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 remember this bomb coming out in the early 80's. At first it sounded like a great idea. A retelling of an American classic with the help of modern movie techniques of the day. There was a bit a of a back lash over the treatment of the original "Lone ranger", Clayton Moore. The movie studio had threatened legal action if Moore continued portraying him self as the real lone ranger. (Moore was performing at children's hospitals as the Lone ranger for sick kids.) To many Americans Clayton Moore was just that the; the one and only lone ranger. I had always felt that the studio could have done justice to both the fans and legacy of the lone ranger if Moore had been treated better. Maybe even a cameo in the new movie. How ever this was not the case, and many of the viewing public stayed away in droves. Also the story and acting were weak. All this added up to a big box office bomb, and rightly so. I personally I'm glad the studio lost big money after the way the real Lone ranger was treated. You don't treat an American icon that way.


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


user
I guess it wasn't entirely the filmmaker's fault though. The film suffered from the unimaginably stupid decision to tell Clayton Moore (who had done the role in the 1950's and was the Lone Ranger us old folks grew up with) he couldn't wear the mask in public. Now mind you, the poor guy wasn't making all that much money doing so, and it wasn't like he was going to take anything away from this film, but the whole thing seemed... gratuitous.
The other thing the film suffered from (besides a leading man whose voice was so awful they had to overdub it) was that fact that Westerns weren't so hip in 1981. John Wayne was dead and we had just been subjected to a decade-long major liberal guilt trip about how the west was built on genocide of the Native Americans. (That and Blazing Saddles sent up the whole genre! The Campfire scene. Enough said!) Hollywood shied away from Westerns, because Science Fiction was COOL then.
The one scene that underscored it was when after rescuing the drunken President Grant (and seriously, I'd have let Grant stay with the bad guys. The country would have been better off!) Grant asks Tonto what his reward should be "Honor your treaties with my people". Yeah, right, like THAT was going to happen!


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


user
I loved this movie when it first came out(but i was just 12 years old then - and I had forgotten this film existed until one day I found a used copy for sale at a gas station. I bought it and I couldn't wait to watch this film that had I loved as a kid, and then as I saw this film again many years later,it hit me.... Why in the world did I like this film as a Kid, watching it again as an adult I realized that this film is terrible. The saddest part about this film is that they had everything in place to make the greatest western ever and they blew it!!! the costumes are perfect,good actors, there are 2 music scores the orchestrail score is wonderful, and keeps with the classic spirit of the old timey Lone Ranger alive, the second score is a series of songs by country music artest like Merle Haggerd, and The Statler Brothers and those songs like "The Man in the Mask" are so bad that they are funny. This movies Strongest point is that it had a Briliant Storyline, and one of the best Western plots ever, and for a while its fun to watch as John Reid is nursed back to health,after he and his fellow Rangers are ambushed.Its fun to see him grow into his new life and Identity as the Lone Ranger,as he concels his identity, and goes on a revenge run to get the gang responsible for killing his brother and all his fellow rangers to whom he rode with. But unfortunatly,as good as the storyline is, its all ruined by Merle Haggard Narrating everything as you are watching it happen(for the love of God why did they do that?) between Merle Haggard's Narration and The Statler Brothers singing corny(stupid) songs like "Ride little cowboy" being playing in the backgound make this movie impossible to take serious. I would Love to see a really good producer take this same script and story and re-do this film right,because at the heart of this silly film is a great western.---I would descibe this film as a beautiful woman dress in the ugliest clothing. I give it 4 stars out of 10 --if your 12 years old, and dont know better, then you might love it.


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


user
Whatever the producer was going for, he missed entirely. The Lone Ranger is not camp, but "the" icon for good-doers all over the world. And it's a total violation of the spirit of the character that the only real Lone Ranger, Mr. Clayton Moore, was forbidden to wear his mask in public appearances when this movie was released.
Whelp, long story short, the single saving grace of this gross (and poorly done) distortion was that in that year, I had the honor of meeting Mr. Clayton Moore in Columbus Ohio, as part of a tour resulting from the bad press over Mr. Moore's treatment. Needless to say, Mr. Moore's character, integrity and presence far outshined the movie.
Some things cannot be done better. There is only one Lone Ranger.


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


user
I waited quite awhile till I was able to watch this Lone Ranger movie. I finally got to see it on the Lone Star Channel today and was very disappointed in the whole movie. Clayton Moore and John Hart acted better Lone Rangers and Jay Silverheels as Tonto, than the two stars in this movie. Very poor acting was done by everyone in this movie. Even the plot was bad and far fetching. I believe the horse, portraying Silver was the best actor throughout this movie.I am glad I didn't go out and buy a copy of this movie when it first came out, as I feel it's a waste of good money. I am truly sorry the characters that Clayton Moore, John Hart and Jay Silverheels played, and brought to life on the silver screen, have been tarnished so badly. Unless in the future, they find actors worthy of portraying the characters in the same manner which Clayton, John and Jay did so well in the past, I'll not spend the money to buy the movie. I'll not watch this movie again.
Wayne Davies


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


user
The relationship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was always good for a snicker, but to take the joke out of the joke by building a movie around the gay appeal of the legend... oh the horror, the horror...



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


user
One of the reviewers here wrote: "Good acting, good special effects, great
location. Even better ending. " All I can say is, "Ugh." This movie was painful to watch. Let me start by saying this: I am a Christian- considered extremely conservative by many people I know. So, what I am about to say is not biased by the
"Christian content" of the film. I'm not gonna bash it because it's Christian. I am gonna give it a 2/10 because it's a horrible movie. The writing is bad- over the top, WAY too preachy, and much of the "preachy" stuff is just plain irrelevant to the story. It just makes for bad scriptwriting. Whether I agree with the
screenwriter's beliefs is irrelevant- make a good script that flows well, stays on track, and is believable. The acting was amateurish at best. But hey, when you cast amateurs, you get
amateur performances. Dirk Been may have been on "Survivor," but that show
requires ZERO acting ability. Playing on his name and reputation to sell units is in bad taste. Cast unknowns who can act and you'll have a much better film. The effects were HORRIBLE. The scene with the hail and the subsequent falling of the stars was embarrassing to watch. And what was so great about the ending? It made no sense.Yeah, I know what
Tim Chey was going for, but it missed the mark, big-time. I bought this film and expected so much more based on reviews and the
misinformation on their website. And, although I was hoping for more, I got what I always get when I watch "Christian" films- an under budget, poorly written, pathetically acted, badly produced piece of ka-ka. Maybe someday, someone will finally step up to the plate with an end-times film as well-written and as well-made as Gibson's "Passion..." was. 2/10 stars.


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


user
I'm a Christian, and I have watched pretty of Christian movies, but this one is too bad. They try to make this good, but it's too hard for them I think.
- You can see the film is badly dubbed in many places. - You can almost think that the mainpersons in this film was the only ones left behind. I think there will be a lot more of them.
- The quality is poor, and the acting could have been better too. The story is not so very bad, but could've been better. The only plus I give, is to the story in this film, but totally I can't rate it more than 3/10. Watch "Left Behind" instead!


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


user
...not to waste your time watching this vanity project. I've had my comment deleted twice now, for reasons that I have yet to understand, other than the suspicion that someone involved with "Gone" isn't happy with what I had to say. So, I've pared things down to the nitty-gritty this time with an excerpt of my original comments that can in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone, nor unfair commentary:
""Gone" is the sort of train wreck that gives new meaning to the words. Horrible, stilted dialogue, a script that just plain flails about like a fish out of water, acting that would embarrass the most self-centered of community theater divas, cinematography inspired by the "Survivor" school of swooping crane shots followed by static, nostril-exploring close-ups, terrible ADR work, special visual effects that aren't, pedestrian music that totally fails to sustain any mood or emotion, terrible editing with utterly pointless freezes and fades, no art direction to speak of---the litany of badness just goes on and on...I felt genuinely cheated out of the time it took me to fast forward through most of it...time that could have been better spent staring at a wall...Under no circumstances should anyone unfortunate enough to be reading this subject themselves to this "movie," because long before it's over, they will be wishing they had been "raptured" before they made that mistake."
Case closed. Amen.


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


user
As an avid fan of Christian film, and a person trying to maintain a keen eye for improvements in the realm of Christian film-making, I was excited to get a chance to see this film. I was ready to see something that would make a new mark in quality movies. I was left disappointed.
The beginning scene is excellent, though a slight rip-off of Leon - The Professional on the angle, it showcases some great cinematography in the early goings... everything after that was pretty much downhill.
I was barely able to sit through this one, I was tempted multiple times just to shut it off.
The acting, while quite possibly sincere, was incredibly awful. But then again, the heart of the problem was the screenplay itself. The dialog was worse than anything I have ever seen, and even my amateurish screenplay "The Awakening" (soon to be an independent film) looked like a Hitchcock-thriller next to this. (Which isn't saying much.) The bright side of this film is that it was filmed on Sony's brand new High-Definition 900 cameras shooting in 24P. This film and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones were the first movies ever to use these new technology cameras that year. Unfortunately, the camera's performance seemed to be wasted with bad lighting, poor angles, and awkward handling.
The only good feeling I got coming out of watching this movie was how good my rookie indie film is going to look next to it. ; ) 4/10


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


user
The other reviewer was completely correct about this one. The writing was awful, the acting was awful, the subject was awful. The actors looked like they were not really into the movie, like they almost *had* to be there. There were some unique camera effects, but they were not really germane to the story (or what there was of a story), and they weren't produced particularly well.
I suppose they were trying to piggyback on the success (can I say that?) of the other eschatologically influenced movies (Omega Code, Left Behind). And yes, it DOES make Christians embarrassed when these types of movies are produced. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, especially a non-Christian.


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 terrible. You couldn't fast forward fast enough to get to the end of this movie. It came down to the last 20 minutes of the film and I literally hit the eject button right in the middle of the scene. It was one of the worst movies I have ever experienced. Worse than all Dean Cain films combined. To start, the acting was terrible. I realize that the main actors were from the cast of survivor, but one would think that any TV experience would have given them a little more talent. The movies other main problem was the campy visual effects and the poor film quality. In the movies defense, the theme of the show was well intentioned and the story was all right.


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


user
The back of the DVD for this movie raves, "Chey is the Quentin Tarantino of Christian Films." This isn't so much an insult to Quentin as it is to Christian films. This film is poorly written, stiffly acted and edited with a purposeless intensity. The scenes play out in a confusing and unrealistic way and are interspersed with some nice time-lapse photography. Flashbacks, fades to grey, freeze frames to tell the time (unimportant in the story) are all done with out any apparent reason other than to give the movie more cinematic credibility. The camera is haphazard, some nice crane shots are cut with ridiculous montages that have no significance. Poor blocking and lighting leave the viewer wondering who is talking to who in many scenes. Oh and the audio is terrible. The special effects were decent and thankfully limited. But this is all just technical. The movie fails to engage on an emotional level. The dialogue is so fake sounding and the actors seem to have only read it a moment before the camera was rolling. The story... the things that happen in sequence have no motivation behind them. The characters are struggling to take hold of one dimensionality. And the characters have to make a stance on Christianity and faith in every single scene. Take a queue from M. Night, engaging Christian films don't have to have the characters saying the name of Jesus Christ in every scene for the movie to be Christian. Goodness! Please don't try to show this to your unsaved friends with any expectations other than laughter.


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 terrible. The acting was awful. The script was awful. What was even worse were the camera shots and sound. Half the time the voices did not match up with the actors lips, and different camera angles in the same scene would be completely different hues. The worst part had to be when one of the actors was at the top of a huge cross-shaped building. The building had to have been 50 stories high, and probably 100 feet wide. However, when the actor was on top of it in another shot, they had "recreated" the top of the building. The building's width had been reduced to about eight feet wide. How could a building hundreds of feet high be eight feet wide? I know the film was low budget, but it is inexcusable. The movie itself just pushed ideas about a "rapture" then actually having a storyline or point. This reduced the script to mere rubbish, the characters seemed to be selling ideas in their lines rather than conveying emotions and moving the movie along in a direction. It was a complete waste of time watching. The movie gives Christians a bad name if it is one of the current best Christian films out there.


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


user
I watched the first show of each series just to see and what a waste of time. The girl from Emmerdale she was fat so yeah she should be in fat friend but no one every lost weigh.
Like Itv made a big mistake with this.
Bad Girls is 100times better.
I feel that the whole show was just about large people trying to loose weight but never did then they tried to have love storyline oh my god what a a waste of time and also air time. This show has not been repeated on ITV2/3/4 yeah thats how good it is.
I would say do not by th box sets just a waste of money.
BEWARE


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


user
One of low budget horror schlockmeister actor, John Carradine's more animated roles as a implied Nazi scientist, who is turning humans into zombies to serve the Reich. Mindless scuffling brain dead, only able to obey the most simple of orders....bit like staff in McDonalds.
Hitler isn't mentioned by name, since America wasn't at war at the time they was filmed, but it's pretty obvious who the bad guys are working for!
There seems to be two types of zombies in film, the traditional voodoo type popular in the old black & white films of the 1930's and '40's. Blank eyed and just following the commands of someone else as they stumble along. And then there is the type we know from later films like 'The Night of the Living Dead' and 'The Evil Dead.' Still roaming about but with only the intention to kill and eat the flesh and brains of their victims. Both have their moments in various movies over the years.
'Revenge' features the former zombie type, although, these are particularly goofy looking and would look more at home in an old time freak shows as geeks as they bite the heads off chickens. One black zombie named Lazarus with his wild hair, looks like a young Don King.
As to the plot, the evil doctor decides to make his wife a zombie along with the others and that's where he makes his mistake. Even though he lets her keep her strappy heels as a nice womanly touch as he turns her into one of the living dead, she's not happy about it.
It all goes horribly wrong and ends in tears, and the moral of the tale must be, never, ever, turn your wife into a zombie, it's just asking for trouble....
The film is interesting enough and it quickly rolls along to a finish, but never rises above it's poverty row origins. Not a patch on any true zombie classics but fun just the same.


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


user
There is not much to say about this one except that it is probably the worst of the early spate of zombie movies (I may get to watch another one, REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES [1936], before the month is out). For all star John Carradine's intention of building an army in the service of the Third Reich with them, they are not seen to do much at all!; James Baskett (Uncle Remus from SONG OF THE SOUTH [1946]!) plays their leader, who also serves as Carradine's manservant. Black comic Mantan Moreland reprises his 'fraidy cat' chauffeur role from KING OF THE ZOMBIES (1941), as does the exotically named Madame Sul-Te-Wan as Carradine's housekeeper. Unfortunately for Carradine, his supreme achievement  the zombification of his wife  brings him all sorts of trouble: not only do her relatives turn up at his remote abode/lab to inquire into her sudden death (which means he has to fake a funeral service!) but she actually proves disobedient and indignant, eventually 'persuading' her fellow zombies to rise against their master!! Also involved is cowboy star Bob Steele (still best-known for his bit in Howard Hawks' THE BIG SLEEP [1946]) who plays a U.S. secret agent posing as a Nazi posing as a Sheriff! Thankfully, director Sekely would have much better luck with his next genre effort, THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS (1962).


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


user
"Revenge of the Zombies" is a pretty weak and barely passable zombie effort.
**SPOILERS**
Traveling in the Bayou, Larry Adams, (Robert Lowery) and Scott Warrington, (Mauritz Hugo) are informed that a friend has deceased. Meeting with local Dr. Von Altermann, (John Carradine) he repeats the notion that they mysteriously died. While they are staying there, they realize that the help consists of zombies, reanimated dead people who are doing the bidding of their master. As the bodies pile up, he reveals that he has been making the creatures for use in various experiments and all try to stop him before it's too late.
The Good News: This here gets very little right. The opening is easily it's best, as it's got several great marks for it. From where it starts, with the creepy silhouettes walking in the dark all the way through to the revelations, this one works wonders for both it's mystery and great imagery. The big one is a really scene where the creature emerges from a coffin in a long, slow and creepy shot. These here are all done before the opening credits and is a fun sight. The scenes in the middle where the creature reawakens inside the coffin is pretty chilling and looks really great. The last big positive is the really fun ending. With the sort of ending that feels reminiscent of so many Universal attempts, this one fits in with that style. From the creepy reanimation to the real action involved near the swamp, this one is fun and really works with the others to give it's only real positives.
The Bad News: This one here only has a couple flaws, but they are major ones. The first one is the film's major boredom from inactivity. Almost nothing happens in here, mainly due to the tendency to do everything with talking rather than anything else. There's only intermittent scenes relegated to the zombies, yet there's nothing here that devotes any action to the film. This one simply doesn't have any action, and that's what hurts the film. It rarely generates a scenes that keeps the interest going, and at times this makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. The last flaw in the film are it's pathetic excuses for zombies. Those used to more modern fare will have a hard time getting any fear out of these creatures, and they really only serve several scenes. This here doesn't treat the zombies as threats, making them even less frightening. Little screen-time, nonthreatening nature and un-modern behavior from these zombies really destroys this one. These here are what really hurt the film.
The Final Verdict: With bad zombies and hardly anything worth watching, this one here is a curious effort. Those used to modern zombies will find little of interest in this one and come out the same as this one is, while only classic horror fans are advised to give it a shot.
Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence


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


user
Always enjoy the Classic Horror films, however, this film was really a big waste of time and if it were not for John Carradine playing the mad man doctor who is able to control human beings through his experiments. This film was made during WW II and John Carradine was a German Nazi working to find a human weapon against the entire world. Bob Steele playing in many roles as a cowboy or gangster and in this picture Bob seemed bored to death with his role in this film and acted like this was his first film. Mantan Moreland, (Jeff) gave an outstanding performance with great comedy which helped keep the audience attention. I hate to criticize a film made in 1943, but this is really a big disappointment. If you like John Carradine and the roles he played as Count Dracula throughout many films during the 1940's, you just might like to watch John doing his best.


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


user
Well well, I had seen a lot of reviews on this one, and a lot of promo always showing the decapitation scene. But this flick is a tough one. And I mean it by all ways. It's hard to find a copy, because it was a low budget independent release and because MPAA was on the hunt for every copy on VHS, it came out unrated but it had to be rated for the MPAA. So copies disappeared into the underground scene. All people involved in this flick never did anything else in the biz. So it made this flick unique. VHS copies almost never pop up on ebay or other sites and if they do you will pay over a 100$ to get one. But due US connections I was able to catch a release on DVD sold worldwide. Limited but it was to be a sort of official one. Now and then there are still some screenings of this splatterfest. But is it worth all the hype surrounding it? As said earlier, it is a tough one to catch but also to sit through. There are gory killings, there is necrophilia, there is nudity but there is also a lot of talking between the coppers. And to be honest, if you would like to see the movie in 5 minutes watch the ending, it's a flashback in the killer's mind. The blood flows and indeed it's a splatterfest but not the full 80 minutes, splatter galore for 10 minutes. The quality of the movie is okay, sound okay, no hiss, colors okay, black is black and not blue as in many low budgets. It's okay to watch it but you never will be frightened but it's one to watch with your friends having a beer and a pizza I guess. 555, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah 333.


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


user
Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every "5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.


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


user
Well, I didn't know what to expect from 555. Matter of fact, I had never even heard of it until a few months ago. But, being a collector of just about all types of horror I figured I would go ahead and grab this obscure 80's slasher.
Basically the storyline has to do with a killer that kills every 5 years for 5 nights in a row. What the third 5 in the title means... nobody knows. Anyway, the killings start as the killer searches for young teenagers fooling around in obscure places. He decapitates the men and brutally knifes the woman to death. After this, he proceeds to rape the dead corpse. The police think they have a lead on the killings but really have no idea what is going on. How will they find the killer? Does anybody care?
This movie is filled with some of the worst actors I have ever seen. No wonder none of these actors went on to do anything else, literally. The three lead actors consist of two detectives and a "sexy" female reporter. I am being sarcastic when I say sexy, she is about as un-sexy as it gets. The two detectives are like watching tweedle dee and tweedle dum. One of them underacts his part and the other one may have gone to the Shatner School of Acting. The acting is so bad that it almost forces you to lose your interest in the movie, thus almost putting you to sleep.
The only thing holding this terrible movie together is a few decent gore scenes. For a movie on this budget the makers must have put all of there money into the special effects, which still aren't that great.
Unless you are like me and have to own every single horror movie out there, I would suggest steering clear of this movie. 4/10


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


user
A majority of exclusively made-for-video low-budget fright flicks from the 80's invariably stink worse than raunchy old socks. This particularly dismal and amateurish no-budget Chicago-set bargain basement "nasty necrophiliac nutcase on the loose" bloodbath serves as a depressing affirmation of this borderline ineluctable fact. A bearded, disheveled, long-haired, bead and flower shirt-wearing wild-eyed psycho hippie fruitcake embarks on your standard random gruesome killing spree, graphically slaughtering libidinous young couples who are engaging in strenuous coitus whenever the deranged Mansonesque lunatic attacks. (Hmm, do I detect a fairly obvious and self-righteously puritanical "have sex and die" message here? Gee, could be, man.) Boy, is this mentally unbalanced sicko one real way gone pup: After knifing his female victims, our certifiably crackers killer enjoys making love to their freshly slain bodies. (WARNING: Possible *SPOILER* ahead. Towards the picture's end the corpse-copulating crazy gets rudely interrupted by the cops while he's in the middle of doing the unthinkable with a nubile cadaver, thereby provoking the foul pervert to cut loose with an understandably anguished and ear-splitting cry of "Nooo!") Now, ain't this gonzo guy a definite sweetheart and a half?
Too bad this flick is so poorly done; if it had only been made with a modicum of flair and proficiency it could have been a sleazy little gem of a horror exploitation item. Alas, Wally Koz's ham-fisted direction, Lamar "Larry" Bloodworth's stubbornly static and immobile cinematography, Frankie "Hollywood" Rodriguez's insipid, monotonously head-banging "hard rock" score, the pitifully cheap and unconvincing make-up f/x, flat, conspicuously uneasy plywood acting by a hideously all-thumbs and unappealing non-pro cast, lethargic pacing (too much screen time is tiresomely squandered on the police's drab efforts to catch the wacko), an especially lame would-be shocking "surprise" ending (the mystery killer's true identity is guaranteed to have you groaning in disgust), the uniformly boring, incessantly bickering and positively braindead characters, and a steady succession of dull soft-core sex scenes that are about as erotic as watching two slugs mate for 90 minutes straight all add up to one profoundly putrid and unrewarding limp, soggy noodle of a crummy clinker. However, to be fair, this film does possess one stellar virtue: The mad-dog slasher has unquestionably excellent taste in garishly tropical, louder-than-thunder day-glo Hawaiian shirts.


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 in the world. the only reason i gave it a 2 was because the first 10 minutes were hysterically funny in a "is this for real??" sort of way. it was so cheesy and low budget...they should not have even bothered. there was nudity and violence for the pure sake of having nudity and violence, and the effects were just so so bad you would not believe it (think ketchup as blood, and cabbages for severed heads). do not rent this!!


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


user
Hollywood had a long love affair with bogus Arabian Nights tales but few of these products have stood the test of time. The most memorable were the Jon Hall, Maria Montez films which have long since become camp. This one is filled with dubbed songs, anachronistic slang, and slapstick. It's a truly bounteous crop of Mesopotamian corn, and pretty near intolerable today. It was nominated for its imaginative special effects which are almost unnoticeable in this day and age, consisting mainly of trick photography. The only outstanding, positive feature which survives is its beautiful color and clarity. Sad to say, of the many films made in this genre, few of them come up to Alexander Korda's original "Thief of Baghdad". Almost any other Arabian Nights film is superior to this one, though. It's a loser.


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


user
Yes,the movie is not a piece of art but the first time I watched it I was 10 years old,my parents were out and I stayed home with my two brothers.It was May 1970(I know that because I found a note about the cycle of horror movies that one network had).It's one of the most vivid memories I have with the guys.We ended all in one bed and covered up to the head! Our very first horror movie! We kept talking about it for years and laughing about the moment.Those were horror movies.Nowadays horror movies are always the same.Or was it better when we were kids enjoying without analyzing the plot and the cast and the dialogs? Most sure it was that.But for me this is a great movie!


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


user
I love this movie. Even though I rated it a "4", that's because the acting, the plot and the budget were all slated to the "B" universe even before this movie was released. But that's OK! It is an entertaining film that has a lot to offer!
I remember what Leonard Maltin said about "Plan 9 From Outer Space": a film so bad that it's great! Lacking the UFO - alien plot, The Thing the Couldn't Die relies on the supernatural (divination, a buried head looking for it's body, hypnosis, etc) to tell it's story. The acting is stilted, the camera work second class and the settings are limited, but boy! what a movie! This film is available in the bootleg market. If you find a copy, buy it!


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


user
While out divining for water, a young psychic woman named Jessica Burns (Carolyn Kearney) stumbles upon something else altogether. She discovers a chest that has been buried for centuries on her aunt's ranch. Instead of the treasure her aunt is hoping for, the chest contains the head of Gideon Drew, a devil worshiper who was beheaded by Sir Francis Drake. Telepathically controlling the hired-hand who opened the chest, Drew's head goes on a murderous spree in search of the rest of his body  also buried on Jessica's aunt's farm. While Jessica is certain she feels the presence of evil, can she put a stop to Drew's plans and will she be in time to prevent his becoming whole?
I thought I was fairly familiar with most of Universal's horror output prior to 1960, but this is one Universal film from the 50s that certainly gets little mention. While The Thing That Couldn't Die isn't what I would call a "good" movie, it does have a few things going for it. First, the film has some interesting ideas and is actually rather ambitious. Director Will Cowan, whether by luck or intention, is able to give the movie some nice atmosphere from time-to-time. And, the special effects involving the head are certainly creepy. But the whole project is undone by the acting. I'm shocked to learn that any of the supposed "actors" in this thing ever appeared in anything else. You would think that this was a "one and done" type of movie for most of those involved. Kearney is the worst offender. She's horrible. Also, The Thing That Couldn't Die may have been a bit too ambitious for its own good. Given the budget and other limitations, there was no way the movie could aspire to its more lofty ideas. Finally, the movie ends rather abruptly. Just as things are starting to get interesting, The End. What's that about?


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


user
Yes this movie features a gal named Jessica who says everything is evil and she causes trees to land on people too (well she only causes a tree to fall once, but she does say everything is evil). This movie is about a farm that apparently rents out rooms to people, but offers little else in the way of entertainment. Jessica can find things with a stick and she finds the head of an evil guy. Of course they don't know this until the owner of the farm's helpers open the box containing the head. The head proceeds to hypnotize everyone it can so it can get to Jessica and use her powers to find stuff to help look for his body. This movie has an interesting enough story, but it plays out very bad here. Everyone in this flick will get on your nerves at least once.


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 ever visited Shenandoah Acres as a child and wondered, could there be a worse vacation spot in the world? Well, you could have watched this movie and had your answer. Flavia (a.k.a. Fistula) Macintyre's dude ranch is often frequented by business casual Gordon, at least since resident water witch, Jessica, was 13. But Jessica can find much more than fresh spring water with that divining rod  buried "tray-shure," lost jewelry, dead bodies, even a talisman that will keep her from dressing like a slut and raising drinks with a phony beat and a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike while hypnotized by a disembodied head. Evil, evil evil.


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


user
Jessica is a young, virginal and very innocent girl who lives with her aunt on a remote ranch. Jessica is also a powerful psychic, capable of dowsing, retro-cognition, precognition and esp. When young and handsome Gordon Hawthorne comes to visit, he is instantly skeptical of Jessica's powers...until her skills uncover a lost wristwatch and unearth an ancient treasure chest. However, the treasure chest holds the severed head of a centuries dead satanist named Gideon Drew, whose powers are far stronger than Jessica's. Despite her warnings of the evil in their midst, Drew manages to mentally enslave everyone unfortunate to make eye contact with him. But Drew wants Jessica most of all. He needs her dowsing skills to unearth his body, so that he can rise from the dead and rule over the human race. Will Jessica's powerful fleur de lis, combined with Gordon's love, ward the ancient evil off before it can destroy them all?
This isn't a very interesting movie. It certainly could have been - the basic story is interesting and imaginative, but the acting is leaden and the whole thing moves much too slowly to hold interest. Jessica is also too innocent - almost annoyingly so, and Gordon, her love interest, is wooden, stiff and totally emotionless. None of the characters are very likable, and the low budget is painfully obvious. A rushed ending also doesn't help matters. Avoid, unless it's the MST3K version.


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 kid, this movie scared me green. As an adult, I couldn't stop laughing.
I have not had the pleasure of watching this movie via MST3K. I caught it, instead, on a late Saturday afternoon, when there was absolutely nothing in the theaters, and there was nothing left to do outside but rake some autumn leaves. I figured, this HAD to be better. I was wrong.
The movie has some very good elements; a water-divining mystic, a beatnik painter, couple of idiot ranch hands, an elderly history buff, and an "evil wind." Um...I mean...evil head. An evil head which will, as soon as the systematic hypnotism of each and every one present is complete, be looking for its evil body.
The whole story takes place on an evil "ranch" which apparently neither grows crops, nor raises evil livestock.
As everything is declared by their resident mystic to be "evil," you either roll your eyes horribly, or laugh til your sides split, depending on your mood. Me? I laughed until I had tears streaming down my face.
I remembered this movie fondly as one of those which really SCARED me as a kid. But some kids are afraid of Santa Claus, too..no? Anyway... if you're into 50's horror camp, then this is definitely a movie you shouldn't miss.
If you're looking for a good story line, this movie has that. It's the over the top dramatics and downright innocence of the time that makes it so horrid. The acting was just BAD, but it still had some good elements. Perhaps it rates a remake...?
It rates a 4.3/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
I suppose you could say this film has a grain of potential, but nothing more, because boy did the filmmakers botch it. The plot is practically incomprehensible, the pacing is lethargic and the acting is pathetic. And what the hell is a trade rat? Worst of all, though, this movie's climax is the anticlimax of all anticlimaxes; plus the title doesn't seem even remotely accurate. The only redeeming feature of this film is the pretty dark-haired woman... well, the blond girl was pretty too, but she was annoying and not as good looking as the brunette. Anyhoo, as with a lot of movies, this is one to be seen only on MST3K.


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


user
This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way.


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


user
Boy Oh Boy, does this movie stink. This movie is one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever seen in my whole entire life. Please, even if your life depends on it, DO NOT, and I repeat: DO NOT under any circumstances, view this horrid piece of garbage. Only watch this thing when it comes on as a MST 3000 Episode. That was the only way I could sit through the whole thing. If I had to watch it without that show, I would've stopped watching it before it was over. It does have one use: A Cure For Insomniacs!!!!!


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


user
Directed by Diane Keaton and adapted from a book by Franz Lidz. A young mother Selma Lidz(Andie MacDowell)is battling a very serious illness and her self proclaimed inventor husband Sid(John Tururro)is a little lacking in the emotions department. Unhappy with the new home situation, their sensitive son Steven(Nathan Watt)decides he wants to stay with his two eccentric uncles Danny(Michael Richards)and Melvin(Lou Cutell)until his mom is well. Steven seems to be happier and even takes interest in his strange uncle's living habits; he even decides he wants to change his name to Franz. Set in the early 60's, this drama is a bit comedic...change that to zany. Not being a MacDowell fan, UNSTRUNG HEROES assures my attitude; albeit I enjoyed the film and it is not a total waste.


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


user
I began watching this movie on t.v. some weeks ago, but gave up after the first 10 minutes or so. At the start, the person on the witness protection scheme located in an isolated farmhouse becomes nervous about his exterior placed guards, and then asks the guard inside the house whether he can make a telephone call - only to discover the line has been cut.
Shortly afterwards, Roy Scheider as one of the witness's assassins turns up and duly executes the witness and his wife - upon which the Roy Scheider character duly picks up the wall telephone in the kitchen, dials a number, and then speaks: It is done!!!! That was it for me!


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


user
Having sat and watched this film I can only wonder at the reasons for creating the film. This was without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen and had no redeeming features.
If it was supposed to be funny then it might have managed to be a very weak comedy but as an action thriller it was dire.
Slow, no plot, no real action, nothing approaching good dialogue and I've no idea about the characters. What else can I say. Avoid.


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


user
To be honest, I did never read one of the comics and cannot remember part 2 and 3 at all. I can compare to the first part (Werner - Beinhart) and this one here is really disappointing, compared to part1 as well as compared to most other movies I watched the last weeks. The first minutes seam to be just a needless clone of the first movie intro and then it is becoming even worse. There are a few good (funny) scenes, but in total it is just another boring second-rate try of German film industry that cannot succeed (nearly as usual). One good thing: The movie is quite short (75 min.) The bad thing: It only contains story and jokes for 45 Minutes ;) -> Don't watch it


assistant
0