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
For connoisseurs of bad movies, Galaxina is a true gem. With truly horrid dialog, acting, and directing, it's no choice for people seeking a proper movie. But as one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies of its genre, it's priceless for a good laugh. In particular, the scenes involving the Harley Davidson-worshiping motorcycle cult are especially good, and many other scenes present an opportunity for a cheap laugh.
Sadly, the scenes with Dorothy Stratten really fail to deliver, but since she's playing an android, I suppose one can excuse her for wooden acting.
Bad movie-lovers, don't pass this one up!


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


user
This picture hit the movie screens on June 6th 1980, starring Stephen Macht as Sergeant Thor, Avery Schreiber as Captain Comelius Butt, J.D. Hinton as Buzz and starring Playmate of the year Dorothy Stratton. The picture starts with the police infinity roaming space looking for I guess criminals. There ship is suddenly attacked by an unknown space ship. Enters Sergeant Thor and his partner Buzz as they try to figure out who the unknown ship belongs to. When failing they call on Captain Comelius who instructs his crew to fight back. Enters the gorgeous Dorothy Stratton, who plays the role of Galaxina who is man made robot. An now a few thoughts on this picture. This movie was plan stupid and it's one of the reasons that I don't get into Sci-Fi. If you're into Sci-Fi you would have notice that the laser sound effects were borrowed from an early Sci-fi movie titled Battlestar Galactica which aired in theaters in 1978. Many of the door sounds that you hear in this movie came from another Sci-Fi movie that aired back in 1966 titled Star Trek. Now for the reason that I bought this movie, Dorothy Stratton. She is gorgeous in her one piece suit. I think her talents were wasted in this picture and she should have never been involved in such garbage. Connie Sellecca was also considered for the role and her talents would have been wasted also. On the picture alone I give this movie 1 weasel star and on Dorothy Stratton I give her 10 weasel stars even though she didn't deserve to be put into a trash movie like this. If you like pictures like this you can get the DVD version on Amazon.com


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 yet to watch STARCRASH (1979) - that notoriously cheesy Italian take on STAR WARS (1977) - but it can't be much worse than this misbegotten piece of junk which, suffice it to say, makes Mel Brooks' so-so SPACEBALLS (1987) look like a veritable work of art! In fact, the main reason why GALAXINA is remembered at all nowadays is because of the tragic fate which befell its leading lady - Playboy centerfold Dorothy Stratten who was killed by her insanely jealous estranged husband - before the film had even had its official premiere!
Although Statten (who subsequently had two biopics made about her wherein she was portrayed by Jamie Lee Curtis and Mariel Hemingway) plays the title role, for the first half of the film she is reduced to being propped up in a chair ostensibly driving a spaceship on a 27-year journey to some planet or other; in fact, Galaxina is an all-purpose android who also serves the wacky crew their snacks, gets them all hot under the collar and even goes scouting for the Blue Star (cue choral music) once they land! Having said that, Statten certainly looks luminous in her white attire and, even if her role hardly demands much exertion of any acting talent she might possess, it's not exactly demeaning either.
Still, it's ironic that for a film which bears her name, she is overshadowed by the campy and would-be zany antics of her fellow crew members, especially the annoying Captain Cornelius Butt (which gives you the idea of the level of comedy on display here), a long-eared, wing-sporting colored guy, a pot-smoking, proverb-quoting old Chinaman and, best of all (relatively speaking) a foul-mouthed, rock-eating, hairy alien creature they hold prisoner. The villain of the piece is a metal-clad non-entity who does, however, have the best laugh in the film when, upon hearing the choral music following his every mention of the Blue Star, exclaims, "What is this s**t?" There is little point in listing the sci-fi classics which are mauled by this stinker in its ludicrous attempts at spoofing the genre since they are not only lame but obvious; incredibly enough, a chest-busting but ultimately benign alien is apparently played by diminutive Hollywood veteran, Angelo Rossitto!
For what it's worth, then, the scenes shot on the planet they visit (which looks more like a Western set than a planetary landscape) have a yellowish, sun-like hue and its inhabitants are 'human gourmets' (delicacies on their menu include Skin and Tonic, Scotsman on the Rocks, Thigh Pies, Baked Alaskan, etc), not to mention a motorcycle gang who serve their own particular deity (the Harley Davidson) and when our heroes escape on the back of it, they dare not shoot at them for fear of hitting their "Lord". God(awful) indeed...


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 seen worse films. This is bad but at least doesn't try to be good so it deserves a brief round of applause. It rest firmly in the realms of the low-budget B-movie sci-fi genre.
It is a rubbish film but in a nice way and is certainly worth buying if it's in the bargain bin at your local supermarket. Awfully charming rather than just plain awful.
The highlight for me is when Galaxina's lover goes to rescue her. Upon turning up she exclaims "Bunnyfluff!" which draws sniggers from his co-pilot.
Sit back, get drunk, enjoy!


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 not a movie snob. I've liked lots of movies that critics hate, and I've hated movies that critics love. However, I have to agree with critics here--"Galaxina" is just substandard. Clearly intended to be a comedy, it only has a few scattered laughs. "Galaxina" has poor photography; it has poor special effects; it has some pretty poor acting; and the production values...well, the sets might as well have been made of cardboard.
"Galaxina" tells the story of a spaceship whose crew is looking for a magical object called "The Blue Star". After a long voyage (and some very unconvincing space battles), the crew arrives at its destination, a sort of wild west alien world. There's a painfully unfunny cantina scene (clearly designed to be a spoof of the famous "Star Wars" scene), a chase involving space bikers, and a final getaway.
The cast tries, but can't breathe life into this turkey. Stephen Macht and Avery Schreiber have done better work in other movies. James David Hinton is pretty good as a member of the spaceship's crew. The late Dorothy Stratten stars as the robot of title, and while she looks great, her role doesn't give her much of a chance to act.
You might catch this film to see Dorothy Stratten. However, if you're looking for a good movie, you'll probably want to skip 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 is not the worst movie I've ever seen. I did not feel like I wanted to remove my eyeballs forcibly after watching Galaxina. It just is not good. The jokes are almost funny, but fall short. All of them. The few gags that come close are beat back down by repeating them over and over. The production values are, well, non-existent. The sound is bad, the lighting is bad, ... it just seems cheaply made; overly so. The dialog ... well, often it is missing - many awkward silences; they are all just standing around, and it seems like someone should be saying something. The film even seems ambivalent about what it wants to be - it is not always clear that it was intended as a comedy - like maybe that developed after shooting started. It feels like someone's film project that they threw together the night before it was due, and if they had put two weeks into it, it could have been good.
And I'm easy to please. I thought "Mom and Dad Save the World" was a hoot. I like "Pluto Nash". "Mystery Men" is one of my favorite movies. "Spaced Invaders" is well nigh unto a classic. This turkey just doesn't do it. "Space Truckers" was more believable.
Avery Schreiber, who can be very funny, tries too hard. His part calls for a straightman, and he plays it leaning toward sitcom. Dorothy Stratten is OK in her role, but not particularly noteworthy.
Oh, yeah, the "My watch is always slow." line was funny. I'll give this movie all the kudos it can get, it needs it.
The space vehicle models are not bad, but they are few and are not used effectively. The space scenes are vague. No sweeping passes, no close up detailed fly-bys, not even appropriate action scenes when they dock. (The Infinity does crash land very oddly at one point.) The flight dynamics are terrible; worse than anything you've seen, they're jerky, not smooth. The initial battle is stilted and static; even though the two ships have just shown that they can maneuver in their jerky fashion, they trade (slow) shots at close range in a manner that is more reminiscent of a 16th century sea battle, except not as exciting.
The aliens - imagine if all of Star Wars was the cantina scene. That many rubber masks could get dull rather rapidly, no? A few are used as sight gags that work OK the first time, but not the fifth.
Mercifully, if you attempt to watch Galaxina, you are likely to fall asleep. (I got busy doing something else and missed the last ten minutes, and did not feel like it was worth replaying it. If that doesn't say "It sucked", I don't know what does.) Sadly, there is a lot of potential, and this could easily have been a good movie. It would be easy to remake this and have a decent film.
MadKaugh


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


user
The odd thing about Galaxina is not that it is supremely bad, although it is. The odd thing is that in spite of being supremely bad, it is not funny. Supremely bad movies have their own particular brand of unintended humor--the secret of their success, you might say. But Galaxina is quite uniquely different--it is MST3K's worst nightmare, a bad movie in which the intentional *and* the unintentional humor alike fall flat.
It is easy enough to figure out why the intentional jokes fail--and the reasons are quite varied. Sometimes it's a timing question; sometimes it's a good idea badly worked out (the human restaurant *could* have been hilarious, but it wasn't); sometimes it feels like there was some mixup in the cutting room, with the punchline ending up on the floor; and sometimes the jokes are just bad jokes. Bad movies get their laughs from such unintentional snafus. It's harder to figure out why Galaxina doesn't get any laughs on that count. Something is subtly wrong with the unintentional humor in this movie, just as something is wrong (not at all subtly) with the intentional humor. It is a supremely bad movie whose very badness is not the redeeming quality it usually is. It's absolutely unique in my experience.


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


user
If ever there was a film that can be considered a missed opportunity then that film is Galaxina. What could possibly be wrong in basing a sci-fi film around a sexy statuesque female android? Surely such a film could never be a complete waste of time? Well, sadly this movie is pretty close to useless. There are a number of faults with this production it has to be said, however, there are two basic problems that entirely destroy the whole enterprise. Firstly, this is a comedy with no funny bits at all, or at the very least a film where the potentially amusing aspects are presented in an incredibly unamusing way. Secondly, the title character is woefully underused. This may be because Dorothy Stratten was not really an actress but if so it was a terrible decision as she is still easily the best thing about the film. I don't think she really needed to be a great thespian to pull off the role of a sexy android to be perfectly honest. Anyway, what we are left with is a whole lot of mind-numbing comedy relief, which often is made up of hopeless spoof-type gags of the big sci-fi hits of the time such as Alien, Star Wars and 2001. It's badly written and not funny at all, and it doesn't even really have a plot to propel things along. The story basically is about a police space-cruiser that is sent to get a rock. That's it! Steven Spielberg once said that a high-concept movie was one whose plot line could be described in one sentence. What he didn't define was what you call a movie that can be described in less than a sentence - pointless maybe?
This seemed like a sure-fire winner to me but it failed miserably. It seems to have been an attempt to spoof Star Wars and combine it with adult comedy situations. All it does actually achieve is to leave you cold and a little irritated that it wasn't close to what it should've been. A Barbarella for the 80's this ain't.
Shortly after this film was finished Dorothy Stratten was murdered in an appallingly violent and horrific way. And for that reason Galaxina has derived a considerable amount of it's cult interest. I just think it's a great shame that Dorothy didn't have a better film left to immortalise her.


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 ANYBODY give this anything higher than a '1'?
I thought "Manos, the Hands of Fate" would forever be the worst movie ever to impinge itself upon my optic nerve. Indeed, I didn't think anything COULD be worse.
I was wrong. "Galaxina" is that rare movie where EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of it is achingly, agonizingly, blindingly bad. How often have you watched a movie and commented, "Who the hell LIT this thing?" From lighting to soundtrack to effects to script to acting to cinematography to . . . well, EVERYTHING, this movie is absolutely unendurable. It's so bad, I couldn't even tell for some time if it was the worst comedy or the worst drama I'd ever seen.
It's too bad even to be laughable. I'd sooner eat a platefull of broken glass than sit through it again.


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 giving this movie Vampire Assassins a "2" rating mainly because it had no sex or nudity. Other than that, I am not sure why it was ever made. It was more like a training exercise in how to make a movie with a very limited budget. The characters Derek and Slovak were the best actors. They were followed closely by the "biker-Dude" with the Pleather pants and silver belt. He was OK too. Most of the movie was filmed in some kind of distribution warehouse. If you got tired of watching the kung-fu kick boxing stunts, you can check out the packages of Scott tissue, Windex and other cleaning products. You will have a lot of time to do this, trust me. I almost started to make a list. The dialogue and kung-fu stunts were extremely slow. They talked slow, fought slow, etc. I don't know why. At least with the extra-slow delivery of the actors lines, you could hear everything very distinctly. I am trying hard to find good stuff to say about this movie. We watched it all the way to the end to see if got any better, but it didn't. We never could decide if the actors really knew martial arts or were just acting like they knew martial arts. You can watch yourself and decide. My favorite line was something like (vampire speaking:) "what are you looking at?" other man responding: "your bad dental work."


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


user
When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.
What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.
The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.
The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.
The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.
Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett


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


user
Mixing small town sheriffs, high-school students, fake rock music, and some weirdo who kills for, well, no reason in particular, this film is essentially a re-make of "The Giant Gila Monster" - except without the gila monster, of course.
Now, anyone who has actually seen "Giant Gila Monster", knows that it is one of the worst made films of all time, frequently so slow, it's not even funny. And I can't believe that by 1967, "Giant Gila Monster" had earned such a reputation that young directors were just dying to get to work on a sequel, let alone a remake. So will someone please explain to me why this film was made?! The dance sequence, by the way, is historically interesting, although about three years out of date; but even that's spoiled, since it goes on... and on... and... on....


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


user
Imagine what it must have been like for John Agar. One of Hollywood's handsome leading men. Married to Shirley Temple for five years. He finds himself doing movies like this. I remember him in "Tarantula" where he wasn't half bad. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend this film. The monster is dumb uninteresting and incompetent. The police are boring. The teenagers are boring. The plot is stupid. People run around. There are events that do nothing to advance the plot. There's dancing that goes on and on, and then there is no attack. There is some idiotic love triangle that no one could care the least about. It isn't even campy or outrageous. It's just no worth anything. Agar might as well have been a post. He's given nothing to do.


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


user
There is one adjective that describes everything about this film - acting, plot, effects, continuity, etc. - and that word is poor. The government wants to asses the effects of space travel on certain organisms but the capsule crashes and a mutant something-or-other (looks like a guy in an ape suit with the top of a football helmet over his face) wreaks havoc around the accident scene, which includes a favorite place for the window-fogging, partying set. Therefore, some young people - as well as a law enforcement officer - are among the creature's victims. You gotta be extremely unparticular about how you spend your time - or rich, if you spend any money - to view this epic.


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


user
This one isn't even lively enough to be fun. Something is out there, ripping people off (off-screen) after a spaceship crash (off-screen) while government executives investigates (off-screen) and bad actors says stupid lines (on-screen), including a guy who looks like Jim Carrey with a hangover. The "monster", when it finally is shown, looks like an extra from "Robot Monster", but there ain't enough monster fu anyway.
Fortunately, it's pretty short. Skip it, unless you want to get bored out of your skull by this


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


user
I am a fan of bad horror films of the 1950s and 60s--films so ridiculous and silly that they are good for a laugh. So, because of this it's natural that I'd choose this film--especially because with John Agar in it, it was practically guaranteed to be bad. Sadly, while it was a bad film, it was the worst type of bad film--dull beyond belief and unfunny. At least with stupid and over-the-top bad films, you can laugh at the atrocious monsters and terrible direction and acting. Here, you never really see that much of the monster (mostly due to the darkness of the print) and the acting, while bad, is more low energy bad...listless and dull.
The film begins with some young adults going to Satan's Hollow to neck. Well, considering the name of the place, it's not surprising when they are later found chewed to pieces! Duh...don't go necking at Satan's Hollow!! Well, there are reports of some sort of crashing object from the sky, so what do the teens go? Yep, throw a dance party--a very, very, very slow dance party where the kids almost dance in slow motion. So it's up to the Sheriff (Agar) and his men to ensure that the teens can dance in peace without fear of mastication.
As for the monster, it's some guy in a gorilla suit with a silly mask--a bit like the monster in ROBOT MONSTER. Not exactly original and not exactly high tech. To make it worse, it makes snorting noises and moves very, very slowly--so slow that even the most corpulent teen could easily outrun it! How it manages to kill repeatedly is beyond me.
Overall, too dull to like--even if you are a fan of lousy cinema.


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


user
Okay it is terribly, and I mean terribly, easy to pick apart this film. C'mmon what do you expect with the title, synopsis, and actors in leads such as Carol Gilley, Ralph Baker Jr., Dorothy Davis, Bill Thurman, and, my personal favourite, Roger Ready. Yes, B star John Agar is here as a sheriff out to rid the Texan landscape of a robot-like ape from a NASA experiment gone awry. The movie has dreadful performances, dreadful scenery, dreadful special effects, and dreadful lighting. I really cannot find much good to say about it other than as bad films go you could do a lot worse as far as finding something dreadful to sit through. It is bearably short and has many moments of unintended humor. Missed cues, lighting faux pas, off-screen terror, an unbelievably inane score, and of course John Agar trying his level best to be the core of the film with an earnest performance amidst this muck. The beginning is the hardest part to sit through as it seems like it takes forever for these two teens to get their comeuppance for traveling in the woods down the Texas back roads where great ape soon will reek his vengeance in his own terrible way...Yeah right! Night Fright! Bah!


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


user
What? - that was it? The town sheriff (John Agar) blows up the mutant gorilla with a stick of dynamite hidden in a mannequin? Did I just write that? Did I just see that?
With instrumentals by The Wildcats, "Night Fright" is one flick that never deserved to be made as late as 1967. The heyday of the gorilla was well over, and anyone other than Ray Corrigan in an ape suit is just asking for trouble. Remake this in black and white and set the story about thirty years earlier and you'd have at least a 4.0 rating on the IMDb. But sadly, this one never should have stood a chance of seeing the light of day. Oops, there's another quirk - you can never tell if it's day or night in the story, since they seem interchangeable with one another.
I'll give you this though, a couple of the early malt shop scenes looked like they could have gone on the air as Coke commercials. Thinking about it now, those were probably the best looking and best lit scenes of the picture; Coca Cola must have paid for them. Had they seen the completed movie, they might have been better served to prevent it's release.


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


user
This movie was painfully awful. Most of the movie consisted of people running in the woods, walking thru the woods, or dancing in the woods. More than half, at least. Then two kids who discover two 'horribly mutilated bodies' in the woods, return to the woods the very next night for a romantic walk. ????? There is no time continuity. its day, its night, its day, its really really night, its dusk, its pitch black, its day. All the woods scenes go on like this until you think you will lose your mind. really bad. The sheriff discovers a five foot claw print embedded in the dirt of the woods and theorizes that a super large alligator may have learned to walk upright. Really a silly movie with no real motivation written in for the characters. Might be entertaining for young kids, as an alternative to really graphic stuff.


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


user
This cheap and rubbish film is about a NASA test rocket that is sent into space with a cargo of animals. It vanishes for a while then unexpectedly returns, crash landing in a forest, unleashing a vicious mutant creature.
Like many films of this type, Night Fright, features dumb teenagers boogieing on down to 60's surf music before being killed. None of the murders, however, are even remotely memorable, as we don't really see anything. One thing we do see, however, is that one of the teenagers appears to be about 40 years old and sports a quite impressively silly haircut.
For a creature feature to work, it really has to present its monster to the viewer properly. In this film, however, we only get the briefest glimpses of the monster. It seems to sort of resemble the alien from Robot Monster. But I'm not sure; as the photography was so dark I simply couldn't make out what the hell was going on a lot of the time. Although, my gut feeling was that I probably wasn't missing very much.


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


user
When a rocket from a government experiment on the effects of cosmic rays on animals crashes in a small Texas town, people start to die. The county sheriff tries to investigate but is hampered in his efforts by other government officials. It turns out that there is a mutant space gorilla on the loose killing teenagers in the woods.
I like low budget science fiction and horror movies. I like monster movies. So I thought that there would be a good chance that I would like this movie. Sadly, I didn't.
I don't mind the bad acting, the corny dialog, the atrocious musical score or the giant plot holes that this movie has. There are a lot of movies that have the same problems that I have seen and enjoyed in a so bad it's good kind of way.
But where others of that type and Night Fright differ is that Night Fright just has terrible pacing. And it drags on because of that. There are scenes that just go on and on without anything happening-the searching the woods for clues is just people walking in the forest for a long time; there are several seemingly endless dancing teens at a party in the woods...but nothing interesting is going on. If these scenes were shorter, the movie might not have been as boring (though I don't think simply cutting those scenes would save this one).
I have now given this movie three viewings to make sure that I gave it a chance before slamming it in this review. Sadly, it has gotten worse with each watch. There won't be a fourth.


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


user
"A Texas community is beset with a rash of mysterious killings involving some of the students from the local college. The sheriff investigating the death discovers the startling identity of the killer responsible for the murders. A NASA experiment involving cosmic rays has mutated an ape and turned it into an unstoppable killing machine with a thirst for blood," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
Or, could the creature really be a mutated alligator returning from a space-bound "Noah's Ark"?
A long opening, with laughably straight 1960s couple Ralph Baker Jr. (as Chris) and Dorothy Davis (as Judy), suggests "Night Fright" might be a joyously bad movie; but, don't get your hopes up. After some innocent cavorting, the attractive collegiates discover another couple has encountered a monster; naturally, the creature is hell-bent on terrorizing young romantics. Sheriff John Agar (as Clint Crawford) isn't trusted by the younger set; but, he really wants to help.
Mr. Agar was a friend of my aunt; he spoke about very few movies, and this wasn't one of them.


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


user
Okay, When I bought this flick I though this gotta be the ultimate b-movie, space monkey landing to the Earth and starts right away to kill people!
Well, It was almost everything what I expected, typical low-budget scifi movie from the 60's. Acting has to be the worst I've ever seen, especially the girl playing the lead role and the girl that played the waitress made me laughing my ass off.
So why 'Night Fright' doesn't fall in to category 'so bad that it's good'? Reason why is that some of the scenes were just too long and boring. For example the scene were the police officers are searching clues in the woods it was just minutes of walking without purpose. And then the grand finale, the people's waiting for the monster about 5 minutes and when the space monkey appears it get wack'd in 20 second, end of film.
Yeah, 'Night Fright' is boring, but it got couple of funny moments. I can recommend this movie to all who liked films like 'Zontar, the Thing from Venus' or 'Curse of the Swamp Creature'.
I give 'Night Fright' 4 Space Monkey slaps out of 10..
-Rob Gruesome-


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


user
Rivalry between brothers leads to main story line. Navy Commander Chuck Prescott(Marshall Thompson)has developed the Y12 aircraft to test how far man can go up in the atmosphere. His brother, Lt. Dan Prescott(Bill Edwards), seems to be the best test pilot around and is chosen to go up in the Y12. Dan of course has a problem with taking orders and is also an over confident dare devil.
On Dan's second flight, he hits over the 300 miles up comfort zone and his craft passes through a meteor dust storm. Returning to earth, Dan becomes a monster that resembles 200 pounds of bad asphalt. He also has a demanding craving for blood, whether it be from farm animals or fellow human beings.
Short runtime of an hour and seventeen minutes; black & white with near stoic acting...typical of low budget sci-fi.
Rounding out the cast is Marla Landi, Robert Ayers and Carl Jaffe. Noteworthy trivia: about two months after this film was released; the Russians put the real first man in space.


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


user
Lame rip-off of THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955): the first half is deadly dull, even dreary - but the latter stages improve considerably with the scenes involving the rampaging 'monster'. In the accompanying featurette (a rather dry affair at a mere 9 minutes, when compared to the ones created for the other titles in Criterion's "Monsters & Madmen" set), director Day - who admits to not being a fan of the sci-fi genre - tries to justify the film's shortcomings by saying that he had a zero-budget to work with (where all the outer space scenes were composed of stock footage!)...and I'd have been inclined to be more lenient with the film had I not recently watched CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - a similar (and similarly threadbare) but far more stylish venture from Italy!
Bill Edwards as the cocky but unlucky astronaut - obsessed with achieving the titular feat - is positively boring at first, but he eventually manages to garner audience sympathy when his physical features are deformed and the character develops a taste for blood! Marshall Thompson as his commanding officer and elder brother is O.K. as a leaner Glenn Ford type; he had previously starred in FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958), another (and more successful) Richard Gordon-produced sci-fi which, incidentally, is also available on DVD through Criterion. Italian starlet Marla Landi, struggling with the English language, makes for an inadequate female lead; even her input in the featurette proves to be of little lasting value!
The Audio Commentary is yet another enjoyable Tom Weaver/Richard Gordon track where, among many things, the fact that FIRST MAN INTO SPACE was intended as a double-feature with CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) is brought up - but it was eventually put out as a standalone release, so as to exploit the topical news value of the current space race; it's also mentioned that the monster dialogue was actually dubbed by Bonar Colleano (who, tragically, died in a traffic accident prior to the film's release!). Weaver even recalls a couple of anecdotes from the time when he was involved in the production of the DVD featurette shot by, of all people, ex-cult-ish film-maker Norman J. Warren: Landi, who by then had become a lady of title, was still ready to help out in carrying the equipment necessary to film the interview down several flights of stairs!; Edwards was supposed to have contributed to the featurette but, once in London, he proved reluctant to co-operate with Weaver - eventually, the latter learned that the actor had been recently diagnosed with cancer and, in fact, he died in 2002!


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


user
Sheltered young woman, home-schooled and possibly quite gifted, harbors a disturbed, overly-emotional side which comes to the surface after her absentee father pays her mother a visit, asking for a divorce. Directed by celebrated cinematographer William A. Fraker, this ill-titled psychological thriller falls into the trap that most films helmed by directors of photography find themselves in: each shot is composed for the utmost style, but at the sacrifice of fluid pacing and a tight, gripping narrative. Fraker (and his cinematographer, László Kovács) are very fond of gauzy whites and golden tones, giving the picture a burnished, tableaux feel. The mansion at the center of the action looks like a funeral parlor, and Fraker paces the wheezing yarn just like a funeral. Robert Shaw and Sally Kellerman (as Shaw's fiancée), two of the most interesting actors of the 1970s, manage to cut through the plastic overlay and are quite compelling despite the jagged editing (which turns their scenes into little bits of half-realized business). Sondra Locke, another interesting screen personality, seems cast for her resemblance to Catherine Deneuve in "Repulsion". Pale and saucer-eyed, with imposingly thick and long hair, Locke is a curious human puzzle, and she's initially quite intimidating and dangerous; however, this role is so old-hat that Locke can find nothing fresh to bring out of the deep freeze, and she flounders. Fraker allows Locke's freak-out scenes to go on and on, while Shaw (looking terrifically debonair) is put in the impossible position of playing touchy-feely daddy to her. All of this nonsense might be worth slogging through if the screenplay had been peppered with a modicum of tangibility (or, at the very least, some dry wit or humorous relief). As it is, Lewis John Carlino and Edward Hume's limp script, adapted from Stanton Forbes' novel "Go To Thy Deathbed", strands the viewer early on, and only the charisma of the players gets us to the finish line. *1/2 from ****


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


user
First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.
This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.
If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.
Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.


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 DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting.


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


user
John Knowles modern masterpiece, A Separate Peace, are one of many subtle, and subtly is the watch word, themes of love, hate, jealously, denial and regret. The 1972 version does attempt to address this style and what the book is - A love story with war looming in the background.
The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel - is a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.
I did not like this remake for more reasons. The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.
Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.
The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.


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


user
This movie was not very well directed. they almost totally disregarded the book.I guess they were trying 2 save time. the only upside 2 me was that the actor who played finny was cute. Some of the dialog between the main characters appeared a little gay which was not the case in the book. Major parts of the book were once again chopped out.You lost the over all effect it was not as haunting as the book and left me lacking severely. Also the strong language although it was brief was very unnecessary. Also i was surprised ( not pleasantly) by a new character that was no where in the book.One of my favorite characters (leper) was poorly interpreted and portrayed. He seemed more sinister in the movie than the real leper was in the book. Over all disappointing.


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


user
I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.
I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.
Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.
People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it.
Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer.


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


user
I really don't know if this was supposed to be science fiction or horror. It was confusing to say the least. What really upset me, however, was the lack of story development between the characters.
The Sheriff's (Bruce Boxleitner) 17-year-old daughter (Clara Bryant) is stuck with him for the summer, and they don't spend 30 seconds on screen together at any one time.
The hot Native American (Jennifer Lee Wiggins) apparently has the hots for the Sheriff, but they don't spend any time together either.
The hot secretary (Kristen Honey) ends up dead and she had more acting ability than the other two put together.
The bad developer vs. the Native Americans is an overused story, but I personally like evil developers getting theirs as I live in Florida.
The only reason I stayed with this was the creature. It was original. I have never seen anything like it and I am a sucker for new creatures.


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


user
In Sweet Water, the ambitious entrepreneur Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is constructing a resort in the middle of the desert under the protest of the Katonahs. When three workers find some Indian relics and bones in a ditch in the site, they accidentally release the giant skeleton like creature known as Bone Eater and their bones are devoured by the monster. The half-breed Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) a.k.a. Running Wolf is in charge of the investigation of the disappearance of the workers, being pressed by Krantz to arrest the protesters. But the Bone Eater attacks and kills other locals, while Chief Storm Cloud (Michael Horse) seeks an ancient Tomahawk capable of destroying the evil creature.
"Bone Eater" is a lame and silly movie, with one of the most ridiculous screenplay I have ever seen. The characters and situation are not well-developed and things happen without any further consequences. The conclusion is probably the worse part in this flick, with the typical white North American Bruce Boxleitner dressed like an Indian (in the story, his grandfather was an Indian), cutting his own wrist (why? And where is the blood later?) and clumsily throwing the axe in the chest of the Bone Eater, destroying the monster and my last hope of any improvement in the story. My last question: if the Bone Eater eats bones, what happens to the flesh and clothes of his victims? My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "O Devorador de Ossos" ("The Bone Eater")


assistant
0