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
Of the thousands of movies I've seen so far, this is the first one which made me think of the "wasted talents" expression. I had never EVER seen so many fine actors giving so dreadful performances (Frédéric Pierrot, Elsa Zylberstein,and so on). The "aging" make-up is quite awful and, to make it worse, lit broadly. The use of music (e.g. love at first sight for the young aide de camp) is at times so caricatural that I could feel most spectators around me smile awkwardly. So far, Antoine de Caunes has been quite a good actor, but seeing this one and "les morsures de l'aube" I think he should start considering quitting. Please Antoine, give up that "master of balantree" project ; I doubt you deserve it.


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


user
Tu pa tam is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But on the other hand is better then most of the movies from Slovenia, who are filled with depressing characters and story without any bright ideas. Tu pa tam is bright, optimistic and without any artistic moments. In many interviews director Mitja Okorn tried to tell us that his movie is top quality just because it didn't cost a lot of money. But thinking that way is wrong. Tu pa tam is for me very bad movie. The dialogs are really bad written (90% of the script is consisted of cursing), the characters are stereotypical morons, the story and its twists are very predictable and the action sequences (this movie supposed to be an action comedy) are filmed very very bad and without any style. Okorn is just thinking he's even bigger than Quentin Tarantino, so he's copying his style over all 90 minutes. The humor in the movie is very cheap and primitive (Okorn probably thinks that constant cursing is funny). In my opinion is Tu pa tam very cheap (not only by budget)movie with stupid story and very very bad acting.


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


user
Police officer Michael (Tomas Arana, "The Church") has his hands full while investigating a serial killer who's been leaving parts of the bodies of the people that he's been murdering at the house of one recently widowed, Tracy (Joanna Pacula). Mike has to find a way to stop the bodies from piling up, while perhaps finding love in the process.
A feeling of the 'giallo' films of yore pervades this film, even though we know who the killer is from the get-go, and the film contains a few good set-pieces (a scene later in the film set in a school for the blind being particularly memorable), but it doesn't make all that much sense when all is said and done either. All in all, not nearly as good as Bava's earlier "Macabre" nor his first two "Demons" films, but enjoyable enough if you can forgive the rather outrageous plot twists towards the end of the film. A pity the Image Entertainment DVD lacked extras of any kind, as I would have been interested in some.
My Grade: C-


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


user
I consider myself to have a decent sense of humor, but this "movie" left me stunned in my chair.
It's so bad that it could just not have been any worse. Not once did I laugh at the sadly attempted jokes in this movie. I have watched and enjoyed several parodies of big movies, but unfortunately this one will allways be the one I remember best - in my nightmares.
The only reason anyone should want to watch this, is if they want to enter a coma for a brief period of time.
This is the worst movie ever.


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


user
Without a doubt, the WORST movie I have ever seen in my life. There was nothing entertaining about this film. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but it actually made me cry at the thought of losing the $4.75 admission price.


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


user
It's painfully obvious that the people who made this "movie" have never seen such brilliant spoofs as "The Naked Gun" and "Hot Shots". This movie is terrible, and so are the actors. They wouldn't know acting even if it hit them in the face, as I felt like doing while watching this total pile of rubbish.
The movie is stupid and has no humor in it what so ever. I'm SURE that I could make a better movie with my friends. To me it's amazing that a movie can fail this much. Not a single clever or funny line. No trace of intelligence behind it. It's a pathetic movie and I'd like to meet the person who actually likes this movie. Yuck!


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


user
I've never understood this type of spoof movies. You get some serious/semi-serious movie that everyone knows about and takes the seriousness out of it through immature fart-jokes and such. We've seen it many, many times, and it's never really been funny. It's just an easy way to laugh at something you don't understand, in my opinion. This seems to be one of the more obscure and less liked of the genre, though I honestly don't see anything in this that is much worse than that of Spy Hard or Hot Shots. This movie, as is clearly understood simply from the title, concentrates on making childish fun of Pulp Fiction. That's the main reason I decided to watch it, as I found that film to be overly indulgent of Tarantino's sick mind and powerfully overrated. I had hoped for one or two good jokes, making fun of the overly violent and pointless type of movie that Pulp Fiction was in every aspect, in my (anything but) humble opinion. I was sorely disappointed. The plot is pretty much a rip-off of Tarantino's film, with a few scenes spoofing other, often better, films, in the same childish and humorless fashion. The pacing is poor, and often you'll sit there, being able to guess the outcome of every scene, predicting every joke, often thinking of a better one at the spot, bored out of your mind. The acting is bad. The characters are clichés and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work. It just makes the movie that much harder to sit through. The humor is juvenile and lame. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that they managed to find some actors that looked like the people they were supposed to look like. The film is an awful waste of the actual real actors involved. Possibly slightly entertaining to fans of the typical spoof movies of the same kind. I recommend this only to people who truly loathed Pulp Fiction, or fans of the Zucker parody films. Everyone else: avoid. 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
Now first let me say I love god awful movies. Especially horror films mainly. I watched hundreds of movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000 with no pain. But this is the absolute worst film on the planet!!! I had to turn it off it was so bad. It was unfunny and just plain unwatchable. Give me 3 back to back viewings of Manos The Hands of fate or Monster A-go-go over this any day. Avoid this film like the plauge!! Now excuse me while I go gouge out my eyes to cleanse them of the filth I had to watch to get a decent judgement for this film. Only one decent gag in the part I watched was the hitmen now are an extermination pair for Hitmen Exterminators. Even that wasn't to great of a gag.


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 a spin off of Pulp Fiction. I thought that it would be good for a few decent laughs. Well it turns out that this movie really was terrible. The whole plot doesn't follow on the Pulp Fiction plot. It turns to other movie like Forrest Gump and more. Some laughs came out of this movie, but all and all it totally took 90 minutes of my life away from me. If you are thinking of renting this movie, please don't it will waste 90 minutes of your life. Reconsider renting this and go on and find a movie that actually makes sense. Please if there is a Plump Fiction 2, I will definitely not go on and rent the sequel. Just giving a heads up for those 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
This can hardly be called a good movie, actually it's not even close. But I have to say, that there was a few things that made me... not laugh, not giggle, but something like that. The Resovoir Dogs parody was one of them. The rest are not important enough to be remembered.
To be honest, I was a little disappointed by this movie. The plot sounded like an idea, but it quickly fell to the ground. The whole thing was just to messy and the actors where not good for the characters; most of them simply overacted. There was also a whole lot of unessecary sequences, that was a total waste of film. I do realize that it would make the movie about 20 min shorter, but it would only make it better.
Now, with the good and the bad things lined up, let's go to the conclusion: two out of six toilet seats up for 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
..this movie being one of them.
I remember, in the middle of the movie, me and my friend just
looked at each other, shaked our heads and laughed.. in despair.
See it if you wish, if you feel that you have the time to waste
and don´t mind 1.5 hrs of catatonia.


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


user
...when this movie was on.
What a bore. An attempt at humor, but really not pulling it off too well. Some good ideas were cast, and the actors makeup and wardrobe were OK.
I expected a lot more, unfortunately I couldn't sit through any more of it, I switched off halfway through the video, and ejected the tape, went to the rental store to get my money back...


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


user
The worst movie ever made. If anyone asks you what is the worst movie you've ever seen - tell them Plump Fiction. Of all the movies I've ever seen this gotta be the most lame experience. Even the poorest sequels are pure masterpieces compared


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 by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Its been a few years since I saw it and nothing has come close since then and i doubt that there ever will be a movie produced that is as bad as this. It tries to make fun of a variety of different movies, for example 'Nell' (!) and instead of funny its just pathetic. Whatever you do, don't rent or by this garbage and if someone throws it at you....turn around and run the other way!!


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 Pulp Fiction don't see this movie. This movie is NOT funny. This is the worst parody movie ever. This is a poor attempt of parody films.
The cast is bad. The film is bad. This is one of the worst pictures ever made.
I do not recommend Plump Fiction. I prefer the original Pulp Fiction by the great Quentin Tarantino. This is one of the worst parody films ever made.
Plump Fiction is not a good movie. It is not funny. It is so dumb and vulgar.


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


user
...about this film was the title song. After 30 minutes, I discontinued watching because it was so lame. Bad story, bad actors, bad movie. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Pulp Fiction instead.


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


user
Well,this movie is really "PLUMPED" HAHA Get it? Thats kinda like the attitude of this movie. The plot is just a copy of Pulp Fiction,okay thats acceptable,but to make this piece if "PLUMP" (haha)! is really unbelievable.The storyline is so pathetic,and the whole thing only gathered a few laughs. It did try making a few jokes from various other movies,and it failed most of the times. I mean,i do have a sense of humor,but this isnt really the way to go to get a laugh. Most of the supposedly "Funny" moments are completely ironic. The film is quiet short running at around 75 minutes overall. They could have done a much funnier job,seeming they made fun of a blockbuster film,they were gambling,and hey! I think they lost!
In overall PLUMP Fiction,is "PLUMPABLE" but you wont gather much at all!
Worth watching over and over again?: No once is enough,actually its more than enough!
So is it worth the rent? Ummm..As I said,Its "PLUMPABLE",but you will only gather a few "PLUMPS" from it!
Overall out of 10: a 4 out of 10!


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


user
Gritty drama? Emotionally powerful? Blah! The BBC has lost out big time to masterful productions such as The Wire, Sopranos and Carnivale from HBO. Okay, so the budget may be a lot smaller but 'The Street' last night was badly acted, predictable, unrealistic, stereotypical, insensitive and a big fat waste of time. TV (British TV) is not as good as it used to be and is falling further and further behind the American productions.
There was no sense of brutal violence from the 'local gangster'. There was no indication that this man was 'insane' enough to beat up a man he has respected for such a long time. There was no remorse when he did it and this shouldn't be the sort of character that would back down when Bob Hoskins called his son a pansy, in a display of 'bravery'.
I wish I was more eloquent to express my disdain for this show, but I am not and although I can't prove my point well enough, believe me when I say that this was rubbish, shock TV, that provides no real inward looking perspective on life.
1/5 stars.


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


user
This film is about a gap that exists between the real world and the world of the dead. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the internet (i.e., if you install a program on the computer, you see dead folks--much like if you play a videotape you'll die in RINGU). Frankly, most of this seemed rather silly and lost me. What I did find interesting is the idea that the dead live within their own separate existence--being totally alone for eternity. This was sobering and fascinating.
I love Japanese films and have seen a huge number compared to most Americans. However, one genre that has become popular in recent years that I just can't relate to very well are these horror films. I know they are super popular--especially since they seem to be remade so often in the States. I've seen both RINGU as well as THE RING, JU-ON and THE GRUDGE and was rather ambivalent despite their popularity. About the only recent horror film I really liked from Japan was SEANCE--a reworking of the great British film, SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON. And what, do I think, made SEANCE different? Well, unlike the other films as well as KAIRO, gobs and gobs of money weren't spent on special effects or trying to scare the audience--instead, the emphasis was on the story. The bottom line is that these other films are a lot like American films like HALLOWEEN or Friday 13th--with scary things jumping out just to scare the audience and plot is purely secondary (at best). For me, I want story--not cheap thrills or ghosts as the primary focus of the film.
With a relatively high rating, I know I am in the minority, but I just don't find this a very satisfying film. All too often, minor things occur that might startle someone slightly--but the characters begin screaming and crying and acting as if to say "this is the scariest film ever made so you'd better start shaking". Well, I think it just tries too hard and I wish it had focused more on the afterlife seen at the end of the film and plot progression--not scare tactics.


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


user
I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad ("What if something strange is going on?"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of "jolts" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??
To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?
I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.


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


user
Would be promising if it were a student film. Never seems to know where it's going next, as if they decided on each next scene as they were making the film. As a result, much repetition and a deadening pace. There's an absolutely confusing procedure by which the ghosts affect people in this world: it involves the internet, phone calls, a computer science experiment, a suspicious grad student, withdrawn behavior, red rooms, dark stains, and _then_ suicides. Good luck figuring out the connections, or when a character is a ghost yet or just acting strangely. Characters are barely sketched, which could be OK, but they're completely uninteresting. It's far too long and ends just when it reaches a promising scenario, although the conclusion is nonsensical. Weakest moment: when "the boss" sits down to give some incoherent advice.


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


user
I can appreciate movies with subtitles from foreign countries and specially the ones in which the subtitles are weak and don't really seems to follow the story or really make sense, but this movie had too many parts that didn't really make sense.
All in all, i can admit to a few scary and freaky parts, but they are repetitive, i felt like i was watching a loop trailer; seems like it was a short film shot with different actors.
In the veins of RINGU and GRUDGE but not even close the the hype...the excessive length killed the thrill.
Unless you are a die hard fan of these types of movies (wich i thought i was), don't waste your time on 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
Do not see this film. In most cases, such as that of Ju-On and The Grudge, the Japanese film are infinitely better than the American remake. However, this movie was terrible. The ghosts, much like a trick or treater dressed as a sheet ghost moan and wheeze in an attempt to be scary in the absence of good makeup or special effects and the acting is just horrible. The story itself is inconsistent and confusing, not everything is explained leaving the film to go from bad to worse. Do not waste your time with this movie, it's not worth it and I am sure that there are more entertaining things to do - like watching paint dry.


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


user
I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.
While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.
What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac).


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


user
Forget the lousy acting, that can be forgiven in this sort of film. Or even the terrible, unnatural dialog and illogical events (if my subtitles actually reflected what was said). Far worse is the blatant absence of a skillful or experienced director who maybe took a holiday with the editor while the film was being made? Watching the film, it feels completely out of date even though it was 'only' made 7 years ago. A computer virus as a portal to the afterlife? lol? A dial up internetconnection? Clucky ghost images photoshopped on pictures ("He! Look over there...is that..is that a face?" -zoom in on face- -Oops, sound breaks off- 'chop' -next scene- ), scenes and sequences are poorly edited and as a result don't flow at all. You'll be watching a girl finding a corpse still hanging from the knot in one scene and then literally 10 seconds later seeing her again at some place apparently unaffected, smiling and going about.
Apart from the many problems I have with the movie in terms of production-value, it is also painfully long and repetitive and thus utterly boring.
I recommend 'Shutter' in stead, an oriental (Thai) horror movie done well.


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


user
While the design and locations and photography are strong assets in this film; it is a turgid and melodramatic affair which demonstrates the limits of cinema to convey truth.
The case is the use of the soundtrack music: a mix of Gustav Mahler and Andrew Lloyd-Webber that plays constantly and loudly, and would have made Max Steiner grimace at its over use as it instructs the audience how difficult; how ecstatic; how tortured it is to be an artist. And then it really counts the story elides the details at the end.
This heightened and kitsch exploitation of emotions was once well ridiculed by Peter Ackroyd about a Yukio Mishima book: This is not writing, this is Barbara Cartland. Precisely the same critique can be made of this film: a deceptive, mawkish vanity project.


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


user
I saw this movie and thought it was a sleeper. Sometimes I can get into intellectual Romantic movies. This movie just did not move me. I felt like it was about one hour too long. Camille is portrayed as a very sympathetic sculptor, who loses just about everything. I thought the whole movie was just sad, and downcast. If you like tragedies, you MIGHT like this. I just thought it was too long, which meant it has many unnecessary scenes, which ultimately lead to about one hour of boredom. I would not recommend this movie. If you want to see a good romantic tragedy go watch Titanic.


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


user
Although this starts out promisingly, a woman in a car is weaving around dark roads in the middle of the night in the middle of the forest until she almost hits a man holding a lizard! This gave me the impression that we were going to see something special, something almost David Lynchian (if there is such a term), but unfortunately, the film starts to go everyplace, not having a core center, just sort of meandering story about a woman trying to solve a mystery of a small town. The character study goes all over the place, and I couldn't really care for any of the characters it seems, especially when some of the story all of a sudden goes into flashback mode. I had some hopes for this movie, but all in all, it was a bit of a letdown.


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 looking at all the good reviews about this film and I start thinking to myself... Am I going crazy..? Can't I see the beauty from a film like this..? Am I just dumb enough to NOT understand the message this film is trying to point out? I don't know.. maybe one of those lizards entered in my head and ate all my brains as well. The film idea was going nowhere... I was sure it would have a foggy end, and of course... it did! Nothing exceptional... Not even the landscapes (I hopped that being placed in a mountain village at least the landscapes would be nice.. but no). Just a lame story about a crazy teacher, and of course her crazy students... now all grown up, each of them.. with his/her own fixed ideas. And boy some of those ideas were stupid.. like the lizard story for example. At a moment I thought I was watching x files.. with the lizard entering in the ear and all. No.. from my point of view this movie is a waste of time (not to say money if U pay for the ticket) The only part that I did like was the acting of the young blue eye "german" kid... He played very well and convincing for his age... The rest... nothing! I read the previous review and I think the script writer and the director were both on drugs when they came up with those ideas. Well considering that there are a lot of people that enjoyed this film... I think to myself again.. Maybe I am the crazy one. Advice.. Don't waste your time with this!


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


user
Obabakoak is a bunch of short stories with an only common point: the little Vasque town of Obaba. In this film, the director tries to explain some of these stories by using a young reporter as a continuum. The result is a strange film, as it has any main character (the movie spends about 20 min. to each tale) other than the town of Obaba. Any story is really well explained and the fact is that they result very boring. It was by far the best film of the year in Spain, but, well, that's not saying too much. The only good thing of the film is the precious scenarios. It is filmed in a very precious valley and it is more enjoyable to spend the time watching the scenario rather than being aware of the story.


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


user
With great expectations I went to see this film, Spain's contribution to the Oscar-race this year. Part from being completely pointless, banal, pathetic, badly written, edited, acted and directed, the movie is too long. It fails in delivering the "message" it tries to give, fails in its storytelling, clumsy historical settings and above all in its rhythm. There are some so extreme misfires I haven't seen in a movie in a long time (the story of Lucas whose dead sister lives in his head, the divine revelations, all that lizard nonsense). The Spanish-speaking audience around me was yawning and rapidly losing patience, and some of the commentaries I overheard was whether the members of the Spanish Academy had taken drugs before choosing the film for the Oscar contest.


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


user
Lone Star Productions sure churned them out in the 1930's, and "Star Packer" has the feel of one of the more rushed ones. John Wayne is U.S. Marshal John Travers, investigating a crooked hoodlum known only as "The Shadow", responsible for stealing cattle, stage holdups and the like, and giving orders from behind the door of a phony wall safe. Yakima Canutt is Travers' trusty Indian sidekick, appropriately named as... well, "Yak".
Early on, we find out that Cattlemens Union head Matt Matlock (George pre-Gabby Hayes) is really The Shadow; the dead giveaway is when he offers to buy out his (supposed) niece Anita's half of the Matlock Ranch, since "this is no place for a girl". As Anita, Verna Hillie doesn't have much to do in the film, although in a comic moment, she gets to use a six shooter to blast the butt of one of the villains in a night time scare raid.
There are a few curiosities in the film - for one, Wayne's character alternately rides a white horse and a dark horse in the first half of the film. In what could have been a neat device, a hollowed out tree stump used by a henchman is located right in the middle of the street. And finally, the movie doesn't truly live up to it's name, as Sheriff Travers never wears a badge throughout the film, that is, a star packer without a star.
The horse chases, the runaway stage scenes, the stagecoach off the cliff (another curiosity, the horses conveniently get loose from the stage) are all pretty standard stuff. But John Wayne fans will want to see this one for the charisma he displayed early on in his career. For those more critical, the white kerchiefs worn around the forehead by the good guy posse could only mean that they all had a headache.


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 beginning twice, could NOT make sense of it, and it bothered me for the whole movie.
So, work this out with me: Wayne (the GOOD guy) jumps on the stagecoach, disarms the drivers (!), steals the money (?!), and takes off.
Disarmed, one driver is then killed and the other wounded by the bad guys. Thanks to Wayne, who disarmed them, and then watched it happen.
Then Wayne drops the money in the dirt, rescues the girl, rides into town, chuckles it up with Yak (too bad about the dead guy, I guess)...and then later says he "found" the money back at the scene. And everyone's okay with that.
And he's the good guy? And I'm pretty sure there weren't small, hand-held flashlights at the time. And Bell did his first phone demo in 1876... were they in houses then? Am I thinking too hard about this one? Normally, I'm happy to suspend judgment to enjoy a movie, but this one bothered me. And that's a sign the move didn't really work 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
Sad to say this is one of the sillier of John Wayne's series of poverty row westerns for Lone Star Productions. Here he is a United States Marshal on the trail of a bandit known only, I kid you not, as the Shadow.
No it's not Lamont Cranston, it's some dude who gives his orders through an open wall safe so his men don't see who he is. But the voice is unmistakable, you'll know within 10 minutes of the film.
And another reviewer here is quite wrong, no squeals or groans from the audience would have occurred because Gabby Hayes was still playing a variety of roles and he's clean shaven here. He had not yet found his niche as the lovable oldtimer sidekick of various movie cowboy heroes like the Duke.
Later on he does lead his men quite openly in the climax so I'm not sure what the point of the original gimmick with the wall safe was. I don't think those that wrote this one knew either.
Wayne gets Yakima Canutt as an Indian sidekick here and the relationship is just about the same as an unmasked Lone Ranger and Tonto.
It's all pretty silly if you ask me.


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


user
I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.
The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!
No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes.
He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.
He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.
When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!
If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.
Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)
No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke!


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


user
This proves just how awful the WB Network was in the last few years of its existence. As a homeschooler, I of course deplore this show for its ridiculous, fantasy land, obscure & unfunny stereotypes about the kids being "weird hippies who are so smart they're alienated from the super-cool high school students". Sorry TV writers, the world as viewed from inside your ass (containing your heads apparently when you wrote this show)is NOT the world we talented people see with our eyes as we live in a little thing called reality. As for those who actually liked this show...please, dear sweet Jesus PLEASE rethink the statement that you actually liked this crap over a very long walk. The acting is even more hollow, phony and wooden than the stereotypes the whole show was built around. Thank you WB for doing the right thing and putting this horse out of its beginning-to-end misery. This show never, ever should've even had the privilege of being made, no less having so much as eight awful episodes. I really hope that these actors eventually got a clue and stopped playing roles in garbage TV shows like this as soon as this show ended.


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 sorry but I just honestly cannot see why anyone would actually like this. It's stereotypical and REAL homeschoolers are NOTHING like they were on this show!! Personally I'm glad it got canceled after the first few episodes. I mean, this kind of show would certainly be alright if everyone knew that homeschoolers weren't really like this, and the whole story was just for the show, but unfortunately not everyone is aware of this. If anyone out there that watched this actually believed this is what goes on in the life of a homeschooler, then I honestly feel sorry for them. This reminds me of the kind of portrayal they have of homeschooled kids in "Mean Girls". It's sad, really, that people think this way. This is complete garbage, IMHO.


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


user
Whoever likened this one to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK certainly knew whereof he spoke. He might, as well, have likened it to some of the adventures of the pulp heroes that followed. "Kay Hoog" reminds one more than a little of both Lamont Cranston (The Shadow) and Clark Savage (Doc Savage). (The Shadow, quintessential man of mystery- and the very first "Dark Knight"- was also thought to be one Kent Allard. If one were to take Savage's first name first and add to it the Kent, you end up with- voila- Clark Kent. Funny, innit?) Like Indiana Jones, Hoog isn't above pilfering the artifacts of an ancient civilization (though his thefts are often more blatant and less "charmingly roguish" than Jones's). Unfortunately, this two-parter is a far cry from subsequent serials (from any era) in terms of overall quality. One of the first indications that something is amiss vis a vis the cinematic storytelling is a scene where desperados on horseback, quite literally breathing down his neck, simply watch as Hoog escapes their clutches in a hot air balloon. Why they don't bother to shoot down the balloon is just one of the many movie-making mysteries that plague these two films.
The second half of this two-parter is even worse than the first. Granted, this was one of the first ever serials and, as such, should be cut a bit of slack- but there are limits, even, to tolerance. (At one point, the capture of the hero is effected not on screen, but in the narration itself! Talk about cutting corners...) Fritz Lang happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers to ever make films; unfortunately for those of us who admire most of what he did, THE SPIDERS is a bitter pill indeed to swallow...


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


user
Originally, the Spiders was planned as a four-part serial, and it shows. I dislike serials; they're typically ridiculous, convoluted and banal. This one is no exception. In the first part of the Spiders, 'The Golden Lake,' a rich adventurer thwarts the plans of a gang of criminals--the Spiders--to steal gold from Incas. A silly love triangle ensues, with some Cowboys and Indians action. The sensationalism and exotica of it didn't entertain me.
One can legitimately trace themes from this two-part series to Lang's later, far superior work. And, the film-making is better than in other serials I've seen from this time, including 'Les Vampires' (1915). In the Spiders, the camera isn't as static, and this film is fast paced, thankfully. The tinting and lighting are adequate, too. None of that's remarkable, though. It's nearly unseemly, however, in how closely this series resembles Louis Feuillade's serials; the criminal gang dresses and behaves like those in 'Les Vampires'--only the names, and to a lesser extent, the situations have changed.
For the further comments on The Spiders series, see the web pages for it.


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


user
Yet again, director J. Lee Thompson unites with actor Charles Bronson for a violent and uncompromising action flick. In fact, this is probably Bronson's most brutal film (quite a feat for a man who appeared in Death Wish, Ten To Midnight and Chato's Land). However, brutality doesn't on its own make for a good film, and The Evil That Men Do is ultimately a disappointment. If you were to take away its brutality the film would have precious little else of interest.
The story is about a retired hitman (Bronson) who lives a cosy life on a Caribbean island. He is persuaded to come out of retirement to track down and eliminate a sadistic torture doctor who has been plying his vile trade around various South American hell-holes. Throughout the film, especially at the beginning, we are treated to some graphic torture scenes to show us just what a nasty piece of work he is.
These themes are actually quite serious. Torture does go on in suppressive Latin American dictatorships, and everyday folk are made to suffer some despicably painful experiences simply for voicing an unpopular viewpoint. But The Evil That Men Do - for all its worthy posturing - isn't really bothered about the plight of these poor people. It is bothered purely with giving Charles Bronson an excuse to blow away some unpleasant scum-bags. It's just an exploitative actioner which hangs its coat on genuine issues. The torture sequences make you, the viewer, feel like a dirty, sick-in-the-head voyeur, rather like someone who gains pleasure from viewing "snuff" movies. The script is full of horrid dialogue, including some excessive descriptions of acts of torture. The Evil That Men Do fails to explore its disturbing ideas... its serves them up as entertainment and asks us to enjoy them. Sorry, but that's just wrong.


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


user
Once again Bronson's talent is mostly wasted on this shock value 1984 thriller which (uncut) is far more disturbing than most of what is out even today. The fact that "The Evil That Men Do" is very disturbing (in its verbal and visual depictions of torture) is not the problem. It is the shameless gratuity in which it is presented. Interestingly, this film seems to symbolize that latter part of Bronson's career in which he has tortured many of his fans with the same egregiously predictable and uncreative plots. One hopes this fine actor will rise again.


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


user
It's hard to believe that there are some people out there in the world that actually think this is a worthy Charles Bronson vehicle.
Bronson is a good actor that can do more than tote a gun and knock off bad guys. He was quietly moving in the TV movie "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus" and showed a lot of class and style in the Sean Penn-directed "The Indian Runner".
In "The Evil That Men Do", however, Bronson again plays a character that sees injustice and sets it right with fists, knives and, of course, guns. There's nothing here you haven't seen in the last five "Death Wish" flicks.
Wait, I take that back. This has to be the most sadistic and repellently violent film Bronson has ever had the dis-service of being in. Not just repellent in the scenes of torture or the descriptions of torture, but in the fact that these scenes were put in a film just to sell tickets. And Jose Ferrer! What in blue blazes was he doing here?!! I mean, he won an Oscar, for crying out loud!!!
Okay, sorry about that outburst. Let me just say that "The Evil That Men Do" has to be one of the worst movies I had ever seen that was based on a book. Yeah, that's right. I wonder if it was written with Bronson in mind?
No stars. Watch "Death Wish" instead. At least IT was topical.


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


user
Does anyone remember the alternative comedy show THE COMIC STRIP PRESENTS . One edition featured Charles Bronson ( Robbie Coltrane ) being interviewed about his new movie GLC :
" It's about a man , an ordinary man whose wife and family gets wiped out by creeps and I have to hunt them down and kill them in a sadistic and graphic manner "
" And after GLC what next for Bronson ? "
" We're using a new angle . My family don't get wiped out but I go after creeps just the same "
This accurately describes THE EVIL THAT MEN DO . It's a Bronson vigilante thriller where his motivation isn't down to a blood feud but this leads to credibility becoming strained
Bronson is a retired hit-man who isn't giving up his retirement for anything until someone shows him a video tape featuring interviews with the victims of " The Doctor " , not the legendary time traveler but a infamous expert on torture . It's never really explained why The Doctor is so infamous since any police state has a myriad of these sadists nor is it explained why The Doctor and his sister have ridiculous English accents
As you may guess it's a lazily written movie and incidents happening because the screenwriter needs things to happen to further the plot no matter how unlikely they are like one of the bad guys getting invited to a threesome so he can be killed or things being revealed like The Doctor's sister being a lesbian so some T&A can be included
In many ways it's like one of those nasty Chuck Norris vehicles that were being released at the same time , but the most disappointing thing is that the director is also the same man who made ICE COLD IN ALEX and THE GUNS OF NAVERONE two very well regarded war dramas that are often shown on Sunday afternoons . Believe me this movie won't be shown until well after the watershed


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 one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.
Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.
I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a "B" movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one.


assistant
0