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
It's 2 stars only because they put a lot of work in making this game look good. I played plenty of good and bad games and I think this game has the dullest story I was ever forced to listen. The best thing they could have done is to let you skip the conversations (but no, you must listen to them talking for 10 minutes) and just continue doing the same things over and over again. Climb the building, save the citizen, go kill some dude. IT'S ALL THE SAME! Ubisoft should really hire someone with some imagination.
I'm a huge fan of Prince of Persia series (first 3). The story was good and you wanted to know what happens next all the time. I don't even hate Prince of Persia 4. But I think anyone who was in charge of developing the story for Assassin's Creed should be banned to write another thing for the rest of his life.
Boring story and same missions over and over again! If just one of these two things was good the game would be worth playing.


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 hands down the most annoying and frustrating game I have ever encountered. Every time you turn around the game takes control of your character or creates invisible walls that you can't walk through. The cut scenes leave you in control of your character's movements, but only to a slight degree. Also, you have to play the game for about 2 hours just to get past the intro/tutorials. It's terrible! I am afraid if I play this game any more I will end up breaking something. This game sucks. The graphics are good, but nothing special, the game play, however, is awful. To say I hate this game would be a huge understatement. I got it on sale, but I want my $20 back. What a waste!


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


user
This game was terrible. I think they worked too hard on the visuals and didn't do much with the gameplay, which is the most important part. I mean, the visuals look incredible, but is the game really "fun"? NO! I mean it's like "hey let's jump off buildings" and all I'm doing is holding up and A/X. The game play just isn't there, and I don't agree with what Ubisoft did, because they had this hot girl (the producer of the game, Jade Raymond), and they were like "OK we've got this hot girl, let's pimp her" and if you go to gaming websites, you're not gonna see gameplay stuff of Assassin's Creed, you'll see her face with a microphone and it'll be like "We interviewed Jade Raymond about her favorite cookies!" It's like man, shut the F*@K UP WHO CARES?! Apparently...a lot of people do, because they bought the game and like it...I mean compare this game with Super Mario Galaxy. A Wii game that really doesn't abuse the Wii Remote, but STILL is very innovative and delivers in the most important part, GAMEPLAY! They were able to do a bit of everything with Mario Galaxy, the graphics were still stunning, the music in the game was orchestrated and sounded amazing, and THAT'S a game that deserves game of the year. NOT Assassin's Creed, man, it doesn't even deserve to even be a NOMINEE for Game of the Year. The hype around this game where it was like "oh it's the next generation of gaming"....really? I think not! So let me get this straight here, because I think the people liking this game are only liking it because they're Jade fans, so I'll tell you guys, JADE WILL NOT MAKE OUT WITH YOU OR ANYTHING IF YOU LOVE OR DEFEND THIS GAME! If you want a REAL game on the PS3, get Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, if you want a REAL game for the Xbox 360, get Call of Duty 4 (and a ton of other games too), and if you want a REAL game just in all the systems? GET SUPER MARIO GALAXY! I know this comment will be hated by many, but seriously, pressing two buttons for doing all this cool stuff, is that REALLY a fun game? The only reason why other games make it more complicated is because after it'll end up being more innovative and fun. And this game just isn't it.
1.3/10 A LIVING HELL!


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


user
This could have been the best game ever!! But the game makers just screwed up after 3 assassinations and the ending!! This is a combination of Prince Of Persia, Hit-man, GTA and Age Of Empires II (Saladin).
Yes these four games mentioned above are considered to be one of the greatest games ever made.
You combine the four and you get this game!! It has all the good aspects of the four games like acrobatic skills, stealth assassinations, open world and the HISTORY!! For the first 3 assassinations you feel this game is greatest!! But after the third, things seem to get so repetitive, that you only hope for the GAME to END.
I have played this on a PC and the PC version is horrible with glitches and the stupid side missions are senseless.
MY advice to all. This is a good game but get it EITHER for the XBOX360 or PS3. DON'T get it for the PC.
Lastly, this game came from the creators of Prince Of Persia. Surely the producer is hot, but the game is not hot and it is NOT better than the four games mentioned above!!


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


user
Sure, the concept had already been done with Alf and the Charmings: thrust modern society onto one or more out-of-place characters. But I loved both shows and watched them religiously until they ended in 1990. When I learned about Scorch, I was actually very hopeful for something new, as new TV in the 90's so far hadn't impressed me (but at least Star Trek: TNG and the Simpsons were still going).
What I got was a big disappointment. The acting was awful, but considering the ridiculous dialogue and wholly unbelievable writing, I can't blame them too much for what they had to work with. There were a few humorous moments, but most of the deliberate jokes seemed forced in their delivery. The whole production work on the show seemed too low-budget for what was on TV at the time. In the 80's it would have fit right in.
Still, it was the first episode and had to introduce the characters and establish the entire premise of the series, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The second episode wasn't as bad, and I started to get my hopes back that once it got into its stride, the show would improve. Sadly, my VCR ended up not recording the third episode aired, I never got to see it, and the series disappeared from the TV listings after that. All I have now are the first two episodes recorded off the air onto a VHS tape.


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


user
This should have been a moody, gritty, movie which lingered in the memory as an exposition of relationship where the dominant personality only survives because the personality being dominated sees no hope of change.
The acting was intense and skillful, the dialogue worked but the movie was irritatingly ineffective: too many distance shots that suggested lack of focus rather than a broader picture. Poor flow. The first 5 minutes could have been missed out altogether.
I suspect that, with a different edit, this movie could have been compelling.
In its current form it is flat, formless and tremendously disappointing.


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


user
This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.
We get cliché snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone "tough guy" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT.


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


user
The Devil's Men represents what turned out to be one of the last gasps of the occult obsessed horror scene of the 70's shortly before Halloween came along, tore up the rule book, set fire to it and kicked it screaming through a plate glass window.
To cut a long story short a couple of enterprising Greek film makers fancy their chances of nailing together a new film franchise featuring the unlikely double act of womanising, wise talking American investigator Milo and stuffy but kind hearted priest Father Roche. An exiled nobleman is mixed up in some satanic jiggery pokery - offering up tourists as sacrifices to an extremely unfrightening effigy of the minotaur and only Milo and Roche can stop him!
Or something like that.
The reality is however horribly dull, frustrating and loaded with wasted opportunities. I strongly suspect that the fledgling film makers blew most of the budget on getting Donald Plesance, Peter Cushing and Brian Eno (for the soundtrack) onboard and hoped that would be enough to sway audiences in the English speaking world.
It isn't. The Devil's Men looks beautiful with assured, camera-work and fantastic locations. Eno's score, though basically just a one chord drone that he probably cranked out in an afternoon is suitably atmospheric and the movie is laden with cracking 70's crumpet including that Austrailian sort from Fawlty Towers and uber hottie Jane Lyle of Island of Death infamy. But there the positives end. Cushing sleepwalks through it, looking like he has a corn cob up his bum and Pleasance fusses about trying his best, but never quite getting things right. To make matters worse the character of Milo is appallingly flimsy and unlikeable.
Okay, so it doesn't look that good. But from there the film simply refuses to go anywhere. There is an insinuation that the local villagers are possessed, but to be fair to them, they never really do anything very much other than shuffle about looking glassy eyed. Perhaps they were just tired? Just when you are sure things will come to some kind of a head Milo and Roche interrupt the Baron's satanic party with laughable ease, sending him on to meet his maker. The statue of the minotaur falls silent and hey presto! Satan is defeated.
Yeah right.
The inane optimism that The Devil's Men might be the first of a series of films is hammered home by Father Roche's final line mere seconds before the ridiculously rushed ending.
"Who knows Milo? Perhaps one day I may call upon you again to help defeat the Antichrist."
I'm sure you'll be putting that call in any day now Donald.


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


user
Donald Pleasance and Peter Cushing united in one horror film; that always sounds like a terrific plan. Two of the most versatile cult actors of their generation, who previously already starred together in terrific genre outings like "The Flesh and the Fiends" and "From Beyond the Grave", pairing up in a mid-70's satanic themed exploitation flick. How can this possibly go wrong? Well, unfortunately, it can. To my deepest regret "Land of the Minotaur" can hardly even be called mediocre, and that in spite of the cast, the exotic setting, the appealing title and the potentially great sounding premise. In a remote little area in Greece, more particularly near an archaeological site, multiple tourists vanish because Baron Peter Cushing and his docile followers keep feeding them to a fire-breathing Minotaur statue. Cushing, who never looked more bored and uninterested in any role he played before, owns a giant medieval castle and apparently in Greek this means you also own the complementary archaeological ruins and an underground network of caverns. That is of course quite handy if your hobby is the kidnapping of random campers and amateur archaeologists. When three of his young friends also mysteriously disappear in the same area, Father Roch - the priest of a couple of towns before) - decides to investigate. "Land of the Minotaur" is a boring and extremely slow-paced horror effort that never really undertakes any major attempts to generate a satanic atmosphere and doesn't bother to elaborate on all the potentially fascinating elements and pagan trivia details. The titular Minotaur, for example, is an intriguing creature of Greek mythology with the head of a bull and the body of a person, but for some inexplicable reason the script never deepens out the significance. Instead, the film focuses on tedious and overly talkative sequences and loud inappropriate music altered with experimental noises. The only reason to even consider giving this major disappointment of a film a chance is because of Donald Pleasance. His portrayal of rude, bossy and old-fashioned priest who criticizes everything that represents modern youth is powerful and reliable as always.


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


user
Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance are legendary actors, and director Kostas Karagiannis was the man behind the successful Greek Giallo-esquire thriller Death Kiss in 1974; and yet when you combine the three talents, all you get is this complete load of drivel! God only knows what drove the likes of Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance to star in this cheapie devil worship flick, but I really do hope they were well paid as neither one deserves something as amateurish as this on their resumes. The story focuses on a group of devil worshippers that kidnap some kids, leading another group to go after them. The pace of the plot is very slow and this ensures that the film is very boring. The plot is also a long way from being original and anyone with even a passing interest in the horror genre will have seen something a bit like this, and no doubt done much better. The obvious lack of budget is felt throughout and the film doesn't manage to overcome this at any point. This really is a depressing and miserable watch and not even a slightly decent ending manages to up the ante enough to lift this film out of the very bottom of the barrel. Extremely poor stuff and definitely not recommended!


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


user
How can you go wrong with a film that mixes the sophistication of Peter Cushing, the determination of Donald Pleasence and the bust of Luan Peters? Easy, you give them a terrible script to work with.
Peter Cushing, in an evil role, leads a Satanic cult that has captured a couple friends of Donald Pleasence. Donald plays a determined but aloof priest that desires to locate his friends but needs the help of Fred from Scooby-Doo to locate them. He summons the help of a New York bloodhound, who dresses just like the hero of the cartoon, in his task. Meanwhile, the girlfriend of one of the missing people, Luan Peters, joins the search. If all this sounds interesting, then you, like myself, were mislead.
It doesn't take long for the trio to sniff out the baddies but their methods of bringing the bad guys to justice are foolish. Also, women will find this a crapfest. Every time they get on the bad guys trail, our two male heroes tell Luan to stay at the hotel even though she can handle herself better than the squeamish priest played by Pleasence.
STORY: $ (The script really lets us down. No tension is built. No worthwhile dialogue is given the stars and you'll need both hands to count the number of times Luan Peters is told to stay behind and let men do men work. If you're interested in seeing a minotaur on film don't bother. We get a statue of a minotaur that spits flames).
VIOLENCE: $$ (There are some attacks and a few sacrifices, but those of you who drool for gore will be letdown).
ACTING: $$ (Even though there are three of my favorite actors in this film, there is nothing redeemable here. Peter Cushing doesn't have much screen time, Donald Pleasence is clearly aware that he is on the set of a stinker and Luan Peters is ill-used. This should have been much better given the talent involved, but then again, the Yankees lose a game here and there too).
NUDITY: $ (Luan Peters takes a bath but you see next to nothing. She isn't as obliging here as she was in The Flesh and Blood Show).


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


user
Low budget junk about bloodthirsty cultists in Greece headed by Peter Cushing. Its up to priest Donald Pleasance to stop them. Crown International released this crap in 1978, and it was "dog-of-the-week" on one of the episodes of Sneak Previews with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. I forget which of the two "dogged" it, but I see the point. Crappy movie has the worst Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance performances I've ever seen. There is a monster on the video box. No such beast exists in the movie. Instead you get a statue, but at least its atonomically correct. (Woo hoo!)
The cultists look like the Klu Klux Klowns...if a group could exist. Skip 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 walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers.
"The Book of Revelation" is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted  to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: "If the rape is inevitable, relax and come." Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): "O Livro das Revelações" ("The Book of Revelations")


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


user
Here's a couple of paragraphs out of an essay I wrote for university about TBOR.
"The Book of Revelation is an erotic thriller about sex, power and a talented dancer's struggle to regain his sense of self after being unfortunately raped by three cloaked women. The three women that violate him all have distinctive marks on the bodies; one has a giant birth mark on her buttocks, another has a butterfly tattoo on her lower stomach and the ring leader has a small circle on her breast. So he lives his new life in search of these markings, and to find them on these intimate places he does what any sane man does when he needs to see as many naked women as possible to solve a mystery, he has sex with them. An hour and ten minutes into the film and you feel like he has almost had a piece of every woman in Melbourne.
The film is a giant chunk of pretentious celluloid; it is like grandiloquence drips from every frame. At only one point towards the films final climax does Kokkinos give a scene the same energy and strength as her debut feature Head On had in droves. As like many films funded by the government bodies the film takes it self way to seriously, the script and its execution appear to be chores rather then gifts and unfortunately for the talented thespians, their brilliant performances (particularly Tom Long as the fractured protagonist) are stuck within the confines of a pompous wan k fest."


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


user
Many questions arise about the making of this film. The first of which is: Why make a film that plays out as little more than an awkward female fantasy? It's one thing to leave an audience with issues to discuss about a film's intent, it's something entirely different to go into the process of writing a script which fails to adequately address real human issues before they are rendered on the screen.
Why the outrageously melodramatic and often comical soundtrack? Why the excessive and frequently clunky dialogue? Why is the lead character's girlfriend one of the hooded abductors? What purpose is there to turning the lead character's freedom from abduction into a joke by having him complete his "mission"? (This is a classic Little Aussie Film moment. Resort to quirky comedy at the most inappropriate moment.) Why so many scenes where absolutely nothing happens? (This accounts for approximately 15 minutes of the film, which is at least 30 minutes too long.) Why, if a man is imprisoned for so many days, does he not endeavor to make a serious attempt at escape?
The Director, who co-wrote the script, has failed on many counts to deliver a satisfactory story.
Dave Garver, Australia.


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


user
Sure, I like some indie films. A lot, actually. I don't always understand them, and that's okay. Not all of them were meant to be understood, especially by mainly main-stream people like me. I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I'm still puzzled why 'Book of Revelation' is called that. I love those end-of-world stories and the only thing I could see similar to the end of the world and this film was the torture it took to get through this. I'm not talking about the subject matter; perhaps I've been subdued from all the other torture/porn I've seen. It was just the incredibly slow story, one hour 15 minute material stretched for nearly two hours. (Major spoilers lie ahead) Hetero-man dancer gets abducted, seduced and raped six ways from Sunday, or in this case 12 days, by three hooded women. Upon his release, after his somewhat distraught dancer/girlfriend barely flinches (other than dropping a glass) after wondering which she missed more: him or the cigarettes she originally sent him for upon abduction. Still in a state of reasonable shock, he refuses to talk, and she goes on to work without so much a hug as if nothing happened and he takes a well needed shower. Problem. As much as he's tormented through the flashbacks to his, uh, "attacks," he's as equally aroused. Granted, I haven't been bound and used as a plaything, but I doubt I would really "be in the mood." Oh, I forgot, and how does he try and solve this crime? Sleep with as many women as he can to try and spot the birthmarks or tats the criminals had. I see where they're going with it  show a gang rape from the male POV. Fine, twist notwithstanding, you could never feel for this guy. Only saving grace was the good acting of the LifetimeTV Dancer/Cancer Instructor. But even she couldn't save the film.


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


user
Book of Revelations starts very well. Daniel, an egomaniac dancer is kidnapped, abused and sexually raped by three masked women.
After that, nothing else really happens. There is some hint of rediscovery but the movie gives nor explanation nor a real ending. Daniel reactions after the abuse are very basic. He quits dancing, has sex with every women around and finally starting a relation with very simple and common woman.
I have seen a good share of art-house movies but this has something missing in it.
The main leads are fine; but some characters does not seems to be completely defined.


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


user
Well it certainly stunned me - I can not believe that someone made another Australian film that's even more boring than Somersault. The story is implausible, the characters, with the exception of Friels' and Mailman's characters, are unlikeable and wooden, Tom Long possesses a VAST array of facial expressions: happy and not happy, and the "sex scenes", which could have been very confronting and disturbingly erotic, would have been at home in a low-budget porno flick.
This is the first movie I have seen in 30 years of cinema-going that has had me on the edge of my seat....ready to get up and leave.
The best thing about this movie is the promotional poster.


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


user
Firstly, the title has no relevance whatsoever to the movie. It started off fine with good development but got annoying when he couldn't tell his girlfriend what had happened to him. Even his attempt to tell the police failed, which just added to the annoyance value. There were too many pregnant pauses in the movie that seemed more like filler than anything worthwhile. The plot never revealed who did this crime to him although a good plot would have allowed disclosure. The ending was nothing short of "hey we've run out of budget let's stop it here NOW!!"...If I'd written a novel that ended this way I'd top myself. TRASH TRASH TRASH!!


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


user
I have to agree with what many of the other reviewers concluded. A subject which could have been thought-provoking and shed light on a reversed double-standard, failed miserably.
Rape being a crime of violence and forced abusive control, the scenes here were for the most part pathetic. It would have been a better idea to cover short glimpses of what was happening and let the audience imagine the deed. And the victim's laugh with the cops, when he aborted his police complaint, seemed as genuine as that of the cops. No awkwardness, no hesitance to merely join in. I don't know if this was bad acting and or bad directing but someone missed the point entirely. As for his half-a**ed supposed search for his attackers, pathetic. They should have skipped most of the sex scenes - another monumental failure in themselves, and had him meet Colin Friels when he first went to the police. The story could have then been drawn forth with good dialog and the occasional flashback - and saved by the superior acting and presence Colin Friels - the only reason I watched this movie - brings to any project he does.
The only concrete revelation of this movie, is, it was crap.


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


user
This looks like one of these Australian movies done by "talented" students and funded by the government. It is chock full of smart shots of colors and shapes and verbal excursions into Freudian psychology to be appreciated by art students and teachers alike, but in general it is perceived a stupid mockery of good cinema, good storytelling and generally good taste. This what happens I guess when art students become so obsessively indulgent. "Pink Flamingoes" is miles ahead one the same subjects. Some porn movies from 70s are far more watchable and inspiring. Book of Revelation is not entirely without merits, but as an overall experience it is well below average B-grade.


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


user
I was also disappointed with this movie. For starters, the things that happen to him don't seem too terrible to me (Sorry male chauvinist PoV). As is pointedly said by one of the lady captors: "Most men would _pay_ to be in your position". To which he replies "But this is not _my_ choice". OK, OK, fair point, so how bad was it really? Please let us know. But now the kicker: He does not let _anyone_ know, until after the movie-end (unseen). Not his girlfriend, not is mentor, not the police, not anyone. In stead, he comes up with the brilliant plan of f*ck*ng every girl he knows, so he may recognize the tattoo (or something) of one of his captors. I thought he'd just had enough unpleasant sex during the 12 days of his captivity? Isn't it time to take a little break from all that? For me, his, to put it mildly, ill advised actions broke the "suspension of disbelief" of the movie. I took out a book while watching the last half hour out of the corner of my eye.


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


user
Anna Kokkinos' success with' Head On' now begins to look like it depended totally on the script and Alex Dimitriades great lead performance. The degree to which this latest, "The Book of Revelation" is both derivative , pretentious and utterly unoriginal ( except for Tristan Milani's fine cinematography) seems to bear this out. .
Alas, there have already been quite a few Aussie movies dealing with such themes , some reviled for 'sexism' (and/or explicit sex scenes) in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond and maybe they're worth looking at again after this piece of fluff. Of course, setting the whole thing in the world of ballet and making it all achingly slow (and in its choreography, like a 1960s Dutch Ballet experimental number) does suggest Great Art if you've not traveled around much-and then only if you never progressed beyond Art Theory 101.
Add to the pretension, appallingly arch dialog ( "you will do as we command...") and the whole shebang falls onto its well funded face. Then there are the 'sexy' bits : straight from Dario Argento.
Given the lovely but truncated performance by Colin Friels - how about a real city primeval thriller ?
All in, all ,with 'The Book of Revelation' , the feminist project has been set back yet another decade - and with the willing and deeply imitative (of male writers like Henry Miller, William Burroughs, even Bukowski) collaboration of some collective in Melbourne, Oz, suffering from a form of educational -and ideological- amnesia! No revelations await us here.


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 shocked that all the "hated it" ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of "the emperor has no clothes". I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less.


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


user
TV director uses astral projection to kill people taking the form of the blue man.
Dull uninvolving horror film that kind of just sits there before your eyes and makes you wonder why you are watching it. I sat through the film to the end and I really can't give you more than a cursory account of what the film was about because I kept finding my attention diverted by other things.
I can't really recommend this. I think my feelings are best summed up by the fact that I paid a dollar for the DVD as a double feature and I feel kind of ripped off.


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


user
The use of "astral projection"(wandering soul), to exist outside of body, with the result inflicting horrible death(..crushing the insides of victims leading to broken spine and ruptured organs)on those close to the one with such ability, is the threat of ETERNAL EVIL, providing Karen Black(..as Janus) with another "unique" character to fool around with as a woman who influences a commercial director, Paul Sharpe(Winston Rekert) tired of his waning marriage and dull career. In actuality, she's dying and needs his body, her spirit potentially harmful to his wife and son(..his son has a "special friend" who talks him into things, even poisoning himself at one point). A detective, Kauffman(John Novak) investigating the unusual homicides concerning those killed by the benevolent spirit, links Paul to the deaths and through him uncovers Janus. Soon both realize that Janus must be stopped or she'll simply move to another human host. What Paul doesn't know is that his new secretary is Janus' lover, both were actually older intellectuals featured in his documentary of astral projection called WANDERING SOUL.
Director George Mihalka(My Bloody Valentine)certainly creates a weird atmosphere with this movie which contains a rather bizarre premise. It seems that Paul's boy can see the spirit moving in the shape of a "blue man", manipulating the kid into disorderly conduct. Black, despite the star treatment, rarely is shot close up taking advantage of her face which can produce the type of malevolent evil her character warrants. Instead, she's shot from afar, her voice dubbed, and she never quite establishes herself with the proper menace which is an opportunity lost, in my opinion. For some reason, despite the intriguing(..if oddball)idea of astral projection causing a spirit to kill folks from within, the film just never takes off. The soundtrack is very "Yanni-ish" and the lighting(..and sound), while at times moody and effective, often is quite murky. The pacing is a problem, also, as the story mules along. The cast is rather limp, especially Rekert in the lead, his performance erratic, at best. It doesn't help that there are few characters(..except Paul's wife)we could care less about, and what really hurts is that Paul himself isn't exactly the most lovable person in the world..he can be quite difficult and moody, his unfulfilled career a reason for such behavior. Black should've been a more prominent figure in the film, yet remains mostly in the background, talked about in dialogue between Paul and Kauffman, but rarely does she get a chance to amuse us with her histrionics, which is a shame.


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


user
"A bored television director is introduced to the black arts and astral projection by his girlfriend. Learning the ability to separate his spirit from his body, the man finds a renewed interest in his life and a sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, the man discovers while he is sleeping, his spirit leaves his body and his uncontrolled body roams the streets in a murderous rampage," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
The synopsis isn't entirely correct, as it turns out.
Anyway, the movie opens with a dizzying "out-of-body" example of handsome director Winston Rekert (as Paul Sharpe)'s newly discovered "astral body" experience; it also foreshadows an upcoming dogfight. Young Andrew Bednarski (as Matthew Sharpe), being a kid, draws pictures of "The Blue Man", as his murder spree begins. Handsome detective John Novak (as Stewart Kaufman) discovers the victims are connected to Mr. Rekert. Mr. Novak's investigation leads to the supernatural; a prime example of which is Karen Black (as Janus), with whom Rekert fears he is falling in love.
Several in the cast perform well; but, "The Blue Man" winds up tying itself up in a knot. Aka "Eternal Evil", its unsatisfying story tries to be far too clever for its own good.


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 good plot concept, so why-o-why is it such a poor film. The acting is terrible and every shock is signposted so far in advance that it is almost laughable by the time it reaches you. Spend your time and money elsewhere, this is not worth watching.


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 figured out what the attraction of Karen Black was. She always had those beady eyes and kind of an odd look about her. She seemed to often be eccentric or cast as the "other" woman. In this one, she is the psychic adviser and expert on the occult to a crummy producer of bad commercials as he learns astral projection. He is a mean sucker, even without the new baggage. Apparently this is the avenue to immortality, because if you get good at it, you can inhabit the bodies of future generations. I believe Star Trek had a plot like this with Jack the Ripper hanging on for several centuries. Anyway, this guy is really dangerous. He has a nice family and makes them miserable. He begins to murder friends, just because they have an unkind comment for them, or he doesn't like them. You can see the ending coming from the back row in left field. It's a very harsh, humorless movie. Most of it must be taken as truth. Why are some called but few chosen? I found it long and not very satisfying.


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


user
AALCC informs us that 14-year-olds can be pretty obnoxious and vicious. To those who don't know that, the film performs a public service. Otherwise, it's a lot of flashy videography with little or no reason for being. I will allow that the camera-work is sometimes striking, but also that it can be madly self-indulgent at other times. The actors occupy screen space and screen time, but do not compute as compelling human beings. I suppose the e-mail that flashes across the screen throughout means that you have to figure out which character has which moniker, but I simply couldn't tell enough differences to do so, and really didn't care anyway.


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


user
I wish it were "Last Dumb Thriller". But thrillers are like that. They are like children: numerous, illogical, and often annoying. They want so desperately to be taken seriously but what is there to take seriously about a child's behaviour or a thriller's plot? Having seen this particular child - I mean... thriller - I understand why reviewers refer to it as "a hitchcockian thriller"; they might as well have called it "idiotic" for that's what "hitchcockian" means in the movie dictionary (look it up, if you don't believe me). Even the soundtrack is old-school Hollywood which is a mistake: it doesn't fit a late 70s film and makes it look phony. Besides, how dare they steal De Palma's idea of stealing from Hitchcock?! The story is absurd. Scheider's wife is killed, and her killers are never an issue. Instead, first his former employers follow him around, and later decide to kill him. Why do they decide to kill him? No explanation. Perhaps because the FBI is a dark, dark organization ("X-Files") which is very trigger-happy about knocking off its former employees for pension-funds reasons. Or perhaps because it's fashionable to want to kill Scheider in this movie; everyone seems to be after him. And while the poor unsuspecting viewer is trying to figure out the mystery by logically assuming that there is a major conspiracy, in reality the killer is... Janet Margolin! Yes, the woman occupying Scheider's living quarters; the one that briefly hinted she was "depraved". Why does she go after Scheider at precisely a time when his wife was murdered and he is feeling paranoid - and followed by his own ex-employers - and not a few years earlier or few years after the wife's murder? A pure hitchcockian (look it up again in the dictionary, in case you forgot what it means) coincidence. And how about that brilliant motive of hers...! Her grandmother was forced into prostitution when she was a fresh-off-the-boat 15 year-old virgin in NY, and then syphilisized by a bunch of horny Jewish men, one of whom - tah-dah! - is Scheider's grandfather. As a result, Margolin has been playing a hooker in her spare time (among other things) in order to kill off all the descendants of the men who so cruelly syphilisized her once-virginal grandmother. How hitchcockian (look it up) is that? The finale then shamelessly rips off the Mount Rushmore scene from "North By Northwest", except that the love-interest is a killer and she doesn't get saved.
The movie also offers some dubious/off-kilter dialog and some not-so great acting. Check out the silly and obvious way in which Napier follows Scheider at the cemetery. Let's also not forget the moronic plot-device of Napier reaching for his jacket and holding his hand very suspiciously - but it wasn't a gun! How brilliant! Napier in the tower: now, there's another string of illogical behavioural patterns. J. Demme was, is, and always will be a director without style, without flair, and the man who directed "Philadelphia". Let's give him another Oscar!


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


user
Jonathan Demme is such a character-oriented director that, to see him pulling a Brian De Palma (which is to say, aping Hitchcock), it is nearly predictable when he fails to work up much suspense within this tepid mystery. Working from a screenplay by David Shaber, from Murray Teigh Bloom's novel, Demme attempts to strike a chord somewhere between Alan J. Pakula's paranoia dramas and Hitchcock's dangling-participle thrillers. Roy Scheider stars as a retired Secret Agent mourning the murder of his wife who is now busy dodging bad guys who are out to kill him. Takes off right away, but the script is full of flimsy threads and any excitement dies out quickly. There's a visually impressive climax at Niagra Falls, but Demme gets little out of his cast, and even less out of this bummer of a story. ** from ****


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


user
Congo is another multi-milion dollar adaptation of Crichton's works. Like Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Sphere, etc, the film raped the book of its true meaning and essence. I'll make this short and to the point. The scenery is beautiful. The actors, well it's the best they can do. The script? Try congesting hundreds of pages into an hour and half movie. You get a mess in the end but how neat of a mess is what counts and Congo falls somewhere below that. There were some silly moments, like why did the killer gorillas decide to jump into the lava? And Amy, raised by humans, surrounded by humans, yet can intimidate dozens of killer apes around her? What sort of twist of common sense is that? Which brings me to this. If there was an annoying character in every movie, Amy ranks of one here. You see Amy is this naive little female ape who can talk with a special backpack and harness strapped to her. Neat idea, but it gets annoying after awhile hearing her talk. Congo is worthwhile to see, and not deplorable, but certainly not a memorable film either.


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 tell if this ham-brained B-movie adventure is a spoof, a homage or just plain bungled, but it doesn't work whichever way you look at it. Based on Michael Crichton's so-so novel, it's a nutty mixture of lost cities, giant hippos, monster monkeys, naff visual effects and corny dialogue. The first thing that scuppers this tosh is the gorilla that can communicate in sign language, and needless to say the film doesn't get any better from that point on. Making all this old rope somewhat worthwhile are Tim Curry, turning in a feverish slice of ham and sporting a bizarre accent that defies identification, and Ernie Hudson, who also seems to know that this is all a load of old rubbish.


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 really not too sure why people are being so complimentary about this odd movie. Having said that - I did actually sit through the entire 2 hours and can't say it wasn't entirely un-entertaining.
I think the key problem is that Frank Marshall is not a true director and this is clear in the film - he is an experienced producer, so will have seen a movie made many a time, and will understand what goes into the process. But I think this is quite different to being able to truly direct a movie - the direction was competent, but somehow flat and direction-less. Marshall has more experience as a unit or second director, and this came through, I feel, in the finished product - it appeared to be a group of sets that failed to really have any continuity in its feel or its character.
Fun, watchable, but good? No.


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 just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end.


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


user
It is a shame that such a great book was turned into such a terrible movie. I could not wait to see this movie after reading the book....it really did not do it justice.


assistant
0