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\nVery rarely do I give less rave reviews on a show or film I dislike on IMDb, but Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is just so painstakingly dreadful, it's terrible.
I wouldn't have minded if this had been an animated series- would've been better that way I guess, but as a live-action show, it typifies the terms 'cheesy' and 'campy'. Of which Power Rangers is. Five multi- coloured, spandex wearing teens battle evil by using their martial arts skills. The costumes are horrid- they look like something that is reminiscent of what track and field athletes and female gymnasts would wear. The acting is woeful, and the fight choreography is so shockingly bad and so lame to watch, it makes Jean- Claude Van Damme, look as equally as good as Bruce Lee, which is an understatement in itself. In fact, they look as if they are jumping and dancing about; like it was some version of the 'Nutcracker', or they were doing ballet, rather than fighting. Besides, there are some cartoons that heavily feature martial arts and yet it is done in a fun-yet not so cheesy way that makes it look silly.
Kids show or not, this is just so lame and on the verge of absurdity. And even though this version is set in America, you could be forgiven into thinking that as you watch some of the fight sequences that they were not filmed in the US, but rather in Japan; thus the somewhat 'fake' fighting and footage was borrowed from the Japanese version-only to be juxtaposed onto the US version.
If you like this type of thing, then stick with Sentai- the Japanese equivalent.
\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 cannot for the life of me explain what the popularity of the children's television show, power rangers is all about.
I never understood why unsuspecting children liked this show in the first place, since the characters seem so idiotic and not worth caring about whatsoever.
The costumes look completely atrocious, like multi colored spandex that people wear to go to the gym.
What exactly is the purpose of this show anyways, but for kids to learn how to fight to solve their problems? What is up with the awful hair cuts, and clothing on this show anyway? Not to mention this show is still playing on cable television, just to make money to teach kids how to fight each other when they disagree on a certain problem.
There's far better entertainment for today's children, hopefully they aren't as gullible as kids of the 1990s who watched this show.
Oh, and what is up with the homo erotic tension between the red and green rangers anyway?
\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 never quite understood the popularity of Saban's Power Rangers show which was quite simply a second rate Americanized version of Japan's ultra popular super sentai series of the past three decades! What was cool about the Japanese version gets completely lost in the American version, characterization, special effects, etc.
Of course many kids will say that power rangers are the greatest but they would be incorrect.
I'm sure if they spoke Japanese, they would learn how much better super sentai is over the American version.
Power Rangers is completely awful, try Super Sentai instead! Looking for a better show, try Voltron The Third Dimension 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\nPower rangers, the moronic merchandising television kids show from the 1990s, has got to be the most pointless and ridiculous television show ever created.
What exactly is the point of this show anyway, other than to sell second rate plastic nonsense to children? There is nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about this show in anyway.
Look at the costumes, which look like spandex gone bad.
The mullet style hair, earrings, and fashions of the early 1990s look completely ridiculous these days.
Avoid this show at all costs!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe power rangers is definitely the worst television show and completely ridiculous plastic toy line in the history of the United States.
There is absolutely nothing even remotely entertaining about this completely awful television show.
This is simply the worst show ever made, with awful actors, dressing up in multi colored spandex outfits that look completely ridiculous.
The owners of this show should be ashamed of themselves, since there is no redeeming value to this nonsense.
Kids of today should try watching better shows like the Toy Story movies instead of this garbage.
\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\nMany people here say that this show is for kids only. Hm, when I was a kid (approximately 7-9 years old) I watched this show first. It was disgusting for me. I talked with other kids about this and, sure, other shows and know what? This was the measure of disguise, whenever we wanted to emphasize something's silliness (either on TV or anything else) we said \"Uh, just like Power Rangers\" and laughed.
And before visiting this site I could not imagine that there actually are fans of MMPR. It was so strange for me that I decided to watch it again and try to understand why people like it. I did not enjoy that viewing. But it dawned upon me: maybe I have not enough imagination? It may be. However this argument is not sufficient for me to rate it more than 1 star.
\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 remember this show being on the television when I was a kid back in the early 1990s, and there was this rage about kids with goofy leotards doing kung fu on one another and riding around in plastic dinosaurs. It was called power rangers. I remember that little kids would go around hitting each other and then the shirts and the stuff from the show was banned in many school districts all over the country because this show taught kids how to fight each other in solving their differences.
I never really thought of this as a show, especially when better shows like The Tick were playing on Fox Kids. Most older teens always looked at power rangers in a ridiculous and scornful manner, and it's not hard to wonder why. The footage is ridiculous at best. The colored rangers costumes look like stuff you would work out in and the dinosaurs look like plastic nonsense. Then you get into the acting, and of course those really laughable haircuts. All the guys run around with earrings on, half of them are wearing 90's mullets, and they always wear the same clothes everyday, and then change into leotard wearing power rangers.
The toys are especially ridiculous as well, and was the joke of many late night talk show hosts. And of course two of the worst movies ever made, and I do mean two of the worst movies ever made were based on this show with nearly every critic trashing both the films, and the shows it was based on.
Power rangers is nothing more than a bad television commericial for especially bad toy merchandising. As an adult, I don't look at it fondly, but rather as another embarrassment of 1990s kids shows, fashion and guys' earrings.
\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\nMighty Morphin Power Rangers came out in 1993, supposedly based on the Japanese sentai television show that started back in the 1970s. Now as a fan of Japanese action films and series, you would think I would get a kick out of this show.
You could not be more wrong. What worked in the Japanese version has become a complete abomination of television with mighty morphin power rangers.
MMPR is based on five teenagers who get powers to becomes costumed superheroes with robotic dinosaurs who form an even bigger robot.
Now this premise is more far fetched and more laughable than anything in either Transformers movie, yet, the ridiculousness of this show is often overlooked.
It was followed by two really bad, and I do mean, really bad movie knock offs, and the actors starring in this series, completely disappeared from the scene.
If you must choose, try watching Japan's Zyuranger series instead.
Also, what's up with the awful long 1990s haircuts and all the earrings on the guys? It makes them all look feminine!
\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\nPower Rangers, the completely awful kid's show from the 1990s still continues to disturb young children with it's complete cheesiness, and awful settings.
This show was not entertainment, it was an excuse to teach children violence in showing kids how to fight one another in order to solve their differences.
The toys were further demonstration in how to promote a violent television show and such.
I have never been able to figure out what the purpose of this completely ridiculous show ever was.
As such, it remains one of the worst kids shows ever made.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n15 years ago, Power Rangers was one of the shows that swept the nations, especially that of the youth. When I was a 3-year-old kid living in the Philippines, I would watch this show every Friday on ABS-CBN (Channel 2 over there). When the movie came out in 1995, it was all shock and awe to me when I watched it with my dad and 2 uncles. My grandparents even sent me a \"Balikbayan\" box full of Power Rangers stuff (including the easy-to-build Megazord figure and the stuffed toys of the Rangers). I even played the video games, and loved only one of them (\"MMPR: Fighting Edition\"), which was REALLY sad. Anyway, it was the show that set a stepping stone on my interest on robot series (especially anime mech series like \"Gundam\") Now that I'm 18, I'd like to think this show is pretty cheesy to me now. To prove this, I took a trip down memory lane by buying a 2-set DVD collection with \"MMPR: The Movie\" and \"Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie\" and watched both of them. I was like, \"Ugh. How awful. Just another junk in the attic for me.\" For all of you people of my generation, this is NOT a show that you'd want to watch over and over again. I'm not saying to leave it behind for the rest of your life, but occasionally is not a bad thing now, is it? Instead of \"Power Rangers\", I'd recommend something like \"Mobile Fighter G Gundam\" (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED), \"Ninja Senshi Tobikage\" (aka Ninja Robots), or even the ORIGINAL Sentai shows that were the basis of \"Power Rangers.\"
\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\nNowadays it is sort of a trend to look upon all shows from begin 90's as classics (people are so easily blinded by nostalgia these days), and while some of those shows were/are undoubtedly good, this one is just pure crap. I watched this show a lot back in those days since it got A LOT of reruns on TV back then, and even as a child I didn't like it. Even a 8-year old can see how much the people in Power Rangers are overacting, and how much the special-FX sucked even back then. When the show doesn't resort to the painfully bad 'fighting'-scenes, it plagues the viewer with this unnecessary soap-opera about a group of teens and they'r little social problems every now and then. I don't know about you, but I didn't give a rats ass about any of that at all, and its basically filler until they have to 'fight' some dude again in a very cliché alien-costume with fireworks or some toy-robot. You never feel 'involved' in some kind of way with this show, and the fact that most of the actors act like there really have no interest at all besides they'r wallet just enhances the lack of feeling.
There is really nothing memorable about this show, and its pretty surprising that it got so many spin-offs (Beetleborgs is a good example). All it is is just a quick way to make some money though. I challenge any 'fan' to tell me what exactly stands out in episodes that is supposed to be so good because I couldn't find anything that is even slightly appealing to children. My guess is that most 'fans' of Power Rangers will tell me that I \"just don't get it\" anyway, or something along that line. I really don't care though; this was crap back then and it still crap now.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, I seriously CAN'T think of anything worse than the PR series. There are many bad things in life...traitors, liars, etc. But seriously, Power Rangers has GOT to be at the bottom of this list. Can you think of anything more stupid than five-six teenagers (who don't even act like a normal teen) dancing around in identical suits WITH DIFFERENT COLORS SO THAT YOU CAN TELL THEM APART? Fans, have you ever come across a real person who gets flung against a mental wall and gets up almost immediately and continues to fight without getting injured? Power Rangers are for five-year old boys, and believe me, I never liked this show even when I was five.
I guess you can say Dino Thunder is an exception. The teens actually ACT like teens, and Tommy Oliver actually acts like a mentor, or no, a teacher. It's got teen-humor, though the fighting is lame, I don't hate Dino Thunder.
Many people say Power Rangers are crap, but I wouldn't. It would be an insult to crap. So face it, five year old boys, Power Rangers is rubbish.
\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\nCome on, what is the deal with this show, Power Rangers anyways? I always felt that the show, which was originally brought over from Japan in a better form, took what was great in Japan, and turned into one of the most ridiculous and pointless excuses in toy merchandising history! There is absolutely no point with this show whatsoever.
The bad haircuts, bad costumes, earrings, etc, all show what was ridiculous back in the 1990s From the two idiots, Bulk and Skull, to the \"duhs\", of the main cast, Jason, Trini, Tommy, Kimberly, Billy and Zack, I just want to say one thing: GIVE ME A BREAK!
Saban brought this from Japan, and then Disney bought the rights to this show around five years ago.
Now the public has to endure reruns of this show on the Disney channel and such.
All I can say once again is give me a break!
\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 do not have any clue as to why some people find the power rangers television show even remotely interesting at all. The costumes are completely ridiculous and the people playing in them also look completely foolish at the same time. There is absolutely anything remotely interesting about the power rangers. This is just a higher priced television commercial designed to sell extremely cheesy plastic garbage to the unsuspecting children around the world. From the notes, I can see that it's been banned in the country of New Zealand and from what I have seen, I can agree with their decision. Avoid this show at all costs, it's terrible and ridiculous.
\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\nMighty Morphin Power Rangers has got to be the worst television show ever made. There is no plot, just a bunch of silly costumed kids using martial arts while dressed up in second class spandex outfits.
The special effects look like they are from the '70's, the costumes look like something out of a bad comedy, and the show is just plain awful.
The only thing worse than the television show are the toys, just second rate plastic garbage fed to our kids.
There are far better shows for your kids to watch!
Try giving your kids something like Nickelodean, those shows actually have some intelligence behind them, unlike power rangers.
\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 SHOULD FIRST BE SAID THAT I HAVE READ THE MANGA AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES.
This anime greatly disappointed me because it removed the comedy and high quality action of the manga and OVA. What it left behind was merely a husk of what it could have been. Many of the characters lacked the depth that is seen in the manga. Alucard is not the sympathetic character that secretly wishes for death. Walter's story lacks the betrayal. And the Nazi villains that plot to engulf the world in war are completely absent. Instead, the anime provides the Gary Stu villain Incognito who is defeated against what appear to be all odds.
My primary complaint is not that the anime diverges from the manga, but that it does such a poor 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\nBasically this is about a couple who want to adopt a second child. At the adoption agency they meet a mouse (Stuart) and they decide to adopt him. If you think that this is stupid, hold it, because it's getting worse.
Stuart arrives to his new home, where he is treated like a human child. (Spare me!) The rest is pretty much the usual cliché, about family problems, jealousy from the elder \"brother\", and at the end all issues are resolved and they are all a \"happy family\". Boring and worn out as this is, it is also shown in the most blunt and unsophisticated way.
I don't know if the director believed that he was being creative by introducing a mouse to the cliché, or he was just trying to fill in minutes, but he only upgraded the cliché from boring to abhorrent.
Then why I gave a 3 and not a ZERO? Because of the family cat, who loves Stuart as much as the \"brother\". And because of some funny gigs, where Stuart makes good use of his small size.
On the overall I believe that the film would work reasonably well if: a. Stuart was a PET and not a \"sibling\". b. It had kept to the funny gigs, like Stuart trying to outwit the cat, and had left out boring clichés which don't even match with anything else.
\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\nAt least the under ten year old set will stay interested. Eleanor(Geena Davis)and Fred(Hugh Laurie)Little, a nice well-to-do couple set out to bring home from the orphanage a new little brother for their son George(Johnathan Lipnicki). They come home with quite the odd new sibling...a sharp dressed little mouse named Stuart(voiced by Michael J. Fox). Yes, mouse. Stuart is happy to have found the sense of belonging even if it is in a super sized world that contains his new family's pet cat Snowbell(voiced by Nathan Lane). Stuart embarks on the experience of family loyalty and overall friendship. George will finally accept his tiny new brother when the dapper dressed Stuart saves embarrassment at a model boat race.
Also in the cast: Julia Sweeney, Harold Gould, Estelle Getty and Jeffery Jones. And the voices of: Chaz Palminteri, Bruno Kirby and Jennifer Tilly.
\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 should have called this movie: \"Adopted Mouse Brother That is Slightly Inspired by Someone's Vague Recollection of Stuart Little Who Just Kind of Skimmed the Book a Little, But Mostly Just Remembered the Cover\" If it wasn't so misleading I'd give it a better review.
But seriously people, do your kids a favor and have them read the book. They might actually learn something instead of having their mind numbed by what we all know as Hollywood film.
The book Stuart little isn't about a mouse, it's about a person who happens to be very small and mouse-like. He's born to his parents, not adopted. The book is about his life and his eventual departure from home and the journey he embarks on. There is a cat named Snowball who thinks he's food and wants to eat him, but Snowball can't talk.
In the movie they screw all of that up. I think the only things that they kept from the book were the boat race and the names.
\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\nNot that I dislike childrens movies, but this was a tearjerker with few redeeming qualities. M.J. Fox was the perfect voice for Stuart and the rest of the talent was wasted. Hugh Laurie can be amazingly funny, but is not given the chance in this movie. It´s sugar-coated sugar and would hardly appeal to anyone over 7 years of age. See Toy Story, Monsters Inc. or Shrek instead. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n... but the trouble of this production is that it's very far from a good musical.
Granted, one can't always expect the witty masters like Sondheim or Bernstein or Porter; yet the music of this piece makes even Andrew Lloyd Webber look witty. It's deadly dull and uninventive (with one or two exceptions) and just after I watched it I couldn't recall a single significant melody - which is rather tragic coming from someone who learned the whole Another Hundred People from three listenings.
It is also strangely un-theatrical. It takes place on an incredibly large stage (one really has to feel sorry for those people in front rows who broke their necks in order to see something happening 50 meters on the right or 100 meters on the left) and does absolutely nothing with it. When there's supposed to be one person singing on-stage, that's just what you get - and the rest of the enormeous stage is empty. For me as an aspiring theatre director it was almost painful to watch.
The fact remains, Cole Porter seems to have captured the French culture in his works better than these no-talents can ever come close to. And I'm puzzled by the popularity of this would-be-legendary musical.
\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\nOK, I bought this film from Woolworths for my friend for a joke present on his birthday, because the front cover had a sexual innuendo in it.
But we decided it to watch it anyway. Just for hilarity purposes.
And I'm sorry, but this has got to be, one of THE worst films in history.
It began off alright, and we thought \"Ok this might actually be OK\". But after about 10 minutes, we were sadly mistaken.
It began when the \"mysterious paint baller\" turned out to be the most obvious character, the Scouser/Australian (I say that because he had an accent which couldn't be identified), who's acting might I just say, was abysmal.
Then it got to the end, and by that time, we had all lost the will to live. The paint ball finals.
The only thing I did like about this plot is that they didn't actually win, but annoyingly enough they won by default.
And I know this has nothing to do with it, but the name the team were given was just awful. Critical Damage. I mean they could of picked a more awesome name, like \"The Destroyers of the Anti-Christ\" or something. Or that's what the film should of been called anyway.
\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 film, for an after school special, isn't that bad, and that's the problem. Nothing happens. You feel as if you're still in class. A guy teaches a bunch of young underdogs how to be good paint ball players. We never get to see these underdogs doing badly as the good player is training them. They all of the sudden turn into good players by meditating. Also there are too many characters and no character development. Too much time is spend on the main character and his sexy sister and not enough on some of the other kids. This could have had a 'Bad News Bears' feel (the original) since there was a girl on an all boys team, but there wasn't any feel to this movie at all. It has no feeling and leaves a dull pain in your bones after watching it, is not fun to bag on, not fun to watch, and is just kind of... there. Plain. Boring. Something you'd watch after school before your pre-evening nap. As dull as the day is long and it's been a long, long day watching 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\nMind, my friends and I saw the movie based off it's title alone. It's cute, though obvious in it's plot and direction-- you know where the movie is going within the first five minutes. My main contention with the plot is that while it remains tolerably consistent, they never explain a lot of the things behind the characters. An alcoholic father, overworked mother, stressed-out sister... that's a bad family, but aside from the occasional mention from the sister, there's not any resolution. I was also confused as to the scene with the bottles... it seemed pretty random.
The writing is a secondary concern... the kids weren't bad actors, but their script left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, what could have been a cute niche movie was pushed aside for a single, blah special effect, lame scripting, and a glaringly obvious plot.
\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\nNot the worst movie I've seen but definitely not very good either. I myself am a paintball player, used to play airball a lot and going from woods to airball is quite a large change. The movie portrays similar qualitys First of all the movie starts off with this team that apparently is trying to shoot this \"Phantom\" guy or whatever, they appear to be a professional team and wear jerseys and shoot mags, autocockers. One guy sporting a bushy. Not much wrong with the movie but more how it's perceived it was very cheesy. A bunch of kids who are the good guys are woodsball players who don't appear to have much money and have dreams of getting \"better guns\". Another team constantly picks on them and insults them because they play woods and blah blah blah The phantom helps these woodsball kids out and trains them and all this crap, he gets them to play airball and basically defeats all the teams including the \"professionals\".
So what exactly is wrong with the movie? Well the budget is a huge thing, a paintball movie WOULDN'T be bad but the budget is pretty low and the movie feels like it was done by an amateur. There are no big names in this film and the acting is very cheesy. The perception of paintball is pretty bad too. They seem to imply that everyone is going to speedball and all this other crap. It just was a lousy movie in my opinion and doesn't give a real perception what paintball is. To be honest real paintball isn't all buddy like, it's a lot of cussing and bonus balling not \"respect\" and playing by the rules. Don't watch this movie and then expect to go to a field screaming \"4 is 1!!\"
\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 film had such promise!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, only to lose it's speed due to bad dialoge, poor editing and a half-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, only to lose steam half way through to become one dimensional people sputtering out tired one-liners.
Maybe if they spent some more time on the story and dialoge it would have been a great movie, instead of a almost afterthought effort.
\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 don't think I'm too far off base saying that this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I've been working on a list of my favorite war movies: \"The Longest Day,\" \"To Hell and Back,\" \"Bridge on the River Kwai,\" (all black and white) which all have good plots, rich characters and great acting. I've seen better dialog and acting in student-written high school one act plays. The plot, however isn't a bad premise - just poorly implemented. It's kind of like a traffic accident, though, I couldn't seem to turn it off! A movie doesn't need big money or great sets i.e. \"Twelve Angry Men\" and \"Lifeboat\" to be good... so budget is no excuse. What were they thinking?
\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\nGood lord, whoever made this turkey needs to be buried alive. I'm sorry, but the other reviewer must not have seen this movie, he must be watching something else, or have never seen a movie before... 9 out of ten stars? He's saying what, this is as good as Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind? Unintentionally funny, massively unbelievable characters, absurd situations, looks like it was shot in Griffith Park (which works out pretty well--MASH was shot in Griffith Park), crappy script, just about everything that could possibly be wrong with a movie all rolled into one package. Should be required viewing for all prospective film makers as an example of how a movie could be horribly wrong. It reminds me of something a USC student may make for a film class.
Give this one a pass unless you do drugs and are into high camp.
\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\nRelentlessly stupid, no-budget \"war picture\" made mainly to show off the attributes of the spectacular Eve Meyer--not a bad idea in itself--but that should be an embarrassment to everyone connected with it. Laughable \"script\", performances that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary-school Christmas pageant, inept \"action\" scenes, confused direction by the normally competent documentary director Louis Clyde Stoumen--who is apparently not quite sure if he's making a comedy, a philosophical treatise on the futility of war or a leering T&A (by early 1960s standards, anyway) travelogue of Eve Meyer's magnificent body--and a general air of shoddiness and incompetence. Worth seeing in order to watch Eve Meyer strut her stuff, but that's pretty much 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\nI'm sure that Operations Dames was a favorite at the drive-ins back in the day. There's absolutely nothing in the way of a plot that you might miss if you were otherwise preoccupied. And if you needed to get in the mood for other activities you did have some curvaceous cuties on screen to get you in the mood.
Otherwise there ain't a whole lot that Operations Dames has going for it. It's set in the Korean War where a platoon of GIs together with a British tommy gets a little too far forward and has to get back to the UN lines. Bad enough already, but these guys also come across a stranded bunch of USO girls and their choreographer in the same predicament.
You know what's sad about this film is that it took women generations to finally get accepted in the Army and in combat situations. These bimbos from the USO set women's liberation back light years. In fact not even the hard bitten professional soldier who is the sergeant in charge of these men can keep it in his pants.
But that was probably the better to remind some what they were at the drive-in for. This no name cast is better off with me not recognizing any of them for any individual effort.
Operations Dames is definitely a team flop.
\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 don't know much about film-making, but good movies have to tell some sort of a story...your characters have to start and complete their journey. In Last Exit to Brooklyn they may, but its not in any satisfying way, and I'm not meaning a happy ending, just ANY ending.
Last Exit to Brooklyn, set in 1952 Brooklyn during a very brutal labor strike, sets a number of story threads in motion. Most involve some of the most unlikeable characters to ever walk across a movie screen. But Last Exit to Brooklyn fails to bring these stories to any conclusion...it leaves some of them dangling with no ending, or blasts off into some bizarre stratosphere for an \"artistic\" ending.
Two cases in point, and they contain spoilers.
A sad transvestite character (an important character in the film), is struck by a car and killed. And that's it for him in the movie....he's gone for good, erased from everyone's memory..no reactions from his friends, enemies, lovers....nothing.
In another thread the stupid, clueless, and secretly gay strike leader, having been rejected by labor, his gay lover, and found out by the neighborhood thugs, gets stomped by the thugs. The closing scene to the beating shows the streets of Brooklyn, and the streetlights are very, very similar to those of Nazi death camps...and the scene drags on and on and on...and the camera pans down to the body of the labor leader, and he's been crucified.....ppppuuuulllleeeeeez. And of course that's it for him too....brain erasure.....gone.
Bottom line....no matter what the reviewers originally said in 1989 about this film....this movie is a depressing piece of sludge. Avoid it. And if you don't be forewarned, it really deserves an NC-17 rating for massive amounts of physical, emotional and sexual brutality...don't even let the teenagers watch.
\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\nFine performances and art direction do not a good movie make. This movie is so grim and depressing, I could feel absolutely no joy at the \"happy\" ending involving the union strike. The attempts at humor involving Lake's pregnancy are absolutely disastrous, and any movie involving a Baldwin brother already has a strike against it. On a positive note, Lang is still one of America's great underrated actors, he alone almost makes this worth keeping in the VCR. I give this a 4.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHubert Selby Jr. gave us the book \"Requiem For A Dream\" and co-wrote the screenplay to Aronofsky's movie of it. That movie succeeded on every level by delivering an intimate, and unbiased portrait of the horrors of the characters lives and the vices that destroyed them. \"Last Exit To Brooklyn\" still has the vice and the multiple characters living sad lives, but it hardly does them the same justice Aronofsky did.
The film seems laughably anti-gay at times. Especially when in the film homosexuality equals death. One gay character gets stoned, is launched skyward by a speeding car, and lands dead on the pavement. Another is crucified and still more are simply beat up. Another exaggerated piece of shock value, that might actually have been compelling if it were done well, are scenes of the union workers literally doing battle with the strike-breakers. Who'd have thought a drama about Brooklyners would feature action sequences and truck explosions?
The director, Uli Edel has a skill level like that of a TV director, but he is far below the cut for real movies. The film is clunky that can't even seem to settle on a genre. Lake is given a useless role that any mannequin could have filled and Baldwin only seems to know how to look stupid in his equally meager part. And then comes Jennifer Jason Leigh as our lead, a loathsome hooker named Tralala (believe it or not, I'm not joking). Her performance is nothing great and the fate of her character is dirty to say the least. Poor use of color and composition make it look cheaper than it is, and also takes the \"real\" edge off the more provocative bits. A failure.
\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 this was released, I thought this was one of the most profane films ever made. However, thanks to Martin Scorcese and a few other filmmakers like him, there have been mainline films worse, language-wise, than this....but this is a pretty brutal assault on one's ears. Hey, I can take a lot of it, but this got ridiculous. In the first six minutes alone, I heard a half-dozen usage's of the Lord's name in vain plus an untold number of f-words. I wonder how many people walked out of the theater watching this in 1990? I couldn't have been the only one.
Not surprisingly, some of the feature actors included Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Burt Young, Jerry Orbach and Rikki Lake. Since this film, Stephen Lang seems to have improved his image, at least playing the Godly \"Stonewall\" Jackson in \"Gods and Generals.\" Lang's role here is just the opposite: perhaps the worst trashy person in the film and a character who falls in love with a transvestite by the end of the film.
Depressing, gloomy, semi-pornographic, repulsive: these are just a few of the adjectives people used - even some Liberal critics - in describing this story, which is painted even worse in the novel. Of course, some of the better-known critics, all extreme Libs, praised the movie. However, they were the only ones. Most critics were disgusted, as well almost all of the paying public. It's unbelievable that anyone could praise filth and garbage like this.
Trust me on this: there are no good, likable characters in this entire movie. This is a mean, sick film: one of the worst of the \"modern era.\" That is, unless you enjoy seeing child abuse, drug abuse, teen prostitutes, on and on - two straight hours of nothing but atrocities and just plain evil people. No thanks.
\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\nJust too many incidents of violence.
The film goes from one scene to another, and in nearly every one violence erupts.
Now I am not one who is shocked by violence, and to me a film without a fight in it has something missing. But, please, not one after another. My reaction was not shock or horror, it was: \"Here we go again.\" There is some semblance of a story in between the scenes of violence, but two thirds of the way through the film I had switched off completely, and couldn't wait for the end.
If this is the best the film makers can do, they should find something else to do with their miserable lives, like making shoes or delivering mail.
\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 version that even the author hated, because it's so schmaltzy. They gave it a 'happy ending' and changed a lot of the dialogue, and it's just a big pile of saccharine. The 'stage manager' is quite good, I believe he originated the role, but everyone else falls into that acting style of the 40's that is really just posing. The one great feature- the music. This has one of the best scores ever recorded, and it's worth seeking out in a record shop. Overall I think the 1989 Spalding Grey/ Eric Stoltz/ Penelope Miller version is far superior.
\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 read this Thornton Wilder play last year in eighth grade. I was also forced to sit through this weak translation of it on screen. Let me tell you, it's not a terrific play, it is easily surpassed, but man it deserves a much better shot. The acting was really lacking, the scenery-honest to God-looked like it was designed out of cardboard by a group of three-year-olds. As if it couldn't get worse, the sound quality is lousy...there is this mind-numbing 'buzz' whenever an actor speaks...and I also couldn't help but notice that the chemistry between George and Emily, well, is non-existant. The actors all seem very uncomfortable to be there. There is no music. It is in black and white, which would be OK but it brings out the cheesiness of it all the more. In any case I think that if you're going to make a point of seeing this movie, which I don't really reccomend, then don't aim your hopes to high. The play, as stalwart as it is, is probably better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.
\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\nRoger Corman is undeniably one of the most versatile and unpredictable directors/producers in history. He was single-handedly responsible for some of my favorite horror films ever (like the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations \"Masque of the Red Death\" and \"Pit and the Pendulum\") as well as some insufferably cheap and tacky rubbish quickies (like \"Creature from the Haunted Sea\" and \"She Gods of the Shark Reef\"). Corman also made a couple of movies that are simply unclassifiable and  simply put  nearly impossible to judge properly. \"The Trip\", for example, as well as this imaginatively titled \"Gas-s-s-s\" can somewhat be labeled as psychedelic exploitation. In other words, they're incredibly strange hippie-culture influenced movies. Half of the time you haven't got the slightest idea what's going on, who these characters are that walk back and forth through the screen and where the hell this whole thing is going. The plot is simply and yet highly effective: a strange but deadly nerve gas is accidentally unleashed and promptly annihilates that the entire world population over the age of 25. This *could* be the basic premise of an atmospheric, gritty and nail-bitingly suspenseful post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi landmark, but writer George Armitage and Roger Corman decided to turn it into a \"trippy\" road-movie comedy. None of the characters is even trying to prevent their inevitable upcoming deaths; they just party out in the streets and found little juvenile crime syndicates. \"Gas-s-s-s\" is a disappointingly boring and tries overly hard to be bizarre. The entire script appears to be improvised at the spot and not at all funny. Definitely not my cup of tea, but the film does have a loyal fan base and many admirers, so who am I to say that it's not worth your time or money?
\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 don't hand out \"ones\" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's \"Gas!\" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.
I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie \"Whiffs\" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).
Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with \"Whiffs\" than Corman did with \"Gas!\" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.
What's wrong with \"Gas!\"? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.
\"Gas!\" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, \"Gas!\" falls somewhere between \"Last Year at Marienbad\" and George Clooney's remake of \"Solaris\" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).
Judicious editing would have decimated \"Gas!\" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.
Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn one word... abysmal. I give it one star for the hippie sex scenes and eye candy women, otherwise forget it. Corman's worst effort, bar none. Ben Vereen should have had his name permanently stricken from the cast. I cannot believe that this is now going to be on DVD (as of 2/15/05) with \"Wild In The Streets\" - another retro stinker. I woke up sick in bed this morning with a cold, decided to watch a movie to cheer me up some, scanned the digital channels... the premise looked interesting enough because I like viewing B-movie sci-fi, hippie culture and rebellious teen flicks. It seemed familiar somehow and with Ben Vereen in the cast, I thought... why not? What a big mistake... it was a horrible start to my day.
Only after viewing it, I now know why the familiarity crept into the recesses of my newly-awakened brain. I remembered seeing coming attractions for this film as a 14-year old (I'm 45), back in the early/mid-seventies at the Sombrero, a local art theater that no longer exists... the whole theater laughed hysterically and even groaned out loud at how bad this movie looked. Acting: dreadful, story: awful, cinematography: nearly-awful, music: terrible, sound: horrendous, directing: a joke. If you choose to watch this after my warning, remember... \"I told you so.\"
\"Gass-s-s-s\" is the perfect title for this film... you feel \"gassed\" after viewing this putrid movie - or maybe that you should be taken to a \"gas\" chamber for wasting your brain away. I have seen homemade Super 8 movies that put this film to shame. Definitely a new addition to my all-time Top Ten WORST films... it's up there (er, down there) with \"Tentacles.\"
Ted in Gilbert, AZ
\n
assistant\n0
\n"