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
i am working at a video store so i got to see this one for free- thank god, had i paid for it my review would be less forgiving.
well, the major idea of the film (geeky girl takes bloody revenge) isn't all that original, there are several parallels to "carrie" (playing a mean practical joke on a loser, except for one nice girl that is actually sorry for her, tamaras and carries bad family background). i still think it's a fun idea for trashy teen horror flick unfortunately they didn't take much advantage of the potentials that are here and rather put an emphasis on all the wrong things.
what worked: i liked the actress that played tamara. she looked great (when she was hot) and her catty lines were fun ("Sean can't come to the phone. he's f**king patrick!").
what didn't work: the whole wicca thing was silly. i generally prefer rational explanations (she could have ploted the whole thing with her teacher or one of the boys to get her revenge). there were a lot of logical wholes and the gore looked really bad (when the boy is cutting of his ear and his tongue- please!!!)
the whole idea wasn't bound for Oscar buzz, but i just think they wasted the comedic and the suspenseful potential they had. it was bearable but far from good!


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


user
I saw this movie, and I do like horror movies.
I did not know what to expect, but as soon the movie was on his way it was nice to watch it. The idea was pretty original and the acting was nice. Especially Jenna Dewan as the exciting/evil Tamara.
The hardest thing about horror movies, is to make a good ending. But there the movie failed. For a change, a end-scene in a hospital, where suddenly all employees are gone. First you see doctors and nurses running around, but then they all went home?
No cries for help while being chased by Tamara, Escaping to the roof (also a smart move...not) and off course a kind of open ending.
No....the movie started great, the main part was nice to watch, but they really messed up the ending using all clichés from bad horror movies. Jeffrey Reddick failed in my eyes with this movie, after making some really quality movies like Final Destination 1 and 2.
If you like a good horror full of cliché endings, Tamara is a good movie to watch. For me, I like movies which surprise me.


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


user
"Tamara" just felt like another teen oriented knock-off of the "I Know What You Did Last Summer" trend and is painfully dull. A high school outcast, who is heavily into witchcraft and black magic, is accidentally killed during a cruel prank carried out by a group of bullies who secretly bury her in the woods, vowing to tell no one. The next day, the supposedly "dead" Tamara, arrives at school with a completely new image and seduces her would-be killers and has a little revenge... This is basically a combination of "Carrie", "The Craft", and every other straight-to-video, teeny bopper turkey that hits the shelves these days. The actors are absolutely atrocious and look about ten years too old to pass off as high schoolers. There IS some gore, which is actually nothing all that interesting since the movie is so boring and I couldn't wait for it to end. If you like modern garbage than I insist you seek this one out, otherwise don't bother...


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


user
Teenager Tamara (Jenna Dewan) has it rough. She's ridiculed by all the popular "kids" for being shy, bookish, frumpy and because of her interest in witchcraft. All of the football players and cheerleaders are especially angry at her for writing an article on steroid abuse for the school paper. On top of this, her dad's a drunk, her mom's not around and she's secretly in love with her supportive English teacher (Matthew Marsden). The popular kids set up a cruel prank to humiliate her, accidentally kill her during a struggle, bury the body in the woods and make a pact to keep silent. To their shock, the very next day Tamara walks back into the classroom looking seductive and, uh, dressed to kill. Yep, back from the dead and ready for supernatural revenge against everyone involved. She also takes time out to make her sexually abusive pop eat a beer bottle and tries to seduce her English teacher away from his wife (Claudette Mink), a guidance counselor at the school.
Acting and writing are strictly mediocre. You can also tell the people responsible for this have seen such movies as CARRIE (1976), HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II (1987) and THE CRAFT (1996) because it borrows wholesale from all three of those superior films. There's some gore (a guy cutting off his ear and tongue and then stabbing his eyeball probably being the best bit), a nasty vomiting scene and a few campy/witty one-liners. Not an awful film by any means, but not much originality went into it either.


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


user
OK, fans, it's out on DVD. But the only reason to watch this is 1) to say you did (due to its notoriety), or 2) if you're a hardcore Bill Paxton fan. I am not a hardcore BP fan but he was fun to watch and it was the only thing that kept me from turning this off from sheer boredom. It's a shame, because this could have been a good movie with some script work and if made by someone with some intelligence (and with a cast led by someone besides the totally miscast and talentless Judd Nelson). Sure it's gross, but it's BAD, and not in a good way. If after reading all the comments on how bizarrely revolting and dystopianly filthy this movie is you are still interested, do yourself a favor and see some GOOD bizarre revolting dystopian filth instead. Films by John Waters, David Lynch, Peter Jackson's "Braindead", Henenlotter's "Basket Case", etc., all come to mind. There's lots better out there.


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


user
This film was such a mess I actually reimbursed my friends who I dragged to see it. The only reason I went to see it was that my friend was an apprentice editor on the shoot.
I'm sure that this film was meant to be campy, but the approach was so heavy-handed and self-reflexive it turned out really flat. Judd Nelson stars as an obsequious garbage man who is a hack comedian on the side. His life is hell and made worse by his obnoxious and overbearing companion Bill Paxton (who I feel embarrassed for - this was a really tasteless role for a talented actor). A freak accident alters Nelson's career course and mayhem ensues.
The attempts at humor were corny, predictable and often base and tasteless. Wayne Newton in the cast as a talent agent is a novelty but he adds nothing - comedically or otherwise.
Overall, it's a very weak and uncreative attempt at camp humor that goes over like a lead balloon. At least you could laugh AT Plan 9 From Outer Space. This one just makes you wonder who thought this was a good enough idea to finance and film. One of the all time worst bombs you'll ever witness.


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 invited to view this film at a small art museum screening. I had no clue what to expect. I was initially optimistic in the opening credits to see Judd Nelson, Bill Paxton, Wayne Newton, James Cann, Rob Lowe, and Lara-Flynn-Boyle listed. However after some very disturbing grossed-out scenes (that did not add much to the story advancement), this film quickly became a weapon of torture. The gimmick of the vestigial growing arm storyline is never really developed. I patiently kept waiting for this film to cash-in. There was a small payoff in the end, but having to invest and sit through the the endless gross, crude, sexually-perverted, in-your-face screaming, unfunny gore cost too much for me (even for a free viewing). What were these established actors doing in this awful film? The art direction was very convincing and creepy. At the very minimum, it should only be a 75-minute film. This is a film that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would embrace.


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


user
A friend warned me that this was the worst movie he had ever seen. I was curious, because it had developed a bit of a cult status. I like a lot of odd indie cult movies so I gave it a shot. I have to agree with my friend. It is a steaming pile of dung. I am sorry to the people who love this movie, but I can recommend much better stuff if you want to watch a twisted indie cult film. Try Peter Jackson's Dead Alive (aka Braindead), Cemetery Man (aka Dellamorte Dellamore) , or Modern vampires.


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


user
This movie has no heart and no soul; it's an attempt to whomp up a cult film out of the leavings of other, better, directors, principally David Lynch and Tim Burton. Rifkin seems to think that if he overloads on a kind of rotted visual style and fills the street with crud and garbage, he's making a statement. But it's not a statement ABOUT anything -- except the director's shrill shriek of "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M AN ARTIST, TOO." But he doesn't have the imagination of an artist, just a good memory for things that worked -- such as some of the actors trapped in this -- for other directors. All of this would be almost acceptable if this movie was not a turgid, boring chore to sit through.


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


user
. . . and never, ever see it. Now, I've been watching bad scifi movies for years. I love watching bad scifi movies. I think that was the only reason I could watch this movie the whole way through. I was toughened up by "Nukie," "Indian Superman," and that awful "Fantastic Four" movie, just to name some examples. Usually, I have to beat my head against the wall after I've seen a bad movie to make some of the pain go away. No, not with this one. With "TDB," I had to hit myself in the head with a shoe in the middle of the movie. Temporary fix. I can't believe I wanted to see that. I cried. When it finished, I cried. It was horrible. It was worse than when I saw *shudders* Wil Wheaton in his underwear in "The Curse," which, by the way, never watch either. Aside from the fact that Wesley Crusher's in his tighty whiteys, it's just sooo bad. But this review is about "TDB." The worst part about it is that someone wrote this movie and said, "This deserves to go on film! It's great!" and Wayne Newton, Rob Lowe, and everyone else in the cast said, "Oh, this is what I want on my film history!" I'll watch "Indian Superman" until the cows come home, but I am never going to see this steaming pile of dren again.


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


user
i have had this movie, in the back of my head sense i saw it. i have wanted to tell people about it time and again, but never remembered. now i found it. now finally, i can tell people precisely what the absolute worst, most crappy movie i have ever seen in my entire life, bar none is.
this movie is complete trash, and is unfit for a garbage dump. all prints and other copy's of this movie should be rounded up loaded into a large rocket, and launched into the sun. only the purifying heat and pressure of the sun might be able to purify the materials this movie is stored on, so that they can be useful to the universe again.
i like movies. i like bad movies. and yes this is an opinion. but this movie was pure trash, filth, and excrement of some beast that should never be seen let alone named by man.
i would rather watch a Uwe Boll Movie marathon than watch this movie. and i hate Uwe Boll's films.


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


user
This movie starts with interesting set design and a promising premise, but fails to provide the cult-movie goods. Set in a gritty parallel universe where everything is owned by the "Blump" Corporation, it concerns a horrible stand-up comic who finds success when he grows a third arm out of his back.
All the potential for great cheese is here -- washed-up 80's star Judd Nelson, Wayne Newton, offbeat visuals and strange plot digressions, obese women in skimpy lingerie, necrophilia -- but it never pays off.
The pacing is the main problem. Each scene is excrutiatingly slow. Nelson's stand-up routines are supposed to be funny because they're pathetically not funny. But each performance drags on until it's not even tangentially funny, just boring.
Imagine someone telling you the longest, weirdest joke imaginable, full of smirky self-congratulation for how funny and weird he thinks it is. Imagine after a stultifying two hours of this, you never got a punch line. You've just saved yourself the trouble of watching The Dark Backward.


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


user
This is a cheapy biography of a star of the black and white minstrel shows, a certain Dixie Boy Johnson. Whether this person ever really existed I don't know, but considering the cast lists a certain "Lee Lasses White" and Roscoe Karns playing said character as well, I assume the man did exist and that this is a white-washed (pardon the pun) version of his career. The plot, such as it is, follows Dixie Boy from career heights to depression at the death of his wife in childbirth, his abandonment of the child to friends, and his return at his daughter's sixteenth birthday and stage debut for reconciliation. Another forgotten man, Benny Fields, plays Dixie Boy. The man has a lovely baritone voice but no acting talent whatsoever and is a boring lump on screen. Gladys George valiantly tries her best to enliven the works to no avail. Judy Clark does the best impersonation of Betty Hutton I've ever seen although I believe she thought she was being herself. The scoring replete with many musical numbers for its short running time of 70 minutes earned a deserved Oscar nom. Worth a look.


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


user
Some of the early talkies survived to become classics. 1929's "The Squall" is a classic all right, but not in the way it was intended. Melodramatic in story and acting, today it seems ludicrous, particularly the casting of Myrna Loy as Nubi, a seductive gypsy. Imagine Nora Charles breaking up a young couple and driving a young man to steal. Outrageous! However, as many people know, when Loy first came to Hollywood, she did quite a few of these exotic seductress roles.
Based on a play, "The Squall" concerns the aforementioned Gypsy who in the film is now in Hungary (Spain in the play) running away from her cruel master and inviting herself into the home of the Lajos family (Richard Tucker and Alice Joyce), basically by appearing at the door. One by one, Nubi seduces the men of the family and the farm talking her pidgin English ("Nubi not bad! Nubi do nothing wrong!") and dropping hints about nice presents. The son in the family, Paul (Carroll Nye) is engaged to the beautiful Irma (Loretta Young) and can't wait to marry her. He loses interest when he meets Nubi.
With the exception of the lovely Alice Joyce, Zasu Pitts as a woman who lives in the household and the stunningly beautiful Loretta Young, the acting is uniformly awful. Loy is stuck with the hallmarks of her character - bad English, whining and hysteria. With her darkened makeup, peasant getup and curly hair, she is not only beautiful but right out of the 1980s - quite modern, though Richard Tucker's putting the back of his hand on his forehead reminds us we're just emerging from the silents.
Robert Osborne on TCM commented that this film is one of his secret pleasures. While it is deliciously bad, it's not deliciously bad enough to sit through again. It's just bad - but a great example of how far we've come and, had someone not picked up on Myrna Loy's sense of humor, how limited her wonderful career might have been.


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


user
Into a happy household comes the gypsy girl, played by Myrna Loy. With her amazingly wild hair and voice that sounds very high-pitched and weird, it's hard to believe this is Loy!! She bears no similarity whatsoever to the refined and funny character Nora Charles who she played in the Thin Man movies. Instead, she overacts so badly that you'd almost expect her to be in an Ed Wood movie. What a huge difference a few years made in the quality films she got as well as her acting ability!! On top of the horrendously silly character, the film also fails because it just isn't interesting or exciting--just very, very stagy and stupid. The only thing good about it is the Vitaphone sound system--making the sound quality of this turkey about the best I have heard from 1929. Heck, it was even better than most 1930 films, so the sound technician at least has something to be proud of--all others, forget it.
This is a movie that even the host of Turner Classic Movies referred to as a "guilty pleasure" because the movie is so bad! And, after having seen it I disagree...slightly. The movie is simply bad.


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 a lot of Myrna Loy movies. This film was produced before her character actor personality was developed. It would be an okay short film but seems to go on forever in it's complete form.
Myrna Loy it seems is told what to do with her acting and does the job. That is about all you can say about her.
Her gypsy character is shoddy and the film has many flaws, such as the jewelry shop scene.
This film will probably be interesting to Myrna Loy fans but even as such is something of a disappointment.


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


user
When I was 13 or so I was lucky enough to find this film. It was part of an endless Danish series of really cheesy stuff. This however was the cheesiest I ever owned - but I guess I sold it, too bad. Well what to write... Better than "Manos: the hands of fate" and worse than "Critters 4". But it's definitely worth an hour and a half since this was made by people who wanted to make it. The acting isn't that terrible compared to several other eighties trash - in fact I kind of like the old man even though he did'NWT look that Indian to me. But I guess you can't have everything... Do yourselves a favour and look this up...


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 most pleasant surprises of this early 3-strip Technicolor short was that a ballet dancer that appears here was named Maria Gambarelli! I half wondered if Blake Edwards was naming the character played by Elke Sommer in A Shot in the Dark after this now-forgotten performer (though the spelling of the Sommer character's surname was actually Gambrelli). I watched this on YouTube mainly to see an early Judy Garland appearance as we watch her in profile with her two older sisters singing "La Cucaracha". That was the highlight for me which otherwise showed some dances (like that of Ms. Gambarelli) that were enjoyable and some lame comedy between Andy Devine as a great bull-fighter (yeah, right!) and Buster Keaton as a bull owner who provides one that is obviously a man in animal costume. Only funny part of those two is when they cry-with Buster providing handkerchief to "bull"-during the sad part of "La Cucaracha". Also lame was seeing Ted Healy without his stooges dealing with a crasher who keeps mistaking Healy for other movie stars. (Healy himself didn't know Zeppo had left The Marx Brothers since he puts "Four" between "The" and "Marx"!) Speaking of a Marx, it was interesting seeing Harpo without his wig though he is wearing a hat to hide his bald head. Also interesting was seeing Ida Lupino among the cowgirls in the beginning though I also recognized Toby Wing from her part in Murder at the Vanities last year (at least when announcer Pete Smith identified her). Oh, and Smith himself wasn't funny with his wise-guy narration. Other famous stars you may or may not recognize are also in cameos and not all are M-G-M contract players either! So with all that said, La fiesta de Santa Barbara is worth a look for anyone curious about Judy Garland's early film appearances or the early use of 3-strip Technicolor.


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


user
'Nuff said. An undercover cop from the state capital is sent to a small county where moonshine running is rampant. He ends up getting run off the road by some local hicks who have no idea he's an undercover cop (so they just drive away as blissfully dopey as ever). He is soon being taken care of by a woman and her three daughters who all wear low-cut tops and short shorts (gotta luv the '70s). He falls in love with one of the girls but in the meantime he still has to find out who's making all the moonshine and driving it to all the local bars and restaurants. He also has to contend with a fat sheriff and his incompetent deputy who think he's the moonshiner 'cause he's new in town.
Life in small town America, 70s style. YEE HAAAAAAAAAAA.


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


user
The film's title makes it sound like a porno but it's not even a sex comedy. Instead, Hot Summer in Barefoot County is about an official sent from a southern state to a small town to locate and arrest moonshiners. The moonshine though is coming from the farm of an old woman with three beautiful daughters. Almost anyone can guess what happens next but oddly, the film is very tame. It hardly even qualifies for a PG rating. What's more, the low budget is obvious in pretty much every shot and the acting is sooooo amateurish. This film was probably intended for the drive-in crowd but it's unlikely that it satisfied them, even in 1974.


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


user
My brother was working at a movie theater when I saw this movie; I saw it for free and still walked out. I have seen a lot of movies in my time but this was the worst. When people ask me what the worst movie I have ever seen was I mention this movie in less than one second. This movie is bad because it goes from one lame plot set-up to the next, it encourages stereotypes about blacks that are sickening and the flow is awful. If you want to see how to make children cry and vomit at the same time then study this movie. Okay, this movie is not good "bad" but terrible bad. If you are like one of those people that watch horrible movies for fun, like me, you will not even be able to make it through this very short film. Please for the love of God destroy all copies of this movie.


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


user
This movie should have ended as soon as the joke about Bebe's Kids is told in the opening. I liked Robin Harris and most of his comedy but the really funny routines were not meant to be something the whole family could go see. Liken it to taking the point of one of Jerry Seinfeld's jokes and attempting to squeeze the joke for as long as you can in order to turn it into a movie. This movie had to be self-serving because I can not find anyone who found the settings or antics familiar. Whats most funny about this movie is the gumption of the writers and producers to pass it off as something of value. 1/10 stars because there is no half star.


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


user
USA's AZN TV purchased the rights to this film and the network is showing it using the English title THE PICKPOCKET.
1997's THE PICKPOCKET takes amateur home-movie style movie making to amazing levels of unpleasantness. The movie depicts a long-winded series of boring wanderings of an uninteresting, confused guy. This lead character, Xiao Wu, does not simply walk about aimlessly. Viewers will unfortunately soon realize that Xiao Wu has an unsurpassed talent to seek out, and remain dormant near the most obnoxious noises to be found in China. Clanging empty tin buckets being beaten with a stick -- he is there. Every old motor in China clunking in agony -- he is there. A crying baby? Yes, you guessed it, he is there! According to THE PICKPOCKET, China is the most irritating unpleasant sounding place on planet Earth.
The only element worse than the sound of THE PICKPOCKET is the photography. The camera shakes, shakes and shakes some more. Finally, the camera stills, but then it falls to the actor's knees and just stays there until someone in the crew realizes the mistake and begins to shake the camera again. Most of the shaky film is framed in distant, long, long, long shots. The few times when the camera gets somewhat close, nothing compelling ever takes place to connect the viewer with what is happening.
The photography is murky, faded and often blurry. The use of color is -- well, there is no sign of intelligence controlling the use of color. Most every shot is held 20 times too long. Few movies are so painful to sit through. This film is painful to watch, and painful to hear. And then it simply ends.
John Woo fans might enjoy being able to hear part of the soundtrack to DIE XUE SHUANG XIONG (THE KILLER) as the lead character is hanging outside of a video store for many minutes. Anyway, be warned -- THE PICKPOCKET will steal away your good time.


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


user
This is a case of taking a fairy tale too far. The Enchanted Cottage delivers Dorothy McGuire as a "terrible ugly" spinster and Robert Young as a disfigured pilot. Long story short: Scarface marries Spinster, after which their love transforms them, miraculously (lighting, cosmetics and the removal of fake scars), into beautiful peoplea magical change that they attribute to the enchantment of living in a seaside cottage that has been the abode of generations of honeymooners.
If the story stopped there, fine; it would be a fable with a proverbial message: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it lurches ahead, reaching for reality. When Mr. and Mrs. Scarface greet their public, it comes as a painful shock to them that they're still homely. You see, they only appear beautiful to each other a situation which the audience is well prepared for because all the secondary characters have been sermonizing that ill-favored people really need to lower their expectations, and find other ways to be happy. You know. Take up hobbies. Spinster does woodcuts, for instance. Scarface considers collecting driftwood.
The original playwright (Arthur Wing Pinero) and the filmmakers have zero faith in human nature. Their message is: You're either ugly or pretty, and no pretty person would ever love an ugly one. What's even worse, ugly people evidently need to imagine their lover as pretty. Reality just won't do.
One wonders what Elaine Mason saw every day when she looked at her husband, Stephen Hawking.


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


user
I hadn't seen this in many years. The acting was so good as I began this time, I thought, "Great! Another movie I misjudged as a foolish young man." But then the theme started to be clear and I felt the same way.
This was Hollywood, the seat of glamor; so the concept shouldn't be a surprise. But it is so condescending a concept I feel as if I need to take a shower after watching it. In brief, it tells us that even physically ugly people can seem beautiful to each other and even feel attractive.
Dorothy McGuire is likable as the homely heroine. She seems to have been filmed wearing minimal make-up. Robert Young is injured in the war and feels scarred. His parents can't bear to look at him either. He seems to have all his faculties and in part, the notions of disability are outmoded.
Herbert Marshall is on hand as a blind pianist. His character speaks is hushed tones and is omniscient.
The best performance is given by Mildred Natwick as the owner of the title residence. She is bitter and dour but not made of ice. Her story is much more interesting, and believable, than that of McGuire and Young.


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


user
Before the days of home video, Stan Laurel's pre-Hardy comedy 'Kill or Cure' was known -- to the extent that it was known at all -- only because a few sequences were included in Robert Youngson's compilation film 'Laurel and Hardy's Laughing 20's'. Youngson knew what he was doing: the best gags in 'Kill or Cure' were brought intact into his compilation, while the rest of this only mildly funny comedy remained on Youngson's cutting-room floor.
Laurel portrays a commercial traveller, hawking a patent medicine cried Professor I.O. Dine's Knox-All: that name is the funniest joke in this movie, which ain't sayin' much. I should point out that this movie dates from 1923, the shank of Prohibition. During Prohibition, quite a lot of Americans purchased patent medicine if it had (ahem!) 'medicinal' properties, so -- if Knox-All contains alcohol -- Stan's job in this movie is less desperate than the one which he and Ollie famously had in 'Big Business', selling Christmas trees in the summer. Too bad for this movie that it's not nearly so funny as 'Big Business'.
We see Stan (but don't hear him, in this silent film) delivering a spirited sales talk to a man who seems to be paying attention ... until we learn that they're standing outside a deaf-mute institution, and this man is deaf. A haughty woman emerges from the gates: Stan quickly tries to engage her attention by wiggling his fingers at her. Of course she's not deaf, and she promptly whacks him with her umbrella. I found this sequence offensive, NOT because it involves deaf people (the deaf aren't the butt of the joke) but because it abets the very widely-held misconception among hearing people that they can communicate with the deaf by merely waggling their fingers randomly and performing Charades without actually learning the highly complex grammar of sign language.
More amusingly, a spinster in this movie has a pet canary named Rudolph (as in Valentino), and there's a gag involving trick photography to enable a man to hide behind an object that's narrower than his body. I've seen this device in several cartoons and live-action movies but 'Kill or Cure' is, I think, the earliest movie to use it that I've seen so far.
Stan Laurel, an under-rated actor, does one bit of physical business here that's worthy of Chaplin or Keaton, in which he conveys his emotions -- and a change in his demeanour -- while walking away from the camera with his back to us. Still, Laurel never really became a first-rate comedian until he united with Oliver Hardy to form the greatest comedy team ever. 'Kill or Cure' barely rates 3 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
My wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.
The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely "over-the-top." One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and naïve husband sics his ferret on an "innocent" (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.
When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by.


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


user
Why bother to see this movie? It probably rates an award for being the worst career move of a major movie star since Clark Gable's laughable playing of an Irish patriot in Parnell.
It's inconceivable that Bergman would choose both this movie and its director over a lucrative Hollywood career where she could choose among the finest scripts and directors being offered at that time. To begin with, there was no script to work with except a few notes. Then we are supposed to believe the polished Bergman as a poor refugee willing to do anything to be released from a refugee camp, including marriage to a poor Italian fisherman she doesn't even love. I read where Anna Magnani was the original choice for this part. If so, that made a lot more sense than to cast the luminous Bergman in such a proletarian part. But since she was in love with her director, common sense flew out the window.
So she goes to live in this poor village where the men must toil to extract a meager living from the sea. A place she obviously hates to be and where she doesn't fit in.
Her only friend is the village priest who knows she's not suited to the life of a poor fisherman's bride, but tells her that for the sake of love she must repress her true feelings of revulsion, and accept the poverty and despair she encounters each day. On top of all of this, there's this volcano always on the brink of erupting and drowning them all in hot lava. But like a true heroine, Bergman revolts against her misery by declaring war on just about everyone else in this dreary film. She even goes as far as trying to seduce the village priest, in a scene that would generate laughter if it were not so pathetic. Since her poor slob of a husband must lock her in a room to keep her from running away, she's forced to use her body to bribe a married man to take her off the island. To her, no sacrifice is too great; no man unapproachable if he is willing to help her to escape the island and her misery. I won't bother to tell you how this all ends. The no-script movie ending is as plausible as the rest of STROMBOLI. I even remember (from seeing it on late night TV) that it had two different endings! So be warned if you should feel brave enough to sit through this king-size turkey and catch the miscast Bergman. It led to her downfall in Hollywood for the next seven years and she was condemned for sleeping with her director while still married to Peter Lindstrom. None of the movies she made with this director(whom she later married) are noteworthy except as proof of a career gone berserk. I kid you not. It's pretty embarrassing.
- - SoundTrack


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 really a shame there was so much controversy surrounding this picture (in other words, the infamous affair between Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini), as this drew a lot of attention to a very forgettable film. The story is incredibly slow, cheap looking and uninteresting. And, to top this off, the film is stuffed to the brim with amateurish actors who can barely speak any English. I really would have preferred subtitles--it would have made the experience less exhausting. Back to the rotten acting. The Neo-realist movement was big in Italy at the time this film was made. Many of these films are absolute masterpieces (such as De Sica's Umberto D., The Children Are Watching Us and Miracle in Milan) because they got so much out of the non-professional actors. They behaved like normal people, but in Stromboli they act like normal people TRYING to be actors and come off very badly--like kids in a school play.
By the way,...if you are hoping the movie has a good ending (thereby making your time commitment to the film worth while), DON'T bother. The plot was just totally uninvolving and silly--so much so, that I really found that I could have cared less about the characters. Like the island they all inhabit, the film is desolate and without color or life.


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


user
Can u believe a college professor made this film?????
The same man who made DHOOP
The film is horrible and has some of the weird scenes ever
The main message is nice but presented badly
The film looks like a collage of amateurish scenes, miscasts.etc and bad performances
Direction and everything is poor
Music is okay
Emraan's naughty streak works and he does well Tusshar is bad Tanushree and Isha are bad Paresh annoys when he looks at the mirror


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


user
Wow. As soon as I saw this movie's cover, I immediately wanted to watch it because it looked so bad. Sometimes I watch Bollywood movies just because they're so bad that it will be entertaining (eg. Koi Mil Gaya). This movie had all the elements of an atrocious film: a "gang of local thugs" that is completely harmless, a poorly done motorcycle scene, horrible dialouge ("Congrats son, I am very proud that you are a Bad Boy"), actors playing basketball as if they are good, atrocious songs ("Me bad, me bad, me bad bad boy"), unexplained plot lines like why are the Good Boy and Bad Boy friends??? And why is the hot girl in love with the nerd?? I've never seen such a poorly constructed story with such horrible directly. Some of the scenes actually took 30 seconds long like the one where the Good and Bad Boys inexplicably ran over the "gang member's" poker game. Congrats Ashwini Chaudry, you are a Bad Director. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Guru, if you want to watch a movie so bad that it's actually entertaining, then watch Good Boy, Boy.


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 have plenty of time to kill and the DVD was given to you by your friend for free but still it may require lot of courage to watch this film which does not have good script or humor for that matter.
On the acting front imran is frozen in time/acting, Tushar Kapoor was slightly better than Imran in this movie Paresh Rawal was good at comedy was usual.
The story revolves around a college campus where Imran is a bad boy n Tushar is the good one, they pretend to be the opposite of respective nature and so the story goes on.....
Watch it only if you don't have any thing to do and the film is running on your local cable TV.


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


user
Oh mY God That has got to be one of the Most USELESS BRAINLESS STUPIDEST Comedy Ever Made!! What has Happened to Subhash Ghai, Even Apna Sapna Money Money Was Worth Watching
Eww! GOD This Movie Stinks
Do Not Watch it Save your Money Bad Movie Bad Cast Bad Jokes Bad Acting, even this movie is an Example of Shoe Polish being Rubbed on a Face
Trust me This movie does even make you smile, Vulgar Jokes, Cheap jokes,A Really Stupid Movie with No concepts
Rating 0 on 10
AWFUL Movie those are the two hours im never getting back....
Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi of Pakistan


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


user
I am an Indian residing in the United States. Why India continues, like a dumb animal, to emulate everything American is beyond me!! The main problems with the movie aren't so much the inane plot and dumb comedy. It is that this movie has a lot of sex, touching, women dressing like strumpets in the streets, and a lot of cursing that doesn't belong anywhere on T.V.
To the producers and directors of this movie, I have this message: You continue to weaken our nation's strong family values by making this sort of junk. You continue to let young women think it's okay to have a feminist attitude and have no morals. You continue to make dance songs that belong in the lowest of adult clubs and bars. I am ashamed to be an Indian after seeing movies like this.
In 2003, the United States government suggested that the best way to destroy Iran is to 'send miniskirts' there. There is no need to do that for India. We will destroy ourselves with rubbish like this.


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've seen Atlantis 1, then you'd know that what made that film truly great was brilliant animation and a good script. This movie was SO sloppily drawn and animated. The story is also dopey. I was so disappointed in this half-baked drivel that I couldn't make it past the first hour, and MAN did I try! The one thing this film had was that it expanded the "mole" character, making him both more sympathetic and three dimensional. Take it from me, judge this junk from the cover on the video box. The cover is poorly drawn Disney schlock, clearly grabbing for an easy buck from an unsuspecting parent. If this was a stand alone flick, it wouldn't be so bad, but riding on the coattails of a brilliant piece like Atlantis makes it utterly inexcuseable.


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


user
I will not say much about this film, because there is not much to say, because there is not much there to talk about. The only good thing about this movie is that our favorite characters from "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" are back. Several of the bad things about this movie are that it has horrible characters, it has horrible comedy, horrible animation, and James Arnold Taylor trying to copy the wonderful, one and only Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch. The reasons for my criticisms are that all the characters are changed into something that they never were, and never should be, animation that has been downgraded to the lowest extent possible, and finally, why would somebody who did wonderful voice-over work for Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Clone Wars" want to copy Michael J. Fox? I happen to have an answer to this. Because they are the same person who thought he had to copy Eddie Murphy from Mulan in Mulan II. Yes, sadly, it is true.
.


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


user
Because Disney more often than not, ignores the animation quality and a need for a good plot in their sequels, this was actually a nice surprise. I don't know why Disney does not pay more attention to their sequels. The graphics quality is always inferior; no backgrounds worthy of the name Disney, inane plots, and worse dialog, with little or no attention given to the actual story, and the caricature drawings are almost always worse than Saturday morning cartoons in detail and quality.
The animation quality is still poor when compared to Disney originals, and the dialog is quite trite, the story line and overall execution was really quite enjoyable.
While it is not as captivating, it does not completely fail to capture the charm and/or mystery from the first. There is some hint of it, tucked away here and there.
The children will like it, at any rate.
It rates a 4.5/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
When I put this movie in my DVD player, and sat down with a coke and some chips, I had some expectations. I was hoping that this movie would contain some of the strong-points of the first movie: Awsome animation, good flowing story, excellent voice cast, funny comedy and a kick-ass soundtrack. But, to my disappointment, not any of this is to be found in Atlantis: Milo's Return. Had I read some reviews first, I might not have been so let down. The following paragraph will be directed to those who have seen the first movie, and who enjoyed it primarily for the points mentioned.
When the first scene appears, your in for a shock if you just picked Atlantis: Milo's Return from the display-case at your local videoshop (or whatever), and had the expectations I had. The music feels as a bad imitation of the first movie, and the voice cast has been replaced by a not so fitting one. (With the exception of a few characters, like the voice of Sweet). The actual drawings isnt that bad, but the animation in particular is a sad sight. The storyline is also pretty weak, as its more like three episodes of Schooby-Doo than the single adventurous story we got the last time. But dont misunderstand, it's not very good Schooby-Doo episodes. I didnt laugh a single time, although I might have sniggered once or twice.
To the audience who haven't seen the first movie, or don't especially care for a similar sequel, here is a fast review of this movie as a stand-alone product: If you liked schooby-doo, you might like this movie. If you didn't, you could still enjoy this movie if you have nothing else to do. And I suspect it might be a good kids movie, but I wouldn't know. It might have been better if Milo's Return had been a three-episode series on a cartoon channel, or on breakfast TV.


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


user
What the (beep) is going wrong with Disney the last years? Are there totally run out of good ideas? Where is the magic? Where are the good animators, the good songwriters, the good directors, the good... Okay, i know, Walt himself and the famous "nine old man" can't come back. But is this a reason to crank out countless of those cheap sequels and slowly but surely destroying the ideals of Walt Disney? I never rent or bought a Disney-sequel of what movie however. Because i had read much enough about its (absence of) quality. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return" was aired today on TV in Germany and so i watch it. It confirmed my doubts about sequels. It was absolutely boring. Flaw animation, primitive color-rotation, simple characters, some unsuccessful tries to simulate the famous Multiplane-Camera with CGI, mediocre music and a patchwork of different, simple stories. It looks absolutely not like Disney! Not like Disney i know! It looks like one of the countless, cheap and simple animation-series like "DragonballZ", "Beyblade" etc. that aired every day on TV for children.
My first reaction after showing this crap, was to load "Bambi" in my DVD-Player, to see Disney's immortal magic, depth, spirit and charm again, to see Disney on its climax again, to see the awesome art of handmade animation again. "Bambi" was the first (and until today the only) movie that i give 10 out of 10 stars. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return"? No magic, no depth, no charm, no spirit... It deserved only 3 out of 10!


assistant
0