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
and I have seen a lot of films. I saw this in the theatre in 1989 and to this day I remember the sickening urge to walk out. If you like John Belushi, respect his talent, or even the sanctity of the cinema-- this film has nothing to offer you. It is mostly a pathetic showcase for the writer of Belushi's biography, Bob Woodward. As we see the progression of Belushi's life pass on the screen, Woodward actually shows up in the film like a ghost character. The most offensive scene occurs when Belushi is dying, looks up from his deathbed to see the author standing above him and he weakly utters "Breathe for me, Woodward." There are too many terrible things to mention them all, the least of which is the opening that has Belushi jumping out of his body bag in the morgue and getting into a taxi driven by a guy named "Angel." I'll leave it at that.


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 narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4.


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


user
"Wired" would have to rate as one of the ten worst films I have ever seen. The writing and direction show a stunning lack of imagination and I'm sure that most of the actors still cringe whenever anyone mentions this film.
It fails to work either as a tribute to Belushi's unique talent, or as an accurate account of his short life.
A pointless mess with no redeeming features.


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


user
This could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!


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 film in the movie theater. I was taking classes at the Second City Chicago and of course the buzz of this movie was intense. It is a Woodward film about one of Second City's Native sons.
Everyone knew about Johns history. Everyone knew how he died. Some even knew that the lore did not make him out to be particularly friendly towards women in improv or comedy.
But hey. the man led his life and he was loved intensely by the people who were in his world, and lore also states that he treated all of his close friends with love and respect.
This movie. Well. Forget the idea of poor Michael Chilklis (who is a really great actor) being in a really astonishingly bad film, and really only relegated to doing an impersonation of the man.
Forget the idea that they could not get the rights to any of Belushi's work...and all the SNL scenes never happened that they portrayed in the movie.
Screw the idea that half of the historical information in the film did not even follow Bob Woodwards work. Kinda saying "Okay...we are about to mess with Belushi...now lets go after Woodward too..." They also decided to take the premise of It's a Wonderful Life and turn it into It's a Horrible Life on Crack.
Is he a guardian angel or the devil? Is the pinball machine the devil's assistant electronic device...how many different endings can you tack onto to a movie? It is one of those movies after it is over...you look at the person you are with and in stunned disbelief go "What the hell was that?!" In some circles this movie has become a kinda cult classic. But for good reason.
A good cult classic you sit around the screen and make fun of (or throw out snappy one liners) to the screen. A cult film is never good. And most people would never watch them in any serious context.
If you want to watch some classic bad late 80's fair stoned? Rent Wired. If you want to know about John Belushi...you can get more information off of the walls of Second City Chicago than 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
What is it about the French? First, they (apparently) like Jerry Lewis a lot more than the US does. Second, they (seem) to like Edgar Allan Poe's work more than just about anyone else does. It's got to be the "Beaudelaire effect".
Don't get me wrong...I'm a Poe fan myself. But this trilogy manages to make three of Poe's below-average stories into...well, I'm not sure what they're made into.
"Toby Dammit" is a fine Fellini film, but it has nothing to do with Poe's story, at least in terms of theme. It's enjoyable on the first viewing. Terence Stamp does a good job with an interesting role. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Poe or spirits of the dead.
"Metzergenstein" is a big mess. How did Vadim's films get produced? It's just awful...not even up to amateur film school standards. Depending on the DVD menu you have, try to skip it and save your time.
"William Wilson" is actually the segment that is most faithful to Poe's work. It does not have much style, though, even if it includes the strangest snowball fight I think that I have ever seen on film. (It looks like the boys are throwing tissues, or maybe handkerchiefs, that have been rolled up into balls.)
My advice is to skip "Metzergenstein", watch "William Wilson", and then, if you're a Fellini fan (I'm not) keep "Toby Dammit" on while you cook dinner or make a snack.


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


user
I'm pretty sure Poe would have considered this a travesty. The first two stories are decent, nothing spectacular. And then there's Toby Dammit. What on earth was Fellini thinking? It's a rambling, random, dull piece, with little to recommend it. One should feel frustrated at the lack of backstory or conclusion, but there's only relief that it's over.


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


user
"Yesterday" as a movie, is hard to rate. The cinematography is excellent and deserves a 9/10. The story is gritty and real and does not compromise. But the translation of the story to the screen through the actors did not match the camera work.
As a person who was born and raised in Central Africa, I appreciated the authenticity of the film's look and the honest depiction of daily life for the Zulu. But this and the camera work are not enough to recommend the average viewer should see this film. It takes an appreciation of true cinema and not just a love of movies to see the purpose and strength of "Yesterday".
Unlike the 1980 film "The Gods Must be Crazy", which was a comic look at one African culture encountering modern technology, "Yesterday" has no intention of appealing to any crossover audience. The movie simply is not fit for the common western mind - and I doubt it was intended for the western mind. The scenes are long and slow, the editing is not paced for a 60mph+ instant gratification world. The dialog is not cleaver or witty, it is real. Movies about health crises do not make the best entertainment and this movie is not entertainment, it is education.
This movie is best viewed by those who know, appreciate and love the way of life and the culture in sub-Sarah Africa. If you lack a broad enough world-view to understand other cultures, especially African cultures, should skip this film. Do not waste you time with it. Go see "Talladega Nights" or "Larry the Cable Guy" instead for your cross culture viewing.
I give it a 4 for most who might want to see the movie but have no accurate understanding of African cultures. For the viewers with an appreciation for films about the human experience anywhere in the world, I would give it a 7.


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 sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.
What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.
What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs.


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


user
Whilst this is most definitely a well crafted piece of film-making, it's thoroughly without any entertainment value whatsoever.
If you're depressed already, this film will send you over the edge.
If you're feeling somewhat depressed, this film will be just one more thing in your life to feel bitter about. You'll feel that it's just your luck to have chosen to watch a movie that turns out to be a complete waste of time.
Otherwise you might be able to make it through this film unscathed (I didn't, BTW), safe in the knowledge that your life is so much better than Jim's. Then again you might consider that you have been fooling yourself, and that are in fact in a much worse situation than you'd previously realized. You might feel a bit annoyed at Jim for bringing this to your attention. You may want to slap him around a bit with a wet fish.
The sad truth is, much as I wanted to like this movie... I hated it. It took rather a long miserable road down the path of oblivion and then suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, looked back at itself and then stopped.
Jim does not have an epiphany, at least not one that is conveyed on screen. Jim has a miserable life and a miserable set of options. He discovers nothing that one can relate to and fails to make any significant progress on his journey of self-discovery.
Of course no-one alive could write a happy ending to this movie. As others have said it's no Hollywood tale, it's gritty and it's real. It's well made. Life is quite a struggle at times. If anyone were to know "the answer", they do well to shout it from the rooftops.
Still, I feel cheated because this movie pretends to have something to say. You feel that it's going to say something, that if you just suffer through a little more of it, it'll have something to say. It'll make you stop and think.
It doesn't.
Again, I do submit that this is a well crafted film. And therefore may be of value to a film student with a penchant for e.g. lighting techniques of the use of colour palettes.
For the rest of us, it's utterly miss-able.


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


user
The only time I seem to trawl through IMDb comments is when I've seen a duff film. I guess I'm looking to find reassurance that it's not just me. For me, then, Lonesome Jim was a duff film packed with unbelievable characters in unbelievable situations which limped on lamely and boringly towards a cop-out hackneyed conclusion. So I check out what other people have to say and feel a bit like Jim, out on a limb, alienated, as page after page of multiple star ratings and plaudits leave me doubting my critical faculties. Yet maybe I should check the settings for the comments presentation, since after a while the gushing dies down and I'm relieved to see appreciations that mirror my own. I feel vindicated. It IS a rubbish film, it DOESN'T hang together and it DOES constitute a wasted evening sitting through it. Praise be to kindred spirits.


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 attracted to this film by its offbeat, low-key, 'real life' story line. That is, a twenty-something guy flops in the Big Apple and comes back home to live with his parents and even more floppy brother. It just might have worked but there's a problem. And that problem's name is Casey Affleck.
Casey Affleck is nearly catatonic in this film. His acting mantra must be "exert as little effort as possible at all times". Or "why speak when you can mutter?" Or maybe "put yourself into a coma as soon as the camera rolls". Lips moving when speaking? Barely. Facial expressions? None. Muscles in face? Atrophied. Something? Nothing. ANYthing? Zip.


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


user
Lonesome Jim is kind of like a romantic dark comedy about a dysfunctional family whose two boys are total losers. Both boys around 30, living at home, with absolutely nothing going for them. I live in the Midwest and I can't name one family like this. I picked it up because I kind of like Buscemi acting humor. Now I realize I need to have a counteracting agent to that humor to make it work. The acting and camera work and editing was fine. The first 15 minutes got you set, and the last 15 minutes helped prevent the film from being totally depressing Jerry Springer trailer trash type of story. The female members of my family were begging me to turn it off, but I prevailed under the premise that there had to be a turning point near the end, and we watched the entire movie. The male family members, as expected, simply walked out after the first 30 minutes.


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


user
Olivia D'Abo in a wet T-shirt is the only thing this movie has going for it. Other than that, this Canadian production about a man taking out a vicious band of hillbillies is not worth anybody's time. The writing is bad, the acting is poor and the direction is sub-standard.


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


user
A family (A teenage boy, his mother and a stepdad), sick of city life, decides to move to the mountains to get away from it all and have a fresh start. However, their idyll is shattered by three brothers and their domineering father, who don't take kindly to newcomers on their patch. While having objects thrown through their window and being threatened in the street is just the start, the youth decides to make things even worse by having a relationship with the terrible trio's sister. With the law unwilling to do anything about it and the violence escalating rapidly, the lad decides to take matters into his own hands..
Veering wildly between hilarity and nastiness, this is one of the oddest exploitation movies ever made. At first, you can have a chuckle at some of the hammy acting and ludicrous dialogue given to the characters, especially the overwrought bad guys. But then, you get completely unnecessary scenes like a mother being raped while her son is forced to watch, or the thug's sister getting herself beaten up by her siblings for daring to sleep with our young hero. In fact, the whole view of women in the movie, which seems to be that they're pathetic creatures who scream a lot and can't defend themselves, is pretty despicable. But of course, there's the obligatory nude scene, which this time involves a young lady diving into a pool bra-less under a very thin T-shirt. Who cares about plot consistency when you have some willing young starlets ready to shed her togs. Right?!
The climax centres on the teenager, who up until now hasn't been able to sneeze without jumping, suddenly morphing into a Rambo clone and blowing off his assailants left, right and centre to save his stepfather who is being held hostage by the gang. It's completely implausible but hey, so is everything else in this film.. so at least you can't accuse it of not being consistent. So, rather than attempting to find logic in a place where the word doesn't exist, check out the IMDb pages for Janet Laine Green, Dehl Berti, Stephen Hunter, Jonathan Crombie.. etc. Notice a pattern emerging here? Their careers all hit dead ends. Why? Sit through this, and all will become clear. Remember kids, if you want to get ahead in this business, hire a decent agent and ALWAYS read the scripts they offer you. Please.. 3/10


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


user
Are you kidding me? The music was SO LOUD in this show I could often not even hear the dialog. And the music was nothing great. Anyone know what Jake's mother said when he walked in the door??? And the mushroom cloud looked pretty close to have so little instant devastation. Anyone research the effects of nuclear fallout before writing this one. I felt like a bunch of sit com actors were sent on location and didn't know what to do with dramatic dialog. And what does a Kansas teen know about shopping in Soho....couldn't we have had a better line here? Was bored to tears and only kept awake by the jarring blare of the over-mixed way to loud music.


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 slick little movie well worth your time to find and see.
It really speaks to all those mundane choices we all make every day and (like an H.G. Welles Story I can't quite recall) may live to want back.
Keep in mind that this is a SHORT (very short). It starts out slowly but just as you begin to think it has become boring =bang= it's over. And, believe me, the 'punch line' is one you will remember.
I'm not sure if the producers are going to make it available for purchase - or available on the web but either way you'd be happy you took the time to get hold of a copy - of that I am sure.


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


user
whomever thought of having sequels to Iron Eagle must be shot. In this case once was enough. Iron Eagle was a good movie to watch. Even though it is unrealistic, it is still entertaining. Iron Eagle II has a senseless plot and can be used to as a cure to insomnia. I didn't even bother to watch Iron Eagle III, but from looking at the R rating, I assume it's more violent than the past 2 movies. Well, Iron Eagle IV is probably the most inane sequel. Lou Gossett Jr. returns as the always delightful "Chappy" Sinclair. Another Jason returns to fill the role of Doug Masters (Canadian Jason Cadieux, who looks just like Jason Gedrick from the first Iron Eagle). But wait(Here comes a possible spoiler).....Wasn't Doug killed in Iron Eagle II? The writers must've been desprate for a story so they revived Doug Masters by saying he was a prisoner of the Russians. This movie was the cheapest done of all the Iron Eagle films. Why do movie makers find it neccessary to make sequels to unappealing movies? (ex. Police Academy movies). I have always liked Gossett Jr.'s work in these films. He was the only one holding this turkey together. Let's hope this was the last of the Iron Eagle sequels. let it rest in peace.


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


user
Louis Gossett Jr returns to the well one more time as Chappy Sinclair who goes to Doug Masters (Played by Jason Cadieux who is in for Jason Gedrick who wisely declined) to teach a new band of recruits however this time they discover corrupt air force pilots who deal in toxic waste. This is a series that just keeps getting worse with each subsequent entry, this one however doesn't have any of the zip or even the action to make this even worth seeing on cable. Iron Eagle IV is directed with such indifference that the dogfights come off as if we were watching a playstation 2 game played by two lobotomized teenagers. It is horrendous to watch and Gossett Jr who has made his share of turkeys seems to have bottomed out here. And I saw Cover-Up, Firewalker, Aces:Iron Eagle III, Toy Soldiers and Jaws 3D. What is mysterious about Louis Gossett Jr is that he seems to be like Christopher Walken in his quest to do anything as long as he's working. As I look at his post Oscar win. Some of his better movies include Iron Eagle, The Punisher and The Principal. Considering that the latter two movies have him co-starring with Dolph Lundgren and James Belushi it is indeed something to say that three guilty pleasure action flicks are in the running for his better work. Of course Enemy Mine and Diggstown remain his best post-Oscar win work.
* out of 4-(Bad)


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


user
And obviously I didn't see it!
But looking at the cast and seeing that Doug Masters is back from the dead, I know now to avoid this like the plague! I hate it when Hollywood, producers, writers, directors or all of the above think that audiences are stupid that they're not going to catch continuity errors. A supposedly dead Doug Masters returning is a big giant one, won't you say?
And I can't believe that someone like Louis Gossett, Jr. would return for something like that.
Did Jason Gedrick really decline this? Well, I hate to say it, but even if he took the role again, it would have still had that same continuity error. I bet (if he really turned it down), he must have been incredulous seeing that his character died in the second film.
I'll probably catch it by accident on a late night air on some channel, but no way am I going to rent this or buy the DVD!


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 another variation on the oft-told tale of two people getting married and having to share their brood of kids. WITH SIX YOU GET EGG ROLL is directed by Howard Morris (from television) and it shows, because it's the kind of tale that plays like a half-hour situation comedy padded out to feature film length--but with a scarcity of laughs, or to put it differently, only the number of laughs that would have been possible within the half-hour limits of a TV show.
DORIS DAY decided to call it quits after this film--and it's rather easy to see why. Even the presence of some fairly reliable actors in the cast doesn't help. BRIAN KEITH, BARBARA HERSHEY, PAT CARROLL and ALICE GHOSTLEY do their best, but the script is the real problem and should have been left untouched for the big screen.
Nothing much can be said in favor of it. Skip it and see Miss Day in any number of her more worthwhile 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 sickly sweet and laboriously paced 5-reeler is definitely not among Harold Lloyd's better films. Gags are sparse and mostly uninspired. Saccharine melodrama is abundant. The setup takes forever, as Lloyd, the unconventional, but impossibly kindly, country doctor makes his rounds, bringing a little sunshine into the lives of children, the elderly, and puppies. It's like a 1922 version of Patch Adams. Ugh. 4/10.


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


user
Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.
I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.
In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.
In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.


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


user
Fear and Desire is of interest mainly to Kubrick obsessives, who can plumb this pretentious clap trap for signs of his still-to-come greatness. Kubrick was right in seeking to ensure that the film was not screened or available on legitimate video. He considered it embarrassing and amateurish, and he was correct in his evaluation. This is a weak and tedious film--at 68 minutes it still seems longer than "Barry Lyndon"!--it nevertheless is of historical interest, and has its genuine absorbing moments. It's a difficult film to find (only "unofficial" copies are in circulation), though perhaps this may change if Kubrick's estate relents and has it released on video. Recommended only for Kubrick enthusiasts.


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


user
Kubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!
Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of "Reefer Madness" going insane for no reason.
Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.
Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it.


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


user
A group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on "Dante's Inferno," there is nothing especially clever. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.
I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.
The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of "Schoolhouse Rock" on the subject of lobbying and the "revolving door." It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun.


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


user
I was surprised to discover Michael Moore or Bill Maher wasn't involved with this "movie". An American leftist laundry list of axes to grind, with a distinct sparseness of democrats in Hell. Mao Zedong and Karl Marx didn't make an appearance in Hell, but Ronald Reagan is in the same room with Hitler? Perhaps we'll have to wait for these California spin doctors to butcher Paradiso for them to show all of their pet ideologue political figures.
Cheap shots at religion, right-wing politicians, corporations and their lobbyists, Fox News, even SUVs. All the radical leftist talking points were too completely covered - while conspicuously omitting references to wrongdoing from the "other side of the aisle" - to not have been a conscious effort. The singular exception I noticed, in the hour and a half, is JFK has to have sex with Marilyn Monroe for eternity: The token inclusion in these propaganda pieces in a pathetic attempt at appearing non-partisan.


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


user
This demented left-wing wipe-out trivializes Dante's great work, distorts the genius of the author out of all recognition, inserts hateful ideology, incompetent satire and moronic political commentary in every imaginable place, and itself deserves a place in the Eighth Circle, Tenth Bolgia with the rest of the falsifiers. Sandow Birk has reserved himself a spot next to it.
Stocking Hell with Republican political figures, Fox News helicopters and Christian conservatives is a work of literary sacrilege, to say nothing of extreme liberal bias. It is, however, unoriginal, tedious and trite. Nothing in Birk's unworthy and heretical revision is in the least relevant to the original text or is in any way entertaining, humorous or enlightening, despite his smug pretension to the contrary.
I could have eaten a reel of video tape and PUKED a better movie. I regret the two hours of my life that I lost watching this insult to the very concept of poetry. Calliope will weep forever.


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


user
Dante would of been mortified, if he knew that his masterpiece was being ACTED OUT PUPPETS!!! Also the actors who played the puppets are sell outs. Due to the fact that playing a puppet is not acting it is just basically doing nothing. No one really will care who the puppet was. people only care who played a major role in like an actual movie. this is just annoying how you could mock such an amazing man and his belief, by this dumb little movie. This should be a crime and.... I cant believe you would ruin a book like that. I thought the movie was absolutely ridiculous and should be destroyed!!!! It totally ruins what your suppose to be getting from reading it. Your just making it a big joke.


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


user
Documentaries about fans are always mishmashes, and never worth seeing through, but I found this one, made by some of the fans themselves, more than usually unenlightening. As a veteran of the original Tolkien craze, forty years ago, I'd hoped for more than the obvious--which doesn't always equate to the true. If there's anyone living who doesn't already know the nature of a fandom, any fandom, from having been or known a fan, he won't discover it here. Between irrelevancies, platitudes (to which the actors from the films are particularly prone), and acting out (by fans making the most--if not the best--of their one shot at fame), I could glean little of the special appeal of LOTR, the special emotional responses it evokes, and the range of the special creative forms those responses can take. In addition, the film is rather lazy: it slights some facts that could have been got across with little effort, e.g. what the exact legal loophole was (the wording of a copyright notice) that permitted the books' unauthorized publication in the U.S. (Speaking of which: I take strong exception to the film's dismissal of the covers on that edition as "irrelevant" and "psychedelic," which they were not. They were the work of Jack Gaughan, a very able sf illustrator of the period, and some fans, including me, found them more apt, and more attractive, than the covers on the rival set.)


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


user
I just rented Blackwater Valley Exorcism because the cover and pictures looked terrifying, and I don't normally watch movies that are automatically released onto DVD, but this looked so interesting and scary! I was very much in the mood for a good scary film and to me, possession is one of the scariest subjects to watch or learn about. Just look at The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose, both terrific movies that made break-throughs not only horror wise, but story as well.
Blackwater Valley Exorcism is about a girl, Isabelle, who from the get go is automatically possessed, so we can't even tell what kind of a person she was to begin with. But a former wife beater turned priest is on the case with a gardener...? I know... I know. Then they go into several other stories with the priest and Isabella's sister, and the priest hit the sister and messed around with Isabelle? I'm not sure, then we get into a story with Isabelle's dad and his questioning of his wife's faithfulness to him.
I mean, the story just goes into too many directions and wasn't well developed at all. Not to mention that the exorcism didn't seem authentic at all and more of a just scare your pants off type of a film, which I didn't like at all because I couldn't take it seriously. Whoever directed and wrote this clearly had no idea where to go or how to direct the story well, so I wouldn't really recommend this.
2/10


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


user
The movie started very well..so far Isabelle's exorcism could be believed....but later, gosh!!! I didn't know if it was a horror movie, a drama one or a Must Not See one! The possessed creature attacking the sheriff had no connection at all with the movie....the make up!! well it looked pretty real at beginning, but at the end, last part of movie, the make up (especially teeth and eyes) was very exaggerated. If you want a good "EXorcism" movie watch "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".
Together with "Hard Candy" (Totally boring, pathetic plot and ending), these two movies are the worst I've seen from Lionsgate!! But well the movie company has given horror movie fans excellent films, but with this one, you will wish you never rent it!! Exorcism movie fans, just stay with two "The Exorcist" and "Emily Rose's Exorcism"


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


user
I'm not sure if this is a comedy or not, but I found it pretty comical. Isobel is possessed by the devil. Somehow a perverted priest and the gardener are gonna' fix that. Part exorcism and part soap opera, you'll at least get some laughs. There's the paranoid jealous dad, satanic sister, Valley of the Dolls mother, and then the cowboy boyfriend; all there to help the skirt chasing priest fight the demons from dear Isobel. It sometimes felt like a Jerry Springer episode, but I actually paid to see this. Instead of the cool head-twisting, sailor cursing, and crucifix humping that Regan did in The Exorcist; you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild. So, if you want to watch a quote unquote horror film that is worth a few laughs while you wait for the predictable ending ... this is your 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 was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. A friend of mine grabbed it off the shelf at the video rental store, and all but forced me to watch it, an action we both deeply regret. Ehh... Where to start? The writing, the acting, the quality? All of it, sucked.
Quite possibly some of the worst writing ever displayed in a movie. The dialog was worse than I thought it could ever be in the movies. Blatant dialog, such as "how ya doing?"..."not that great, doc" (directly after an attempted exorcism of a man's daughter and then his wife's attempted suicide. Of course he's not that great.) was, at some points, kind of funny. If not horribly written, planned out, and obvious. The general plot of the movie, the writing and the way it worked, HORRIBLE. It was like the writers could come up with nothing better to do then write a bunch of crappy dialog and throw in as many sex and nudity scenes as they randomly could. The only almost good sex scene (between the preacher and the tattooed & Peirced girl) was filmed with such poor quality that it looked more like a cheap porno than a feature film. Oh yeah, and they never actually got the deed done.
The acting? Horrible. x100. I think the only good actor was the short Spanish guy who played Miguel, Del Zamora. And his part was written horribly. The worst acting? Arguably Paul Kappellas, whose acting combined with shitty music, a gun, and a half naked bluish white girl running around in the woods made the movie almost unbearable to sit through. He even screwed up his own death scene, one that should have been easy to nail. Although, most everybody else's acting was horrible as well.
The lack of characters also added to the overall suck level of the movie. There were just enough characters so that almost half of the characters died, that same amount of people became possessed at one point, and then the remaining characters couldn't be counted on one hand. Like... 50 thumbs down.
P.S. What IS it with the climax of exorcism movies happening in a stable, anyways?


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


user
A girl named Isobel becomes possessed by a demon. The local priest (who formerly dated Isobel's sister) must try to save her, but the bigger problems are with the family's suspicions of each other rather than the demon in their daughter.
This film is directed by Ethan Wiley, the writer of "House" and the writer/director of "House II". I loved the first film and liked the second one even better, so you would think this would be a winner. Alas, this one looks like it was thrown together by first-year film students. Dawson Leery could have done better. I have thought about blaming new writer Ellary Eddy, especially because the idea is hardly original (are they trying to cash in on the fans of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"?), but Wiley should have been able to do his magic.
Also, you'd like to think veteran horror stars Jeffrey Combs and James Russo would help this film. Russo (playing the bishop) barely shows up, and Combs has a great role as a sheriff... for the five minutes he's on screen (but I love the mustache). So, no help here.
After seeing "The Exorcist", all other exorcism films must be compared to the classic by default, no? And the demonic possession in this film was not scary in the least. No head-spinning or paranormal activity at all. Just a girl with a deep voice and runny makeup. All the "demonic" stuff was centered around the father accusing everyone of sleeping with his wife. As another reviewer wrote, "you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild." That sadly sums up the extent of the "evil" in this movie.
If you want to watch a movie about family members who invent accusations and yell at each other while the possessed daughter sits in another room off-camera, this is the movie for you. But, if you don't mind my saying so, you have a horrible taste in film if this is what you're seeking.
The plot seems to focus on the father accusing a cowboy of sleeping with his wife (who didn't, but did sleep with his daughter) and of the veterinarian of sleeping with his wife (who might have, but denies it). And then you have a gardener who attacks the possessed girl with a crucifix and tells the family to call an exorcist, but once the priest arrives the gardener declares he does not believe in God. What was all the Bible-quoting you were doing five minutes ago?
A horrible exorcism movie. Horribler examples of what Combs and Russo are capable of. And such a sad display of directing after the "House" series of films became classic. I would like to pretend Wiley had no part in making this shamefully derivative and unoriginal, uninspired film. The power of Christ compels you to avoid this movie as if viewing it were a cardinal sin.


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


user
OK, I normally don't add comments on movies, but I finally watched a movie that was so utterly full of bullsh*t and riddled with incompetence that I just had to warn people about. Blackwater Valley Exorcist is loosely about a wife-beating/pederast/priest and this podunk family of horse freaks, and to make a long story short the youngest daughter who was molested by the priest but in love with the hillbilly ranch hand gets possessed. Along with a heroic god shunning Mexican gardener who once participated in a exorcism, the wife-beating/ pederast/priest manage to save the day, but not before the possessing demon is able to jump over to a hooker who the town sheriff made blow him. All in all this movie is the biggest pile of useless (I could get very descriptive with this part but why waste my energy on this movie)sh*t I've ever seen. Any and all persons associated with the making of this movie should be sterilized so that they cannot pollute the earth with their useless spawn.


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


user
Even worse then the incredibly boring "the Exorcism of Emily Rose". It started off decently, and right up until the mom said to the dad, "See I knew she was possessed", in an I told you so voice. It was a terrible line, spoken badly and it foreshadowed the rapid demise of this amazingly bad movie. Every family member has an issue from the past with the priest. The dad starts to accuse everyone of either liking his wife, or actually having an affair with her, culminating with him killing his buddy, then himself in the obvious instant lucidity after he realizes his friend hadn't slept with his wife after all. People are dying, others are coming under possession, and by this point most viewers don't even care anymore. Except for their employee Miguel, none of the characters in this movie was actually likable, making it hard to care, about any of them. The acting was terrible and the writing even worse. Glad I saw it for free; although I feel that for a movie this bad someone owes me money for the time I lost.


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 to agree with the previous reviewer. Although the Kristin Erikson did a great job of playing the possessed girl, I seriously don't think that Isabelle, the character she was playing, was possessed. I have seen people have psychotic breaks due to sexual abuse, and they never made it clear whether or not the father had actually abused her or not. I also had to watch some parts of it over again, to make it clear as to what the letter said, what the characters' names were, and I'm still not clear on a few things that happened, whether they were real or not. I'm trying to find the "original" story that it was based on, to compare facts, but I can't seem to find anything about it online.
It wasn't a bad movie, but some of the dialogue was incredibly cheesy. Special effects wise, the movie wasn't bad for a Grade B, pretty much, and those possession scenes made it all worth while... that is, if you have nothing better to do. LOL


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 had very few moments of real drama. After the opening minutes the film descended in a spiral that didn't quite take us to hell and back - viewing was pure purgatory to say the least. The acting was more horrendous than the subject matter of the film and at times I couldn't stop laughing. The continuity between some of the scenes was dire - characters disappeared from scenes without explanation only to be replaced by other characters who minutes earlier had been some where else. Surely this was a spoof of The Exorcist. The collection plate at the church must have been full of copper the day Mr Russo signed up for this one. Do I speak Latin? Et tu Brutus.


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


user
As the metaphoric flies fled this steaming watery stool of a film i found myself longing to join them.
From the opening sentences, you quickly gather that the actors are talentless. The script editor was probably dead and the director should be. To be honest I didn't manage to finish this film because about twenty dismal minutes in the sight of the main actress scuttling across the floor like a Shetland pony that has been shot in the ass was too much for me to stomach.
I have never, and I mean never, seen a film as sweaty as this one and I watch tons of crap films.
Turd.


assistant
0