chase music from a roman epic. I'd like to know why this film sat on the shelf for 11 years before being released. What I learned from this movie: that women's low-rise panties existed in 1954. I'm talking Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien movie panties. At least 20 of the first 30 minutes is Misty leisurely taking off and putting on her clothing (except for bra and panties, sadly). Also includes horrendous dubbing, leading to a \"Look out! Godzirra!\" effect.
\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\nCheap, amateurish, unimaginative, exploitative... but don't think it'll have redeeming amusement value. About as unentertaining, uninstructive and just plain dull as a film can be.
\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\nAfter seeing MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS I am still convinced that the first decent movie about (teenage) witches yet has to be made. I didn't think much of THE CRAFT and I'm not into CHARMED either. The only film I more or less enjoyed (about teenage witches) was LITTLE WITCHES (1996), and even that one wasn't very good. But changes are that if you liked all the aforementioned movies, you will also enjoy MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS.
I was expecting a silly and cheesy early 80's movie about teenage witches in high school. But I was rather surprised that this whole movie plays it rather serious. The acting is decent and serious all the time. No jokes are being played by teenagers or something. And the musical score, at first, I thought was pretty good. It added some scariness and also something 'classy', with the use of threatening violins and all. But as the movie progressed I came to the conclusion that the score was just too ambitious. They didn't have to add those threatening violins when you simply see someone back up a car and then drive away at normal speed.
Then there's Melissa Sue Anderson, who was the main reason for me to see this movie. A few weeks ago, I saw her in HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, a rather enjoyable, thick-plotted (and goofy on some occasions) slasher-movie which she had done in the same year as MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS. And I must say, she was very good as the icy-cold bad witch Vivian. But the main problem with the movie is: almost nothing happens! Vivian causes a death and an accident, yes, but that's it. Then there's Robin, the good witch, who is just learning about her powers. And we expect the two of them using their powers more than once, but at only one occasion they use their powers to make some pieces of wood and other stuff fly through the air as projectiles. That was supposed to be a fight between two powerful witches? And what's worse, I was hoping to see a spectacular show-down between the witches at the end of the movie with at least some special effects, flaming eyes or whatever... but nothing happens. There is sort of a confrontation in the end, but it's a big disappointment.
So, the acting of the two witches was good. The musical score was decent (even though overly ambitious). And the cinematography was rather dark and moody at times. But that doesn't make a good movie yet, does 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\nHow could 4 out of 16 prior voters give this movie a 10? How could more than half the prior voters give it a 7 or higher? Who is voting here? I can only assume it is primarily kids -- very young kids. The fact is that this is a bad movie in every way. The story is stupid; the acting is hard to even think of as acting; the characters are characterless; and the dialogue is terrible. I saw this one rainy afternoon on the Sci-Fi channel. In the sad event that it is ever rebroadcast, I suggest you read a 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\nThis beautifully filmed and scripted episode was let down for two reasons. 1) Perhaps it was the morality of the 1950s talking, but no man left alone on an asteroid for years would react with such hysterical negativity to the gift of a female android. 2) It wasn't an android at all, but a woman, the beautiful Jean Marsh.
The popularity of the sex doll industry in the coming decades could have traced its origins back to this episode if they'd done it properly. In fact, the modernization of sex-bots are in the news as I speak.
Robots were not new to movies or television when this episode was made, so they could have at least had her act like one. Her fleshiness would then have added a creepy element. Instead, it becomes a nice little love story about two humans on faraway star.
The Twilight Zone always stretched the imagination and credulity. Normally no one cared. But this episode seemed hamstrung by a Calvinist morality eschewing what would have amounted to masturbation with a machine, or downright carelessness.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you haven't seen the gong show TV series then you won't like this movie much at all, not that knowing the series makes this a great movie.
I give it a 5 out of 10 because a few things make it kind of amusing that help make up for its obvious problems.
1) It's a funny snapshot of the era it was made in, the late 1970's and early 1980's. 2) You get a lot of funny cameos of people you've seen on the show. 3) It's interesting to see Chuck (the host) when he isn't doing his on air TV personality. 4) You get to see a lot of bizarre people doing all sorts of weirdness just like you see on the TV show.
I won't list all the bad things because there's a lot of them, but here's a few of the most prominent.
1) The Gong Show Movie has a lot of the actual TV show clips which gets tired at movie length. 2) The movie's story line outside of the clip segments is very weak and basically is made up of just one plot point. 3) Chuck is actually halfway decent as an actor, but most of the rest of the actors are doing typical way over the top 1970's flatness.
It's a good movie to watch when you don't have an hour and a half you want to watch all at once. Watch 20 minutes at a time and it's not so bad. But even then it's not so good either. ;)
\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\nNo wonder this movie never saw the light of day. The timing was of the release was awful. The Gong Show had already \"jumped the shark\" by the time the movie came out, so who would pay money just to see a few of the censored clips from the original run of the show? And the show clips are just a tiny bit of this pathetic, 90-minute whine by Chuck Barris about how hard his life was as host of the show. Did he really expect we would feel sorry for him and his messed-up millionaire life? Did he really think we even wanted to KNOW about his life? (Obviously so, since he later wrote his weird autobiography about his career as a CIA operative.) Did he think the gag of having everyone, everywhere audition for him would stay fresh for 90 minutes? Or the network executive hounding him at every turn? This might have worked as the plot for a 30-minute sitcom episode, but not as a full-length movie. However, it was nice to see Rip Taylor, Gene Gene, and the Unknown Comic again (although, to make the movie \"spicy,\" they included only his most vulgar routines). And as someone else has pointed out, this is Phil Hartman's first significant movie part (even though it lasts only a minute). Note his name is spelled HARTMANN in the credits, which is the name he was born with. You can't miss his voice and facial expressions, even though he's much thinner and younger than in the SNL days. Ed Molinaro (Hill Street Blues) also has a tiny part; one of his first after leaving the soap world.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHaving searched for this movie high and low, I actually found it when I least expected, playing on the Sundance Channel very early in the morning one day. Why I searched endlessly for a small vanity project that Chuck Barris that was made during the last waning years of the TV show, I haven't a clue. The film is simply put horrible. The scripted part that deals with a week that is. Of course the highlight of the film is seeing the real performers that were \"too hot for TV\" or rejected for some reason or other. That part is still horrid, but campy bad which was enjoyable in it's own way. Now that I saw what I sought after for so long will I watch it again in my lifetime? Resoundingly NO!! Do yourself a favor and just watch the MUCH MUCH better \"Confessions of a Dangerous Mind\" or find old copies of the actual show. The girl act where there just lick popsicles provocatively was fun, but having to endure seeing Jay P. Morgon flash the audience has in all likelihood made me sterile. In hindsight, I'm so very happy that this was massive flop, for if it was a massive hit, there could have been a \"The $1.98 Beauty Show Movie\" and THAT my friends would surely have brought upon the Apocalypse.
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\nEasily the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Direction : none. Story: pathetic. Screenplay : that will be a good idea. There is a lot of gratuitous graphics, all of pathetic quality. Preserve your sanity, dont ever see this movie !
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLet me state first that I love Westerns & Civil War stories. I also consider John Ford as an excellent director. I also have the same high feelings for John Wayne & William Holden's acting ability.
I cannot remember if I saw this film when it first came out in 1959. Last night was the first time I saw it since then.
As per my 4 rating, one can say I did not like the movie.
I now will attempt to tell some of its shortcomings.
John Lee Mahin who wrote the screenplay from Harold Sinclair's novel, was a very gifted writer & wrote many fine scripts, This script is poorly written & badly researched. They make mention of the awful conditions of the Andersonville prison, At the time of the movie Andersonville was not in operation. They also use rifles that were not used at the time.
John Ford was directing films for over 40 years & won 4 Oscars. He must have been ill during the making of this.His usual style was missing. It could be that this was film in the south & east and not in Monument Valley.
He normally had a stock company of players he used in nearly all his film, MOST were missing this time. This time only minor cowboy stars Hoot Gibson & Ken Curtiss have roles & of course Anna Lee has a small role. There were no other familiar faces except for the 3 stars. (see below) Mr. Fords stock company made most of his films the classics they were; sadly missed here.
Now we come to the main stars John Wayne & William Holden. The Duke also must have been ill,he seemed out of place here. This sort of role usually fit his style perfectly, he was just adequate here. Wiliam Holden did the best he could, but nowhere as good as he usually was.
It was required that there be an actress in this type of movie. Here in her first major role (second film) is Constance Towers, a very beautiful person, But not really an actress, She is still having roles on Television. Let me be kind and say she has had a long career,more based on her looks than acting talent. Also in caas as Ms. Towers servant is Tennis Star Althea Gibson.I am glad she stuck to tennis.
The rest of the production credits were far from the usual high standard of other John Ford films There were a few military type songs supposedly done by the marching cavalry, not good at all. The action scenes were good but come at the end of film.
Ratings *1/2* (out of 4) 47 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 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\nEight academy nominations? It's beyond belief. I can only think it was a very bad year - even by Hollywood standards. With Huston as director and Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner as leads I probably would have swallowed the bait and watched this anyway, but the Oscar nominations really sold it to me, and I feel distinctly cheated as a result.
So it's a black comedy is it? Can anyone tell me where the humour is in Prizzi's Honor? It's certainly tasteless (the shooting in the head of a policeman's wife is but another supposedly comic interlude in this intended farce about mafia life) but with the exception of a joke about 'your favourite Mexican cigars' (which I imagine is an old joke for Americans who have been officially forbidden from buying anything Cuban for the last 50 years) I failed to spot anything of a comic nature - and I did try. There is a lot of Mafia cliché but cliché doesn't constitute humour in my book.
Is it a romantic comedy of sorts? Never. The characters and their relationships are so completely incredible and shallow that they are on a par with Ben Afleck and Jennifer Lopez in Gigli.
Is it a cleverly devised parody about the Mafia? Not in a million years. The plot is just pointlessly absurd rather than comically absurd, and it usually just has the feel of a really bad (and cheap) Mafia movie. It feels more like a homage than a parody.
With one-dimensional characters and little in the way of humour written for them, the actors are left doing dodgy accents and pulling faces. Well it isn't enough; even when the face is being pulled by that master of the comic facial expression, Jack Nicholson (repleat with puffed up top lip ... now is that meant to be a parody of Brando's padded jowls in The Godfather?... Oh! Who cares?... all I know is, it isn't funny).
Throw in some slow, plodding direction (this film drags on for 2 hours), some hopelessly daft and clichéd dialogue such as; \"You remember the Camora? Well we're far bigger, we'll track you down wherever you go\", and clichéd mannerisms and you'll be reaching for that fast forward button before you can say \"capiche?\". Prizzi's Honor is far from being Huston's \"masterpiece\" and is rather a very poor last work. It's definitely one work in the great director's canon that should be given a concrete overcoat and tossed into the Hudson River.
\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 has not aged well. Maybe it's just the impact and artful characterization, acting, and directing that we've seen with The Sopranos, but I just viewed Prizzi's Honor for the first time, on DVD, alone.
The experience of watching it with an audience 24 years ago must have been quite different, but I have to say, I was just appalled at the ending. Not just the violence of it, but the mere idea that somehow this would be a satisfying ending.
I enjoy a good shocker, but this seemed so out of character... Also, when was this move supposed to be set? The cars all seemed like they were from the 1960s, and yet the World Trade Center towers {completed in 1973} were clearly visible in many cityscape scenes.
Another way in which the film has aged poorly is the mere idea that a passenger could travel coast to coast with a knife on his person.
Somehow, mid-1980s audiences found this film charming and funny. Mid-eighties, meet the late oughts: only of you can live.
\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 may not have the longest of attention-spans, but this is the second movie I have refused to see all the way through, and I even bought it on DVD because of its \"classic\" status.
At first, I thought that the director was playing a big joke, so I kept waiting for a resolution, something to laugh at, something to keep my interest, but this resolution never came. Rather, the writing was laughably amateurish, the movie dragged on and felt disjointed, like someone cut a TV series to feature-length. The Academy must have been on drugs when they nominated this movie for no less than eight Oscars.
Once again, I repeat myself. This is the second movie I have refused to watch all the way through. The first was \"Exterminator\". I hope this gives you an indication of how bad it really is. 1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's boggles the mind how this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won one. Not because it's abysmal or because given the collective credentials of the creative team behind it really ought to deserve them but because in every category it was nominated Prizzi's Honor disappoints. Some would argue that old Hollywood pioneer John Huston had lost it by this point in his career but I don't buy it. Only the previous year he signed the superb UNDER THE VOLCANO, a dark character study set in Mexico, that ranks among the finest he ever did. Prizzi's Honor on the other hand, a film loaded with star power, good intentions and a decent script, proves to be a major letdown.
The overall tone and plot of a gangster falling in love with a female hit-man prefigures the quirky crimedies that caught Hollywood by storm in the early 90's but the script is too convoluted for its own sake, the motivations are off and on the whole the story seems unsure of what exactly it's trying to be: a romantic comedy, a crime drama, a gangster saga etc. Jack Nicholson (doing a Brooklyn accent that works perfectly for De Niro but sounds unconvincing coming from Jack) and Kathleen Turner in the leading roles seem to be in paycheck mode, just going through the motions almost sleepwalking their way through some parts. Anjelica Huston on the other hand fares better but her performance is sabotaged by her character's motivations: she starts out the victim of her bigot father's disdain, she proves to be supportive to her ex-husband, then becomes a vindictive bitch that wants his head on a plate.
The colours of the movie have a washed-up quality like it was made in the early 70's and Huston's direction is as uninteresting as everything else. There's promise behind the story and perhaps in the hands of a director hungry to be recognized it could've been morphed to something better but what's left looks like a film nobody was really interested in making.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell then, what is it?! I found Nicholson's character shallow and most unfortunately uninteresting. Angelica Huston's character drained my power. And Kathleen Turner is a filthy no good slut. It's not that I \"don't get it\". It's not that I don't think that some of the ideas could've lead to something more. This is a film with nothing but the notion that we're supposed to accept these ideas, and that's what the movie has going for it. That Nicholson falls for Turner is absurd, but then again, it is intended to be so. This however does not strike me as a.)funny, or b.)...even remotely interesting!!! This was a waste of my time, so don't let the hype get the best of you...it is a waste of your time! With all that being said, the opening church sequence is quite beautiful...
\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\nThey had an opportunity to make one of the best romantic tragedy mafia movies ever because they had the actors,the budget,and the story but the great director John Huston was too preoccupied trying to mellow out this missed classic.Strenuously trying to find black humor as often as possible which diluted the movie very much.And also they were so uncaring with details like sound and detailed action.Maybe it was the age of the director who passed away two years later.
\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 guess it's Jack's great empathic ability that makes him the powerful performer that he is, but empathy comes at a price like all things-when he's surrounded by mediocrity he instinctively lowers the standard and becomes one with it. He is a joke as a mafia-hit-man(also because the part doesn't suit him one bit, him being so extroverted)and just grazing avoids making a fool of himself in this.Kathleen Turner had a much tooooo long career just by being tall and blonde, because her acting ability is limited to that thing she does with her eyes, when she opens them wide which she's convinced is sooooo damn sexy and Anjelica Huston is the absolute same(granted interesting) in everything, just like Robert Loggia.
The movie is a lame draft(and this will be the only mention of the rag they call script) of a gangster-movie, with a cast that was probably only interested to get to the after-party faster(they certainly gathered the party-going elite in this). What, did they shoot it in 1 day?-cause that would be the only explanation.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this film because I noticed that it had Kari Wuhrer in the cast. I have long had a theory about her, that she is a talented actress, but never seems to get to prove that, because she is always in this sort of low-budget B movie. She is still beautiful, and she is still trying to act over the unfortunate material I always see her in. This is no different. The film is often ugly and disturbing, but that doesn't make it good. George Wendt played against type, and that was so jarring that he gets recognition for his role. Another note about Ms. Wuhrer. Her breasts seem to have shrunk markedly since I saw her last. Perhaps reduction surgery, or (more likely) removal of implants. This NOT a bad thing. She still looks great. I would like to see her in a better movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.
Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from \"Cheers\"). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from \"Office Space\" up to \"Sex & the City\"). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.
Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping \"what the f**K!,\" baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.
This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have \"Norm\" from \"Cheers\" and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni bought this DVD because it has kari in it and the mpaa ratings said ; \"Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, nudity and language\".
which correctly, IMO, should state ; \"Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, nudity and language\".
the word \"sexuality\" should come after a \"comma\", not an \"and\" because of the huge difference in meaning it make. i think a lot of people who have watched this movie will agree with me that the sexuality and nudity parts ALMOST non-existent. my first impression when i look at the mpaa rating was that i will be watching something like \"vivid\" movie. that is why i felt cheated. story-wise, it was so-so, after-all who really cares about the story if the gorgeous kari was in it. i know i don't.
of course, this is only my opinion.
Joseph
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy oh why don't blockbuster movies simply stick to their selling point? Everyone in the cinema, young and old, was there to see talking animals make jokes, and whilst they did that we were all happy... And then, as with Lost In Space, came the two killer blows - plot and sentiment. Who really cared what happened to the tiger or whether Eddie Murphy made up with his daughter? Not me, that's for sure.
\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 show is one of the worst shows of ALL TIME! absolutely no original jokes and they're always a year late. like in 2009 they will finally say something about Michael Vick's dogfights. all of the cast members are people who wanted to be on S.N.L but had to go to the lowest of the low, mad TV.its an hour of mad magazine jokes witch aren't funny to begin with, told by terrible John Stewart wanna bees. so if you have any problem tell me id love to hear the opinion of the 3 people who watch this show. family guy put it well \"Osama bin Ladin was hiding in the one place no one would look, the cast of mad TV. There is a reason why no one watches the show.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn the glory days of the 90s (god rest its soul) you could turn on the great Comedy Central at any hour of the day and see the greatest sketch comedy show of all time Saturday Night Live. Whpat a glorious show that was, whether it was the original Not-Ready-for-Primetime Players or the second golden age of SNL featuring the greats- Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, David Spade... and then, it all went to hell. I was first exposed to MadTV about a year and a half ago, and I think I must've passed out from shock. How could a show so terrible prevail for so long? There are so many horrible flaws. I suppose I'll start with the writing. The writing, for most part, is terrible. It is nothing more than kindergarten bathroom humor. The cast, for the most part, is talentless. There are a few sketches I have enjoyed, such as some of Ms. Swan and Stuart, and there are a few talents on the show such as the magnificent Alex Borstein. Phil LaMarr is a talented actor, just not as a comedian. Although there a few sparse ha ha moments, they are not enough to redeem this endless line of horrible drivel populated by babbling idiots. Miss 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\nHorrible, horrible TV show! Why Comedy Central decided to repeat old episodes of this program is beyond me. It really sucks! I am, of course, speaking about the seasons after the first two. The first two seasons were golden, and if I was exclusively talking about those seasons, this show would have gotten eight out of ten stars. None of the comedians appearing after the first two seasons who were not part of the original cast are any good. They were, and are, awful. The comedy is not funny at all. AT ALL!!!
The original cast was full of very talented comedians, like Artie Lange, Phil LaMarr, and Mary Schorr (or whatever her name is), all of whom should have gotten better deals after they left MAD TV. This show is highly overrated, and less worthy of your channel surfing time than Saturday Night Live, another horrible show. Go out on Saturday night and have fun, and leave MAD TV to wither and die, as it deserves to.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou've got to admire director Todd Sheets for his dedication, drive and enthusiasm when it comes to movie-making: between 1985 and 2000, he made a whopping 34 films. Unfortunately, if his Zombie Bloodbath trilogy is anything to go by, they're probably all crap (and a quick look at their IMDb ratings seems to verify my hunch).
Part 3 sees a group of obnoxious students finding detention a little more eventful than usual after they are attacked by hordes of the living dead, who have escaped from a top-secret army base located directly beneath their school. Working from a dreadful script by Brian Eklund (which relies heavily on liberal use of the f-bomb) director Sheets delivers yet another embarrassingly amateurish effort featuring some mind-numbingly awful performances from his talent-free cast, dreadful visual effects (some crap CGI and what looks like the front of a giant cardboard space-shuttle) and his trademark shoddy gore (handfuls of offal pulled from beneath his victims' clothing).
Finally, after what seems like an eternity watching irritating characters running for their lives, and unconvincing undead people fondling animal innards, Zombie Armageddon finishes with a time-travel/paradox twist ending which forces viewers to re-watch several torturous minutes from the beginning of the film. Honestly... once was enough, Mr. Sheetswhat have we done to deserve having to watch it again?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy in the world would someone make this piece of trash movie? The first two Zombie Bloodbath movies were stupid enough, but this takes the cake for the worst of the trilogy (Perhaps of all time). Todd Sheets is still the director, but no longer the screenwriter, which isn't a negative or a positive, considering he's just as untalented as the guy who wrote this one. The writing is too heavily reliant on the f-word, which is used somewhere between 200 and 300 times at nausea. The acting is about on par with the last two Bloodbath movies, so naturally, it's some of the worst I've ever seen. The special effects are better than the last 2, but they still look godawful. The plot has become too complicated for it's own good, and was about some government experiment gone wrong and zombies being produced. Also featured is cryogenically frozen mutant zombie and school kids that know how to time travel, leading to one of the most idiotic endings I've ever seen. After the movie it goes to outtakes, which is strange because this whole movie is an outtake. Only see this to make fun of it, because if you go into this with a serious mind, you might possibly kill yourself.
My rating: BOMB/****. 95 mins.
\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 liked ZB1. Really, I did. I have no problem with extremely low-budget movies, and I have enjoyed movies with worse production values than ZB3 (if you can imagine such a thing. check out 'wiseguys vs. zombies,' if you're interested). Indeed, I prefer lower budget zombie films, because I am suspicious that Hollywood directors do not understand what zombies are 'about.'
But ZB3 was just so bad. It was retarded. I don't want to bother being dignified in my criticism. I want my 90 minutes back, etc. Except that it really only took ~80 minutes, because partway through I put it into 1.4X fast forward.
Okay, here's some criticism.
1. The pacing was TERRIBLE. Everyone talked in monologues. Even when someone just had a single line, the camera work and the editing and the insertion of a bunch of F-bombs into every sentence made the line FEEL like a monologue. At first I was excited about the 90 minute running time compared to ZB1's 70 minutes, but there were actually fewer 'events' in ZB3. It's all talking.
2. The gore effects got stupider. Just glop rubbed around on people's tummies.
3. Despite the epic exposition, there really wasn't a plot. And the exposition is indeed epic! I won't spoil it, if you're going to watch it. (Don't watch it.) But then, it's just a bunch of lame characters walking around and bickering for ~80 minutes. or fewer, if you so choose.
\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 life of me I can not understand the blind hype and devotion to this totally unbelievable movie......and I think I have the qualifications to say so.... I am a former Special Operations soldier with 14 years in the \"lifestyle\" ... This movie was totally totally unreal and obviously written by someone that did very little research into life in the Army, in combat or at a team or platoon level.
Three EOD guys trouncing around Bagdad on their own????? Get Real... No chain of command????? Get Real... EOD clearing buildings??? Get Real....EOD/ Military Intelligence / Sniper qualified buck sergeant???? Get Real.... Wait... I shot and killed a bad guy and then let two guys take me without firing another shot or being injured at all???? Get Real....I carjack an Iraqi civilian, while I am only armed with a 9 mil, break into another civilians house, get punked by his wife then make it back to camp on foot in the middle of Bagdad at night without as so much as a scratch or confrontation???? Get Real...
There is absolutely no adherence to military protocol {Army} and no resemblance at all to any Army unit that I have even encountered. Totally unbelievable and disrespectful to the men and women of EOD who contrary to this poor film are not wild adrenaline seeking yahoos but extremely qualified professionals doing an incredibly hard job.
\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 wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky.
For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility.
- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher.
- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target.
- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert.
- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping.
- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there.
- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?
There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.
Many of the \"surprises\" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.
Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?
If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO 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'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, \"Stop dialing\" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why \"La La land\" is so named.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie once, and I thought it was OK. Then my friends at work said \"Watch it again, it's better\". So I did. And to my surprise, it was WORSE on the second time! There's a word limit, so I'm going to get the ball rolling here.
-The bombing scenes were all so stupid. Why on earth would anyone WAIT to trigger the explosion??? -None of the characters here are even remotely likable. Not on the first time, not even the second.
-Oh, and last time I checked, a car does not explode from a single gun shot, nor can a fire THAT huge be put out with a tiny fire extinguisher... did the above 3/10 viewers actually watch the movie??? -The camera is so shaky, I can barely tell what is going on. That opening scene with the robot had my stomach off-put, the rest of the movie was not much better.
-The sniper scene. The McManus Brothers (from \"The Boondock Saints\") would roll their eyes, it was so stupid. First off, why did the guy plant his gun where one person had gotten shot? Furthermore, why would he spend THAT much time cleaning the bullets, reloading, aiming and NOT get shot, when there was so much chaos going on around him? -SAS types RUNNING instead of staying and fighting back?????? Huh????? Are the soldiers... gay...??? I didn't mean to sound homophobic, but honestly, that scene was so ridiculous.
-Too long for its own good, yet too short for the amount of material crammed into it. Bigelow seems to think that the more action, the better. Looks like she is wrong- the movie is full of superfluous action scenes thrown in there to distract you from the lack of a central plot. I know Watchmen is longer at 163 minutes, but at least that movie didn't drag. This movie, on the other hand, does, and for it, feels longer.
The only good thing was Renner, who was satisfactory at best. But do yourself a favour, just skip this, and don't give into the hype.
\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\nwatch a team of bomb disposal experts in Iraq count down their time before they can go home.
That in itself sounds boring. Every time that little caption came up telling us how long they had left, it just caused this film with no plot to drag on and on. hurry up and finish your time there so we can all go home.
I must be missing something. I'm a great fan of war films if they are done well. This had \"jarhead\" syndrome. A film that at times was beautifully shot, but cinematography doesn't stop it from being totally dull and pointless.
And get over the slow mo \"cartridges coming out of the gun\" shot already. they could have saved money and just got stock footage from any other film with a gun in it.
I didn't have any empathy for the main guy in it, i was constantly hoping that his recklessness would cause him to die. In fact the film would have worked much better if he had.
I read some reviews and seemed to get the feeling that those who had been in the armed forces disliked it, and everyone else loved it. I have never been in the forces, and I'm with them. It's pretentious drivel. the 3 stars are for the cinematography.
\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\nSome unrealistic movie spoilers included.
From real life experiences, this movie continued to disappoint from the very beginning. I'm currently deployed on my second tour to Iraq as an infantry man. This film has nothing near what would happen in real life occurrences. From the very start to name a few: the bomb cart, the EOD elements rolling out solo with no escorts, the EOD staff sergeant sneaking of VBC, having sleeves rolled the entire time in ACUs, to where i had to call it quits on my 2 dollar haji copy, the sniper scene. The list would continue, however, it is unnecessary to list things wrong happening with a time span of 2 minutes before more things were incorrect; and the point was made.
This movie is for people and critics to watch that have no understanding or experience with deployments or the military.
People with military background or knowledge of the military will be disappointed with the inaccuracy.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"