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
Another movie that makes the story of The Beach Boys worse than it is. I especially remember the scene when Brian says he's to quit touring and the other Boys calls him traitor. I didn't happen like that, and like the movie indicates in the beginning is that some scenes are over-reacted. A movie about The Beach Boys doesn't have to be that way because a lot of things happened anyway. The sad thing is that this movie gives the wrong picture about the boys to those who ain't so familiar with the group. Hard-core fans like myself knew that this isn't the entire true story and that's why i gave it a low rating 3. However it is the best movie about The Beach Boys I've seen so far, that says quite a bit about the other movies. If you want the truth I recommend the documentary Endless Harmony.


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


user
I love the beach boys and their music. So, being that I am a filmmaker, I thought, wow, a Beach Boys Movie sounds great. Well, WRONG! I just actually turned off HDNET, the channel the movie was playing on, because it was so bad. Someone above mentioned about editing... well, they should have at least looked at the monitors while they were filming. I don't know if anyone else caught the mustache falling off the face of one of the guys after he kissed his wife and then he smoothed it back on with his hands. Ever heard of re-taking a scene! Acting was terrible. Direction was terrible. Make-Up was TERRIBLE!!! Possibly the worst make-up job I have ever seen. Brian Wilson's "fat" cheek's looked like pl-ado.
This is honestly the first time I have ever commented on IMDb, and I know it really doesn't make a difference... but come on, what the hell were the producers thinking?!?!!?


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


user
Just finished watching this movie as it were playing on TV and I did'nt have anything else to do. Went right here to IMDb too look on the trivia page and happened to glance at the user comments. And what do I find? Every dumb idiot raises this movie to the sky! I would'nt even have written anything but when no one else takes the time to spread the word about this suck-ass movie I thought that I could.
The acting sucked from pretty much everyone in the cast. The worst one was the guy playing Brian Wilson (think I got the name right) as he were overacting, especially when he was high. The rest was'nt as bad as him but no one was good neither. I ain't no expert on the beach boys though so cant really complain on the story that much.... except it sucked though. No motivation for any of the characters decisions most of the time but hey, maybe they were idiots in real life to. And what I found worst was that I thought it were going to be a movie about the beach boys, but you really only got a grip about a few of the characters. I hate when they do that in movies, same thing in the doors, even though I like that movie more. Don't have any energy left to write more... it sucked! don't buy or watch it!


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


user
Marked for Death (1990) spends more time on action sequences, than it does with focusing on its characters. After his first two impressive efforts, Above the Law (1988) and Hard to Kill (1989), this third Steven Seagal picture makes the idea clear: anyone who opposes him is meant to look like a fool; the bad guys are just there to make him look good.
Seagal had been steadily building an audience that seemed a bit larger than those that follow the kick-'em-up antics of Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Damme.
In Marked for Death, Seagal tosses aside any pretense at style and heads full throttle into exploitation. This film contains loads of graphic violence, gore and nudity that seem to be there for no reason other than to please rowdy moviegoers, who are unable to distinguish between action pictures that tell a story and those that simply pour on the thrills without rhyme or reason. And he deserves some real blame for this lapse in taste as a producer of "Marked for Death."
Seagal plays John Hatcher, a retired DEA agent who comes home to Chicago, where his family is being attacked by a Jamaican street gang, who attack his sister's house, and the film proves that it isn't squeamish when Hatcher's niece (Danielle Harris) is shot in the crossfire. Hatcher gets mad, and he decides to team up with his old friend, Max (Keith David), a school gym teacher, and Charles (Tom Wright), a Jamaican cop.
Naturally, Hatcher declares war on the chief bad guy, a dread-locked Jamaican voodoo priest called Screwface (Basil Wallace), a nickname that apparently means "outrageous overacting."
And it is almost unbelievable in the way Seagal picks off various members of the gang: he gouges one guy's eyeball, he breaks a guy's back, and he breaks numerous arms and limbs.
All logic for this movie is thrown out the window- -through the glass, that is. Why aren't Hatcher and friends indicted for all the property damage they cause or the body count that piles up? And how did they get their cache of automatic weapons from Illinois to Jamaica by plane without being detected?
Seagal has a Clint Eastwood stoicism about him that fans once seemed to enjoy, and despite the three different characters he's played in as many films, each dresses in Oriental black bathrobes, and wears a ponytail. One of the problems that I have with some of Seagal's movies is that the main characters never seem to be in serious jeopardy, and because he's the star, of course, no one can lay a glove on him, except for the bad guy.
Seagal's heroes are all interchangeable, as are most of the plot lines and action sequences. Regardless of whether he's masquerading as a ship's cook, a fire fighter, or an L.A. cop wearing love beads, Seagal is always Seagal, which is exactly what his fans want. In fact, the sameness of these films is such that, if I wanted to, I could take an old review, change the names, and have a reasonably accurate take on the new movie. Not that I'd ever really do that...


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


user
"Escape from Hell" is not made with enough artistry to disguise what it is: crass exploitation. The direction and writing are both sloppy: for example, the camera-work during the fight between Cintia Lodetti and Ajita Wilson is so bad that you can barely make out what's happening; also, if the alcoholic-but-kind-hearted doctor hadn't killed the warden, the guards would never have followed him and the girls after their escape - the "fake plague" plan had worked fine until then but he just had to ruin it. I would have given this film a 4 out of 10 (the sweaty lesbian scene is not bad and Christina Lai has an amazingly beautiful face and body), but a particularly disgusting scene of abuse forced me to cut 2 more points. Of course some sickos will take that as a recommendation. After all, one thing even more disturbing than this film is that some people actually gave it positive reviews!


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've seen over 100 Troma films, and some of them are pretty bad. "Sizzle Beach U.S.A." was horrible, and "I Was A Teenage TV Terrorist" was unwatchable, but this is THE WORST FILM IN THE TROMA LIBRARY!
A bunch of women are kept in a prison and tortured as they try to escape.
This is really terrible. Even as exploitation films go. Doris Wishman and Hershall Gordon Lewis would probably kill the director if they saw this poor excuse for an cult film. Avoid this movie 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
Allegedly the "true story" of Juana de Castilla, the eldest daughter of the Catholic Queen Isabella (yes, the same who funded Columbus's expedition), the film charts the progress and degeneration of her morbid obsession with her husband, the Archduke Philip of Austria, known as "The Handsome" (and played in a rather unispired manner by Italian hunk Daniele Liotti, at his most buttery and beefy here). This is a groan-inducingly familiar story of late 15th c., early 16th c. intrigue, betrayal and bodice-ripping. It drips destructive lust from start to finish. But while La Reine Margot succeeds in making cruel sensuality and ruthless, cut-throat intrigue entertaining to watch, Juana La Loca just doesn't pull off. It just ends up feeling like a big-budgeted soap opera, with below-average, lazy or over-keen acting. Liotti looks positively bored and Pilar López de Ayala in the title role  though to be fair she may mature into a proper talent  just seems to be trying too hard, switching back and fourth from two-dimensional horny-looking to spoilt teenage hysterics all the way through. Some of the supporting cast are OK, with the exception of Manuela Arcuri, another Italian pin-up, voluptuous and beautiful but really no "actress" to speak of. I couldn't in fact bring myself to feel any concern towards any character, nor for that matter did I feel strongly in a negative way against any of the supposed villains. What a waste of a substantial film budget! This one, sadly, is just so rhetorical and deja-vu, nodding to other films in the genre rather than to its source material - history - for inspiration. It seems to me that such a fascinating and complex historic era deserved a far superior film-maker to evoke it.


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


user
This film is a great disappointment. Director Vicente Aranda has provided many interesting films throughout his long career, some of them were highlighted by strong and powerful performances by Spanish actress Victoria Abril. In JUANA LA LOCA, he relies on a gifted actress as well , newcomer Pilar Lopez de Ayala, but this is barely the sole positive element in an otherwise terrible mess of a movie. While Lopez de Ayala tries hard to portray Juana as a romantic and passionate young woman, completely obsessed by love to her handsome husband, it seems as if she weren't able to develop her character over this one-dimensional feature; Juana was an important figure in Spanish history, and politics of that time were essential in her storyline... but here she's introduced as a romantic leading lady out of a soap opera; this is a real pity, and the film a missing opportunity to show the way personal lives can influence History and vice versa. Worst of all, Italian actors Daniele Liotti and Manuela Arcuri turn out in real bad performances, which, in the case of Liotti is a real problem as he portrays Felipe el Hermoso, a pivotal role in this story. It seems a clear choice to attract young audiences, as both of them look like top-models of this era. On the other hand, talented actors such as Giuliano Gemma and Rosana Pastor are completely wasted in supporting roles clearly underdeveloped. Even if this was a big-budgeted film, little care was taken in bringing a good screenplay or creating "period pieces" on the screen. Costumes are particularly grotesque in some of the group scenes, as if they were taken from stock material,without regarding of a real coherence. All in all, the main problem with JUANA LA LOCA (and this is what makes the difference with far superior historical films as LA REINE MARGOT or ELIZABETH) is the lack of a director's point of view. This a strange turn in Aranda's career, as he was able to develop it in other works (LIBERTARIAS and AMANTES come to my mind), creating very personal and interesting movies, while this JUANA really is no more than a routine academic historical piece... and a not very good one 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
Vicente Aranda has made a terrible historical movie. It shows the poor resources of the spanish cinema. In the movie, an irreal script shows Juana just as a ninphomaniac, faced to Felipe, worried only for sex...but sex with others not with her. The technical mistakes begin with the wedding ring that shows Isabel of Castilla -Nobody noticed that?-. Then, the voice in off seems as a documentary, actors and actress in the movie sometimes laughs -take a look to the sequence when Juana arrives to the council which want to keep her isolated-; the castles are almost broken when in the age of the movie they have been recently built, crowds are just "four" people, lights are bad placed...Compared with Amelie Poulain, the french movie for the oscars...it has no sense to speak about a bad movie like Juana la loca.


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


user
What a silly movie. While it looks nice, it doesn't make a lot of sense. On the one hand, the film suggests that Juana's "madness" was that she was just a woman ahead of her time. On the other hand, she has an obsession that is right out of the worst Victorian novel of the wronged woman, and that does seem a sort of mental problem, like Miss Havesham in a castle. This movie is what Elizabeth would have been if Elizabeth had not been able to get past Essex's sexual attraction.


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


user
Even die hard John Wayne fans will have to concede that this film is a mess. Wayne's character, John Tobin is after the gang that killed his parents, led by half Apache, half white renegade Pandro Zanti (Earl Dwire), posing as a Mexican.
There are almost too many silly plot points to count, but those that stand out include Sheriff Williams (Jack Rockwell) cuffing a captured Zanti around his boot, so all Zanti has to do to get free is remove his boot! Tobin's friend Dusty (George pre-Gabby Hayes) takes a thrown knife in the back, and comes back good as new for the rest of the story. In a chase scene, Tobin rides a makeshift log flume through a drainage trough surrounded by log walls in the middle of a desert, and missing his mark, chases (actually walks after) Zanti on foot through the desert. Zanti seeks relief and drinks from a pool of water, but OOPS!, he didn't see the sign above the waterhole that states "Don't Drink Poison". As Zanti collapses dead, Tobin resumes his chase after the remainder of the gang, and captures the whole lot by blowing up a rock wall that seals a secret passage into Dusty's cabin - how convenient.
In the closing scene, the new Sheriff Tobin is seen on the phone talking to the new Mrs. Tobin (Sheila Terry), Dusty's daughter Ruby, who earlier in the film was a kidnap target of Zanti's gang. Apparently, the studio was intent on Wayne's getting the girl in virtually every film they made with him, as this type of ending is completely predictable for almost all of Lone Star's films.


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


user
The most die-hard worshippers of John Wayne will cringe when they watch The Lawless Frontier. Even for a poverty row studio, this one is one stinkeroo.
Unusual for a western we have a criminal who is a sex crime perpetrator. Earl Dwire plays a halfbreed white and Indian who for reasons that are not explained, pretends he's a Mexican, hokey accent and all. Dwire sounds like the Frito Bandito of advertising fame back in the day.
He and his gang happen upon Gabby Hayes and his daughter Sheila Terry. They really don't have anything worth robbing, but Dwire just wants an excuse to kidnap Terry and have his way with her. She hears the dastardly fate she has in store and she and Hayes flee the ranch.
Where they happen to meet John Wayne who's on the trail of the bandits. They also run into one very stupid sheriff who believes Wayne is one of the bandits. Again for reasons I can't quite fathom.
It was a tough way to earn a living grinding out horse operas like these for the Duke. Fortunately better things were on the way.


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


user
While most of Wayne's B efforts are entertaining in a fun way, this film is so sloppily edited and written, it is a dud. The first ten minutes alone show Wayne and bandits in nighttime scenes intercut with stock footage obviously shot in the day. Dwire plays a half white, half Apache bandit with a heavy Mexican accent and he cannot seem to pull off any nationality! I give this a 3.


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 probably Wayne's poorest movie; at least the poorest in which he had a starring role. It's just incredibly bad. The editing is especially awful; it really appears that the editor (if there was one)literally picked up pieces of film off the floor and pasted them together. The opening has to be seen to be believed. John Wayne must have cringed every time it was mentioned! I know there are "B" films - but are there "H" films? If so, this one's an example. And I say this as a devoted JW fan.


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


user
What distinguishes some of the 'Lone Star' films (and many others in western and adventure films of the early thirties) was their lack of what we recognize as formulaic story telling. To be sure they had good vs. evil (the basic element of any Western), boy meets girl and some stock characters, such as the old rancher and his beautiful daughter or grand daughter, and sometimes the evil banker or other businessman, but the way the action played out was often different from film to film.
'The Lawless Frontier' features Earl Dwire in his big star turn (not) as (for some inexplicable reason) Pandro Zanti, a 'half Apache, half American posing as a Mexican who speaks the language fluently.' His biggest posing as a Mexican seemed to be his outrageous mariachi clothes. The only plot seems to be that he wants to steal Ruby, the granddaughter of "Old Dusty" (Gabby Hayes). When meeting her for the first time, Dwire gives her a long once over look that puts him in the big leagues with sexual predators. You'd think that because the opening scene shows Zanti killing John (Wayne) Tobin's father off camera, it would play a bigger part in the film. It doesn't. Too much chasing back and forth between heroes and villains.
We get many good stunts, though, from Yakima Canutt, including pulling Ruby up on his horse when he rides by, jumping on 'renegades' and knocking them off their horses, a horse leap off a cliff into a lake, and even the same slide down the sluice sequence that was in "The Lucky Texan" (1934), although this time the Mighty Yak uses a body surfing log instead of straddling a tree bough, and its inclusion is just as illogical this time too, since they are in a desert.
The high point is clearly John Wayne's measured and methodical well photographed walk across the desert after the fleeing and stumbling Zanti with those fantastic basalt cliffs of Red Rock Canyon (seen in countless serials, westerns and science fiction 'moon' movies) framed behind him. No final gun duel at fifty paces with the heroine running from the wooden steps of the bar to embrace and kiss the conquering hero in this movie! When John Wayne finally catches up with him, Zanti drinks poisoned water from a waterhole and dies.
After a couple too many chase sequences, Zantai's gang is finally captured in Dusty's cabin, emerging one by one from behind a swivel cabinet that apparently leads to a canyon, now blocked off by having been dynamited. No riding off into the sunset or obligatorily kissing the girl: The final shot is Ruby, now Mrs. John Tobin, on the telephone to the now Sheriff John Tobin, "What would Sheriff Tobin like for dinner?" The film also has poor lighting and editing at the beginning, the pacing is slow, some parts with the sheriff cause it to drag, and the horse chases fill up the film. So despite the different and unusual elements, it comes off as one of the weaker Lone Stars.


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


user
Oh, there are many worse Wayne movies. This movie is edited poorly but it has a campy element that makes watching it enjoyable. The villain is an Anglo actor who sports ridiculous Mexican clothes and affects an over-the-top Mexican accent which is hilarious. The girl is dressed like a Jean Harlow wannabe, this is 1934 after all. At least the location shots are beautiful and enjoyable.
Watch it and laugh. Don't expect a serious western, but rather a lightweight and superficial story with poor acting but occasional flashes of camp humor. Wayne is almost ludicrously young and handsome and one can see his acting ability blossomed years after this regrettable venture.


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


user
This slightly ponderous late 50's sci-fi-horror schlock isn't entirely a loser. It's about a manned space rocket that crash lands in a remote area. A bunch of scientists go to investigate and discover that the astronaut is in some kind of coma; he's being kept alive by alien embryos that have been mysteriously implanted in him. Anyway, the title alien monster soon raises it's head causing general havoc, including partial head removal.
The main problem with the film is it's pacing. It takes quite a while for the Blood Beast to appear, and he really only comes into his own in the last 20 minutes or so. He is undoubtedly a completely ridiculous creation but that's really not a problem as he provides a fair amount of comic relief. At the end of the movie where we have the final stand-off and this ludicrous creature starts talking with the voice of the doctor he killed earlier, you will be doing well not to have a giggle. So too in the brilliant x-ray scene where we see the alien embryos floating about in the astronaut's body - it's just too funny for words.
But unfortunately, the fun moments in Night of the Blood Beast come too few and far between. If you're a 50's sci-fi nut though then it's well worth checking this one out. Just don't expect too much.


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


user
"An astronaut (Michael Emmet) dies while returning from a mission and his body is recovered by the military. The base where the dead astronaut is taken to becomes the scene of a bizarre invasion plan from outer space. Alien embryos inside the dead astronaut resurrect the corpse and begin a terrifying assault on the military staff in the hopes of conquering the world," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
A Roger Corman "American International" production. The man who fell to Earth impregnated, Mr. Emmet (as John Corcoran), does all right. Angela Greene is his pretty conflicted fiancée. And, Ed Nelson (as Dave Randall) is featured as prominently. With a bigger budget, better opening, and a re-write for crisper characterizations, this could have been something approaching classic 1950s science fiction.
*** Night of the Blood Beast (1958) Bernard L. Kowalski, Roger Corman ~ Michael Emmet, Angela Greene, Ed Nelson


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


user
After an astronaut dies in space, he is brought back to a military base. Inside the man are discovered alien embryos -- he is the host for what could be a terrible alien invasion! This film comes to us from director Bernard L. Kowalski, who also directed "Attack of the Giant Leeches" (see separate review) but may be better known for his work on "Columbo". Executive producer was Roger Corman, known as the creator of much better films than this one... particularly in the 1960s.
This movie is cheesy and poorly constructed. What comes across as interesting is the poor effects, not the actual film itself. One scene shows a close-up of the alien embryos and it's an embarrassing cartoon representation. Even for 1958. And then when a full-grown alien appears... you'll wonder why he is wearing shoes. Or if you're really perceptive, you'll wonder why you've seen the alien suit in other movies.
By no means is this the worst science fiction film you'll ever see. And you almost have to give it some credit -- the alien host overtaking a military base idea predates both "The Thing" and "Alien" by a number of years. I don't know if these films were inspired in any way (I doubt it), but at least it was ahead of its time. Beyond that, though, the film flops and is only great for heckling when drinking. I haven't seen the "Mystery Science Theater" version, but this sure is one film worthy of their insults.


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


user
Another winner from that 50s , 60s era that I love so much for the comedic value they give with each viewing these days .Corman never lets you down with these films , they take themselves seriously and they have very low budgets , a recipe for good watching for sure . Ed Nelson a very competent actor got started with Corman as well as many other favorites who show up in Superman and many of the westerns of the day . The costume is pretty bad and the sound of the alien speaking , well the reverb was a little off but thats the beauty of it . Film making for the love of it , not looking for perfection just digging the action of doing it , it comes thru . These films are a fun time ! Even better is the MST3K version !!


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


user
For those viewers who thought the 1979 film "Alien" the first to depict a male Earthling being impregnated by a malevolent extraterrestrial, "Night of the Blood Beast," made 21 years earlier, may come as something of a surprise. In this film, America's first man in space crashlands back on Earth and, after examination, is thought to be dead. He later comes to again, only with a half dozen or so alien seahorse thingies growing in his abdomen. The mama (?) alien also pops up to terrify the small band of scientists who are observing our gravid hero, and she (?) seems to have the body of a bear and the head of Yarnek, the rock creature from a 1969 "Star Trek" episode. Anyway, with its short, 62-minute running time, small group of scientists, and cheap-looking monster, this film suggests nothing less than a Grade Z warm-up for "The Outer Limits" (which would premiere four years later), but without the fine writing that that show usually boasted. Despite the lurid title, this film is decidedly sci-fi, not horror, and offers no scares, no laffs, little suspense and little food for thought afterwards. It looks as if it cost around $100 to make (but probably cost twice as much), and its musical score often seems to have no relation to the happenings (I won't use the word "action") on screen. By the film's end, many questions remain: Just how was our hero to give birth to these critters? Why does the alien need to decapitate people to learn our language? (To justify that title, no doubt!) Why can't the space-traveling aliens land on our planet, rather than needing to hitch rides on our ships? How was our hero impregnated to begin with? These are all matters that this little cheapie can't be bothered with. It really is for 1950s sci-fi completists only.


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


user
What a travesty of movie ratings injustice - a 2.1 on the IMDb scale as I write this. Folks, this is a lot closer to a 3.0, I'll even go out on a limb and say 4.0 where I've put it. Come on - how can you have a movie about a net of static electricity surrounding the earth and alien amorphic cell structures, and not give it at least a 4.0 for creativity? Then you've got all that great dialog like - "Dave, look at the composition of this mud." You know, I don't think they ever got back to that mud. No matter, this is the kind of flick that 'Z' movie diehards live for, and I can now rest easy. Actually, I saw this quite a few years ago without the proper appreciation for it, along with Corman titles like "Attack of the Giant Leeches " and "The Wasp Woman". I don't know what the fascination might be, but to quote a character from the film - "Whatever it is, it works fast!"
Back to that alien amorphic cell structure - I liked the idea of a third element competing against your standard red and white blood cells. When astronaut John Corcoran (Michael Emmet) returned from the dead, I had visions of a scene that might have been a precursor to 1979's "Alien", but that was not to be. Instead, budget restrictions limit the picture to a de-feathered Big Bird knock off, even though that concept was still almost a decade away. Who knows where one idea leaves off and picks up with another?
Look, this is not that bad. Not that good, but not that bad. Anytime you can hook up crash landing astronauts with alien beings committed to taking over the Earth, you've got a winning combination. Throw in the cheesy monster factor and you're on your way. Just remember - "A wounded animal that large isn't good".


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


user
This movie has a fairly decent premise - one gruesomely featured again and again in science fiction films, most spectacularly in "Alien" - and some decent "he-man" performances from the male cast. The possessed astronaut's wife, to me, is the weak link in the ensemble - she doesn't seem to know what to do with her face in a lot of her most prominent scenes, for which I blame director Corman.
Given a decent budget for props and special effects and a more focused and coherent screen play, "Blood Beast" might have been pretty decent. But the inherent cheapness of the production design and the continuity errors and gaffes undermine the proceedings. For instance, every time I saw the comatose astronaut laid out on an "examination table" the width of an ironing board, I broke into giggles, probably not the the emotion the crew wanted to invoke. And the monster's costume needed some serious work; fern covered parrots just aren't scary or convincing.
Still, the premise was strong enough that I hung on to the end just to see how the plot would resolve itself, and the alien's motives were sufficiently ambiguous at first that I could sort of think of it as an enigma. And the scene with the shot of the murdered scientist had a bit of punch to it, along with the plot development where the alien claimed to have assimilated some of the dead man's personality.
It's Corman. It's cheap, fast, and mildly watchable if you don't think too hard or expect too much. What more needs to be said?


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


user
I accept that most 50's horror aren't scary by today's standards, but what the hell is this? When you see a title like this you expect to see blood and a blood thirsty beast. Instead we get no blood at all and a beast who either wants to take over the world or live in peace on Earth....yeah which is what the people wanted.
The overall story is fine with the astronaut coming back to life and being one with the beast....but the title really kills the movie. Night of the Beast would have made the fans more happy because there really isn't any blood to speak of.
I like how the 50's movies had endings that left room for a sequel but wisely never made one. This movie isn't the worst i've ever seen but its almost up there.
2 out of 10


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


user
I've been trying to write a plot summary for several minutes now and can't seem to do it. But with a movie as bad as Night of the Blood Beast the plot hardly matters. An astronaut crash lands and is believed dead. His body later reanimates, but is found to be carrying the embryos of some strange alien life-form. But how did they get there? And where's the alien that implanted the strange creatures in Maj. John Corcoran's body?
IMDb lists the runtime for Night of the Blood Beast at 62 minutes. Is that right? 62 minutes? It had to be longer than that. It felt interminable to me. Even with the MST3K commentary (which was very funny by the way), the actual movie felt much, much longer. And it's pretty much a snoozer from beginning to end. I like a lot of these alien invasion type movies of the 50s, but not this one. It failed to grab my interest on any level. The baby aliens were too silly looking to be taken seriously, the titular blood beast was pathetic, and none of the characters did anything for me. Add to that the usual low-budget Roger Corman trappings and you've got a real loser of a movie.


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


user
I had the funny chance of seeing this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, four years ago. I must admit it wasn't as badly done as some other science fiction/horror movies of the time. The plot revolved around an astronaut that came back to earth with alien embryo's inside of him. Now the plot is quite weird, well if you can even call that a plot. (Seeing a space program run out of one building and an old pickup truck is drop-dead funny!) I'll admit it was horrible by today's standards (and 20 years ago)...but I can see myself 43 years ago watching and being charmed by this movie. It's not even close to the badness of Invasion of the Neptune Men, Manos: Hands of Fate or Future War.



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


user
This film is a total bore. Entrapment is way better in all aspects, plot, acting, stunts, etc. Plus the soundtrack is one of the most annoying I've ever heard. I was close to muting the film just to shut it up. 3 out of 10 stars ***


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 sure I'm in the minority (I know I am among my friends), but I found this movie long, boring and gratuitous. The fact that the role played by DENIS LEARY is the most likable character (the only other time I liked him at all was in "A Bug's Life"!) speaks volumes. Rene Russo's character was irritating beyond belief and Thomas Crowne himself was flat and stereotypical. To say he was two-dimensional may be a little generous. (No, the scenes with his psychiatrist did NOT help make him real.)
With the exception of two wonderful scenes (both involving the museum caper and NOT involving Rene Russo), this movie made me wish I were at home watching televised golf.


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


user
"The Thomas Crown Affair" is a terrible remake of a not-very-good movie, redeemable only for the topless shots of former supermodel Renee Russo.
That's it. The plot is negligible, Pierce Brosnan phoned in his part, and Dennis Leary (as usual) plays an annoying Irish cop, but I couldn't take my eyes off the beautiful Ms. Russo. There's an okay love-making scene on a stairway, a terrifically sexy ballroom dance, a topless beach scene, and a roll in the sack. Oh, and there's a painting stolen from a museum and a catamaran gets sunk.
But let's hope other directors recognize Ms. Russo's perky attributes and cast her in more, highly-visible roles.


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


user
I had a bit of hope for this hour long film made up of footage from old Poverty Row movies. Certainly it had the possibility to seem like more than a home video mass marketed to the world. Unfortunately while funny this movie still feels like a home movie, but with stock footage spliced in.
The plot concerns the planned reading of a will on a liner at midnight somewhere in the tropics. The ship sinks and well...thats the movie.
The film promises Karloff, Lugosi, Chaney and others being lifted from old movies to interact with new footage. We get that alright, but mostly we get lots of new video footage made to look like scratchy black and white film, in which new actors prance about. Old footage is inter-cut mostly to set the scene, but very little of the old and new actually matches so its clearly just a put on. Its not very convincing and is very disappointing for someone like me was looking for a better constructed film.
Still if you know and love the old Poverty Row films, (its very spoofy) this might be worth a viewing. I would warn against buying this but it can be had for about five bucks, the price of a rental) so the choice is yours (Though if you can get away with not paying for it do so).
Disappointing.


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


user
Take it from me as a camera man who worked for Republic Studios from 1946 to 1950 and then Warners Bros and Paramount from 1950 to 1993, this is a piece of crap. Sure it would be great to show it to your favorite friends at a house party but to try to sell this on a DVD is absolutely ridicious.
I have seen bad acting in my day but this is NO acting. The hero is almost laughable and he really thinks he is something judging from his comments on the specials. I hate to see his fan club. The old films did not jive with the action in many of the scenes. What the hell was that garden scene with three of worst actresses. I never seen a garden on a ship. They could not even emote. I would not mind it if they could have once ounce of acting but the only one was the guy with the Translvanian accent. I am sorry but this is not a clever film as some persons are stating. I would think horror film buffs would be insulted by this piece of film.


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


user
This isn't "so bad it's good"--It's "so bad, it violates the Geneva Convention's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment"! Only by reading the Synopsis can you even figure out the "plot" of this Straight to Video disaster. It's a hodge-podge of grainy stock footage spliced together with some of the all-time worst acting you'll ever have the misfortune to see. Comparing this incompetent, turgid, humorless mess to "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" is like saying that "Gigli" is like "Citizen Kane". The talentless cast are costumed in cheap, J.C. Penney "Goin' to Church" clothes, and there isn't the slightest attempt at period hairstyles or make-up. If you really want to see how this sort of "homage" can work, check out "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra"--It's clever, well-written, and best of all, performed by actual actors who aren't such agony to watch. For that matter, seek out the work of Phoenix artist Paul Wilson whose Sci-Fi short "The Attack of the 70 foot Courtesy Lady" leaves this film in the dust. The people in Terror In the Tropics look and sound like they were pulled off the street and given their scripts to read during the one and only take. This is an insult to Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, and anyone else involved in the films they cannibalized to make this schlock-fest! Money isn't the problem--A lot can be accomplished with very little expense. A good script, decent actors, and above Z-Grade costumes and production design should have been a given before the so-called director created this stinky pile of cinematic offal. Let's hope the "promise" of a sequel doesn't come true--That was by far the scariest thing shown in the whole movie!!


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


user
being a fan of Bela Lugosi,Boris Karloff,and Lon Chaney Jr i had to see this.what tripe the only thing good about this is the clips of Lugosi,Karloff and Chaney Jr.along with all the vintage clips,that do not gel with the new black and white footage.not even close to Steve martins dead men don't wear plaid,that was done great.with all the technology we have now why was'nt this done better?if you are planning to shell out 5 bucks and some change,be warned this is really bad. but if you like Lugosi Karloff and Chaney Jr then watch their movies instead.even ed wood did better then this one.new actor mark redfield is pretty good as an imitation Bela Lugosi.the clips they use are; the ape,Mr Wong,most dangerous game,lost world,indestructible man. and devil bat.that notorious Bela Lugosi classic.i believe this production was very low budget,and it shows.1 out of 10.


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


user
Problems: 1) Although billed as "a loving tribute to Poverty Row," a lot of the old footage is not even from Poverty Row films-- much of it is from RKO's "The Most Dangerous Game," (1932), with some from the silent (!?) version of "The Lost World" (1926)!
2) Much of the old footage is just used as filler (the old shipboard footage) or as silent shots (for example, of Bela walking, looking or staring) often repeated;
3) Where is the pantheon of Poverty Row Master Thespians (Bela, Boris, Lon Chaney, Jr., George Zucco, John Carradine, Buster Crabbe, Tom Neal, etc.) emoting their lines as punch lines to the 'new' characters jokes (as in Woody Allen's "What's Up Tiger Lily?" or Steve Martin's "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid")? Even Mike Nelson's feeble commentary on the colorized "Reefer Madness" is funnier than this.
High Point: The long but extremely enlightening lecture by Gregory Mank which makes you give new respect to and admiration for Bela, John Carradine and George Zucco. That's worth the price of the DVD alone!


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


user
What a waste of time. I got about five minutes into it and became *very* antsy, and was soon fast-forwarding a bit, and pretty soon the desire to take my thumb OFF the fast-forward button was nonexistent. Actors Mark Redfield and Barry Murphy did very capable jobs, I thought, but no one else I saw gave anything like a good performance. Again, take this review with a large grain of salt because the movie was just so unbearable I couldn't make it to the end. Heck, I couldn't make it to the MIDDLE !!
I find myself unable to submit this review because it isn't long enough. Maybe this last sentence will put it over the top.


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


user
This film is enjoyable if you like poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the "actors" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the "performers" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The "New" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The "flashback" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.
The "filmmakers" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.
The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.
Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!


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


user
After reading the mostly glowing comments about this movie I decided to rent it despite some suspicions of TV movies. I should have followed my instincts.
I tried so hard to warm up to the movie and find merit in it but I just couldn't. The story never draws you in or rings true and the acting is perfunctory at best and laughable at worst. Everything in this production is amateurish.
Always a joy to watch, Mary McDonnell may be the only performer to escape this disaster without damaging her career or reputation. I won't even bother checking the name of the leading man - hopefully he's back doing commercials.
Even poor Vanessa Redgrave, whom I adore and respect, seemed to be channeling Katherine Hepburn all the time appearing as if she were really drugged in the home. Maybe she needed the money.
If I can save one person from wasting 100 minutes on this tripe I will feel vindicated.


assistant
0