empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I watched this film in the theater in Edinbourgh along with 3 other Americans and our friend from Manchester and we all thought this was a waste of time. We would have much rather spent an extra hour to watch vapid dialog of Star wars III that was playing down the hall than all of this.
Opening with one of the worst jokes I've ever seen committed to celluloid on the big screen, it did not take off with a bang. throughout the movie we got the feeling that the jokes were just trying too hard, the writers thought about the setup so much that you could see the joke coming 2 minutes beforehand, then when it came it was so lackluster that you couldn't even smile; I cite the giraffe cum-ming as a prime example.
The plot itself makes for some interesting thoughts in my mind, which entertained me much more than what was going on on the screen. I think a lot more could have been done with that angle (the two different worlds, the fish-out-of-water experience of the characters, the confusion and surprise as people try to comprehend and distinguish the characters and writers from each other.) But too much time is wasted with pushing this painful plot to the end with as much 'bizarre' and 'goof' as is humanly possible.
And to say the 16th century characters show any extra talent from the writers is an insult to intelligent writers and editors who possibly could have made this film a worthy 40 minute afterthought; but no, its a full length torture film of unfunniness.
As we were leaving the theater, which had VERY little laughing inside it, I overheard the young hip electro-clash British couple behind me saying "That was rather good wasn't it. You never really knew what was coming next." And the girl responding "yeah, quite surprising." and that was it. If this is what is meant to get out of British people from watching a comedy: no laughing for 90 minutes but a teeny bit of communication between two lovers at the end, then this film succeeded. But i have more belief in British life than that.
I've not not-laughed so hard at a comedy film since American Pie II.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I am a massive fan of the LoG. I thought the first two series provided some of the best comedy this country has ever seen and the third series, though different, was wonderfully dark and imaginative. The thought of seeing Tubbs, Edward and Briss on the big screen made July 3 something to wait for. Yet, somewhere, it all went horribly wrong. The writers had no story and no real ideas. The part set in old England showed the glimmers of genius that we know the League are capable of but these scenes did not fit well with the film. Geoff provided the best of too few, largely poor jokes and Lipp and Briss's performances were big let-downs. If you love the League, save yourself the time and money and watch episodes from the TV series again. And again. A massive disappointment.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Don't get me wrong, I love the TV series of League Of Gentlemen. It was funny, twisted and completely inspired. I was looking forward to the movie, the premise was interesting and I looked forward to see what they had done with the characters and where the bizarre storyline would take them.
It was a total disappointment, for starters the three weakest characters in the series were the leads and it only contained bit parts for the other characters (why not pick mickey & Pauline, papa Lazaro or tubs and Edward for the main parts!?). It was unfunny throughout, half baked gags and poor slapstick humour.
The real clincher was the plain ridiculous period drama / comedy (and i will use the word comedy loosely). It distracted from the main storyline and felt awkward, not to mention painfully unfunny. The direction of the movie is appalling, and often feels that the lines were delivered by the characters within one take. Very rushed.
Then - the three headed Plasticine-esquire monster. What the hell was all that about? plain ridiculous, it felt like the League of gentlemen tagged it on at the end.
All in all I found myself looking at my watch and sighing with disappointment throughout my experience of the film. What was once an amazing Television series has been tainted by a terribly unfunny film.
If i could give it 0 out of 10 i would. Do not waste your money seeing this.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Am i right in thinking i went to see the same film as everyone else .. this film was terrible. I'm a fan of all 3 series of the league of gentelmen and have always respected the originality of the writers, even when the format changed in series 3. This film however was a blatant half effort, the plot was extremely poor having the characters going into the real world made this film see more like the last action hero. There was about 5 moments in the film that got a mild chuckle but the rest of the time i was wishing it would end. This would have been better as a 10 minute short on the DVD .. it was more of an explanation of what they planned to do, and looked like some of the writers disagreed on the fate of the characters and they made a joke of this by killing him off in the first 30 minutes.
If your a true fan of the league of gentlemens ability to stay fresh then you'll hate this film. If you only watch it cause there was nothing better on TV then u'll love it.
someone back me up !!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It became apparent in the first 25 mins of watching this that the writers really wanted to make a feature length film and they probably certainly enjoyed the whole process, but then seemed to forget the fact that it needed a decent plot! If the best they could do was have 3 of the dullest characters enter the real world and have 'all sorts of amusing capers' then they should have left well alone! I didn't laugh once, and that whole "Adventures of Baron Munchausen/Time Bandits" thing going on in the middle was very, very poor! Convaluted, contrived and very loose. It just seemed like a whistle stop tour of anything they thought 'might' work just to drag it out to a feature.
Full of holes eg - the Royston Vasey characters needed the writers to carry on writing in order to save them, yet Jeff managed to write himself into the sub-story/time-filling William and Mary and era. If he could do this then why didn't they just carry on writing Royston themselves - duh?? And Herr Lipp's audition? What was that for? I mean what was the point? He did it, and we heard nothing else whatsoever about it?
My main point is, that while I loved the series, this was an ill thought out, seemingly rushed project. Put it this way, the plot was so poor that if we didn't already know the characters (and as a fan I had a certain loyalty to carry on watching), and we relied solely on the the story itself, this would have fallen flat on its face! At best it would have gone straight to video, and at worst would never have been made in the first place! Or maybe that should be the other way round?? Truly dreadful....


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If you watched the series and love the league as I do then prepare to be disappointed. I went to the cinema with a group of die-hard league fans and we were all in agreement that this film wasn't as funny or dark as the three series before. In my personal opinion it was a money spinner. The writing was contrived and the plot confused - no not confusing just confused with what it was trying to do. It was self indulgence of the worst kind from writers who are far more talented than my pitiful criticisms. I hope the league at least can be honest enough with themselves and acknowledge this film as being inferior to the superb three series. I will not be buying it despite owning most of the league memorabilia.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
As a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.
Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.
The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.
I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.
LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This review took longer to write than I took to watch this film. It's just plain bad. The plot is terrible in comparison to the TV shows. It is flat, unfunny and boring.
It is clear that the LoG ran out of ideas long before this film was green lit. Viewers should read this as an example of not knowing when to stop.
Bad editing, bad music, bad acting. Zero dynamism, zilch chemistry.
A film that doesn't know what it is, made without any love to some mysterious end that leaves you depressed and feeling kind of angry that so much money was wasted.
The LoG obviously were made an offer they couldn't refuse, or perhaps their egos have simply got the better of them. It's a bleak marketing push that perhaps would have been better when the LoG were fresher and more inspired.
I however, did know when to stop, and did.
Please! Someone try to convince me of this film's finer points!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
very disappointing and incoherent - every now and then a germ of an idea would develop and be discarded in the next line - it had the feel of a film that had been cut and re-cut to try and make it work - I was bored and distracted all the way through, and I'm speaking as a huge fan of the series. Many of the jokes were unoriginal and tired, The medieval section went on far too long and the quality of acting was very poor - some on the tiny guest spots, like Simon Peg and Liam Cunningham did more in their alloted 30 secs than the main cast did in 90 Min's.
It's a shame, really.
The only really interesting thing was getting a look inside the little shed on Soho Square - which is something everyone who is ever in that part of London wonders about.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
please re-watch all 3 series and do not go see this movie, the trailer is completely misleading and the 3 weakest characters in the series stretch a badly thought out 25min TV episode into the most painful 2hrs of my life, truly an awful film. tubbs and edward are in it for a few mins, micky has 1 line, and her lipp just reels out the same tired old puns, also mr briss's accent just changes about 5 times in the film tons of badly acted extras, and really a few laughs that they seem to recycle for 2 hrs i honestly feel this series has been completely ruined by this god-awful piece of crap..........batman and robin all is forgiven


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I just don't get these reviews! I can't help thinking they are written by the sort of L.O.G fan who would worship anything they ever do without questioning whether it is actually any good.
I'm a massive fan of the programme but thought this film was a pointless project. I could forgive the ridiculous plot if I had come out of the cinema having laughed more than twice. At one point, I thought it might just me before I realised hardly any laughs were minting from the rest of audience.
I wasn't expecting much of a plot (very few TV comedies stand up to being stretched over 90 minutes) but thought the odd bit of classic L.O.G dialogue or visual joke (like at the start of each programme) would carry a film. After 5 minutes of the 17th Century plot, I was begging for it to end (little did I know it would carry on for the rest of the film). It just wasn't funny.
I was just massively disappointed and can't see history being too kind to it, even if a few die-hard fans write enthusiastic reviews.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
***May contain spoilers***
I had very high expectations for this film, based on the trailer. I knew a bit about the real Ed Gein, so I figured this was a medium-budget Hollywood version of the real events. Man was I wrong.
First, the writing apparently came from an eight-grader who barely knew anything about Ed's history and cranked out the script in about 20 minutes. The movie completely passes over the most interesting facets of Ed and his relationship with his mother (not to mention what the real police found in his house) and decides to focus primarily on the young deputy who looks like he just wandered onto the set. Likewise, all of the male characters seem to be ad-libbing their dialog throughout the entire movie. I'm not exaggerating.
Don't even get me started with the historical goofs in this movie. Seriously, who the hell directed this? This movie is supposed to take place around 1957, but the cops are carrying modern side-handled batons, some of the stuff in the hardware store look like they came from Lowes, and when the cop gets to a payphone he dials 9-1-1 (didn't exist back then). Also, Ed was a small guy, scary like Anthony Perkins' character in Psycho (who was supposedly based on real-life Ed), not this burly dude who ended up looking way too much like the bad guy in Men In Black.
Another thing that really bugged me was the appearance that the makers of this film shot the whole thing in an abandoned, 3 building set. Because of the "clever" camera angles, you never see any actual town, and the interior of the sets looked like old, long-abandoned shacks. Pop a cash register on a saw-horse and bam!--instant hardware store.
I'm usually pretty forgiving of low-budget horror films, but this one just begs for it. All you had to do was include most of the real events (even embellish them!), pay five good actors instead of 15 crappy ones, and for Pete's sake take 5 minutes and think about the time period once in a while. My advice: Google Ed Gein, you'll be far more entertained.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This was, without a doubt, the worse horror movie I have ever seen.... Forget the fact that the story had little to do with the facts of Ed Gein... Ed Gein's story is horrific & this movie ignored the facts and strayed way off course. Acting, on all levels, was pathetic. Story, again, for some unknown reason didn't go into the horrific facts. Could have been so scary if it would have stuck to the facts. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? TERRIBLE MOVIE! Steve Railsback version was much, much better. Don't waste a penny on this terribly made flick... And, why ignore the reality of the horrific events? That alone would make for a great story. Man, makes you wonder why this would ever be approved for release. Why spend so much money on a movie that will never make a penny (except for my wasted $5...


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
What a waste of time to watch this movie. Poor picture quality, poor sound, poor acting and definitely not based on actual facts. The deputy's "girlfriend" did so much overacting, as did the sheriff, that it was more comedy than horror. The deputy tries to make an emergency phone call by dialing 911...PROBLEM...in 1957 that emergency number was not in existence. That is just one example of glaring inconsistencies.
The "scary" aspect was way underdone. Just did not come across as horrific.
I did think that the actor playing Gein did the most admirable acting job in the whole movie. I could well see mental disturbances in his character portrayal.
Sorry...this one just does NOT get it!!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was really bad. First they didn't even follow the facts for it. Half of the movie was made up and it was more about the deputy whose mother was one of Ed Gein's victims. The acting was horrible, except for the guy playing Ed Gein, but its not hard to mess up playing a weird guy. though i think it was horrible i gave it a three because they started it off with actual crime photos. that was the best part of the movie. As soon as the introduction of the movie was finished the movie went downhill. The writer of this movie tried to spice it up, but it didn't need to be. The story of Ed Gein is interesting enough without falsifying information.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
There are many reasons I'm not a fan of fact based films, but more than any other is how the filmmakers give themselves creative license over the story. If they have such great imaginations then why not use that talent to make something original? Otherwise stick to the facts. This could have been an okay movie if only they had done just that. Ed Gein was an insanely frightening human being. It's been said if you were to take Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Leatherface, wrap them into one person, Ed Gein would still be sicker/scarier. So why can't someone make a movie about him that can convey this? When will they figure out that reality is ultimately scarier than fiction?
I've read books and watched news programs about him and, now I'm not a screenwriter or anything, but I believe there's enough documentation on Gein that it shouldn't take a whole lot to write a story about all these atrocities he committed without creating murders that had never even been documented. I'm aware that he was only found guilty of 2 murders but with all the evidence found in his home and barn there should have been plenty of other ways to put this film together rather than using the deputy's relationship with his Mother, and girlfriend as filler, and far too much of it.
I guess what I'm wondering is this... why at the end of the movie did I know more about the supporting characters than I did about Ed Gein? Why didn't we get to know his Mother, Father and brother and the relationships between them... what made him the psychopath he was... what abuse he endured as a child that may have contributed to the man he became? Instead, the only thing we got of his childhood were flashes of him as a little boy... running.
In the end I give it 4/10 stars. Thats 2 for the gore and 2 for Kane Hodder. Even though it was kind of bad casting in my opinion, considering Gein was a smallish man, and possibly effeminate and Hodder is anything but small and nowhere near what I would consider feminine. Maybe I was just excited because he was Jason Voorhees.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
With a catchy title like the Butcher of Plainfield this Ed Gein variation and Kane Hodder playing him will no doubt fly off the shelves for a couple of weeks.Most viewers will be bored silly with this latest take on the life of Ed Gien.
The movie focuses on Ed's rampage and gives us a(few)glimpses into his Psycosis and dwelling in Plainfeild.Its these scenes that give the movie a much needed jolt.
What ruins this is the constant focus on other characters lives and focuses less on Eds.Big mistake here.
Kane Hodder is a strange choice to play Gein,but He does pull it off quite well,and deserves more acting credits than he gets these days.Prascilla Barnes and Micahel Barryman also show up.
3/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I have watched this movie quite bemused. I am not sure whether it was attempting to be a horror gore fest in a Rob Zombie type affair or an exploration of real events.
In either case it missed its mark. It's not particularly historically accurate with characters being chopped and changed for the sake of the story.
The performances were neither compelling nor bad.
For me, I would have preferred a more psychological approach and this film could easily have gone down this route without spoiling the overall effect.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I would hate to have anyone watch this "inspired by a true story" movie and draw any conclusions about the true event. Few things they did get right were overshadowed by the things that were just not true. Ed Gein never dragged anyone behind a car, never met up with anyone at the graveyard and killed them, no proof he returned body parts to the graveyard. The things he did were awful enough, why try to make it worse?
This movie ranks among my 10 worst wastes of eye strain. "In the Light of the Moon" is a much better film on the subject, it is more factual and the acting is superior in contrast to this one.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I did a review for this director's fictional recreation about BTK. I had also seen this movie and it was terrible. Please save your money and time. This movie was terrible and this director is untalented. I do not understand how he is funding these movies. They are horrible. I have decided to make sure that I check who the writer, director, and producer are, and if this director's name pops up I will not waste my money. There is nothing worse than renting a movie on a Friday night, making the popcorn, and then realizing you have been duped by creative art on the front of the movie box. Stay away. So I guess I should make up some stuff to fill in the lines? I have always checked IMDb for reviews before, but I think I will not anymore. This is ridiculous. I have been corrected in my reviews far too many times. Not enough lines? You may cancel my account. Your site is a pain.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The story of Ed Gein is a disturbing and terrifying story. Ed was truly a messed up character and his legacy went on to inspire such 'greats' as The Tooth Fairy, Norman Bates, and Leatherface. How is it then that such a fascinating man has inspired such a boring melodramatic piece of drivel?? Ed Gein made belts out of nipples, bowls out of skulls, lamps out of skin, danced around under the moon in suits of human skin. None of this made it into the movie because they needed to give us a fictitious story of a ridiculously awful deputy and his rather homely, sex-starved girlfriend. This movie seemed to go out of its way to falsify history. What baffles me is that most movies stray from the path of truth to exaggerate history; this one seems to do it to minimize it. I just don't get it.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Old Ed was active back in the late 1950's He was apprehended 16 November 1957. The PR-24 Police Baton was invented in 1974. Yet the cops in the movie are all carrying the PR 24. Back then it would have been a standard "billy club" not the side handled PR 24. Sheeze, if you are gonna make movies do your research and get it right. Also it makes no mention of Ed's usage of the bodies. He tanned most of the skins and made various articles including a lampshade, a belt and several masks. He also had a large selection of "shrunken heads" that several local children knew about as he often babysat for them. He was found incompetent and committed to the Central State Hospital for the criminally insane.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I own a vacation lake home not far from Plainfield, WI. Ten minutes from the Gein property to be exact. I've seen his land, the cemetery where he is buried and where he did his digging, and I've shopped at the hardware store that was formerly owned by the Worden family. While visiting relatives in California, we decided to rent this movie. It was disgusting. The true story of Ed Gein is so disturbing and creepy, why the creators of this piece of trash decided to make up their own story is beyond me. The actor playing Ed is a very large man, Ed was a very small, meek, and shy man. That is part of what makes his story so frightening. He did not have a helper to dig up the graves and anyone who owns land in the area knows that it is mostly sand with a little dirt in it. You won't break much of a sweat digging a hole. They didn't have to hire an actor with the physique of a wrestler, just do your research. And if the writing wasn't bad enough - there are NO mountains in Wisconsin, and I'm pretty certain that 911 was not available in 1957.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
My reasoning behind viewing this film (despite the fact that it was free), was more or less out of curiosity... slight, slight curiosity... I wasn't all that familiar with this straight-to-video "biographical" account of Mr. Gein and discovered during the opening credits that it featured horror icon Kane Hodder in the starring role. My emotions turned from not just curiosity, but now a glimmer of mild anticipation as to how his portrayal of Gein would turn out. Also in the credits (among some grim photos of Ed's crimes) was Michael Berryman and Priscilla Barns. "Okay", I thought to myself... "This may be mildly amusing". As the movie started and progressed (slowly), my microscopic confidence (or as I call it, "micro-hope") for this movie faded entirely and I was stuck with an overwhelming feeling of humiliation as I died a little inside from watching this dung heap. Hodder, who is widely known and respected for his past work as an unstoppable serial killer, inaccurately puts that into play here - turning Eddie Gein from a mild-mannered recluse, to a hulking, full-blown killing machine. He lurks by night, killing cemetery caretakers, his grave robbing buddy and teenage girls, leaving Plainfield in a panic as the local Sheriff's department seems to do nothing to adjust the dangerous situation in the least. The deputy and his mom have a warm little relationship that gave me a fuzzy feeling inside (or that could have just been the cyanide pill I ingested halfway through this turkey). I'm not sure what the point of this movie was and obviously the director knew nothing about the subject he was working with. There is already such an abundance of films pertaining to Gein's story that, unless the "Ed Gein Snuff Footage" is discovered, I don't want to see anymore of these on the shelves. If you want a more authentic film of this nature than check out 2001's "Ed Gein (aka In the Light of the Moon)".


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Ever since he played a goon in Lone Wolf McQuade, actor/stuntman Kane Hodder has been busy. His film, Hatchet, got all the publicity last year, but he still makes a couple of more films every year. He should have skipped this one.
Hodder seems to be the king of the slashers. he has played Jason Voorhees from 1988's Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988) to Jason X (2001). He is working on a new film that appears to be a Halloween remake. He is very much what I would call the serial killer type with his methodical, expressionless thirst for blood.
However, there wasn't much blood in this movie and very little action occurred on camera. It felt as if I was watching an episode of real law enforcement on A&E.
I won't put the blame entirely on Hodder's shoulders, as the rest of the actors didn't contribute much either.
Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, The Devil's Rejects) just ran his mouth until Gein shut him up. Adrienne Frantz ("The Bold and the Beautiful") was cute. Veteran actress ("Three's Company") and Penthouse Pet, Priscilla Barnes did a credible job. I am sure there are other horror favorites, but they all just seemed to run through their roles.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
When "Deranged" was made the film-makers saw fit to turn Ed Gein into Ezra Cobb even though the resultant film was actually quite close to the facts of the notorious case. I presume that enough was fictionalised that they thought they should change names and such.
"Ed Gein - The Butcher Of Plainfield" masquerades as a true story retelling of the Gein case, but actually bears very little resemblance to the history. As a biopic type film it is a travesty. If ever a film needed names changing it is this one, far more so than "Deranged". It is as close to the true crime story as "Dirty Harry" was to the true story of the Zodiac killings.
OK, so, that annoyance aside, how is it as a horror film? Well, as a horror film, well, as a film generally, it is quite appalling. One of the worst films I have sat through in months. Issues run thus: 1) Kane Hodder is quite astonishingly miscast as Ed Gein. Utterly unsuitable in the part, Hodder just lumbers through glowering menacingly. Very bad.
2) Kane Hodder is the best actor in the film! The rest of the cast are rather "amateur dramatics" and utterly unengaging. It is painful to witness some lines being delivered.
3) The occasional efforts of stylish film-making seem to come from "The Big Book Of Moody Cinematography Cliché". You've seen it all before, better executed. Aside from the efforts at style, the rest of the film-making is largely inept: cameras shake, framing is bad, there are overlong pointless shots holding back the pace...which leads me to...
4) It seems to go on forever. It is under 90 minutes in length, but sitting through it is an ordeal. You'd swear it ran two and a half hours.
5) Ed Gein almost seems secondary. Mostly the film is concerned with the family affairs of a newly promoted Deputy Sheriff. Said Deputy is played by an abysmal actor upon whose shoulders no film should rest.
Is anything good about it? Well, the gore FX are very good. Some convincing wounds are in display and the make-up is generally excellent. None of this, however, makes up for the massive failings of the film.
It doesn't even have any kitsch value, it's just bad; not enjoyably bad, not "so bad it's good", just genuinely bad. A film to avoid and despise.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I just saw this movie and it turns out to be pretty lame just as mentioned by other user reviews and the one thing that bothered me the most was the southern accent some of the characters had, it took place in Wisconsin, not the south. As mentioned from other reviews, Ed Geine wasn't a big dude, so why did the guy that plays Jason and Leatherface portray him?
I fast forwarded through most of it being that there are many slow parts.
Hopefully someone will do their homework on Ed Geine and the town and make a more accurate movie


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is the worst movie I have ever seen and believe me I've sen a lot of bad movies. I love cheeesy horror but this was just terrible. There was not one scene in this film where I felt scared. All the actors must have been people that they found at a bus stop 20 minutes prior to shooting. I wish that Blockbutser would have given me my 99 cents back. The acting was terrible. The writing was incredibly bad. Someone had to screen this movie before it was released and had to know that it was terrible. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with this monstrosity. Don't rent this movie. If you do, don't return it so no other poor souls will ever make the mistake of renting it.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
All of the great horror movies of the 70's, 80's, and even the early 90's from Psycho, to Texas Chainsaw Masacre (The original not that warmed over WB crap), to Silence of the Lambs. The characters in these movies were based upon the crimes of Ed Gein. The writers and directors tapped into the true story for the inspiration for creating some of the greatest *fictional* movie killers of all time.
The old horror films were great because even though the crimes were loosely based upon the facts of the case of Ed Gein, they were truly fictional and far removed from the true story.
In the case of this movie, they've created a fictional horror film in which they tried to capitalize on the true story in order to sell a cheap, poorly acted, love story between two characters that nobody really cares about. In fact, in a *good* horror film these two characters would have been excellent victims.
End of Lecture...
In short, this film was like wearing clammy underwear on a cold afternoon sipping on a nice cup of chilled vomit.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I got this movie for fifty cents at a going out of business sale. I want my fifty cents back. Bad acting, poor script writing, lousy direction, historically inaccurate, even the sound of the film is awful. It's not the subject matter that offends. I'm one of the many who find suspense films and true crime films very interesting. The subject matter could have been treated more seriously, with much more attention to detail and accuracy, and the lack of respect shown for the victims and their devastated friends and family is enough to puzzle anyone. Also, there is little to no attention paid to what could have caused someone to begin the bizarre behavior that Ed Gein was displaying in acting out these horrible crimes.
Save your time and sanity. Don't watch this awful film. If you bought it, you have my sympathy. It's not a total waste though...you can throw away the disc and make use of the plastic case!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
PLEASE people! DO NOT bother with this poorly directed joke. The direction was totally wrong from the outset. Where is the history of his mothers' emotional interference and the general madness in the original family? Why is ED portrayed as this large, overbearing imposing figure full of anger and hate? What IS this crap? The writer and director obviously did no research into the history and just wanted to cash in on the infamous Gein name. The fools who made this movie took so many liberties with the truth, it's ridiculous. If you want t see a brilliant Gein film. go back to the minor classic "Deranged" to see how Ed really was. There is humor in that film, and Ed is portrayed as more of the sad, lonely slight man he was, according-to HISTORY. Where is the background story here? There is just poorly set-up shocks (that are not shocking) that we've seen before, and more accomplished as well. Take the worst Texas Chainsaw massacre ripoff, and add this one to that list. Had to give it ONE out of ten because rating wouldn't accept ZERO. I want my money BACK. If anyone regards this film as 'stunning' is possibly getting a financial kickback to do so.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Ed Gein, one of the most famous serial killers of all time, he was the inspiration for famous movie killers like Norman Bates, Leatherface, and Buffalo Bill. He is also one of the most sick and disturbing killers of all time, I watched a documentary on him, so I know his story pretty well. When I saw this, I was curious because I thought it was supposed to be like a documentary re-enactment, but I have to say that this was just a pathetic waste of time. First off, the facts are completely wrong, with a few minor exceptions, and secondly, this was just a stupid Hollywood story when these horrific murders really happened and they just made it into a cheap buck. Not to mention that if they were going to make it into a horror movie, this was poorly acted!
Ed Gein, he lives in a small town in Wisconsin called Plainfield, but he has a little secret that the whole town is being effected by, he digs up dead bodies, as well as brutally murdering people. Bobby, a deputy, is on the case to get Ed Gein, only, no one knows who the killer is at first, just finding crime scene after crime scene. But things get "personal" when Ed starts messing with the policemen's family and friends.
Of course this movie was just ridicules and completely insulting to the true story. I always thought that bad acting is a necessary tool to a horror flick, but for this story, it should have been a better acted film, not to mention, it should have been more of a documentary than a stupid cliché'd horror film. Please, stay away from this film, it's completely pathetic and untrue to the story of Ed Gein.
1/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Michael Feifer writes and directs this fictitious story based on the arrest of Edward Gein in Plainfield, Wisconsin. Gein was responsible for a rash of gruesome murders that sent a shock wave of terror through his rural hometown in the late 1950's. His evil mind and twisted world is suspected to be caused by his domineering zealous Lutheran mother. Ed was given the nickname "The Butcher of Plainfield". He would rob corpses from fresh graves of women who resembled his mother and he would have sex with them before 'dressing them like a deer' in his garage. Severed heads with bodies hanging upside down being his personal trademark. After his arrest there would be many articles made from human skin found in his home. In this movie, a young deputy Bobby Mason(Shawn Hoffman)makes the search for Gein(Kane Hodder)a personal one, when his storekeeper mother(Priscilla Barnes)goes missing. The acting is a whole lot better than the ridiculously liberal telling of the documented events concerning Gein. Also in the cast: Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, John Burke, Michael Berryman and Amy Lyndon.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The story of Ed Gein is interesting, VERY interesting. This movie, however, interesting only in the fact that it was actually made. Kane Hodder's portrayal of Ed Gein is so far off, it's not even the slightest bit funny. Ed Gein did not behave psychotic in public, he was very calm and collected and always extremely polite to everybody and talked to anybody who would listen, this is one of the major things this movie failed to show the audience. But the biggest mistake of this movie, side from even one frame ever being shot, was that Ed never killed anyone without having been told to do so by his dead mother, whom he thought was speaking to him from beyond the grave. He killed only the people who his dead mother said he had to because it was God's will, and he was very remorseful about it, though that didn't stop him from experimenting with cannibalism and wearing people's flesh. I officially gave this movie a rating of "1" simply because "0" wasn't given to me as an option.
I highly advise all to stay clear of this movie. If you want to see a movie that accurately depicts Ed Gein and doesn't try to put in a sub-plot love story between a cop and a fictional woman who never existed, i HIGHLY advise you see the original movie, which unfortunately seems to not be on IMDb.com though i could be wrong, but i have yet to find it here. The original doesn't stray from the actual events and doesn't try to twist the story. I can understand telling the story from a different perspective, but this movie just tried to straight change the true story itself, something that i find as horrible as if someone made a movie based on 9/11, but gave it a twist that Canada was behind it. Or a WWII movie saying Hitler was a good guy and helped fight the Nazi's.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I am a big fan of horror movies, and know a lot of info on serial killers. Obviously the director of this one refused to research the film he was creating, because half of the movie was fictional. More than that, the character of Ed Gein was portrayed in the wrong light. I did not rent the movie to worry about the Deputy and his girlfriend Erica. I rented it to watch Ed Gein and his legendary story. This movie was awful, the only reason I gave it a 2 out of 10 is because the gore wasn't too bad. Acting= horrible Actors= sub par Movie= waste of time.
A big upset all around, but i wont give up my search for a good horror movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Just saw this at the Madison Horror Film Festival and was disappointed. A few shocking, funny moments (fisting the hollow Carla, a urinating harpy in the Dreamland) and two competing interesting premises (similar to New Nightmare with belief bringing a mythical character to life and also Lost Highway with a man living out a fantasy in his head) but had long stretches of no movement and incoherent plot development. Just because you use the framework of dreams or a mental fugue state doesn't make it Lynchian. You need the compelling visuals and creepy performances.
Positive things: Dr. Maitland had real comic timing and all the girls were very cute. Carla's Father, Chalmers, and Ingrid Pitt looked like they were having some fun. And Tom Savini at least looked like he had his lines memorized and we couldn't see if he was just reading cue cards.
I get the Hammer references, but it looks like the director realized the script was a snoozer and just added some shocks to try and get some laughs out of whatever footage he could put together. But they don't work because they're too few and far between and create an inconsistent tone. Condense this to 30 minutes of all the fun parts and you could have a surreal goofy short, but at feature length, skip it. It's not "so bad it's good" it's just "so bad it's boring".


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If good intentions were enough to produce a good film, I would have rated the turgid, ponderous, obvious "Focus" a bit higher than 4. Macy does his best, but as an earlier poster commented, Miller's little parable asks us to suspend disbelief too often. Perhaps the novel gives us a bit more background on Newman, so we can understand how someone who is obviously not without intelligence could be so dense in perceiving the attitudes of those around him. I agree with another reviewer that if one is unaware of how bigoted average citizens were in America during this time period, then this movie might be an eye-opener. I grew up in the fifties, and the "good" pastors of my Lutheran church found nothing wrong with having the church picnic at a commercial beach, whose sign prominently indicated that no Jews or blacks would be admitted. It is difficult for young people today to understand that this was the norm, and not just in the South. As late as 1964, when I graduated from a somewhat racially integrated (but sexually segregated) public high school in Baltimore, my black classmates could not attend the traditional "father and son banquet," as it was held at a facility which did not admit blacks. Sadly, it was an establishment owned by a Jewish family. The subject matter of "Focus" is important, and we should never forget, despite the lingering signs of racism in modern America, how truly repulsive the attitudes of that previous generation were.(The "greatest generation," indeed). So, perhaps this film is somewhat valuable in countering the recent wave of sentimental crap about the forties from the likes of Steven Spielberg and Tom Brokow. But in the end, as in "Far From Heaven," the filmmakers' good intentions are undermined by having a protagonist so ridiculously oblivious to the social conventions of their time.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I had never heard of this film until it came to DVD. I was immediately intrigued by everything about it: the actors, the title, the cover, and especially the author. Arthur Miller, you can't go wrong with him, can you? Yep. I haven't read the novel, but I'm going to guess it was a lot better than the film. I had high hopes for this movie. I love Macy and Dern, and it looked interesting. Unfortunately, this film never really rises above cookie-cutter messages about racism and bigotry. If you've never seen any other films that deal with this subject, or if you never knew that America was founded on bigotry, then maybe this film will wow you. Others will probably find it predictable, stale, and overall bland.


assistant
0