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
The film-makers went well out of their way to find ONLY the following demographics: Palestinians that have the appearance of peace-loving, solution-seeking good will, Palestinians (particularly older women and families with children) who are especially inconvenienced by the security fence, and Israelis that don't believe in the security fence, sympathize heavily with its alleged effect on Palestinians, and consider it unnecessarily divisive and/or a waste of money. Oh yes, they do put in one member of the Israeli government that does support the fence, but they do what they can to portray him as inhumane and uncaring, and ask him very leading questions that are really statements (e.g. "The wall is bad for the environment...it is destroying everything").
I have no problem with any (well, most) of this being presented in the movie. However much I may disagree with the people they interview, their opinions are valid enough for a documentary. HOWEVER: there are at least two sides to the issue of Israel's security fence, and despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Israelis (and many others) support the construction of the fence and believe it is having an overall positive influence, this "documentary" does not present the opinion of even ONE such person. They even go so far as to interview an Israeli Jew who claims that "all Israelis support the fence" and are thus insane, and then stubbornly refuse to interview even one such "crazy" Israeli. Oh, and to top all this off, they set the tone for the film by interviewing a couple of young Israeli children (truly exceptions to the rule -- I've been there) that are laughing at/about their Arab neighbors from across the fence.
A "documentary" is a film that explores an issue and presents a full array of facts, opinions, and perspectives. Unfortunately, this is not a documentary. This is an unabashed PROPAGANDA FILM that very clearly, very pointedly offers a battery of support for only one side of a heavily disputed, emotionally and politically charged issue. It is no more of a documentary than, say, Fahrenheit 9/11.


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


user
With a humor that would appeal to an exclusive, small audience, the average viewer will find it pointless and monotonous. When Cartoon Network advertised this show, it was made to look as if it was a major drama or event, complete with a real rain scene and government officials trying to catch the Sheep.
When it came out on the air, I was disappointed at how all the characters were so one-dimensional and a totally bland animation. The only thing that put it to anything close to humor were the names of the characters like "Private Public" and "General Specific", a few vague references to cultural aspects, and how Lady Richington pummeled Sheep with her steel wig.
Slightly off topic, but I don't see why would Sheep fall in love with that ball of dirty cotton balls called "Swanky." It was hideous!


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


user
Irvine Welsh's follow up to Trainspotting hits the screen as three short stories set in Edinburgh, all with a few of Welsh's trade marks, drug culture, depression, the working class and Hibernian football club. Uneasy to watch in places, it is no less than very well written, 2 of the stories having a darkly comic twist to them while the 2nd story a serious (and shockingly realistic) plot to it. Will not appeal to most, including myself to a point, but will no doubt adopt a cult following.


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


user
Ah, here it is! A movie, which is said by people to remind me of the epic "Trainspotting". OUCH, was I a fool to believe that, and OUCH, how my buttocks hurt after having forced myself to watch this c**p from beginning to end. After the first 10-15 minutes I just wanted it all to end, or at least they could've put some nudity or action or cool acid house music into it to make it worth the time... But no, when I was through with it, i put it into my CD shelf and I hope I will never have to pick it out again just to show it to some friend who is so anxious to see it that he/she don't want to listen to my warnings.


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


user
The stories were pretty weird, not really funny and not really cunning. I'm not sure what the point of the stories was .. The first story was actually mostly sick, the second was just really really pathetic and the third was only weird (the fake baby was actually quite badly made).


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 really one of the worst movies i have seen in a while. It's not funny at all. It simply portrays a lower class Northern British setting. I find it a very sad film at parts, at others cuts are where they shouldn't be. One thing that really annoyed me was the close ups of pointless objects it really slowed down the pace of the movie. I only made it through the movie because i fast forwarded certain sequences towards the end.
This movie completely loses the attention of the audience. It's main problem is that it makes multiple reasons for one action, which in turn tends to weaken that action. However if there is one reason for one action it makes it more passionate. All in all this movie is all over the place. I didn't learn enough about the characters to care about them because of the shifting plot lines and stories where as i would have maybe enjoyed exploring the life of one character.
For example at the beginning when the guy meets God in the bar, God seems like a cool guy. The movie could've elaborated on that moment and I think it would've been a lot funnier.
Anyway, enough if's. Watch it if you want, but I'm warning you this film is crap. I respect the makers for trying to pull it off with such a low budget but they could've done a much better job. I guess it all lies in the camera movement and editing, the acting was decent. But then again, that's just my opinion.


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


user
Because I would have never ever seen this movie through to the end. Although there are some, but not many, funny moments in this movie I couldn't understand more than about 15%(the fancy English couple in the 3rd story included) of what people were saying. Three short stories, none with a real point, with just some of the most miserable and lifeless people I could have imagined and a load of foul language. Didn't find it funny, didn't find it amusing, didn't find any sense in it. 4/10


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


user
Fairly appalling enterprise suggests Welsh to be an infantile artist, helplessly drawn to the violent milieu he knows best, but unable to resist vacuous elaborations rooted in banal fantasy. The first story is a ham-fisted, meaningless trudge with a B-movie sci-fi premise. The second achieves some poignancy, but only via the outrage-inducing surplus of humiliation visited on its central character. The third and most risible seems to aspire to being a dislocated sequel to Child's Play. The direction is consistently clueless - all whirling sound and fury, a slave to the extreme unpleasantness of the environment; suffocating in an ill-chosen music score and in indifferently flashy acting. This is sheer stupidity masquerading as a guerilla sensibility - as arbitrary and hollow as the abstract images that link the three sections.


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


user
I, like many this evening braved the frigid winter and long lines to see what I had anticipated to be one of the best movies of this year. However, I was left sadly wanting in many ways after the credits rolled. But to be fair, there were redeemable qualities (although very few). Let's start with what worked. First, the Lycans: on point in every way  from their terrifying physicality to their sheer ferocity. The action: sublimely visceral  when it did occur. Nighy/Victor and Sheen/Lucian: Perfect. Now, what did not (and there is plenty). This was less a movie and more a collage of sequences (and do not expect to see any supporting characters from the other movies except Raze and Tannis). Profoundly missing was a well written storyline and anything of real substance to bring these pieces of film together. The story seemed to start right in the middle  at the cusp where Lucian had made up his mind to rebel. Therefore, there was no context; no tension; no sense of betrayal  the devices needed to make everything else work. Moreover, it ended at where the climax should have begun (which needed to be after the feud had simmered for a bit). Oh and it was way too short. Purist will also find offense in some liberties taken to certain facts previously revealed in the first two moviesbut judge that for yourself. In the end, this movie lingered to long on what should have been brief "background" scenes (e.g. various council scenes), and as a consequence we never really got to know or care about the principal players...or the movie (ouch). -D


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 say that I enjoyed the first Underworld movie. I was intrigued and curious to learn about Vampires and Lycans and so forth. In this last part (hopefully) of the series I just feel sorry for how pathetic the vampires are. At least in the first part you had the tight leather clothes... now vampires seem like besieged victims of bad pest control problem. They look and act like haughty white pasty humans.
Some ideas were neat... the whole thing with human nobles was interesting. Pity the acting was abysmal. The slave thingy too was feasible.
Other things just hit me as pathetic. Spoilers now. Castle walls that can be jumped over in a few steps ? Enemies that don't attack during the day ? Big bad ancient vampires that take ages to join combat and then run away from a fledgling lycan leader after a minute or so ? Werewolves that den close to their enemies ? Lycans that raid armouries... for what ? They don't use axes and swords or armor ! A vampire leader so inept he manages to have just about everyone against him ? The romance is so unconvincing its sad.
So I don't recommend this film unless you get it online or buy a very cheap movie ticket. Some of the action is good to OK. Certainly the vampires armor and weapons are interesting. Otherwise a very weak script that was badly put together and uses all sorts of inane plot twists.


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


user
I can't believe this movie is getting the rating that it is here on IMDb. Of course, I've come to conclude that IMDb is somewhat worthless for actually finding out if a movie is good or not as 99% of films are rated from 6 to 7. It's the conclusion and failure of crowd-sourcing on the internet. For this purpose an average is taken of most people, and unfortunately, most people are simple minded easily entertained fast food lifestyle morons. But I digress. The movie. I really don't want to waste my time writing about it. Let's just say I found it to be tailor made for seemingly two groups of people, young teens, at the age where violent action movies of any sort just hit the spot, and goth types that just love to choke down whatever Gothic vampire fantasy they can get their hands on. If you aren't in one of those categories, you will find this movie absurd. I did enjoy the first Underworld. It was fresh at the time and held a sort of edgy quality. The second was a bit trying in plot, but I did enjoy the direction and cinematography at times. But this whole movie felt like a sci-fi channel production or even a TV series. I found the actors to be over-directed. Their body language stiffened into un-natural idealistic poses that seemed contrived. Lines were spit out like young actors would spit out lines of Shakespeare, reveling in their own egoistic glory at being in such a role, but in doing so, crudely bludgeoning the role. The plot was dry and predictable right from the start. I found myself wishing things to just "move along" as it was so easy to tell what was going to happen. I tried to care at first, but my brain was forced to shut off. By the end climax, I actually caught myself falling asleep. There were so many parts that were inconsistent and didn't make sense that it's not even worth listing them all. If you're a pimple faced teen or a chronic goth, sure, have at it. For the rest of us, forget it, like I'm about to do right now.


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


user
There wasn't much thought put into the story line on many fronts. This is a good action movie but that's about it.
- The movie states that the lycans were kept to protect the vampires during the day. Yet they are kept in cages and have collars on their necks. So they can't turn into their wolf form or do anything any other slave can't do. How does this protect the vampires during the day? Who are they protecting the vampires from? The uncontrollable lycans? The slaves in human form are nothing more than peasants.
- My understanding is that vampires are immortals and don't age. Yet Sonya ages from child to adult. Do they just stop aging at a certain age? I understand that Viktor is old because he was turned (as explained in the second movie). But vampire babies age? Strange.
- I didn't realize that vampires needed torches to see at night. Yet we see them carrying torches throughout the movie.
- Silver was the only thing that was supposedly able to harm lycan. Yet wooden steaks fired from the huge crossbows kill the lycan too.
These are just some of the things that show just a lack of thought put into the story telling.


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


user
There are rumours that a fourth Underworld is going to happen. If so, than the third part, which is also a prequel, would be in the middle of the franchise. With prequels that succeed the original movies, you always ask yourself in what order should you watch the movies, so that it makes sense ...
In this case, I guess it doesn't matter that much. The third Underworld movie isn't up to par with the other two. They had their obvious flaws too, but this one lacks a few things and it feels like a cash in. It seems like it's not going full throttle, which is a shame, because the actors sure could've used better material to work with.
The story is OK, but it's nothing special. A nice movie, but Rhona Mitra couldn't fill the shoes of Beckinsale (yes she plays another character, I mean the void, that Kate B. left) ...


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


user
Other than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.
Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves.


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


user
My mother forced me to watch this movie with her. She apparently will watch anything with a vampire counsel in it. I was bored throughout.
At different points, Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans is reminiscent of Spartacus, Battle For The Planet Of The Apes, The Passion Of The Christ, and Mandingo! What it reminds me most of are those Italian sword and sandal pictures of the nineteen-sixties (not the good ones) that spend an inordinate amount of time showing Greek or Roman despots in robes talking and plotting incessantly while you wait impatiently for the muscle man hero and his lover, usually the despots daughter, to do something.
This film was in desperate need of some color and suspense. The characters were pretty two-dimensional.
The sets looked as if they were constructed entirely of pewter! I wonder how many Civil War Chess Sets were melted down to make this movie.
All those wearing fishnet stockings on your arms and black lipstick, feel free to click NO.


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


user
To put it simply, this was a pompous piece of canine poopie. Overly stagey and everyone being the total melodramatic drama queen at every single moment. After a while, i was starting to wish that every character in the movie wasn't such a stuffed-up anal retentive.
And, this movie has another one of those truly annoying things that has recently come into vogue and shouldn't have: all the scenes are in a sort of washed-out, blue-steel-greyishness. Hmmm, the last time i checked, candles and torches are quite capable of putting a fairly wide spectrum of colors. In fact, the light they put out tends to be more in the warmish, yellowish-orange range of the spectrum. So where's all the blue-steel-grey light coming from?
This movie has fancy sets and glitzy cgi fx, but it's still dreck. It's pathetic junk put out for today's movie-goers who are easily placated by pathetic junk.
I very much enjoy vampires and werewolves as movie plot devices, but this was a total hack job.
Universal Studios' 1941 "The Wolfman" is infinitely superior to this even though its fx is pretty primitive compared to what could be done nowadays.
I'm done with this franchise. The first movie was reasonably decent. The second still somewhat entertaining. But this one i couldn't even finish all the way to the end because it was so boring.


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


user
"Quit while your ahead" is a phrase they never learn. Typical Hollywood sequel scenario: if the first film was only shocking, the second wasn't, expect the third to be the worst thing to hit the screen this year. Even worse are the prequels, events of which were already explained in detail. If you haven't seen to first two films you will not like this one. It's like starting to watch Lord of the rings or Star Wars with the last trilogy movie. So "stand alone" this film is not.
Remember in the first movie about Lucians revenge? Remember the second about the long lost savage brother? Well if you saw those two 5 min moments and paste them together you would get a 5 min prequel. But the creators ether thought these 5 min were vital historical events or just wanted to give a job to some actors, cast and crew and maybe make some money in the process. "I have a loot of money, I make movies for a living and I'm bored. What will I do? I know! I'll make a movie." So anyway you get this 5 min prequel and you stretch it for 90 min  that's this movie. And you know what will happen to the main "immortal" characters, so there is little suspense. By the way, all the drama of the movie is in those 5 min. The only thing that made my eyebrow rise was mom killing in the begging of the movie. Sick. The rest was Braveheart remix. If you want a comedy, see Braveheart first then this movie.
Now I'm going to rant a bit  the movie put me in the mood. Who invented the concept of "vampire vs. werewolf" in the first place? It's older than I am and got old just as fast. And why do vampires look like Goth girls in heat, while werewolves look like psycho bears? Hiding bad films behind cleavage fails. Isn't it about time we got some sane slimmer werewolves with an upright posture? How can their unchangeable werewolves even breed if they rip everybody into shreds? And why with all their powers the vampires didn't rule the world? Blaa, blaa, blaa 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
The key scene in Rodrigo Garcia's "Nine Lives" comes when Sissy Spacek, hidden away in a hotel room where she is carrying on an affair with Aiden Quinn, find a nature documentary on television, at which point Quinn notes the contrivance of such things--disparate footage is edited into one scene, predators and preys are thrown together in order to capture the moment--all to force connections where none actually exist. Characters in the nine shorts that make up this film occasionally spill over into each others stories, but none of them ever seem to really connect. A woman preparing for a violent confrontation with her abusive father is later seen working in a hospital room where another woman is preparing for a mastectomy. A man who runs into an old girlfriend in a supermarket and sees how his life should have been later hosts, with his current wife, a dinner party for an unhappy couple. Garcia arranges some of his characters in front of each other, but none of the subsequent stories ever really build on what came before.
Garcia's first film, the wonderful, overlooked "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her," also had a short-story structure and overlapping characters, but there were fewer of them and they had a lot more room to breathe and grow. The gimmicky premise of "Nine Lives," that each of its nine stories is told in a single, unbroken take in real time, never allows the film to build up any real dramatic tension or momentum. It's also a fairly visually ugly movie. Interior shots are often murky and hard to watch, while other scenes--particularly one where a girl walks back and forth between rooms to talk to her uncommunicative parents--are rendered annoying by the camera-work. Given that this is Garcia's third film and that he has a respectable history of directing for television, the direction in this film is rather surprisingly amateurish. Like fellow filmmaker-child-of-a-great-writer Rebecca Miller, Garcia (son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is focused on the writing and character aspects of his films often to the detriment of the film-making ones.
Individual scenes are touching and even affecting. I did like Jason Issacs kissing Robin Wright Penn's pregnant belly. And Joe Mantegna whispering lovingly to his wife as she slips into pre-surgery sedation. And Sissy Spacek stealing a few happy moments away from her life with Aiden Quinn before brought back to it with a phone call from her daughter. But the film (unlike "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her") feels more like an exercise than actual drama. We are just watching people act.


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


user
As embarrassing as it is to admit, I was listed as production manager on this film... my very first! As a matter of fact, it was the first feature film for almost everyone who participated. Watch carefully, and you even get to see me in one of the opening scenes, as a soon-to-be-murdered asylum attendant named... "Cely" (my own last name).
Originally titled "Hostages" this picture was changed to "Another Son of Sam" by the Producer-Director who wanted to cash in on the serial killer in the news at the time. Nothing could have helped. I don't even think this picture was good enough to be shown on "MST 3K!"
The film was shot primarily with a collection of old Mitchell cameras and early Arriflex hand held cameras. Matter of fact, the shot of the helicopter during the hostage siege was filmed with my own WWII era Arri. The picture was filmed entirely in Charlotte and Belmont, North Carolina in the mid seventies. Most of the "Stars" were local TV newscasters, and the rest of the crew were just inexperienced enough or gullible enough to believe former stuntman and Producer-Director, Dave A, Adams' delusions of adequacy.
If you enjoy watching this kind of picture, you might love the work of another North Carolinian, the legendary Earl Owensby.



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


user
Another Son of Sam is definitely not an Oscar winner. Technically, it's horrible. The acting is not too good either. But there is something about it that makes you want to watch more (sort of like a car wreck). The ridiculous close-ups of the killers eyes are more funny than anything. If you are looking for a scare...this ain't the flick for you. It's very obscure and nearly impossible to find. I'm sure there's a reason for that. For a while, it was titled HOSTAGE. It don't matter what you call it, it's still a poor choice for entertainment. It might be good for a MST3000 party or something. Can you believe they would use such a title as ANOTHER SON OF SAM? If that don't have exploitation written all over it, I'll eat my hat. I remember when this was shot in Belmont, NC. A lot of local personalities were used as talent.


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


user
Wow. I just saw Demon Wind a little while ago, and I don't think I'll ever be the same. It has the power to inspire nightmares, but for all the wrong reasons, actually.
Never before has humanity seen such a gratuitous change in make-up, for no damn reason. Or, similarly, so much bad zombie (?) makeup that makes you hungry for those Halloween green marshmallows.
Or so much naked old lady, for that matter. But then, there was "The Shining."
The plot here is so amateurish that it actually almost holds a little bit of charm, as does the dialog. The last shot of the film is just so silly that its beyond description. It's like some drunk college student got together with some pals and decided to throw Bruce Willis type dialog together with (I guess?) teenybopper dialog from some Elm Street film. The result is jarring, and it'd be truly funny if it was intended that way.
Ah, what the hey. I'll laugh anyway.
Hell, get together with your friends and watch this. But make absolutely sure you're drunk first. Or, you may go insane. Particularly if you're a college film student.
Cheers.


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 this movie about 6 or 7 times, and it truly gets funnier every time. Perhaps what I enjoy most is the tired character paradigms that the movie offers us: the somber all-American male protagonist, his blonde girlfriend, the theater nerd with glasses, a brunette girl, the antagonistic jock, and brunette girl #2. However, we're then presented with two magician martial arts experts with mullets driving a convertible. If anyone can explain that, please contact me. Among other highlights are Bobby Johnston's portrayal of the jock character, Dell, and his trademark line, "That's why I keep her around." In watching Johnston's performance, it comes as no surprise that his career quickly descended into the realm of soft-core porn. (SPOILER) Also, after multiple viewings, I STILL have absolutely no idea what that big demon at the end says at any point; it's just electronically muffled noises. Oh well, that's probably for the better. And lastly, why are all the demons so slippery? Is wet skin scarier? It certainly didn't help in this film.


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


user
In another of the dreadful horror films I seem so masochistically attracted to, we have a bunch of friends stuck in a haunted house slowly being killed one by one thanks to a horde of zombies that spurt yellow blood and have very bad dental problems. The first 45 minutes is all talk however, and considering the young thespians cannot act their way out of a paper bag and are given the most banal dialogue ever to dispassionately recite, this is especially painful to sit through. If you manage to stay awake through that nonsense, things don't get any better.. with bad make-up galore and cheesy, bargain basement (not-so-special) effects. As for the conclusion.. well, what's the betting that the old-timer who warned them against going to the spooky mansion in the first place will turn up and save the day for the last two survivors (a boy and a girl, of course) with his mystical powers? Please.. life is too short for these kind of movies. Donate the time you would otherwise have spent watching this tripe helping out the community, do a couple of shifts in a soup kitchen or something. You'll feel you've actually done something productive with your life, and you won't have put money into the pockets of studios who churn out irredeemable rubbish such as this.
Unfortunately, it's already too late for me.. now, where did I put that copy of 'Pumpkinhead'? 1/10


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


user
I truly love horror films & try to give every one I see as much credit (or sometimes more) as possible, but this is really pushing the ticket...most of the cast were very like-able but hardly any of them could act at all - but then again think about the writing/dialogue of this mess...some good make-up but absolutely ridiculous special fx. All in all I give it 3 out of 10 - & am having second thoughts about that!!


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


user
I swear I didn't mean to! I picked this out only since it looked good on the back! This movie wasn't scary at all and actually was very confusing. The demon wind was only actually used a couple of times and people were killed off pretty cheesily. The one major bright spot was seeing Sherri Bendorf from Slaughterhouse play in it. Seeing what happened to her, however, made up my mind for this little turkey of a film. A 3 out of 10. NEXT!


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


user
Demon Wind is about as much fun as breaking your legs. It is definitely an awful example of a film. So awful in fact that I don't even consider it a movie. I describe it more as a thing ... a monstrous thing. A thing that must be stopped at all costs. My friends and I first discovered this ... thing buried under a big box of video tapes at my friend's house. It was a late night and we had nothing better to do so we decided to watch some cheesy horror movies (we unfortunately picked this one.) Well, during the 90 minutes that this thing played we ended up laughing so hard that we almost threw up. The thing is literally pointless in every sense of the word. It's just a cheap, poorly done rip-off of Evil Dead. The whole "story" seems to be nothing more than some guy wanting to knock off his friends by inviting them to an abandoned house and letting demons rip them to pieces. I have a bet that the writers were actually writing the story while it was being filmed. I've seen bad horror movies before (Manos, Troll 2, HOBGOBLINS!!!) (shudder) I would have to say that Demon Wind could definitely contend with any and all of these films on terms of sheer stupidity. Watch it only if you enjoy laughing at stupid films.
Fun fact: This film is like a cockroach on steroids! Much like the ouija board, every time we try to get rid of it, it always seems to mysteriously reappear. Kind of scary huh?


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


user
You can generally ask two questions concerning 80's low-budget horror films. and this `Demon Wind' in particular. 1. Is it a good film? No.. 2. Is it a fun film?? You bet! Demon Wind is a gruesomely filthy and nauseating tale, filled with cheesy make-up effects and nasty violence. The story is pretty much non-existent and involves a group of young people revealing the horrible secrets of one of the groups' ancestors. Apparently, his grandparents used to live in a devil-worshiping neighborhood, and evil (in the form of demons and fog) still dwells around there. But, I got to hand it to this film.from start to finish, it breathes morbidity! The diabolical undertones, the playful gore and the (relatively) decent acting all together make this film raise high above the mainstream, uninspired 80's slashers for sure. It shows some creativity and guts (literally) where other productions from this decade fall into routine and oblivion more easily. This creators clearly got inspired by the success of `the Evil Dead', and perhaps even Lamberto Bava's `Demons, but what the heck! It's fun and made with lots of enthusiasm. Although.this film does have a pretty high `what the f***'- standard at times. Especially near the end, when flashbacks and laser shows are happily being mixed. And what the hell is the story on those two wannabe magicians? Nonetheless, `Demon Wind' gets my recommendation if your likes aren't too high concerning crap horror!


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


user
From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.
The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.
The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's "Turks fruit", to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.
At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.
It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.
4/10


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


user
Yesterday was one of those days we decided to go to the movies. We picked "Ik ook van Jou" more or less at random, but we were interested to see the state of current Dutch filmmaking.
The film is based on a book by Ronald Giphart, and I must confess straight away that he is not exactly one of my favorites. The film features actors that are best known in the netherlands for their appearances in soap-operas and/or afternoon talk shows. At least one of them (Kamerling) has done some fairly decent stuff after leaving the soap world. So we decided to give this movie the benefit of the doubt.
And what a mistake that was. This movie fails on all fronts. Bad acting (the best performance is actually by a guinea pig, which very convincingly pretends to be dead). Flat, uninteresting story with unexplained and uninteresting sidelines (Why france? Why tell the story to a girl from Uganda?) Mistakes (black people dont have to use sunscreen, as far as I know, and heating systems in the Netherlands do not produce clouds of steam like in New York, even if this looks great on film, people do not wear T-shirts outside on new years eve in northern Europe). There's one funny moment which involves two little dogs, and that's it.
So that's what I think, but more importantly, it seemed that none of the people leaving the movie theater afterwards had enjoyed it. I overheard one of them saying that he was extremely disappointed, because he liked the book so much. I did not read the book, but my advice would have to be: read the book, don't see 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
One of the movies i just DIDN'T want to see. I got it in the sneak-preview, but damn, the acting was very bad! At the end of the movie (i still am surprised i watched the whole movie..) i wondered why i watched the movie.
Also here in the netherlands, the writer of this movie (it's filmed from a book of Giphart) thought it was very bad, and was disappointed that his movie came out like this. Next time he wants a role in choosing people for the cast.


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


user
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. The acting was just soooo bad. Anthonie Kamerling is usually a fairly good actor, but in this film, he sounded like he was reading his text from a piece of paper. Especially his voice over was extremely wooden. Beau van Erven Dorens was completely over the top as frat boy Fraser, although this probably had more to do with the crappy dialogue. 'Ik ook van jou' is an adaptation of a book, and it seem like the makers of the film forgot that film dialogue follows different rules than literary dialogue. It all sounded way to bookish.
Some of the situations were very badly visualized. Example: somewhere at the beginning of the film there is a scene where a canoe goes over in a rapid. This bit is just too incredible to be true. You see an obviously rather shallow bit of river, with a lot of rocks right beneath the surface (hence the rapid). We hear some suspenseful music to warn us that there's danger ahead. A canoe with to girls goes over in that rather shallow rapid. Our hero then dives several meters below the surface to rescue one of the girl. Girl swoons in his arms and utters the words 'You saved me...' Vomit!
It actually was so bad, that it became funny. This is sad, because it really wasn't intended. At the intermission I overheard some guy behind me say 'O god, there's another part!' My feelings exactly. What scares me is that the end credits of 'Ik ook van jou' were in English. Does this mean that it will be released abroad? Just when the Netherlands were starting to get a good reputation after films like 'Antonia' (Antonia's line) and 'Karakter' (Character)...


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


user
As a fan of author Gipharts lightheaded and humorous books (of which Ik Ook van Jou is not the best one), I was looking forward to see this film. I didn't catch it in cinema though, and after seeing it on to tv I'm terribly happy I resisted buying it on video. Out of a good book, they managed to make one of the worst movies in Dutch film history. All the good parts have been left out, the story is changed, not to its benefits. All humour has been cut out. What's left is a bad-acted, over dramatic, non-consistent film that I do not want to watch again ever.
I condolate Giphart with this result, and am happy that Robbert Jan Westdijk did a hell of a better job on Giphart's topper Phileine zegt Sorry. Go see that one!


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


user
If this was the best dutch cinema had to offer these years, my worst fears have come true. I have NEVER, even in dutch movies, seen worse acting. I couldn't get myself to watch it for more than 40 minutes, so if that's the cause of me missing the genius, so be it.



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


user
Actually I'm still in doubt if there's anything about this movie I like. As for the story: unrealistic and very exaggerated. The acting was too bad in my opinion. Not very likely that Antonie Kamerling will get a Rutger Hauer status. Some folks will expect it anyway. First let him work on his English pronunciation. If you watch the 'trip' to Paris of these actors (DVD-extra) you will most likely want to trow up. Advice to Beau Dorens: stop your acting career, you'll never get there... To the 2 main 'actors': grow up, please. Being generous, I'd give it 4 out of 10.



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


user
They said it would be a film greater than Turks Fruit. How dare
they? It's not even 10% of this classic. Bad acting. The only character i felt sympathy for was the one
played by Angela Schijf. Her acting was the best in the whole film. The story could've been interesting, but it wasn't. Some scenes were very beautiful filmed (lights and camera), (the
opening scene for example), but the bad acting made the magic
disappear.
I really don't understand why so many people voted this film so
good.


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


user
If you read Errol Flynn's autobiography, My Wicked, Wicked Ways, you will see that this film is full of poetic licence. Not that that makes much of a difference, because Errol Flynn was pretty generous with poetic licence in the autobiography anyway. No need to worry about spoilers, since there is nothing there to spoil.
To me it would seem more sensible to use the story about a fictitious Hollywood actor; then you could go out and find a better actor than Duncan Regehr to play him, and you wouldn't have to worry about the audience saying things like: "But he didn't have a moustaches in Captain Blood." Another failing of this film is that it shows Flynn as a two-dimensional character. Flynn was an intelligent man, well educated, well read. This film only concentrates on his funster image.
Regehr is a disaster. The rest of the cast struggle with their scripts. Hal Linden is OK as Warner, and Barbara Hershey makes a believable Damita, although Lili Damita herself did not think so.
The best thing to do with this film is to forget about it and let it gently slip away to oblivion. So what I am writing this for, I can't imagine.


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


user
After watching this film, I thought to myself, they really glossed up Errol Flynn's life! The movie is really nice eye candy. They really got the 1930s and 1940s atmosphere of Hollywood just right. The costumes were great. All the women looked glamorous and all the men looked handsome and debonair.
Is this a serious film about Errol Flynn's life? Nah! It's a fun movie based on all the scandalous stuff he did in his life.
Why am I critiquing this film? This is a film that had a lot of promise but failed to deliver. Duncan Reagher was really good as Errol Flynn. He was not as good looking as the original, but he made you believe that Flynn was not just a handsome playboy who did not take himself seriously, but as a man who, although gifted with great talent, was kind of disturbed and unhappy inside. Flynn's love life was a disaster considering he had so many failed marriages. He also lost a lot of good friends during his life. He also suffered from unrequited love for the elegant Olivia DeHavilland. The last scene of the film showed Errol kind of begging for Olivia to stay with him and instead she walks away. He is shown in his tux, looking really empty and slowly walking around the pool as he pours his drink into the pool. It was a sad way to end the film but kind of fitting because everyone knows by now how he eventually fell apart from his alcoholism and his dissipated lifestyle.
This film could've had much more depth, could've been better well-written. Sure they showed all the scandals but they never showed Errol Flynn's human center. Surprisingly, Duncan Reagher was able to put some emotional depth into the character of Errol Flynn even though the film writing didn't put any depth there.
I'll probably never see this film again but I can still remember after viewing this film, "Gosh, this could've been so much more.....!" I give this film a D+.


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


user
The recent documentary "The Adventures of Errol Flynn" is an in-depth look at the Ultimate Hollywood Hero. Bogart,Cagney, Wayne and the like were basically blue collar types in their screen images but Flynn was an aristocrat in his style and manner, the younger son out to carve out his own fiefdom for a sword,thunder and romance analogy that ironically he found himself trapped in. If he hadn't been under contract to Warner Bros. he would've of been perfect in the Cary Grant role in Suspicion: the good looking charmer whose 1000 watt smile blinds one to the fact that he's a predator. And he could've starred with his best leading ladies sister Joan Fontaine. That was Flynn's trouble he was the Ultimate Screen Hero until his own habits and bad timing caught up with him. Grant and Flynn in a way are similar but Flynn was the more macho of the two;it is possible to see Grant as Captain Blood but Flynn in The Philadelphia Story Mr. Blanding Builds his Dream House,or Monkey Business,or Operation Petticoat would've turned those roles on their collective ears because he's too damn sure on his feet and the sexual tension he would've brought naturally would've made the story lines wobbly. But this wobbly biography is just a plasticized view of Flynn and his era. There are times when I half expected a laugh track or an audience to go "Ahhh" at some point. It doesn't go deeply into Flynn's life just the screen magazine view. It also doesn't delve into his struggle to be considered more than a derring-doer. Like the cleaned up biographies of Lon Chaney( the father,not the Wolfman,or Lenny"Of Mice and Men) and Buster Keaton done in the '50's this is just a time killing piece of fluff


assistant
0