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 recently rented Twister, a movie I'd seen several years ago on TV, and it has aged well; I found myself laughing out loud several times at it and as weird as all these people are, by the end I profoundly cared about them. This is the sort of little movie that is made for a cult audience because, rather like Howdy's gazpacho (well, I think that's what it is), it's an acquired taste: you have to be attuned to its peculiar wavelength. The production values might be charitably called inexpensive and the pace and atmosphere take a while to get settled, but the film has a "look", especially in some wonderful shots contrasting the dry flatness of the land with the cluttery nouveau-riche opulence of the mansion interior: Michael Almereyda had a good eye even then. Life with sodapop magnate Eugene Cleveland (Harry Dean Stanton) and his household (two adult children, a grandchild, and a housekeeper) seems so detached from life outside we could be in Gormenghast. Everyone in this film is wonderful (especially Suzy Amis and Crispin Glover as the directionless genius siblings Maureen and Howdy), inhabiting their roles so comfortably after a while you just buy the strange premise, that somehow, having survived the tornado and being apparently incapable of happiness, these people are lucky, and yet don't know quite what to do with their luck. There are some truly great scenes: Eugene's sudden confrontations first with his gold-digging children's tv host girlfriend Virginia (an acidly pert Lois Chiles), then with his children; William S. Burroughs taking target practice in the barn and telling a story about a mysterious Jim; Maureen's boyfriend Chris proving himself by battling a shed full of wasps cloaked in a tablecloth and doily and old fedora; Howdy, Violet, Maureen and Chris all sitting on the couch (the latter three in appropriately lightweight summer garments, the former in a red blazer and black leather rock'n'roll gear) staring at images of deserts on the huge tv, and contemplating the future (the images were done by Bill Viola, who did the backdrop video installation for Nine Inch Nails' last tour). Crispin Glover is predictably magnificent as Howdy: as always, he remains perfectly in character. Howdy has made a cult of his misery and brilliance; he's like the Oscar Wilde of Kansas, striving to live up to his red velvet suit. Whether he's thrashing away tunelessly yet loudly on an electric guitar, cracking a fullsize bullwhip while wearing an all-black cowboy outfit, demolishing a room, or even doing simple things like driving or pouring the aforementioned soup from a blender pitcher, he's mesmerizing. If you like his work, you'll like this.


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


user
This film is on my top 20 comedies list. This is a truly unique film. To the reviewer who said "I must be really missing something."--you are correct. You are missing something. If you don't have the kind of sense of humor this film requires, that's one thing. But don't give it a bad review because you think it's "looney" but isn't intended to be. Loony is an apt description of both what it intends to be and what it succeeds in being. I laughed much more often and much more intensely at this film than I do at most other funny films.
Michael Almereyda brought out the best in his cast in this, his first big film, for which he was nominated for an Independent Spirit award for Best First Feature. Crispin Glover, as usual, is absolutely brilliant in some perfectly inexplicable way, and some of his very funniest lines ever were said in this film. Glover is clearly the best comic actor working right now. Harry Dean Stanton puts in an excellent comic performance. William Burroughs is incredible in a small role. Dylan McDermott was ideally cast, and Lois Chiles is completely excellent.
All of the above are perfectly funny in their own perfect way, but this is one of Crispin's finest performances--up there with his performances in River's Edge and Willard. If you are a Crispin Glover fan, but have somehow overlooked this film, you need to stop whatever it is you're doing and see this immediately.
But just remember to relax first, and maybe have a beer or something. This is a great film, but it is very unusual, and I recommend being in or inducing an appropriately silly state of mind before viewing.


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


user
This is a great film with an amazing cast. Crispen Glover is at his freakiest . His guitar solo is amazing. Also watch out for a cameo by William Burroughs. Truly a cult classic. This is on my top ten list. Don't miss this twisted film.


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


user
Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!!


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


user
It's really rather Simple. The Name of the Movie Is Death Bed, The Bed that Eats. If you are anything like me, You already know if you are going to like this movie. I stumbled across this gem at Best Buy the other day and picked it up for Ten Bucks. I got ten bucks worth of enjoyment out of the title, and the box alone.
I'm a huge fan of B movies. This is in my opinion one of the greatest B movies i've ever seen. Now, it's not for every one.
Granted, it's not even for most people. As a matter of fact, i suspect their are only going to be a handful of us who truly enjoy this movie.
For those of you who like B movies though, this film is a Diamond in the rough. It has a great premise, A bed... That eat's people. It doesn't walk, it doesn't move, it doesn't have a siren call to attract people. It pretty much relies on people wandering by and sitting on it.
I loved every inch of this movie and have already seen it three times in the scant weeks i've owned it.
Like I said, After reading the title of the film, You already know if you'll like it. If you laughed or smiled, Then give it a go. it's worth it.


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


user
I'm not sure what I can add that hasn't already been said in some of these other fine, and quite hilarious, comments, but Ill try.
So you know the plot: there is a bed possessed by a demon that "absorbs" and selectively disintegrates the bodies of whoever (or whatever) lays on it with its orange soda-filled body. We have the man, in some scenes looking uncannily like Robert Smith of The Cure, hanging out inside the wall commenting on the goings-on, and we have our various victims that just cant resist the comfort of this mystical bed.
This is no ordinary bed. No sirree Bob! Not only does it eat people, but it cleans up after itself, draws the covers back, and it even makes itself. Who wouldn't want a bed like that? It can even use its sheets as a rudimentary "lasso" to wrangle escaped victims back in (especially if they're taking up half the length of the film to try and escape).
Our "main" story (if you can call it that), is about these three girls who go out to this remote area to house-sit(??). I don't recall exactly, but it doesn't really matter though as there are plenty of things that defy convention that you just have to give in and accept. The dialogue in the film is like no other; the characters talk to each other seemingly by telepathy as their mouths never seem to move and there is a constant echo. One of our girls believes she isn't liked by the rest of "the gang" and makes sure to tell us all her feelings on this matter through an echoey voice-over, but we don't care; character development was thrown out the window a LONG time before in this film so why start now? There are scenes when the bed laughs, snores, crunches, and makes various other noises that we assume judging by our cast's non-reaction to said noises, cant be heard. This and the telepathy makes the issue of diegesis very difficult to ascertain...but thats OK....this is Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and it defies all logic so its OK. It makes for a lush dreamy quality to this most bizarre film If you buy (hehe buy...did I say "buy"?) this DVD, make sure to check out the introduction by the director. He explains that the filming of this "flick" started in 1972, didn't wrap up until 1977, he shopped it for a few years with no luck, and then fast forward 26 years to 2003 it gets released on DVD. Supposedly someone somewhere had a print of this in some other country and made bootleg after bootleg of it and it was quite by chance, on a message board no less, that our director found evidence that people knew, and gasp! cared, about his little-known film. Its from there that he decided to give it a shot and release it. I'm glad he did. Once you've even so much as heard the title to this film, you MUST see it. I for one am going to buy this and I'm going to preach its gospel around the world...starting with this comment


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


user
OK, it's easy not to confuse this with the lame Stuart Gordon movie called "Death Bed" that came out a few years back, because this one is "The Bed That Eats". And how do I even begin to describe this? Well, for starters, obviously there is a bed that eats. This is as a result of demon teardrops, which of course affect most things, I guess, in a negative way. The bed is in some old servant's quarters or something, and has been responsible for the disappearances of quite a few people in its time. We have a narrator, who is a ghost that sits in the wall behind a painting, and collects all the non-edible goodies (jewelry, etc) that the bed passes on. He died of consumption, one of the few people to lay in the bed that didn't get eaten, probably because he was sick, he theorizes, as we see him hacking blood into hankies.....bleah. The thing about this movie is that is has a very odd sense of humor to it but it's all played pretty deadpan. The movie is divided into several "acts", I guess, "Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, & Just Desserts". For fans of the unfathomably weird and bizarre, well, this may just be right up your alley. All I can say is you have to see this one to believe it, it pretty well defies description. 8 out of 10 stars.


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


user
Hmmmm. I'm kinda at a loss here. I mean, I know I liked Death Bed, I know I'll be spreading the gospel of Death Bed to all my friends and acquaintances, and if you're reading this, I urge you to see Death Bed, but I can't really say why. Perhaps that's the secret of its charm.
Plot? Well, sort of. There's this bed that eats people (and fried chicken, apples, flowers, suitcases, and any other darn thing that gets near it) by sucking them inside its digestive-fluid filled mattress. Amongst its near-limitless powers, Bed has the ability to keep the spirit of Aubrey Beardsley trapped behind a picture to observe and narrate the events of the film. Various people then wind up at Bed's abandoned mansion (Bed's habit of eating anything that moves gave the place an unsavory reputation), and lay down to have sex, or take a nap, or because they don't feel well, and get eaten, sometimes having trippy dreams first. And in the end we have the explosive final confrontation between Beardsley, Bed's mom (you had to be there), and Bed.
Seems rather straightforward, when I put it like that, doesn't it - well, except for the Aubrey Beardsley part. But something feels constantly off-kilter, and the story seems to glide sleepily from one scene to the next, even when indulging in cheap laughs or strange gore effects. Imagine Bunel crossed with Bergman, then left to soak in a big vat of Herschell Gordon Lewis. The tone of the story shifts from horror, to fairy tale, to comedy, to existential meditation, without breaking stride - an incredible achievement for a no-budget student film shot in the Detroit area.
All in all, an astounding little film that, quite probably, no review can ever completely do justice. See it for yourself.


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


user
A demon, from a tree, removes itself in the form of a human man to make love to a young fair maiden only for her to die. The demon's eyes freeze, two drops of blood fall onto a bed he had specially created for his object of desire. The bed consumes the blood and it's hunger remains..anything that comes in contact with the bed is consumed! This is explained to us by one of the bed's victims, a painter whose soul is trapped "inside" one of his last works, the artistic rendering of the his final resting place(..he was dying of consumption, coughing up blood, deciding to die on the death bed). You see the painter, who we are able to see as if he were trapped in a small room looking through his painting, unfortunately a spectator to the bed's meals. The bed has a dark sense of humor, and we see this through it's allowing the painter to live, even giving him jewelry and other possessions once owned by eaten victims. One victim's skull grows bright red flowers not far from the basement housing the bed. The film features three young women who come across the mansion which holds the basement containing the death bed. The painter(Dave Marsh)might just have a method to destroying the death bed but it will include a human sacrifice in order to resurrect the body of the one whose death caused it's hunger in the first place. Patrick Spence-Thomas provides the soft, depressing voice of the trapped painter, narrating the film, lamenting about his current situation, telling us about past victims, and often scolding the bed of it's predatory nature.
A definitive, genuine cult film..I expect it's status to soar now that DEATH BED:THE BED THAT EATS has found it's way to an audience(..such as myself)who appreciates the bizarre and grotesque. The bed itself contains a liquid type of acid with an apple-cider hue where we see the objects and humans(..struggling for naught) consumed. Many might recognize a young William Russ(BOY MEETS WORLD, THE UNHOLY)in curls, seeking after his runaway sister, finding her in the basement, zombie-like and traumatized(..of course, Julie Ritter pretty much was this way the whole film, in a trance, barely uttering a word)with them both trapped. In one of the film's most demented scenes, Russ attempts to stab the bed only for his hands to get caught in it's grip, the flesh acidified with only skeletal bones remaining, the cartilage deteriorating. There's one lengthly attempted escape by a victim whose legs were caught in the bed, almost out of the basement when it's sheets snatched her back into it's belly where she belonged. The film feels almost completely surreal as if we were watching a macabre nightmare unfold. Director George Barry often features gags regarding the victims who find themselves in the most unfortunate position choosing the death bed as their place of refuge..the painter gives us a recollection of all the various people who were eaten. There's really nothing like this movie anywhere, it's definitely one of a kind.


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


user
George Barry is a genius. "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a prototype for much of the 'slipstream' fiction and camp surrealism that is so chic now. Truly innovative, maverick, and just effing brilliant. Hyper-strange acting, subtly nightmarish atmosphere. I recommend reading Stephen Thrower's book "Nightmare USA" (there is a chapter devoted to Barry and "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats"). Available from FAB Press. On a related note, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" and "Beyond Dream's Door" make a perfect double-bill. Furthermore, it's trite and tired - and ultimately stupidly ironic - to criticize a low-budget cult film for being 'poorly made' or 'technically inept.' The B-movie aesthetic is part of these films' charm. No amount of CGI could duplicate the cumulative effect "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" has on the viewer with an advanced palate.


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


user
"Death Bed:The Bed That Eats" is a supremely bizarre horror film that truly has to be seen to be believed.There is an ancient four-poster bed that just loves to eat humans and it does so anytime it can lure anyone to lie upon it.There is also a long-dead artist,imprisoned behind one of his paintings,who provides a voice-over narration.George Barry's the first and only one film offers some truly surreal moments such as the bed absorbing its victims in a mysterious sea of yellow foam and liquid.The atmosphere is dreamy and there is only a little bit of gore,unfortunately the premise is rather silly and the acting is amateurish.Still as fan of unusual cinema I enjoyed this low-budget oddity.Give it a chance.8 out of 10.


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


user
This film plunges headlong into the realm of the surreal à la Lynch and Jodorowsky--with an atmosphere that is strangely compelling, lulling the viewer with the dream-like intensity of its images.
The narration is to be savoured--the narrator being trapped behind a painting (adjacent to the bed), who often speaks for it, vocalizing its desires and reasoning. Yes, Beardsley would sound like that.
There are some flaws, but its strengths overwhelm its weaknesses. The sequence with the woman wrenching herself out of the bed and crawling across the floor, trying to escape, will leave you breathless.
The film possesses a fin-de-siecle air about it; and should be read as a disarming cry from the bowels of the 20th century.
Find this film and bathe in it.


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


user
I do love B- horror films. I however, am generally not a huge fan of "so stupid it's funny" films. I HAD to rate this so highly simply because Death Bed: the bed that eats, is so one of a kind, and so original. there are plenty of question marks, plenty of plot holes, and the WTF factor is cranked up to 11, but i was really not bored for a second. I really couldn't call it creepy at any point, Every minute i was saying to myself "what the hell is this bed/film going to do next!" I watched this with a friend that is in no way a fan of horror or B- movies, and even she was pretty into it. the effects were actually very inventive and the colors, and atmosphere were quite good. it keeps a very consistent and even tone throughout most of the film, (albeit an incredibly ludicrous consistency) and the acting wasn't TERRIBLE. I can see from the point that there are certain inconsistencies in the actions of the bed that make the suspension of belief damn near impossible, but the film itself was such a unique and bizarre concept, that that fact didn't really bother me. seriously, for me, this film hit that realm of one i will not only never forget, but i guarantee i will find myself thinking back on certain scenes in the future. does anyone else know of any other films in the inanimate objects that eat people genre? totally fantastic.


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


user
I watch a lot of movies. A LOT of movies. Getting a graduate degree in film forces one to watch 2-3 flicks a day for years. It all gets very exhausting. Mostly because I feel I have seen it all. So rare is it when I get surprised by something, mostly I hope to see something as good as I expect it to be.
Death Bed is so unlike anything I have ever experienced I actually had to stop the DVD in order to rant about its genius.
The rhythm of the piece is psychotic. It's structured in a way that forces the viewer to stay outside of the frame. It's not like something like Halloween with all its snappy editing and POV shots; Death bed actually comes across as kind of dreamy. The most pretentious way I can phrase it is: this is Samuel Beckett making a haunted house movie. I mean it's a manic depressive bed that eats people! And fried chicken! Out in the middle of nowhere! And there's bone hands! I can barely articulate my feelings about this film. And yeah, copping to liking this will open you up to ridicule. But things get real same-y after awhile. Its hard to be a cinephile and consistently stay engaged. I can honestly say this is a fully unique film up and down. From what it is to how its put together. We need films like that, movies that shake us out of our complacency. Consider it like existential camp. it's fun and it's stupid, but also brilliant in its weird little way. The worst horror villain of all time? Maybe, but at least it isn't a guy in a mask.


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


user
Death bed: The bed that eats.
Judging from the title, you can guess what this movie is about. And yet there is a lot more (background) story to this film then one might suspect.
Okay, so the main plot is about a bed eating people and food, but there are also a few subplots. I won't spoil them for you, but they're a nice touch.
Sadly, the acting in this movie is very mediocre. The fact that most dialog is not even spoken by the actors doesn't really help to improve the quality of the movie as a whole.
Because there is a lot of voice-over work. The thoughts of characters are also revealed to the watchers. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
The effects are fine. Sure, it could be a lot better if you compare it with today's movies. But you really shouldn't; just judge the movie as it is and don't take it too seriously. You have to admit that a killer BED is quite creative. If you are easily spooked, don't watch this movie. You might never want to sleep again...
Death Bed: The bed that eats is a strange horror gem with a low budget, but I'd still recommend it to fans of horror movies.
In conclusion, I give this movie a 7 out of 10 stars for it's creative story and unexpected twists here and there.


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


user
As Roger Corman has said in an interview, low-budget film-making enables film-makers to take chances on offbeat ideas. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a film that thrives on the offbeat as mightily as George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats".
The film does have a back story to it, and it's an interesting one at that. I'll forgo relaying any sort of details so you can hear them for yourself if you take a chance on watching it. Suffice it to say, the title item of furniture has an insatiable hunger, consuming the unwary with a bubbling yellow foam that dissolves its victims like acid.
"Death Bed" is an eerie, haunting little flick that plays out its absurd premise in such a way that it transcends the usual assortment of schlock fare. It occupies its particular dream world in such a way that it was possible for me to take it seriously. It's a truly strange and unconventional horror flick. It dabbles in exploitative ingredients - there's some tasty dollops of female nudity - and yet is also art, albeit art with a completely skewed sensibility.
The special effects are not too bad for a film with a microscopic budget, and Barry gives the film a good and atmospheric "midnight movie" quality. The acting from the cast is as uninspired as one could imagine, although Patrick Spence-Thomas lends a reasonable amount of gravitas as the artist / narrator, and one definite point of interest is seeing one familiar face on hand: future 'Boy Meets World' father William Russ!
This film might not have even found the small cult following that it does have were it not for pirated copies making the rounds; this certainly has to rank as one of the instances where such a practice ultimately ended up helping the film - even if the exposure took years to take hold.
If you have a taste for truly bizarre obscure items, "Death Bed" may be just what you've got in mind.
7/10


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


user
This is seriously one of the best low budget, B movies that I have ever seen. I am not one to stand up and cheer during a movie, but this one was definitely worth it. Obviously the premise is that there is a bed that eats people, well...eats is a subjective term I guess, it really secretes acid bubbles to suck the victims into itself and dissolves them in it's acidy goodness. The best part of this movie is that William Russ is one of the main characters. The typical family man actually started his career with this movie...and an afro. There is plenty of nudity in this flick, so obviously not for the children, but that should not deter anyone from seeing this movie. It is my belief that everyone needs a little Death Bed in their lives at some point or other, it's best to get it sooner than later.


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


user
A large bed possessed by a demon eats people, among other things. I'm not making this up.
Completed in 1977 and not officially released until it came to DVD in 2003, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a movie whose plot is impossible to describe. You most likely know of it thanks to Patton Oswalt's excellent bit about it, as well as Stephen Throwers essential book "Nightmare USA." While watching it, you wonder the following
-Who is George Berry, and what drugs did he smoke/inject/snort before writing and directing this movie?
-Is this a horror comedy? A combination of a horror flick and an art movie? A weird prank being pulled on the audience?
-What the hell am I watching?
"Death Bed" really defies any explanation. I know, that term is overused, but it couldn't be truer than it is here. This truly beggars description. It is a horror comedy, as well as art film/horror hybrid. But the whole thing is so surreal, it must be seen. The score sounds like the electronic bits from an old Candlemass album, the acting is terrible and disconnected from everything, the direction is surprisingly competent, and the movie at times feels like a Jesus Franco movie-that is, if his movies were intentionally funny.
In the end, there really is no proper way to describe this movie. Lord knows I've tried, but really, few movies are as odd, unique, or mind boggling as this is. See it...but you've been warned. This is also the only movie George Berry has ever done. He definitely left his mark on the exploitation genre with this, I'll tell you that much.


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


user
I can honestly say that "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" was a much better movie than I expected. Allow me to clarify the plot in case the title of the film is a little too vague - there is a bed that eats. An evil bed. It eats people. Several unsuspecting women on an "outing" of some kind, stumble across the sinister "sack" and ultimately fall prey to it's hunger. The bed's devouring process consists of a yellow foam soaking people into it's inner... stomach acid; all complete with chewing sounds. This is a very strange cult flick and the only film from George Barry who had forgotten he made it until word-of-mouth of it's newfound cult status got back to him and he decided to release it on DVD. Not a bad movie at all, if you can look past the lousy acting and enjoy the hokey effects - the most laughable being the guy whose hands are eaten off and he is left with only plastic looking skeletal fingers... Pretty dreamlike tone to it, too, coming across as very surreal and aberrant - mainly the whole thing involving the artist behind the painting and the demonic back story of the bed. If you like bizarre no-budget, oddball flicks than definitely seek out "Death Bed".


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


user
Watching "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is like waking up in the hospital, two days into a suicide
watch, disorienting but oddly stimulating. There are few cinematic equivalents to this disturbing yet often humorous lesson in mythology, morality and surrealist ideology.
Cocteau's "Blood of a Poet" and Maya Deren's
experimental works evoke a taste of the strange atmosphere found in DEATH BED. A close comparison are the dark adult fairy-tales by literary genius- author Angela Carter, the short disturbing stories of Unica
Zurn or E.T.A. Hoffman.
DEATH BED has many recognizable elements of the
past, but displays a wholly unique and original storyline.
As a story, DEATH BED is an amazingly simple yet original
vision, something which only one-in-a-thousand independent releases will manage to accomplish. This unassuming film has its technical flaws but overcomes them all with a cast of beautiful non-actors
and lost creepy locations- a true 1970s independent classic.
DEATH BED also displays a unique, subversive, 3-dimensional personality-- a deep and continuous layering of dream images and ideas that lend it a "fun-house" type of construct. The passage of time told in flashbacks and historic time travelogues, the bed with its sinister black humor, the rich yet understated symbolism used within its imagery. Most pleasing is the image of Aubrey Beardsly, the suffering artist, forever trapped inside the frame of his own painting as he comments on and fondles with the murdered victim "offerings" gifted to him as love offerings by the demented bed's spirit. -- A sick refrain and wonderful element /metaphor for the "trapped artist" -- Nothing but the weirdest in POE or MALLARME can equal that.
Anyone who values the spirit of independent cinema and craves the multi-layered symbolist experience, or craves the Surrealist concept of "convulsive
beauty" and the Gothic-horror leanings of low budget exploitation film-making will dig this totally unique vision. A simple and fun film with deliciously deep psychic undercurrents. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. *****


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


user
George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is, at root, a dark fairy tale told via a horror-movie framework. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the 1970s, and it's downright criminal that the picture was basically stolen and distributed without Barry's knowledge (those responsible for this theft should be fed to the bed, ASAP). If you're looking for overt gore or rabid action, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" isn't the flick for you. "Death Bed" is a gentler, weirder drive-in picture; it plays like an utterly strange dream, half-remembered. I'd recommend reading Stephen Thrower's summation of "Death Bed" in Thrower's FAB Press book, "Nightmare USA" (he describes the movie's vibe perfectly). Whether intentional or not, I've noticed shades of "Death Bed" in everything from the "Phantasm" films to Michele Soavi's "Cemetery Man" to the magic-realism/slipstream fiction of authors such as Kelly Link. Barry is an original and in a fair world I'm sure he would've followed "Death Bed" with a number of fantastically bizarre films.


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


user
Never has the words "hidden gem" been so accurate. Bad movie lovers might search all over for the next hidden obscurity, sometimes coming up short with stuff like Weasels rip my flesh, but other times, luck will prevail and you might end up with something like Death Bed, then hopefully realizing it's not a bad movie at all, it just has a bad title, and not even a bad title, but a humorous one that might throw you off, but Somehow Death Bed still fits into the "bad" category. With a vibe that's somber and empty, Death Bed is a true masterpiece of low-budget horror, reserved only for those fortunate enough to appreciate such a dark shadow of a vision.
Death Bed involves an incoherent, yet intriguing relationship between a demon in the bed and the sympathetic ghost trapped in the portrait, who only wishes he could spare someone from the awful fate of being devoured by the yellow suds. Although not all that scary, considering it's about a killer bed, Death Bed possesses the qualities that make for successful horror. A dark, desolate vibe, confusion, an eerie, subtle score and that dream quality that this masterpiece almost flaunts. Such a quality, or vibe usually seems unintentional. Not only is it intentional, but from what I've read, Death Bed is based on an actual dream, George Barry, the director, successfully transferred dream to film, only a genius could accomplish such a task.
Old mansions make for good quality horror, as do portraits, not sure what to make of the killer bed with its killer yellow liquid, quite a bizarre dream, indeed. Also, this isn't quite the brand of B-horror I was expecting, considering the title and all. Before viewing this Gothic gem I expected something more like Class Reunion Massacre, now thats a bad movie, if you've seen it, you know what I'm saying. After considering all of the above, I feel like Death Bed deserves only eight stars, but since it stayed so obscure for so long We'll say the bed that eats deserves nine.


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


user
Taut and organically gripping, Edward Dmytryk's Crossfire is a distinctive suspense thriller, an unlikely "message" movie using the look and devices of the noir cycle.
Bivouacked in Washington, DC, a company of soldiers cope with their restlessness by hanging out in bars. Three of them end up at a stranger's apartment where Robert Ryan, drunk and belligerent, beats their host (Sam Levene) to death because he happens to be Jewish. Police detective Robert Young investigates with the help of Robert Mitchum, who's assigned to Ryan's outfit. Suspicion falls on the second of the three (George Cooper), who has vanished. Ryan slays the third buddy (Steve Brodie) to insure his silence before Young closes in.
Abetted by a superior script by John Paxton, Dmytryk draws precise performances from his three starring Bobs. Ryan, naturally, does his prototypical Angry White Male (and to the hilt), while Mitchum underplays with his characteristic alert nonchalance (his role, however, is not central); Young may never have been better. Gloria Grahame gives her first fully-fledged rendition of the smart-mouthed, vulnerable tramp, and, as a sad sack who's leeched into her life, Paul Kelly haunts us in a small, peripheral role that he makes memorable.
The politically engaged Dmytryk perhaps inevitably succumbs to sermonizing, but it's pretty much confined to Young's reminiscence of how his Irish grandfather died at the hands of bigots a century earlier (thus, incidentally, stretching chronology to the limit). At least there's no attempt to render an explanation, however glib, of why Ryan hates Jews (and hillbillies and...).
Curiously, Crossfire survives even the major change wrought upon it -- the novel it's based on (Richard Brooks' The Brick Foxhole) dealt with a gay-bashing murder. But homosexuality in 1947 was still Beyond The Pale. News of the Holocaust had, however, begun to emerge from the ashes of Europe, so Hollywood felt emboldened to register its protest against anti-Semitism (the studios always quaked at the prospect of offending any potential ticket buyer).
But while the change from homophobia to anti-Semitism works in general, the specifics don't fit so smoothly. The victim's chatting up a lonesome, drunk young soldier then inviting him back home looks odd, even though (or especially since) there's a girlfriend in tow. It raises the question whether this scenario was retained inadvertently or left in as a discreet tip-off to the original engine generating Ryan's murderous rage.


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


user
Edward Dmytryk directed this shadowy movie about a murder investigation involving demobilized military personnel. Robert Young gets to lecture us about hatred, Robert Mitchum walks through most of this picture, and Gloria Grahame revisits the feistiness she exhibited in "It's A Wonderful Life." It's Robert Ryan who gets at the heart of the matter: anti-semiticism. He goes so deep into his role as Monty Montgomery (Imagine parents named Lawrence calling their son Larry!), that the drama sits squarely on his shoulders, and he is more than up to the challenge. Without him, the movie would be commonplace. Ryan has played a number of memorable villains in his day ("Bad Day at Black Rock;" "Billy Budd"), but this performance put him on the map. With Sam Levene as the murder victim.


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


user
Definitely a "must see" for all fans of film noir.
Thanks to a fine script and crisp, razor sharp direction a top cast comes together and works like a well oiled clock to produce a crackerjack psychological thriller.
Wonderful characterizations articulate the movie's powerful message of racial and religious tolerance. It's difficult and almost unjust to single out any one particular performance because there isn't a weak link in the entire company but Robert Ryan as the hateful and violent white supremacist is truly spine chilling.
Making this film in the 1940s would have taken a lot of courage. Now,all these years later, at a time when contemporary movies are dominated by a ridiculous over abundance of foul language, bare breasts, crummy acting and deafening soundtracks it's refreshing to get back to the basics of quality film making with a viewing treat like "Crossfire".
Another low budget gem from the Hollywood archives .


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


user
A bigoted soldier kills a man for being Jewish and tries to pin it on a fellow soldier. Not as good as the novel it was based on ("The Brick Foxhole") in which it was a gay man who was killed...but Hollywood wouldn't touch that in 1947. That said, it's still a very good film. The anti-Semitism is handled very well, but it's hammered into the audience that bigotry is bad...well duh! But this was 1947. The picture is well-acted by the entire cast (especially Robert Young and Robert Ryan) and the tone is very dark...as it should be. Very atmospheric too. A deserved big hit in its day...well worth seeing.


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


user
I haven't read the source, Richard Brooks' novel "The Brick Foxhole," which I hope is not as infelicitous as its title, but I understand the original villain was a homophobe not an anti Semite. (And to be honest, Sam Levene is written as a gay guy who picks up a drunken soldier.) But, okay, you have to go with the flow. Consider 1947. Not even anti-Semitism has been treated on screen yet. Many of the people responsible for contemporary movies were themselves Jews but anti-Semitism had been verboten for years because it was considered unpleasant. So we can hardly blame the makers of this film for not leaving the victim a homosexual. Now that's REALLY unpleasant -- and besides there might have been many among the audience rooting for Robert Ryan to get away with it. We are by no means free of prejudice but we've still come a long way since 1947.
Watching this again for the first time in years I was impressed with the rather slow pace of the first half of the movie, the many shots of two people talking, the shadows, the time that passes between the question and the answer, the uninspired editing. But I could live with that because of the film's subject matter and because of a few other things.
One of the things that keep me glued to events as they unfold so deliberately is Robert Ryan's performance. The guy does a splendid job. At times he can seem thoughtful, cheerfully subordinate and helpful to the police -- "Any way I can help, yes sir." Then, alone or with another soldier, the simmering hatred rises to the top, not so much through what he says but the way he LOOKS. That scowl, that penetrating stare, those dark eyes glittering. Wow.
The film has taken a lot of heat because of Robert Young's preachy speech about his Grandfather's murder. That doesn't bother me at all, although I guess Dmytryk didn't have to have Young shove his face into the camera while talking about "MICKS and PAPISTS". Still, taking the context into account, it's one of the more shocking moments of the film. Part of its impact is due to Young's almost casual delivery of the message, and part of it is due to the message's not having been heard on screen before.
Another feature of the film that transforms it almost into the surreal is the Paul Kelly character and his relationship to the whore Gloria Grahame. Holy Guacamole, what elliptical conversation Kelly is given to. "You know what I told you? All those things I just told you? They're all lies." His character neatly crosses pathos with creepiness. It's impossible to know what to make of him. He adds virtually nothing to the plot but the movie would be a lot less without his presence.
It's a moody, murky film. Its people live in the dark. And there is murder afoot. Practically no one screams or shouts. The horror that these men have experienced and that some of them still carry with them like malaria seems just beneath the surface.
See it if you have a chance.


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


user
Crossfire (1947)
Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie
It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.
You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.
Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.
Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows.
The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.
The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still.


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


user
"Crossfire" is remembered not so much for the fact that its three stars all had the first name "Robert" but as being one of the first Hollywood films to deal with anti-semitism.
The story opens with the murder in silhouette of a man whom we later learn is a Jewish man named Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene). Pipe smoking police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) is assigned to the case. An ex-soldier, Montgomery (Robert Ryan) comes upon the murder scene and we learn through flashback that he had met Samuels in a bar along with other soldiers who were in the process of being mustered out of the service following WWII.
According to Montgomery, he and pal Floyd Bowers (Steve Brodie) had followed Samuels and Cpl. Arthur Mitchell (George Cooper) to Samuels' apartment for drinks. Montgomery tells Finlay that Mitchell left the apartment first and that he and Floyd followed soon after with Samuels still alive and well.
Unable to locate Mitchell, Finlay suspects him of the murder. He enlists Sgt. Peter Keeley (Robert Mitchum) to help him locate Mitchell. Mitchell meanwhile has been wondering the streets in a dazed state. He meets prostitute Ginny (Gloria Grahame) in a bar and strikes up a friendship. She gives him a key to her apartment and he goes there to rest. Unexpectedly a man (Paul Kelly) turns up looking for Ginny. Mitchell, still in a daze, leaves and goes back to meet Keeley and his pals. Keeley manages to keep him from the police and hides him in an all night movie house.
From Mitchell's perspective we learn that Montgomery hates jews and is probably the killer. Finlay begins to focus his investigation on Montgomery trying to prove his guilt. He arrangers to have one of the soldiers, a kid named Leroy (William Phipps) set a trap for Mongomery.
"Crossfire" is considered to be one of the best of the "film noire" genre. In fact it garnered several Academy Award nominations including Ryan and Grahame for best supporting actors. It was made on a modest budget in about three weeks.
It has all of the elements of classic "film noire", the shadows, low key lighting and the story playing out mostly at night. The requisite "femme fatale" of the piece is Grahame's Ginny who plays a minor role but is nonetheless your classic "femme fatale". The unnamed character played by Paul Kelly (in an excellent bit) has been chewed up and spit out by Ginny and was she about to do the same to Mitchell?
Robert Ryan steals the picture as the brutal Montgomery although it would type cast him in similar roles for years to come. Robert Young makes a good low key detective but Robert Mitchum has little to do other than befriend the Mitchell character. Others in the cast are Jacqueline White as Mitchell's wife, Lex Barker (who would go on the following year to play "Tarzan") as one of Mitchum's soldier pals and Richard Powers (who was previously known as Tom Keene) as Finlay's assistant.
Director Edward Dmytryk would shortly run afoul of The House Un-American Committee as having communist affiliations and spend a couple of years in jail.


assistant
1