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 plot for Black Mama White Mama, revolves around two female inmates, at a women's prison in the Phillipines. One Black, and one White. These two women, are thrown together in the prison. Pam Grier is Lee Daniels Lee is incarcerated in the hellish women's prison, for dancing as a harem girl.
Lee's boyfriend owes her part of his profits, from his drug-dealing activities. Lee is mainly interested in breaking out of the prison to get hold of her beau's drug money, so that she can leave the Phillipines and assume a better life. Margaret Markov plays Karen Brent, a white women from a privileged background, who is also a revolutionary. Karen has joined a group of revolutionaries, determined to change the corrupt Phillipino political system. She's captured by Phillipino authorities, and held as a political prisoner.
The story-line takes-off, when Karen and Lee break out of the prison they were in together. The two of them also happened to be chained together at the wrist. As they flee, they also fight with each other, because they have different goals to pursue. Naturally, they hate being chained together. But they also realize that they must put aside their differences, to help each other survive while they evade capture.
If this film seems very similar to The Big Bird Cage, it's because much of the cast in the two films is the same, as well as their location in the Phillipines. Roger Corman, has always had a consistent stable of actors, that he used in all of his 70s B movies. Besides Pam Grier, Sid Haig, Roberta Collins, Claudia Jennings, Betty Anne Rees, and William Smith, were also among the many actors that were frequently cast, in Corman's AIP films.
Like The Big Bird Cage, Black Mama White Mama, relies on too much gory violence to be palatable. Pam Grier conveys her usual tough chick persona in this film, and shows her competence as a female action heroine. Margaret Markov is less effect, in her portrayal of the revolutionary Karen. She just seems to fragile and well-coiffed, to be a dedicated political guerrilla. Except for Sid Haig, as the colorful Ruben, the rest of the cast is forgettable.
This film has little entertainment value, unless excessive, heinous acts of violence are your thing. Only the performances by Pam Grier and Sig Haig, make this film worth watching.


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


user
This is one heck of a sleazy film. Like so many "women in chains" films, this one is chock full of lesbianism. However, unlike most prior films, which strongly implied this, BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA shows an awful lot of skin as a horny female prison guard leers at the women as they shower as well as has sex with one of the inmates. For the early 1970s, this is definitely a soft-core pornographic film--sort of like GIRLS GONE WILD GOES TO PRISON! It's also a bad rip-off of THE DEFIANT ONES, though in this case it's two hot females who hate each other who are chained together when they escape. Whereas the original film is considered a classic, this one can only be considered a classic example of bad taste. That's because there is no subtlety and the movie is just cheap--cheap thrills, cheap writing and very cheap acting.
Pam Grier is the "black inmate with an attitude"--a lady who was set up and sent to prison on this hellish island. Margaret Markov is a revolutionary. When they escape, they both can't stand each other and have opposite goals. However, since it is cliché-driven, there's really no surprise in how the film ends--with their both becoming (gag me) friends.


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


user
The title pretty much lets you know what you're getting. It's a grade-C howler but not as blatantly funny as I was hoping. Directed by exploitation film specialist Eddie Romero from a story that originally came from Jonathan Demme (long before directing "Silence of the Lambs" and "Philadelphia"), this low-budget 1972 action movie was obviously filmed in the Philippines but set in some anonymous third world country. Playing hooker and small-time drug dealer Lee Daniels, blaxploitation superstar Pam Grier plays the first half of the title role, while long-forgotten Margaret Markov is the other half, Karen Brent, an unlikely Patty Hearst-like political revolutionary looking to partner with her comrades to overthrow the oppressive local government. Naturally antagonistic toward each other, they are in a women's prison camp where they wear inexplicably bright yellow mini-skirts as uniforms. Run by a closeted warden and lecherous matron, the prison is just an excuse for a lengthy shower scene and some half-hearted cat-fighting as Lee and Karen are pitted against each other. Of course, they escape but shackled together a la "The Defiant Ones" and continue the cat-fighting until they attack a couple of nuns to steal their habits.
Meanwhile, various groups of unsavory men are in pursuit - the loutish drug lord looking for Lee who stole $40K from him, the rather passive revolutionaries looking for Karen, and the incompetent police (who suffer the humiliation of exposing their privates to the drug lord). Needless to say, everything eventually comes to a head but not before gratuitous nudity by a number of Filipino women, a dog wears Karen's panties and some of the worst of 1970's men's fashion (one beer-bellied revolutionary wears a leather halter top with a straight face). There is a rather sad ending, but what's truly sad is how much of the potential black comedy is missed entirely in this hilariously preposterous exercise. Sadly, Grier is disappointing in this outing because her character is not allowed much to do beyond dealing with all the "jive", while Markov is an Amazonian blonde whom I am convinced is trying desperately to be credible. Since no one displays any talent for acting, the rest of the cast is not worth noting, except balding, bug-eyed Sid Haig, who uses his standard psycho persona as the drug lord. The 2003 DVD contains only the original trailer as an extra.


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


user
Pam Grier is the super soul sister of the 1970's, appearing in many blaxploitation films that have recently been discovered and appreciated by a new generation. I can safely say that BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA may be the worst Pam Grier movie I've ever seen.
Grier is Lee and Margaret Markov is Karen; they are two female prisoners who escaped from prison after Karen's revolutionary friends attacked the paddy wagon. Chained to each other, the film becomes THE DEFIANT ONES for women, but has three separate plots: a fat criminal (Filipino sleaze star Vic Diaz) wants Lee dead, a cowboy bounty hunter (the excellent Sid Haig) searches for the two girls; and Karen's revolutionary friends search for her. The film eventually becomes so convoluted and uninvolved with the two women that the title should have been MEN CHASING WOMEN. Grier, an action star, is not given any chance to participate in any of the many (overlong) action scenes. Markov is excellent as Karen and Grier is OK as Lee, but both are eventually forgotten in the many subplots. One interesting scene has the bounty hunter forcing a police officer and his chief to drop their pants so he can shoot the one with the smallest penis (judged by his whore), but is easily forgotten amidst all the mayhem.
BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA starts out great as a women-in-prison film complete with lesbian wardens and a shower scene, then completely switches to a chase film. If director Eddie Romero (famous for directing Filipino horror films) had just stuck with the WIP theme, he would have been fine. Instead, BMWM gets real old real fast and the surprise ending just makes the audience wonder why they sat through a 90-minute film for it to end like this! Another problem: where is the film supposed to be set? While some of the accents are Hispanic and cities have Spanish names (Los Robles, etc.), all the natives are obviously Asian! Hmmm... Recommended only for die-hard Grier fans, who even then will be disappointed.


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 find the hopelessly amateurish acting, the uninteresting story, the fake blood and all the mindless shooting bearable, then you may actually have a fairly good time watching this trashy, low-rent exploitation film. You might also want to check out a pretty good catfighting sequence that's offered, although it's not good enough to make the rest of the movie worth sitting through. (**)


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 think it's beautiful to be obsessive about who you are in love with, then I can imagine giving it a good rating... but I cannot imagine that this theme of obsessiveness and having little respect for others (such as the way Paulie treats the teachers who try to help her) is anything you would want to teach your children. Yes, it's also bad the way Victoria treated Paulie, but guess what. That's life. Isn't it a more important lesson to learn how to get past these disappointments and make the best of your life? Or is falling off the roof a better lesson to teach our children? Secondly, when Mary's father didn't show up for the dinner, and Paulie helped Mary release her anger, that Mary even said she wished he were dead... Somehow I don't think this is a good message either that you deal with your disappointments through anger.


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


user
Well, that's what this should have been called, anyway. Mainly, due the the ridiculous, ham-fisted use of what can barely be called symbolism by the director. It would not have surprised me to find out that this was A) One of Lea Pool's earliest efforts, and B) at least semi-autobiographical. Turns out A is wrong, although I don;t know about B. I will bet she attended boarding school, though, and had a rather terrible same-sex relationship of SOME kind. This is the message that was beat down our throats by this film, and the short film which preceded it, the name of which I no longer recall.
At any rate, the character development was clumsy (Who introduces herself by saying what her name means? Nobody.) the symbols were about as subtle as an all-glass elevator full of teen-age girls losing a cable and plummeting eighty stories. All over a loudspeaker. Honestly, the cry of a falcon when Perabo declared she was a raptor and leapt off the table? That was ridiculous to the point of parody. And it was only one of far too many symbols meant to show even the dumbest of viewers what her point was. And that was that she had a crappy childhood and feels the need to make movies about it, ala Vincent Gallo, instead of seeing a therapist, ala all of us who get on with our lives. There was nothing tender, nothing sweet, and nothing moving about this film. It was poorly enacted trash, and the actors could not save the Brett Ratneresque over the top "HEY THIS IS MY POINT IN THIS MOVIE" use of film techniques, writing, and acting. Sorry, but it was terrible.


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


user
Ken Burns' "Baseball" is a decent documentary... it presents a clear origin of the game, a great depiction of baseball's early years and heroes. There's plenty in this movie for any baseball fan... that said, the film has several glaring flaws.
18 hours is simply too long for the human attention span. It's clear that Burns stretched his film out to fit his "nine inning" concept. It's not even a tight 18 hours... the pace on every segment is slow, almost morose... the music always nostalgic and wistful. Isn't baseball ever exciting and fun? Why is every player and their accomplishments presented in the form of a tragedy? Talking head after talking head turn every pitch into an emotional heartbreak, yakking about baseball as a metaphor, baseball as Americana, the psychology and theology of baseball... enough! This is syrupy, mawkish drivel. Billy Crystal is here to sell us all the Yankee hokum he's sold us before. Ken Burns uses the National Anthem as the series' theme song, and manages to play "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" so many times you might vomit. We get it, dude.
Clearly Burns is a neo-Hollywood faux-liberal, so he spends probably a third of the film on the Negro leagues... these segments are spent chastising whites of yesterday for not being as open-minded as Kenny is today. For shame! He chides baseball for being segregated in the thirties and forties but fails to realize that America was segregated in those times! Burns falls head over heels in love with Buck O'Neil, a former negro-league player, and drools over every piece of footage in which the elderly O'Neil waxes poetic about his playing days. Nonsense...
Burns would have been better off with an adult to help him edit his creation down. "Baseball" winds up as mushy, gushy, civil-rights propaganda disguised as Americana. Its clear that Burns is not a baseball fan... otherwise he would know we watch games laughing and cheering, not weeping and reciting soliloquies... are you listening, Mr. Burns? There's no crying in baseball.


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


user
A pre-Nerd Robert Carradine, a pre-Automan Desi Arnaz Jr., and an almost pre-pubescent Melanie Griffith take to the road and head for Alaska with romantic dreams of becoming wealthy salmon fishers. Well, their dream is about as exciting as this lackluster youth road movie. They aren't particularly interesting, and the film doesn't exactly have much of a point, beyond `We got together the spawn of some famous people and made a low budget film about their misadventures.' Out of the cannon of 60's and 70's road films and rebel youth films, this one is mediocre, under developed, uninvolving characters, not much wit, not much freshness to the story, which is as bland as the films muddy landscape.
But, for those who care- They head to Alaska, and apparently Alaska was like the Wild West in the 70's because everyone carries a gun and is rough and tumble. Robert Carradine says charming things like `I hope we can find a shower, my nuts sure itch.' (And he's the one with Melanie Griffith!) They are quickly robbed and forced to take jobs, and the local bigwig, their employer, puts the moves on Melanie and eventually fires Desi for not being corrupt. That's when they aren't smart and do not leave town, opting instead to eat dog food or go hungry, get beat up by the guys goons, and then take a joyride in the bigwigs car. The final half of the film abandons the evil bigwig as the trio commit a robbery, go on the run, and hatch a kidnapping scheme, and so forth. The film just sort of ends, annoyingly and ambiguously, but seeing as how they didn't bother to have much character development and story in the first place, its rather appropriate. Worth a look if you are really into low budget 70's fare, but ultimately pretty forgettable.


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


user
The video box for 'Joyride' says "starring second generation superstars", and one can't help but feel sad. Granted, Melanie Griffith has gone on to bigger and better things...but who cares about the rest of the cast? So with that being the pathetic attention grabber on the box I was foolish enough to purchase the film for a dollar thinking I would be in the land of 'so-bad-they're-good 70's films' Eh, not so much. While so many aimless 70's youth films (or plain ol' 70's films for that matter) tried so hard to say something deep and meaningful, 'Joyride' doesn't even try. It's just aimless. It is devoid of any interest whatsoever. Each character is so poorly conceived that it's no wonder these actors look so listless.
In a nutshell the movie is about three 20-somethings who go to Alaska to start a business, but instead get robbed and then have to find work. They get beat up, eat dog food, steal cars, rob banks. It's all very typical but on top of that it's executed in the most mundane way possible. There are no surprises and the flow is so bad, and the actions of the characters so ambiguous that you can miss several scenes and not mind at all.
But if you're a fan of Melanie Griffith's breasts - then this is a must-see. That's still not enough to get this above the lowest rating I can give.
Best Line: "Jesus, everything is biology with you." * out of ****


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


user
I just saw this movie and all I can say is, where are the drive in's these days. This seems like it would have been a great 2nd feature at a drive in in 1977 (maybe playing with one of those Joan Collins movies), but it's only worth watching now if you're feeling nostalgic for the 70's. Silly plot that is full of holes, but it does remind one of the era it was made in. Interesting to see Melanie Griffith so young and Anne Lockhart is quite attractive, though not much of an actress. In fact, there is not much acting going on in this movie at all. It's sort of a Dukes of Hazzard adventure without a twang or a 1969 Dodge charger jumping over stuff in the Woods. But there is a Mecrury Comet jumping over a garbage dump in 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
I think that a lot of friends of people who acted in this thing must've come on and rated it because I'm telling you, its just awful. The acting is worse than soapopera bad, the effects are like something you'd see out of a 1970 episode of Doctor Who, the story is, well, there is no story. And they keep using the same 2 minute song over and over and over again. And the werewolf? Its like the muppets they used in Wing Commander, the giant cats, remember how bad they looked? The werewolf is that bad. Seriously, the guy who directed this thing is terrible and should never get to direct anything else again, except maybe his son's school play, but even then, he should have to pay the audience to see it. Ghostwolf is nothing but a bad joke.


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


user
No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).
The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.
I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie!


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


user
The characters are annoying, immature, and flaky....Madison being the most annoying of all. OOH...a cold spot! Such a dire threat! Any ghost in that house would have fled in self-defense! To make a long story short, this movie is boring. Seeing a chair flying across a room may be creepy, but that's about as intriguing as it gets. I watched it once and when one of my kids wanted to watch it again, I was tempted to take a baseball bat to the TV set rather than watch this rubbish again. If you want a good horror movie or even a passable comedy, this isn't it! The only good part of the whole thing was "the roach scene" and, by the end of the movie, you ended up feeling sorry for the roach!


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


user
I was surprised that the makers of this movie actually came out said that this movie was a true story. The majority of the scenes looked fake to me. For instance when the one girl was eating her sandwich and there was a roach in it. While she was eating the sandwich the camera on the opposite side of it showed that there was a roach on it. It's funny how the camera just happened to be filming on the sandwich when the girl was eating it. Another scene is when the gang went to open a clothes closet and a cat flew out of the closet or should I say it was thrown out to give it effect. This movie was not realistic at all. It's highly doubtful that the events that happened were true that evening when the "St. Francisville Experiment" took place. I believe that the house may be haunted, but not on the night this movie was filmed! The ending was amusing when Tim and and other girl were chained down in the some sort of basement. Paul and Madison found them and rescued them! I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project again then have to sit through the St. Francisville Experiment movie again. As I said, if the makers of the movie did not state that this was a true story with true events I may have like it more. Your better off getting more entertainment from the Blair Witch Project (even though this is not a true story either)!!!


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


user
The St. Francisville Experiment claims "this ain't no walk in the woods", a direct slap in the face of Blair Witch. Where Blair Witch proved to be a film that overworked the viewer's imagination through simple suggestion, The St. Francisville Experiement overworks the viewer's patience. One must say, however, that this is destined to be a camp classic.
Warning: Spoiler is forthcoming!!
I viewed this movie in a local theater in which the movie's "paranormal consultant" Troy Taylor spoke about the making of the movie. Should anyone want to see this movie without knowing the forthcoming information, stop reading here. For those of you who can't resist, read on my friends and all shall be told.
Mr. Taylor, a writer of rather unintriguing ghost stories which he claims are all true, informed the audience at this video screening that The St. Francisville Experiment was not a documentary. Shock! Amazing! As if we didn't know... He informed us that all of the frightening discoveries the participants made were all staged and prearranged by the film's producers. Matter of fact, he informed us that the last 15 minutes were not even filmed in Louisiana, but rather in California. All four participants were true actors (notice I didn't say good...). One of the participants is actually a special effects technician on ER.
What infuriates me about this film is that it proclaims everything is true. It feebly attempts to outdo The Blair Witch Project by claiming it's true whereas Blair Witch was a hoax. The amazing thing is that no one could have belief this film for an instant. Filled with dreadful acting and hilarious lines such as "surround yourself with the white light" and "I love the ghosts", The St. Francisville Experiment belongs at midnight movies everywhere so the crowd can properly heckle, boo, jeer and chant "I love the ghosts!"
Talk about false advertising. True stories are not filmed with staged special effects that look as if the neighborhood Boy Scouts troop set up a haunted house. From the bug in the sandwich (ooh...scary...) to the annoying Madison, from the "seance" which is nothing more than the foursome playing on an Oujia Board to the two mice being found under a bed, The St. Francisville Experiement is one embarrassing hoax of a movie. Lion's Gate would be wise to dump this thing into the nearest trash compactor or advertise it as it really should be:
"The St. Francisville Experiment: A comedic look at how not to make a movie".


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


user
I rented this one by accident. I lifted the video up and looked at the back and thought "shameless Blair Witch rip-off". Then, in a moment of carelessness, I grabbed 'The Francisville Experiment' thinking it was something else. My horror upon arriving home and realizing my mistake was far more terrifying than anything this film had to offer. Boring Characters, bad acting, and a feeling of 'we saw the Blair Witch Project and could do the same' permeate the action to the point where watching on fast forward will lead you straight to the credits. I'm not one to fault film makers for being lazy or desperate, but after this yawn-fest I felt the need to warn everyone: don't waste your time, you have a life.


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


user
Ted Nicolaou made a lot of great horror and fantasy films. I am looking for all his films to see. I could not find this one for 3 year, until I unexpectedly found it in youtube. To tell the truth I wanted to see more ghosts and less talks here. It looks like in 1999-2001 Ted had a crisis , maybe in money. His features of this time look more like real low budget thrash z garbage movies. But I do not claim him to be a bad director this time . Everything happens. The ending has some nice creepy details and suspense but the whole film was long dull dialogues .
only for real Ted's fans.
www.myspace.com/neizvestnostlab


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


user
Imagine if you will: four teen students have an assignment to spend the night in a haunted house in St. Francisville, Louisiana to check for the existence of the paranormal. If you watch this in the dark and late at night; you possibly will have the hair on the back of your neck rise a couple of times. Otherwise this mock documentary is a very lazy rip off of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. What is to be dialogue is very lame and the actors are pleasant looking enough, but seem to lack genuine personality. It seems to take forever before something real spooky even happens. This movie is excellent for 'sleep overs', when you have both eyes barely open and everyone is yakin' and snackin'.


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


user
Obviously, someone was looking at catching onto the "Blair Witch" wave.
This movie was set up like all the "reality" haunted shows that are popping up on TV lately (and I must admit, I get a kick out of these), but this movie is MUCH cheesier! Probably the first three-quarters of the movie is filled with the "participants" going through the house, WHINING. Give me a break! Spending 10 minutes whining about going up into the attic is not my idea of a good time. Any paranormal happenings are blatant setups. No strings, but too perfectly caught on camera to be real. The "participants" were not very likeable either. Two goofy guys who don't take it seriously, one girl who scares at the drop of a hat, and the quintessential over-played "paranormal" person. Is this becoming the clichéd-"formula" for a ghost movie?
I have to admit, the last 15 minutes or so were pure tension. They took every ounce of tension in the movie and stuck it in those 15 minutes. I admit, I spent that time pacing in the kitchen. I really wouldn't recommend this movie to younger viewers, even if it is PG13.
If you're looking for some entertainment, if you don't take it seriously, you will get a kick out of this movie. There's tons of situations to make cracks about! If you're looking for an great story-line.. look elsewhere ;)


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 a LOT of repetitive dialogue in this movie about "cold spots" (signaling the presence of a ghost), and characters praying to surround themselves with white light to protect themselves. To recreate the feeling of the movie, I shall repeatedly make references to cold spots throughout this review. I'e seen worse movies than the St. Francisville Experiment, but this may be the most *forgettable* one of all ("it's getting cold!") Basically some 20-somethings spend the night at a haunted house. This is filmed as a supposedly true documentary. It's obviously not real, but the house does contain some cold spots. SPOILERS- (as if you won't be able to predict most of the plot!). Not much happens in this film. We have the time-honored horror cliche of a cat jumping out of hiding near the beginning, as a "practice" scare to warm up the audience. The people wander around with flashlights, occasionally taking a moment to remind the house that they come in peace- that they mean no harm to the spirits (or cold spots) within. Now and then a door will swing shut and startle somebody. Of course , the ouija board makes an appearance. They chat with a ghost named "Charles". A girl eats a sandwich with a cockroach in it. More cold spots. Another door swings shut and some guy goes off about the scuff sound of the door. Scuff, scuff, he says. Oh my god, somebody says. "Surround yourself with white light." I admit there is a good scene in the attic (where a chair is knocked over by a ghost) that really caught me off guard. But aside from some funny bad dialogue, the chair scene (the actual split-second when it is knocked over, nothing immediately before or after that moment) is the only good thing in this movie. However there are still some cold spots in here. Eventually, the movie ends. Nobody dies. No more details necessary. I wasn't a big fan of Blair Witch Project, but it looks like a masterpiece next to the St. Francisville Experiment. You may find yourself not debating whether or not this is a real documentary, but whether or not it was intended to be funny. I still don't know. But whatever it was intended to be, it failed.


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


user
This film is a good companion to Blair Witch, because it does so much wrong that BW did right. Like BW, this one pretends to be a documentary of ghostly events, with each member of the team manning his/her own camera.
The sense of reality is never there, however. The participants are poorly written clichéd characters and the events that take place are equally clichéd (the cat jumping out of a closet, falling chandelier, etc). Also the stilted dialog and inept improv work by the overly-attractive cast detracts from the docu feel. AND, worst of all, the supposedly participant-held cameras record too many events too perfectly to be even remotely believable. Actually, with some re-editing, this thing could have been a Blair Witch parody. In fact, there is a scene in which the blond historian is eating a sandwich with a huge roach on it that is actually pretty funny as is, reminding me of a similar gross out scene from "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me." But in the end the event is played straight, with no punchline. It's hard to tell what the intent was with The St Francisville Experiment other than to glom a few stray BW bucks. But it's pretty sad when the only real interest I could find in it was whether the blond historian was going to have her t-shirt tied up off her belly in a particular shot or not.


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


user
I just watched this movie with a few friends they said I had to see it but from the beginning i knew it was going to go from bad to worse. So I can only give this movie a 1 because the effects that were used were so poorly used and thought out that anyone can see that there were no "real" ghosts. I feel the worst part was this so called "old haunted house" contained a whole bunch of new items and a few "convieniently placed items" I could have thought up effects that would have looked much better than a chair being flipped over by an unseen ghost (or should i say wire). Then later when they review the tape of the chair flipping it flips in a different way. Uh Oh thats a big continuity error. If this was a truly good movie then they would have caught that and all of the other "old house" items. This movie is like a rip off of house on haunted hill and the Blair witch project all rolled into one poorly thought out and assembled movie. I would be ashamed to put out something with that bad of acting, effects and cheap video shots of the girls chests and how convenient the camera falls when something "paranormal" happens. This movie is an insult to people who are out there actually looking for ghosts and getting real ghost footage on tape.


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


user
I realize why people hate this film. And, I hated Blair Witch Project,so go figure? This is about as staged as it gets & yes they do insult your intelligence by trying to make it seem real.I really liked the madame lalaurie storyline though it's more than likely made up. But, the main reason I like this film, is fake or not when the ghosts start attacking & kidnapping them,I get chill-bumps every time & have to look behind me as it feels like something's there with me.i know it's my imagination, but hey more than half of the drivel that is horror in today's cinemas & DVD's doesn't give me goosebumps,so that makes this a creepy delight.Not for everyone, as skeptics will hate it & not for gorehounds as with a PG-13 rating there is no gore. And, the females are very annoying!You'll wish the ghosts would take them off & experiment on them before it's all said & done. ** out of *****.


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


user
why oh why did i ever waste my time watching this film? it was given to me on video by a friend and i thought i'll watch it, it can't be that bad surely. firstly the acting is simply appalling and we're supposed to believe this is real? secondly this film is blatantly trying to copy the Blair witch project (yawn) and does so very poorly. so if you want the fright of your life i would suggest that a Simpson's Halloween special would be far scarier. but, if you just wanted to a laugh then maybe the general crapness of this film would suffice. but overall i would avoid this film at all costs or drink a large amount of alcohol before viewing. the best bit? its only about an hour and a half, thank god.


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


user
I suppose for 1961 this film was supposed to be " cool " , but looking back now ( 45 years ) it's charm was just as silly as it's entertainment value ! Granted , the special effects do well on T.V. with the Series that started in 1964 , but for the BIG screen ?? I once had a fish tank that was equally as exciting ! I must agree about the Octopus scene near the end where it attached itself to the Seaview. Obviously not well staged...or trained ! Overall , it's pretty bad acting with shoddy special effects and I still do recommend it - for fun laughs sake. This was probably one of Irwin Allen's Biggest films and I think he thought a lot of it . Barabara Eden went on to play " Genie " on T.V. Micheal Ansara was her Husband . Now that is a cool part about this film ! I always enjoyed seeing real life Husband and Wife teams star in the same movie . Neat !


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 sure that any legitimate submariner would happily ship out on the USOS Seaview (yes, SOS...) Why, you could play full-court basketball in the torpedo room, it's so large. And how 'bout the bay windows in the bow, the better to see giant squids or minefields that appear out of nowhere? Did I mention the colorful mess-cook with the parrot on his shoulder? And the Admiral's stateroom with what appears to be a loft? Big bleeping sub...
OK, OK...it's never gonna win any prizes for authenticity. And if the sub is laughable, the plot is even worse. Somehow the Van Allen belts of radiation, hundreds of miles in space, have "caught fire" are going to make global warming look like a weenie roast. Pompous Admiral Nelson (Walter Pidgeon), along with his sidekick Lucius (Peter Lorre, looking suitably uncomfortable) hatch a scheme to put out the fire by firing a missile into its midst.
There's plenty of intrigue (sic) along the way, with a born-again survivor (and his little dog, too!) two "dames" who can never leave well enough alone, a passel of "red shirts" who are expendable, and plot holes big enough for Godzilla to walk through. Thrill to the Seaview being chased at what looks like 60 miles per hour by another sub -- no need for advanced sonar when you can follow from 100 feet astern.
The movie careens from one cliff-hanger to another; the payoff is so anticlimactic as to be pointless, certainly not worth the 1 hour and 50 minute wait.
The technical adviser for this shipwreck must have been a 14-year old boy with a stack of Popular Mechanics magazines. Worth watching, if only to riff upon.


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


user
It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for this awful cartoon-like epic that for some reason has become a cult classic. It certainly can't be because of the totally artificial look of the set designs or the limpid acting of an all-star cast. These days it's shown much too frequently on Fox Movie Channel or AMC.
It pains me to report that veteran actors like Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine are even cast in this muddled science fiction travesty, none of which rings true. It's like watching an expensive budget being spent on a Saturday afternoon kiddie show full of cardboard characters and unconvincing dialog. It's a comic book version of the Jules Verne novel.
The maturing Fontaine was still attractive but wears a pained expression on her face, perhaps regretting that she had accepted the role of the psychiatrist before reading the script. She contributes absolutely nothing to her cardboard role but an imperial and uncomfortable presence and looks totally out of place most of the time. Faring no better are Robert Sterling, Barbara Eden and--most of all, Peter Lorre--as well as Frankie Avalon, who gets to sing the title tune which--it's safe to say--did not become anyone's favorite title tune.
An awfully frustrating experience to sit through a film like this which wastes an attractive cast and is an insult to almost anyone's intelligence. Totally unconvincing from start to finish. The film, as well as the fantastic submarine, sinks to the bottom of the sea long before the fight with a rubber octopus brings the film to a dreary conclusion.


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


user
Irwin Allen, past master of cinematic schlock, pulled out all the stops in VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. A badly aged Walter Pidgeon, who actually may have been dead when he played this role, is the commander of an atomic submarine that must be the size of the Empire State Building. Every room is gigantic and some even appear to have no ceilings. You could bowl and hold a formal ball simultaneously in some of these rooms. The sub, called the Seaview, is on its maiden run when all hell breaks loose: the Van Allen radiation belt catches fire and the Seaview must launch a missile into the belt by a certain time or the world will go down in global warming flames! Along for the ride are a bunch of truly terrible character actors, many borrowed from TV. This makes them TV hack-tors. The worst is probably that poor man's Stella Stevens, Barbara Eden, as a naval secretary, squeezed into too-tight clothes, sporting high heels and acting like she's appearing in a beach party flick. Maybe that's because Frankie Avalon is also along for the ride. A badly aged Joan Fontaine, almost unrecognizable here, plays a visiting doctor with a big bad secret, but in truth who cares? VOYAGE is a truly bad movie obviously made for small children, but what child is going to sit still for endless shots of a miniature Seaview model moving over and over again from right to left across the screen in what is obviously a studio tank? There is not one scene where we believe these folks are actually aboard a sub. When the Seaview shakes, the actors fling themselves about, sometimes in opposite directions to one another. Just like on the good old STAR TREK TV series, when the bridge shakes. If I remember correctly, not one fish or sea creature is seen -- except for an octopus that momentarily latches onto the sub, a nod to 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. The octopus, if it was real, was probably about a foot long and it shows. Worse, when folks are standing at the Seaview's glass nose, the ocean they are supposedly watching is obviously a closeup involving an unseen air hose spouting bubbles, probably filmed in a fish tank. You have never seen bigger bubbles in your life. You'd think these bubbles alone would smash the damned sub to pieces. Sadly, a badly aged Peter Lorre is also along for the ride. Near the end, when the missile is entering the flaming belt, Lorre is seen enthusiastically congratulating Pidgeon while everyone else is still waiting for their cue to start shaking hands and embracing one another in victory. A one-take scene if I've ever seen one. What a stinker. It's not even good for a laugh. Stick with SILENT RUNNING.


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


user
Only a very small child could overlook the absurdities in this bomb; the first difficulty faced by the submarine "Seaview" is what appear to be chunks of--rock? falling down through the water and crashing into its hull. But it's not rock, they're under the North Pole--it is ICE! Everybody, except possibly hitherto mentioned small children (and even some of them) know that ICE FLOATS.
Then, disaster strikes--that darn VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT around the Earth catches fire! No one knows how this happened, we are told, which is understandable, because it is utterly impossible for radiation to "catch fire", and even if it could, there is NO AIR IN SPACE for it to burn.
There is literally no good reason to overlook science concepts basic to 2nd grade school textbooks when making a film; however, Irwin Allen manages to do it again and again; perhaps we are meant to focus on the "people" instead, which is pretty easy, as they are CARDBOARD.
The cast tries very hard not to look embarrassed in this ridiculous sub-kiddie romp, much like later episodes of his "Lost in Space" TV series, the concept of which was swiped outright from writer Ib Melchior and then rushed into production.
The sub looks pretty good, though, which is why this one gets a "2".


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


user
I think Walter Pidgeon was badly miscast in this film. Just not believable in the role. Barbara Eden was beautiful, and acted her part well enough. No one else was at all memorable.
I remember the TV series spun off from this movie when I was a small child. I even think I had a plastic "Seaview" that would submerse and was great for playing with in the bathtub. Long time ago.
As for some of the other criticism I've read for this film: It's certainly unfair to judge special effects or science knowledge of 4 decades ago by today's standards. The effects were OK for 1961. Not great, but OK. As for the science, that was ludicrous even for 1961. There's no excuse. Also, the sub was awfully roomy. I understand that the navy refused any help at all for this film, so maybe the filmmakers just had no idea.
Overall, the film bored me. (And I'm a sci-fi fan.) Can't recommend this one. Grade: D-


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


user
Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish "epic" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from ****


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


user
Jim Varney's first real movie is quite a delight, but don't come in expecting to see Ernest P. Worrel any time soon. I felt the wide array of characters Varney depicted were great, but without being said, the rest of the movie should be put into a mulcher or something. A rather odd beginning for a movie icon.


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


user
My website (www.theflickguy.org) lists this pick as the worst movie of all time. Here is an excerpt:
"If I were strapped down to a chair and forced to watch this movie over and over again, I couldn't imagine Hell being any worse. Jim Varney plays a three-handed crazy guy bent on destroying the world (apparently starting with cinema). Now let's face it, no one expects a whole lot from a Varney movie, but this agonizing drivel had me dry-heaving for 92 minutes. Not a laugh. Not one. This is not kamp or gitchy, this is not even mindless. It is evil. Do not rent this, it may destroy your DVD player. Do not even buy the VHS from a 29-cent clearance bin to use as a blank tape. It is the worst film of all time. Period. I mean it. Really."


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 stupidest movies ever, not THE stupidest mind you but one of the stupidest. This is 96 1/2 minutes of sleep inducing material. Probably Jim Varney's worst movie ever. The last 30 seconds of the film is the best and funniest part but hardly worth sitting through the whole movie for. On the other hand, if you are a die hard Jim Varney/Ernest fan, then like me, you must add this film to your collection. It does have brief, rare moments of humor, although they are few and far between. The mere fact that this movie is so hard to find makes it a collectors item and a must have for your ernest collection. I was lucky to find this film online at a dirt cheap price a couple years ago. I believe I paid 1.99 plus shipping for it. And it was the only copy I could find anywhere. Even though this is a truly all around horrible movie, it is still a must have if you are a Jim Varney fan and an Ernest movie collector such as I. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give this movie a 2 but thats only because I've never seen a 1 before ;)


assistant
0