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\nOne missed call, another Asian horror based on the cell phone. I recently rented a Korean horror film based on a cell phone called \"Pon\". One Missed Call was just as boring as that one. Maybe phones just aren't scary or something, but this move was dull and drab. No tension or thrills for me, and the final monster was disappointingly cheesy and unscary. The movie dragged quite a bit in different parts, and felt too long. Didn't keep my attention. It seems phones are hard to make frightening, it's kind of like trying to make a pop vending machine eerie. And it is ridiculous to compare this with \"The Ring\", it seems every Asian horror movie is compared to it and so far I haven't seen any that measure up in the least. To horror directors - take the phone off the hook as a horror device.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIs Miike like Chabrol, alternating art with dreck, sometimes confusing the two? Does he match the fifty/fifty rate some claim for Chabrol? Do we see here too much or too little Miike? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But I could easily fill ten lines just citing Chakushin ari's (One Missed Call's) steals, allusions, and clichés. Others here will hit on most of them, though not perhaps Ochiai's Saimin (Hypnosis) for the sleazy telecast taunting things supernatural. Only once, when Yumi takes the zombie-like mother in her arms, did One Missed Call startle me a little.
One other point of interest: Renji Ishibashi (looks like Christopher Walken) as the detective. Ishibashi in Audition's abusive back story, and as Dead or Alive's Boss Aoki of the vat of excrement drowning and more, may be the most convincingly evil character actor I've ever seen. So here he's a cop.
\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 many centuries will pass until the Japanese/Asian horror films abandon the long-haired ghost-woman shtick? Admittedly, they've managed to rip off \"Ringu\" a million times, and often it worked well - which just goes to show that originality isn't that much of a requirement in the horror genre (or that I'm very uncritical and easy to please?). However, this time around I found myself a little restless, somewhat bored. It's not a bad film, but it's at least half-an-hour longer than it should be, with its absurd 110 minutes length. Compared to many other Japanese horror films, OMC lacks atmosphere and excitement. Plus, the ending is confusing: it makes no sense at all. As for the ring-tone: Miike could have come up with a melody that is more effective than that forgettable little thing. Even though it was played a dozen times I can't even remember it - that's how scary it was. Speaking of Miike, for him this is something of a commercial venture, so if anyone thinks they might be getting perversion of the \"Bijita Q\" or \"Audition\" kind, they're wasting their time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis movie was fantastic great movie all through scary as hell. and i mean it freaked me out as much as pulse and IT and the omen etc. but with a great movie comes a crap ending right? RIGHT! this movies ending was pathetic stuff. i mean a ghost turned back time in a chicks house and it thinks now i have done that it means i can call her and itll be the right time cause she thinks it is. right? wrong. my ass! i don't care if the ghost is Satan, it just doesn't happen. its a movie yes but most evil movies or praised movies like this are meant to make sense but it didn't. it just showed us what i just said and people don't think anything of it. can someone please tell me why you all haven't noticed that pathetic part. the movie for me ended in the hospital and that is all. check out number 3 its much more kick ass
\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\nClearly rips off Hideo Nakata's Ringu (Ring, 1998) and Hongurai Mizu no Soko Kara (Dark Water, 2002), with hints of Ju-On (The Grudge, 2000), but atrociously done gore (a green corpse with red eyes!?) weak story, and a weak theme (I find it very difficult to find a picture message scary). There were two moments in this film that made me shudder, both involving an unexpected hand, and after Oodishon (another Miike Takashi one, this one from 1999) had me tingling all over for hours after seeing it, and all of the films this steals from were actually scary, I can't see this film as anything other than a sell-out to the western popularity of the big Japanese horror films. Two out of ten.
\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 norwegian movie is so crap, the actors can not act cause they seems to be reading from a book and the story is so (wannabe) hollywood..the only actor who did a ok job was Haavard Lilleheie..3/10 If you want a really good norwegian movie watch Buddy, great actors and a feelgood story 9/10
\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\nThis romantic comedy isn't too bad. There are some funny things happening here and there, and there are some rather memorable characters in it.
The acting, however, is amateurish (with the exception of the banker). While some scenes are great fun, others are simply embarrassing. In particular, I found the \"romantic\" part of the story poor.
All in all, I guess it's worth seeing if you like football and romantic comedies. It's not really a bad movie, and the ending did feel quite good. Just don't expect anything out of the ordinary. Fair enough if you have an hour and a quarter to kill.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all, I firmly believe that Norwegian movies are continually getting better. From the tedious emotional films of the 70's and 80's, movies from this place actually started to contain a bit of humour. Imagine.. Actual comedies were made! Movies were actually starting to get entertaining and funny, as opposed to long, dark, depressing and boring.
During the 90's and 00's several really great movies were made by a 'new generation' of filmmakers. Movie after movie were praised by critics and played loads of money. It became the norm!
Then came United...
*MINOR SPOILERS* It's just simply not funny. Not once. Not ever. But the thing is... We THINK its funny. Because we're used to norwegian movies to be funny. Especially with a cast like this with a few really funny comedians. But.. They neither say nor do anything funny! Where's the humor? Show me the humor! Is it the awkward clerk played by Harald Eia? Is it the overacting totally ridiculously unrealistic football coach? Is it the commentaries by Arne Scheie? The movie is just not funny!
But thats not my main rant about United. That namely is the predictability. (And it is here I fear that norwegian comedies have come to a standstill since I have seen this in many other movies as well.) All the time you just know its going to end well. All characters are exactly as they are presented in the start of the movie, and everybody gets exactly what they deserve in the end. There's absolutely no room for surprises at all!
All in all I can say that I sat with a bad feeling after seeing this movie. It was the one movie that made me realize that we probably need some new blood in norwegian movie making... again!
Rating: 1/6
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this recently on a faded old VHS tape, and remembered it dimly. Looking at it now, it seems charming.
When it was first released, it was recognized by pretty much everyone as a spoof of coming out as a gay teenager. To hammer the point home, the mother is seen reading a paperback copy of \"1 Teenager In 10\", the most popular coming out book of the time. David Warner hams it up as the persecuting vampire hunter [= gay-hating evangelist], who is of course a self-loathing closet case. The list of sight gags and in-jokes that were included to make sure nobody missed the point would be too long to go into. The producers were having some good-natured fun, and hoping, no doubt, to lighten-up as well as to enlighten.
But I have no clue how a teenage audience would look at this film, nowadays. In some places, where there is education and culture, the terrifying ordeals that gay teens had to go through are a thing of the past. But I'm sure there are plenty of dark, nasty corners of our continent where it's just as bad as it always was.
\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 indeed quite the strange movie... First, we have an ex-U.S.-gymnast trying to turn actor (or something), and this seems to be the only role he ever got (that I know of anyway) -- and for good reason. While he does pull off the role well enough to keep some interest, it is a rather bland and flat performance. Second, we have the WORST EVER sound effects ever used in a movie!!! I'm not kidding. This alone makes the movie extremely comical, but in that annoying way. hehe And third, while we have a generally decent acting supporting cast (including the required hot chick!), an actually not-so-bad story, and some cool visuals; the dialogue, fight scenes involving gymnastics (hilarious!), and overall execution of the plot are weak. This movie would have been barely better as a network TV movie (too bad Fox wasn't around in 1985). It's one of those movies that's simply bad, yet you can't resist watching and even enjoying it once you get used to it, especially now that it has found the perfect eternal home on late night TV and cable.
\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\nGymkata is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. But not the bad kind of bad movies. This one is so awful it's fun to watch and laugh. Kurt Thomas clearly does not have a lucrative career in acting. He should go back to gymnastics. But who can forget such memorable scenes as the high bar with chalk, the stone pommel horse or the five minute chase scene through the village of the crazies in slow motion. I don't think it was meant to be this bad, but who can tell. It's not art, but if you want something lite and fluffy that will make a good conversation, rent gymakta. Makes for an evening of fun.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne night I was waiting for my friends to come back to the apt and \"Gymkata\" happened to be on; I watched way too much of it. It is indeed hilarious, and horrifying, really. Think about it this way--if in your job you had an idea for something this bad and went on to execute it in as terrible a fashion as this, how long exactly would you last? Not as long as this movie. It's a must-see, obviously.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is hilarious. The problem is that it's not a comedy. One classic scene involves Kurt Thomas just happening to find a pommel-horse in the middle of a village square (which he uses to pummel the bad guys.) Another is the trek into the \"Village of Crazies.\" Too bad this movie wasn't made to be a farce, or it may have gotten better ratings.
\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\nThank G_d it bombed, or we might get treated to such delights as \"Skate Fu\" where we can see the likes of Brian Boitano performing a triple lutz & slashing bad guys to ribbons with his razor-sharp skates, but I digress. One thing that could have helped this turkey would have been a little T & A from Ms. Agbayani. It's not like the world would have seen anything new (at least that part of the world who saw her Playboy spread.) I truly believe that porn would have suited her 'talents' much better, although Aubrey Hepburn couldn't have stayed afloat in this sewer. One explanation for Kurt Thomas' presence could be a traumatic brain injury, possibly from coming up short too often on dismounts. It's a good thing the IOC wasn't as diligent on 'doping' as they are now, or Kurt would surely have been stripped of his medals. To be avoided 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\nThis movie was God-awful, from conception to execution. The US needs to set up a \"Star Wars\" site in this remote country? This is their premise? The way to gain access, the US concludes, is to win an obstacle course like cross-country race, where the winner can ask anything of the leader. And who better to win this race known as the \"Game\" than a gymnast? Of course! A gymnast would be the perfect choice for this mission. And don't forget that his father was an operative. Lucky for our hero, there happen to be gymnastic equipment in fortunate spots, like the stone pommel horse in the middle of a square (for no reason) amidst crazy town. Perfect.
But above and beyond the horrible, HORIBBLE premise, is the awkward fumblings of the romantic scenes, the obviously highly depressed ninjas whose only job seems to be holding a flag to point out the race path, and the worst climax ever. After winning the race, our hero puts forth the wishes of the US government. And lo and behold, all the effort was worth it, because the US gets its \"Star Wars\" site! Huzzah! THIS IS YOUR TRIUMPHANT ENDING?! Wow.
But still, being such a bad movie, it can be great fun to watch. The cover alone, depicting ninjas with machine guns, was enough to get me to rent this film.
But if I were ever to meet Kurt Thomas (the gymnast-star) in real life, I would probably kick him in the face after a double somersault with 2 1/2 twists in the layout position.
\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\nWhew. What can be said about Gymkata that hasn't already? This is nothing but pure halarity from beginning to end. If you want a movie that will keep you on the floor laughing, this is the perfect movie to get. From Cabot's wild-style mullet/sweater combo to Parmistan (and it's four billion assorted ninjas), everything about this film reeks of crap.
Directed by Robert Clouse, the infamous mind that brought you the mirror scene in Bruce Lee's Game of Death, he once again showcases his complete lack of directing talent. A few other faces you most likely won't recognize will appear for your enjoyment as well, from Buck Kartalian to Tadashi Yamashita, although you won't remember them or care about them after the movie is done.
Supposedly based on a book called \"The Terrible Game,\" which, if I could find a single trace of it's existence anywhere I would be interested in reading it, to see where this thing went wrong. Instead, the book apparently is a figment of Gymkata's imagination. Probably something Clouse made up in order to sell his lame idea.
Pick this one up and Yakmallah it for yourself. It is easily one of the best bad movies I have ever seen, and that is saying quite a bit.
\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\nBuck's role as The Kahn brings to mind Bob Barker (of The Price is right) running a country the same way he runs his show. But there's lots more to chuckle and snort through in this turkey. Kurt Thomas as the baby-faced \"hero\" displays some considerable acrobatic skills, but not a whit of acting talent whatsoever. There's a few spooky moments (in the Village of Crazies, mostly), and some mildly impressive martial arts sequences. But any given \"Ninja\" movie will give you much more entertainment, and you won't feel as guilty about laughing.
\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\nAmerica needs the best man possible to win \"The game\" so who do they hire? A gymnast (Oh brother!) played by Kurt Thomas who has the necessary skills to win in a game which involves ninjas, a village of crazies and Richard Norton who is told by Kurt Thomas \"to keep his hardware in his pants.\" (His exact words) I missed this in theaters and it's a good reason because I would have probably been kicked out due to the laughing I broke into at regular intervals. The first thing that went through my mind was just how lame these ninjas are if a gymnast can kick their ass. Kurt Thomas is like 5 foot 4 and he hardly strikes one as \"The best man for the job\" As to the acting talent of Kurt Thomas, well if you can't say something nice... In all seriousness though one has to wonder how much cocaine was being used to furnish an idea so stupid. Only the decision to cast Tara Reid as a scientist tops the dumbness here. For 18 years though this held the title of the dumbest movie I had ever seen. Not to say I didn't find this unwatchable, I was laughing so hard I almost choked to death. Twice. Only in the 80's could a movie with such a bad idea get made. Although for the record it is the only movie to ever feature a hero so wimpy, he can't even pull a wedged sword out from the ground. This is the wimpiest action movie ever made, and one of the most hilarious also.
* out of 4-(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\nIf I could say it was better than Gymkata, I at least felt my money was not totally wasted.
Then I saw Steven Segal's On Deadly Ground.
This movie should see a resurrection though on MST 3K. If Santa Claus Conquers the Martians could make Tom Servo's head explode, one wonders what mayhem this movie could cause.
There is a very good reason why Kurt Thomas never had a movie career.
The writers of this dreck should be forced to wear placards every day of their lives that say \"Bitch slap me! I was a writer on Gymkata.\"
\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\nKurt Thomas stars as Jonathan Cabot some kind of a gymnast who trains for a special game which involves being hunted by a group of ninjas, but those ninjas won't stand a chance, especially since Cabot is a gymnast! Taken as a whole Gymkata is one helluva bad movie, the atrocious acting, the god-awful script and really incompetent directing make the quality below human standards, however this movie is so terrible it becomes really, really funny. I mean with dialog such as \"I know I'll outsleep them!\" or \"Ha!, your through!\" only add to the mock value that Gymkata more then obtains. Besides it's (Wisely) the only movie that has are hero a gymnast who finds things to swing on in the heat of the moment.
\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\nAs a kid, my friends and I all believed that Gymkata was the most violent, bloody movie ever made. I'm not sure who started that rumor. It was probably born out of the frustration of 10 year olds who weren't allowed to see it for one reason or other. Years after Gymkata was released, it became a perennial late night cable movie, and as a result, I've been able to make up for lost time. I must have seen scenes from this dreadful excuse for a film over a dozen times, and I can always spot it from 1-2 seconds of screen time. However, aside from the forced coupling of gymnastics and martial arts, the bad dubbing, the stiff dialog, and the outrageously difficult story-line, the film has some things going for it. With all that's bad about the movie visually, the sound is actually pretty entertaining. Never before has a punch or kick landed with so little force and so much volume! The canned kung-fu sounds are cheeky, but the slowed and pitched-down music, and the nearly 5 minute slow motion scene are truly weird. The chase through the city of demented, blood-thirsty villagers isn't really tense as much as it is irritating, and there are enough bad wigs and extras who all but look into the camera and wave to make this train-wreck a little fun. Could it be headed for cult-classic status? Where is MST3K when we need 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\nKurt Thomas in one of the series of gymnast olympic stars turned movie stars movies that mercifully only includes one other..Mitch Gaylord in American Anthem...at least that one had Janet Jones..this one has...um... a gymnast using his martial arts and his gymnastic skills to save a european country from dictatorship..sure it could happen.. on a scale of one to ten.. a 0
\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\nDuring the early 1980's, Kurt Thomas was something of a hero in the United States. Inevitably, men in his position get offered film roles that exist solely to capitalize on that. I have no idea what Thomas was paid to make this film, but I would have to be paid a big heap of money to agree to make a national fool of myself in a motion picture. The film is obviously derived from \"Enter The Dragon,\" as are most martial arts pictures. Only instead of a real martial art, they concoct an absurd new martial art, accurately described by one critic as \"a cross between Kung Fu and break dancing.\" A gymnast (Thomas, of course) is hired to rescue some lady from an impenetrable fortress, yet every room has a prop that is exactly what Thomas needs to kick the assistant baddies. Of course, he fights his way to the lead villain, and of course they have a fancy-dancy fight, with an ending that will surprise only those who have never seen a marshal arts film. There are touches which nostalgic types will like, particularly the mullet haircuts of Thomas and many of the male co-stars have. But the only reason to watch this film is if you have a grudge against Kurt Thomas, who now wishes he had never set foot on the film set.
\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\nJudging from this film and THE STRONG MAN, made the same year, I would not place Harry Langdon at the top of the list of great silent screen comedians. There simply is not enough there. Perhaps he was on his way to developing his style but sabotaged himself by taking his first big successes too seriously. In any event, all of his tricks are reminiscent of the greater funny men, but he lacks the acrobatic skills of Keaton and the prodigious ingenuity of Lloyd. He also undermines his own persona by dressing and walking like Chaplin's tramp character. His trademarks are childlike innocence, timidity of approach and a tendency to under-react to calamity by looking perplexed, batting his eyes or touching his pursed lips with the tip of his forefinger. The comedy in Langdon's films results from fate throwing various obstacles in his path which he tries to overcome in wimpy or naïve ways or with a minimum of physicality, such as throwing rocks at an approaching tornado to drive it away, propping up a collapsing building with a two-by-four or dodging boulders by lifting a leg so that they roll under him. In this story, about the son of a shoemaker who joins a cross-country walking race to publicize a rival company's footwear, he manages to win by sheer luck. There is nothing here that hasn't been done far better by the Big Three.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was boring!
Yes, there are a few funny moments and jokes, but you cannot base a whole movie on that!
The characters are too stereotyped, there is no real story - but short episodes with freaky side-characters, who are not freaky enough to make the plot genuine.
Shame, because most of the actors are acknowledged in Hungary, a mystery why they took the roles.
This is *not* a new hope for the Hungarian film. It was boring, though it was meant to be genuine or unique. They could have tried much more harder than this... 2 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\nAs I am from Hungary I have heard many people saying better and better things about Üvegtigris so far, but actually I don't understand the reason of all the fuss.
I liked many points of the movie, some of the quotes really cheered me up, but the stereotyped characters are present again, like in every Hungarian film, and the story is also pretty dull. I liked the first half, but then I started to get bored, and then I found the whole film just BORING.
Rudolf Péter is good as always, Reviczky is brilliant also, but the others are just there... doing nothing.
How many years still have to pass for a GOOD Hungarian film???
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor that matter one of the worst FILMS ever made. Plot goes as follows. Slog through jungle looking areas for 10 minutes or so. Have Bo go somewhere and strip. Slog through the jungle some more. Give Bo another excuse to strip. Back to the jungle. Oh look! There's a Tarzan looking guy! Strip, Bo - strip. Kill the safari people. Tarzan looking guy has a fight scene. Saves Bo. Bo strips. Run credits. Run credits, run.
\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 best film the Derek couple has ever made and if you think this is a recommendation then you haven't seen any of the others. There are the usual ingredients: it is just as poorly acted as their other efforts, we can watch Bo disrobing or auditioning for wet T-shirt contests quite frequently, the story is just laughably idiotic, and the film takes itself much too seriously. And then: Orang Utans in Africa?
But it has a few things going for it. Bo looks great, the production values (sets, costumes, etc.) are quite good, and this greatly enhances its camp value. In a strange way it is actually quite funny, simply because it tries to be serious and fails so badly.
\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 I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. However, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is awful. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. But when you take that aspect out of the film, it becomes one big dull ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, but when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this might fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, go elsewhere...almost anywhere else at that!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.
It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.
As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie \"10\"; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.
As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthere are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless.
boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.
tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.
only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.
Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.
i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.
it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.
on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.
as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.
as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.
negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -
as it is, it's a real hoot.
\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\nMuscular man-ape in the jungles of Africa is hunted by an opportunistic expedition team; the comely daughter of the team's leader finds him first. Much-ballyhooed version of the Tarzan tale has an OK production, but is crippled by the single-handedly worst direction of a film I have ever seen. John Derek is bereft of inspiration beyond cheesy slow-motion action shots and peek-a-boo glimpses of wife Bo Derek's unclothed body; he has about as much talent behind the camera as Ed Wood. Trying for tongue-in-cheek sexuality, the Dereks lack finesse, snappy timing, and taste. They have a sense of self-parody and bravura abandonment (they do throw caution to the winds), but after a promising opening it all goes to hell. Miles O'Keeffe (who possibly had marbles in his mouth the entire time) has the title role, but plays third fiddle to John Derek's ego and Bo Derek's sense of self-importance. * from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but personally I think of it that way because when it was originally released in theaters, (1) the initial buzz was positive enough that my girlfriend insisted we go see it, and we actually STOOD IN LINE to get tickets, and (2) it's still the only \"serious\" film I recall where the audience started snickering at a certain point and basically laughed at the movie the rest of the way through. Once we reached the infamous (and interminable) snake fight scene, I think everyone gave up.
The only positive I can concede is the lush location shooting. Oh, and there's also Bo's breasts, although her acting is so wooden that the nudity is unerotic and doesn't rate much more than a Playboy pictorial.
The \"dramatic tension\" in this film is between Bo's terrible acting and her husband's horrible direction. The snake fight has to be one of the most incompetent \"action\" sequences ever filmed. However, this is one of those films that's bad enough, it may be worth watching on the level of unintentional humor. Definitely the worst film I ever paid to see.
\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\nBo Derek might have had a career had she not let her late husband, John, take over as her director. It's a real shame, no really, with the right direction and the right part (see \"10\"), Bo was okay. She wouldn't win any awards even at her best, but she is no worse than many an actress who has made it big in the past 15 years or so based on looks alone. But therein lay the problem, John was determined to ride the wave that Bo created with her appearance in 10, that of Bo being the \"perfect 10,\" \"the hottest woman in America,\" \"the sex symbol of the 1980s.\" Problem is, in John's hands, this wave crashed with a resounding thud in only a few year's time. Maybe he knew her limitations as an actress, perhaps that is why he fashioned movies for her that concentrated on her body, not her acting skills. But it got old real quick. It didn't help matters any that the films of John and Bo Derek are (let's be honest) really, really bad. And bad sums up their take on Edgar Rice Burrough's literary icon, the Lord of the Jungle, Tarzan of the Apes.
You know what's worst? This film is boring! Make me laugh, make me cry, just don't bore me. Not even Bo's stunning looks and figure can rouse any interest, and that is what the film is of course built around. Richard Harris (God bless his soul, he and Bo were previously in Orca btw) hams it up and makes his scenes at least a little interesting and Miles O'Keefe makes a physically impressive Tarzan. Maybe he got the last laugh, after being hit with a ton of venom from the critics over this film, Miles went on to a solid career as a B movie icon, in films that were not great art, but a million times more fun than this one. But other than that, it's Bo's body,and you can only see it so many times before you long for something else to go with it. Tarzan the Ape Man has nothing else. John Derek was a truly dynamic actor, he was not a director. He should have stayed with his strength. This film unfolds at a mind numbingly slow pace and nothing really happens in the action scenes. Burrough's Tarzan was all about excitement and wish fulfillment (who wouldn't want to be as agile, strong and good looking as Lord Greystoke?) and fun! You get none of that here. Watch it, and you will have wasted 107 minutes of your life. On second thought, you may come away with a valuable lesson, how not to handle someone's movie career.
Bo Derek is all right in my book though. She stood by John until his dying day, has a true love of animals and nature and even looks back with a giggle at her time in the spotlight. She has also proven that she is not the dumb blonde many want her to make her out to be. If she could survive Tarzan and Bolero, she can survive anything. So come back Bo, all is forgiven.
And as an aside, is the Steve Strong who plays the bad guy the same Steve Strong who a brief pro wrestling career?
\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\nBecause that's all she does through out this whole movie,is get naked for no good reason.When Tarzan is bitten by a snake,she suddenly removes her clothes.Since when is a boa constrictor poisonous?How did Tarzan get poisoned by the way ? This whole movie is screwed up.They couldn't get the species of animals for this movie right.Whats an Orangutang doing hanging around those chimpanzees?He must have wandered off the set of a much better film.The group of cannibal tribe's men look caucasin.Why?And why was Bo and her dad painted,if they were going to be eaten later?It was probably just a lame excuse to show her breasts and curves again.Her dad while hunting, approaches and acts stupidly around a bull elephant while standing too close to it.Any real African bull elephant that wasn't from the circus,would've stomped this moron's butt.Any smart hunter would've started shooting the minute he saw it.And I can't help but wonder if the camera was on LSD,because it kept showing various scenes that went in slow motion, for no good reason.It didn't make good sense at all.The boa constrictor that Tarzan wrestled with in the water,looks like one of those 12 Ft rubber snakes you can buy at a local Spencer Gifts.Tarzan was strangly speechless in this film,maybe from Bo flashing herself so much.I'm sorry,but this is a rip off of a classic Black and White Tarzan movie,with a similar but better story.Not To mention plotting .There's one scene in that I saw that everyone forgot to mention.*(SPOILERS ALERT)*The scene where he is trying to rescue Jane and her dad,has him standing too close to a running water spout.It made it seem like he's urinating on someone below him.Eww!Also, him and Jane are fooling around on a beach,with perverted monkeys jumping and clapping.She sure did take her dad's death real well.*(END OF SPOILERS)*There should be a Surgeon General's Warning on this film.That seeing Bo naked too much in this movie,will make you go blind.
\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 screamed my head off because seeing this movie was my first movie going experience ever at some 13 months old. I remember it being incredibly bloody and it made me angry. I watched it again on tv a few years ago. Big mistake -- the acting is wooden, the plot non-existent and the movie lacks merit unless 23 year-old T & A is what gets you going... 0/****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was thirteen years old, when I saw this movie. I expected a lot of action. Since Escape From New York was 16-rated in Germany I entered the movie as fallback. It was so boring. Afterwards I realized that this was just crap where a husband exhibits his wife. I mean today you do this via internet and you pay for instant access. It is more then 20 years ago, but I am still angry that I waste my time with this film. This is a soft-porno for schoolboys. Undressing Bo Derek and painting her with color - nice. But then they should named the film Undressing Bo and painting her.
\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\nBo Derek will not go down in history as a great actress. On the other hand, starting in the 1980s, actual acting talent seemed to be less and less of a required ability in Hollywood, so Bo could very well have gone onto bigger and better things after the big box office take of Blake Edwards' \"10.\" That is if she hadn't allowed her husband, John Derek, to take over her career. Numerous Playboy spreads and bad movies like this one (this one in particular) directed by John destroyed what momentum she had and made her the butt of many a joke. In the 1980s it was assumed that you could put a certain personality in a certain movie and it would be box office gold. John figured that putting Bo in a movie wherein she was nude for much of the running time would make people flock to the theaters after the 10 hype. Maybe if the movie had been any good perhaps. This version of Tarzan has got to be the all time worst of the many iterpretations of Burrough's lord of the jungle, a slap in the face to character's book and film legacy. Tarzan is in fact an after thought as the film is primarily a vehicle for Bo's breasts and Richard Harris' wonderful over acting (remember, the pair had worked together in Orca). His scenery chewing helps you to stay awake during the boredom of it all and yes, the film is quite boring. Nothing really exciting happens and the few action scenes seem to have been shot by someone in a trance. Bo's body can only get you so far. Miles O'Keeffe who played Tarzan at least would go onto a long and enjoyable B movie career and Richard Harris can put this behind him after his recent acting triumphs, but Bo and John Derek never recovered from this fiasco and future collaborations between the two only served to show why his directing career and her acting career died in the first place.
And how did the orangutan get to Africa?
\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\nBo is Jane Parker, whose long-lost anthropologist father (Richard Harris, in the worst role of a very inconsistent career) is in Africa studying something or another. She tracks him down (how?) and he tells her of the natives' stories of a giant monster whose nightly howling can be heard throughout the jungle. Turns out to be the Ape Man himself (Miles O'Keeffe, who has the film's best dialogue), who rescues her from bad guys and falls in love with her, leaving them just enough time in this agonizing two hours to romp naked while a horny monkey looks on and cheers. Normally I'm very open-minded to varying opinions about any film, but this is the sole exception. This is the worst film ever made. If you don't agree, you haven't seen it. (Notes: Newsday called it \"unendurable,\" which is the best one-word summary I can think of. The Maltin Movie Guide comments that they almost had to think of a rating lower than BOMB.)
\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 wanted to vote zero or lower. I loved the commentary. It IS the worst movie ever made and 'unendurable' is the perfect word for it, unless there is something worse that Roget never thought of. I am also at a loss to think of anything negative enough to accurately describe Bo Derek. The best that could be said of her is, she's consistent.
\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\nTarzan the Ape Man is a remake of the 1932 film of the same time, and like that earlier film, it has little resemblance to Burroughs' literary character. But while the 1932 Tarzan was reduced to \"Tarzan - Jane\" speech, this Tarzan, played by Miles O'Keeffe, doesn't speak or even grunt. He does do the the Tarzan yell a couple of times, which sounds like it was sampled from the earlier film.
No, Tarzan plays second banana to Bo Derek as Jane. Or rather, as third banana to Bo Derek's left breast and her right breast. This movie has no point but to show Derek naked.
The two action scenes in the film are presented in slow motion, and are really bad. More evidence that no one cared.
Bizarrely enough, Tarzan has an orangutan side kick in this film. Maybe he car pooled in from Sumatra with the Indian elephants that are also on display.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only way we survived this stinker was by continually making fun of its stupidity. Funny thing is none of the audience around us seemed to mind--we all joined in.
This movie is soooo bad, its only potential is to become a midnight cult movie that people can invent lines and throw popcorn at.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"