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
This movie reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet "monster"... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching "Matlock" reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie is!!!


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


user
Revisiting old films that you thought were average isn't necessarily a good thing. They sometimes get worse. Championed by the Fangoria camp (in Gorezone they labeled it "the scariest film since Texas CHAINSAW"um, no), LUTHER THE GEEK inexplicably developed a cult following as an "intense" horror picture. Actually, it is just an average stalk and slashuh, bite film that briefly sets itself aside from the pack by featuring a killer who clucks like a chicken. Yes, clucks like a chicken. To the filmmaker's credit, at least they didn't make the killer sound like a duck a la THE NEW YORK RIPPER. That would just be silly.
Narrative logic is completely abandoned in LUTHER THE GEEK. I'm not saying that slasher films are abound with reason, but at least in HALLOWEEN Michael Myers escaped. Luther is actually paroled after a lengthy scene where people argue he is reformed, even though he clucks like a chicken and has razor dentures (which he apparently fashioned in prison). It is the kind of film where a couple sees a bashed in door and the girl dismisses it by saying, "Oh, my mom must have forgotten her keys. She forgets a lot of things since my dad died." The kind of film where the hysterical mother runs into a cop looking for Luther and tells him, "The killer is in my house!" So what does he do? He grabs her and literally drags her back to the house and says, "Just show me where he is and I'll do the rest." Why not call back up?
It is too bad the film is filled with such horrible action and dialogue because the Luther character is actually pretty interesting. Most of the credit goes to Ed Terry, a dead ringer for Tom Noonan in MANHUNTER, who gives the clucking Luther a genuine air of menace. In the hands of a right director, LUTHER THE GEEK could be on the same level as SONNY BOY or SANTA SANGRE and be a true cinematic oddity. But Albright is not that director and merely places the fascinating character of Luther in tedious slasher trappings.


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


user
Luther the Geek (1990) is a dull horror movie and is really bad even by Troma's standards!! It's about a freak who bites the heads off chickens, and kills people by biting their necks out, and he actually thinks he's a chicken himself!!!!! Luther gets released from prison after 25 yrs because apparentely he's been a "model" prisoner and deserves another chance in life (which is VERY hard to believe after you see how he acts and treats people throughout the movie).
After killing an elderly lady in a supermarket car park, he manages to sneak into a womans car, and proceeds to torture her, her daughter and the daughters boyfriend at their family home in the country.
Then we get treated to a long winded and boring movie, with awful acting all the way through, before a useless cop turns up to try and kill Luther once and for all!! Oh and the film has a ridiculous and laughable ending too!!! I love low budget horror movies and i think "The Toxic Avenger" is an all time classic, but i'm afraid Luther the Geek is just boring, illogical and dull, not much in the way of gore too, just afew bloody neck bitings and thats about it! 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
I consider myself a big fan of low budget horror movies. The more bizarre and imaginative the film, the more blood and guts, the better, and i really fall in love with cheaply done flicks if they are done right. Luther starts out well enough... his origin at the circus, a creepy run at a supermarket, an attack of an old lady, and his disturbing occupation of a woman's farmhouse all set the mood nicely. A hot sex/ shower scene ensues when the woman's daughter and daughter's boyfriend arrives at the house. When Luther steals the boyfriends motorbike the movie takes a turn for the worse.
The characters are presented with numerous opportunities to: A) save their loved ones, B) get the police to help, C) escape, or (most importantly) D) KILL LUTHER!!! I can't feel empathy or fear for characters that are too stupid to help themselves. Chareters snub chances to arm themselves with guns and knives while Luther is away. A policeman eventually arrives and is equally ineffective in stopping Luther, even though at one point he has a rifle squarely aimed at Luther while Luther clucks and does his rendition of the polish chicken dance. I found myself futilely coaching my television: "Make sure he's dead!", "Hes gone, get out of there!", or "Just kill him already!"
Luther is a bloodthirsty savage, but he is hardly Hannibal Lecter. If you can't outsmart this egghead, you deserve what's coming to you. By halfway through the movie you'll be so lethargic to the fates of the half-wits that only morbid curiosity will sustain you to last to the mildly amusing ending. This movie was noted as one of Fangoria's 101 greatest movies you've never seen... well Fangoria is half-right in the case of Luther the Geek.


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 been a classic in my part of the country because it was filmed in my own small town. I now have many friends who are guards at Dixon Correctional, and I myself worked for 3 yrs at the SuperAmerica store next to the Krogers store the old lady was at. However, this is still the dumbest movie ever made, destined to be introduced by Gilbert Godfreid or Rhonda Shearer, if it hasn't been already. A bit of trivia, Illinois doesn't even have parole hearings, and Dixon Prison is a medium security facility housing burglars and vending machine vandals. The classic clucking/seduction scene is perhaps the most amusing piece of writing I've ever seen, especially with the suspenseful build-up


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 one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The plot revolves around a man named Luther who wears metal dentures, bites people on the neck, and walks around clucking like a chicken without the flapping of the arms. He also thinks he's a chicken.
Sounds bizarre right? Well, to me, the more bizarre and weird the person is, the better. The more gore, the better and so on.
The movie starts out with the board deciding if they want to release this maniac from their institution. They mention that he has created some dentures in prison that he used to bite people on the neck. He also clucks like a chicken and THINKS he's a chicken.
If I had a patient like this, there is no way I would release him.
First, Luther heads to the supermarket and attacks an old woman on a bench and walks away. Then, he sneaks in the back seat of a woman's car and she drives all the way to her home.
While at the house, Luther ties up the woman to the bed. When the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend come home, Luther hides.
Later through the film, a cop comes to the front door and asks about the mother. You can clearly see the daughter is scared out of her mind and crying but the officer keeps asking if everything is okay. She replies that everything is fine. The officer finally gets in his car and leaves. If I saw a woman constantly crying and looking scared, I would want to at least get inside the house to investigate a little.
The ending is stupid as well. While the woman in in the barn, she starts clucking and gets Luther excited so he starts walking around flapping his arms and clucking like a maniac. She finally shoots him and just sits there for a minute before finally clucking some more.
Then the credits roll.
This is one of the STUPIDEST movies I have ever seen! NOTHING happens at the woman's house! NOTHING!
I sometimes like campy films but this one really bored me.
I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Good idea, bad direction!


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 so awful that I can't even describe it. I was amazed that I even sat through this pile of trash. I couldn't believe that a movie like this was even thought of. It was a about a serial killer that clucks like a chicken. He doesn't just cluck a couple of times, he clucks non-stop through out the whole movie. He even flaps his arms like a chicken which is even stupider than anything I have ever seen. I couldn't believe this came out in 1990. I thought it came out in the early '80's or something. Then the daughter isn't very smart either because she was protecting the geek or man chicken. The end just gets worse and is the worse ending I have ever seen. This movie is just chicken s**t. I was laughing more than I was scared and I strongly suggest going out and getting a bucket of fried chicken instead of seeing this movie.


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


user
This is an odd movie. On the surface it's no different to many other d-grade gore movies but in at least a few ways it stands out. Firstly, the main killer character is really weird. How the heck a guy who only ever clucks like a chicken got paroled is totally beyond me. What was that female parole board member thinking: "he's totally reformed and rehabilitated". He clucks! Another problem with Luther the Geek is the script/direction for the women. The daughter is so pathetic and seemingly stupid that if she was mine I'ld slap her. In attempting to untie her mother off the bed she struggles with knots and just doesn't seem to think, "I'll get scissors, or a knife". Later on, in a similar attempt to untie her mother she wanders down stairs and starts searching in a box of scrap-booking stuff for some scissors, eventually she gets a knife. By the way, this is after the killer has obviously left in the car and just returned. Bizarre. On the plus side the daughter did get her kit off for the shower scene, so that was nice, although again unusual. It seems that in many of these d-grade gore movies they happily show throats being bitten open with gushing blood but the sight of a female breast is somehow too strong for the audience. In general, it worked but it was annoying and nasty, although the bare breasts made up for some of 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 isn't a very good movie, but it is easily the best Troma Studios film I have ever viewed. Lloyd Kaufman - the "brains" behind Troma - isn't concerned with a good plot or even making a moderately entertaining film. His chief concern is making something bizarre. And his definition of bizarre oftentimes mirrors my definition of terrible cinema.
In this film we have the titled character Luther - whose favorite pastime isn't Baseball, but biting the heads off of chickens - receiving his release from lockup. The board has deemed him rehabilitated despite the fact that he doesn't speak - he merely clucks like a chicken - and has a set of razorblade dentures at his disposal. Of course, once Luther is set free, he goes about causing mayhem, first at a grocery store and later at a farm house.
VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Lots of violence in this oftentimes tasteless flick. Luther sinks his razorblade chompers into a poor elderly lady waiting at a bus stop and then spends the rest of the film terrorizing the mother and daughter at the farmhouse).
NUDITY: $$$$$ (Stacy Haiduk delivers some noteworthy skin in his picture, as the former Lois Lane (I can't recall which Superman edition she was from) gives us a shower scene followed by a romp in bed with her boyfriend - a guy who just doesn't have any chemistry with Ms. Haiduk. The extended shower scene footage in the DVD extras gives the viewer quite a bit more of Stacy. She is quite something).
STORY: $ (Forgettaboutit!!!! Whitey Styles' screenplay may just be the worst ever written. The way in which Luther is released from the asylum completely throws all credibility out the window. His dialogue is something that a pre-schooler might write and the actions he writes for his characters border on the absurd. It's as if Styles spent ten years without human contact and completely forgot how people react in certain situations).
ACTING: $$ (The film belongs to Edward Terry who actually does a decent job as the Geek. He is quite menacing in a stupid barnyard fashion. Joan Roth as the mother does a super job in support but Haiduk and her boyfriend's lack of chemistry made their roles awkward at best).


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


user
I'd chose either over this film. This film has been in my "must see" list for a while because people talked about it being "disturbing" and also the VHS box contains lots and lots of quotes from people saying how "amazing" it is, or how "as close as you can get to texas chainsaw massacre" and lines like that. But, sorry folks, I was disappointed big time. The idea is interesting, but the script is SO underdeveloped that each character becomes a mistaken creation of evolution and people do indeed to the dumbest films in the film.
That, in turn, takes away any credibility that the plot may have otherwise had. I couldn't believe how unnecessarily loooooong some "where is he, let's find him" sequences were. A few gory moments to please the gore fan, but they are so few that by the time we get to them there's no point. If Luther's a geek, then the filmmakers must really be down on the food chain.


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


user
Shot in my former home town by a couple of college kids, this movie centers around some freak named "luther". Luther, recently paroled (revealed to us by an arguing parole board in one of the most laughably scenes of all time), runs amuck at the local Kroger grocery by eating an old woman's neck with his metal teeth.
Luther runs to farm where he eats a guy, steals a car, ties up an old woman, and gets chased, and gets killed. Oh, and the chick from the SUPERBOY tv show gets naked.


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


user
Garden State must rate amongst the most contrived and pretentious films of all time. The plot is a simple one, involving a young man returning home after his mother's death and discovering love. But really, the plot isn't important. What is important to Zach Braff - writer, director, and star  is that he is able to hang from the plot all the necessary accoutrements of an 'indie' or 'arty' film. We therefore are presented with endless cute and quirky characters and scenes that don't exist for reasons of plot or character development, but simply to give some artistic credibility to the film (à la Wes Anderson - or so Braff hopes). Unfortunately and somewhat astonishingly, Braff has not only fooled many on IMDb, but also some critics who really ought to have known better.
Of course, Braff's gratuitous use of the quirky alone does not make Garden State a bad film. What really makes Garden State a stinker is Braff's script. He simply does not have the writing skills to carry this film off, and the dialogue and characterisation are abysmal. Braff often has to resort to blunt devises and symbolism to achieve what he can't achieve through the writing. For example, the numbness of the Braff character is shown to us by his indifference to an impending plane crash (this can't be worked into the plot, and so has to take place in a dream!), later he is shown fighting back against his circumstances by screaming into a bottomless abyss (life = a bottomless abyss, very clever Mr Braff). Those two scenes must rank amongst the most ludicrous and contrived ever seen on a cinema screen.
On the plus side, the acting is passable despite the lack of material for the cast to work with (by which I mean a script), and I do admire Natalie Portman for her efforts as the love interest - a character so badly written and implausible that she is little more than a mindless doll that Braff moulds into his fantasy woman.
It apparently took Braff 3 years to write the script for Garden State (3 years to write a script this bad - he really is inept!). Hopefully therefore it will be some time before he makes another film.


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


user
Garden State was a mediocre film at best. The film seems more like a compilation of thoughts that the writer (Zach Braff) had, rather than a cohesive story. The disjointed plot may have been more engaging if it weren't interspersed with pointless scenes that were nothing more than "quirky." Coincidentally these scenes are often the ones that are relayed in conversation (Zack walking past faucets that turn on as he passes, crazy under-cranked party scene, shouting over a gorge, the list goes on).
The main character is flat, disengaging, and ultimately unlikable, which is exhibited most in the scene where he talks to his father, selfishly ignoring his fathers problems, including a recently deceased wife, and droning on about his own "What am I to do with my life?" problem.
The film ends when Andrew (Zach Braff) decides not to go back to LA because he cannot tear himself from the love of his life, Sam (Natalie Portman) whom he has known for 2 days. Which can only lead me to the conclusion that the message of the film is that love at first sight cures occupational dilemmas... Sure you could interpret it as a misappropriation of priorities, but if that is the case it could have been done better. Much better.
This film does not know what it wants to be. A drama, a comedy, a teenage-wasteland film, or a gamut of other things. I say this not as a single-genre oriented person, but as a person who loves multi-genre pieces such as those mastered by Stanley Kubrick. The reason I feel it does not work for Garden State is because rather than blending the genres together, it jumps around; one scene is one genre, the next another, and back again, so on.
I have heard many people tell me to cut Zach Braff some slack, after all it was his first feature film and he debuted as Director, Writer, and lead actor. Impressive as it was a first film, I should think that with as much money as he has, he could do better. There have been much better first-time feature film directors (Michel Gondry "Human Nature", David Gordon Green "George Washington"). Maybe if he stuck to writing OR directing OR acting it would have been better. Zach Braff is a talented performer, maybe his second attempt won't be so tedious and disjointed.


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


user
Wave after wave of directionless nausea - this film wants and at first promises to be quirky and original but is in fact obvious, solipsistic and mired in cliché-driven dialogue which builds to a crecendo of awfulness and cheese by the end. Throughout the film we meet supposedly off the wall characters, who are actually very dull, and just don't quite work and who clunk through the horrific screenplay like men in armour suits, driving jeeps through mansion houses and spouting preppy existential obviousness accompanied by the whinings of Coldplay. The film has occasional funny episodes, often no funnier than a dog playing with its genitals, which happened twice (an index of the slapstick, rudimentary humour of the film in general) but by the end, the film falls into an 'infinite abyss' of complete detritus and the director's egocentric ramblings which made me want to gouge my eyes out. Watch this film at your peril.


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 that might send me nasty e-mails, shove it. There is a trend in Hollywood where those that create overly-quirky movies are instantly impervious to criticism. Garden State tends to be one of those movies.
Sure, Zach Braff, star of a rather overrated sitcom, surprises people with some talent behind the camera, but that doesn't warrant the kind of praise that a film like this has been receiving. The story is often times too thin and shallow to provide any real insight. People have compared this film to The Graduate, but those type of people are the types that try to oversell independent cinema. Indie films are subject to the same hit and miss mentality that typically hits the studio films, but people seemed to have forgotten that there are far more bad indie films than good ones. Garden State isn't atrocious, but its isn't great.
First off, the film is too quick, resulting in a rather fast reemergence of Large into his former life. After ten years, people tend to act like he never left. Where's the awkwardness? Of course, the situation is always solved by a quick drug tasting scene (which I will say was portrayed rather accurately). The film seem to present a lot of emotional inequities, giving us the idea that the emotion will come up later in a more deeper and more well thought out way. However, it fails to deliver on those fronts, leaving us wondering why the journey to some of his decisions and moments were quickly resolved (like Peter Saarsgard's grave robbing tendencies). It wasn't completely abysmal, but maybe we should stop praising the film as something it isn't.


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


user
Of all the directors ever to sit behind a camera Wellman could break your heart quicker than anyone. Even Ford. But this is one of his worst. Even he seemed to know it, probably from its jejune treatment, not much above a Bonanza or Big Valley.
Yet there is one moment, typical Wellman that comes out of nowhere to shatter you, the death of the Indian wife of Gable. She has gone to give her baby some water and WHAM is killed by an arrow instantly. No warning. Nada.
One of the most shocking, unprepared for deaths in all cinema. Particularly after investing a whole hour of love for the lady in what looked to be a sappy western. Of course the treatment of her afterwards is laden with Wellman's total indifference, apparently, to the film. Even so it is a reminder of the power he has always had at his best.


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 begins with much voice-over, a bad sign. Then it just slides downhill with silly and intelligence-insulting scenes involving trappers and Indians. But, it reaches new and impressive lows when all the merry mountain men square dance with each other in a high alpine meadow. Meanwhile, the happy-go-lucky Indians sit around watching them. It's a better scene than the dancing cowboys in "Blazing Saddles". There is a minor flaw in this comparison; "Across the Wide Missouri" is not a comedy.



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


user
The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.
What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.
The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.
I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken.


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


user
Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride).
This baby falls into the "so bad it's entertaining" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case!


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


user
**May Contain Spoilers**
The main character, a nobleman named Fallon, is stranded on an island with characters so looney and lethal he might have been better off drowning. Count Lorente de Sade (pronounced "dee-SAYd") talks to his own hallucinations and sees all intruders on the island as invading pirates. He routinely beats mute servant Anne and tortures his unwilling guests in the dungeon. Inadvertant laughs are provided by giant "Nubian" slave Mantis who talks with a Deep South accent and helps de Sade hunt down trespassers in the style of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. De Sade's crazed wife, ravaged by leprosy, provides some truly scary moments as she prowls the dungeon and embraces a helplessly chained prisoner. (This scene was viewed on late-night TV by many kids who carried the memory into adulthood.) The one nearly-normal person in sight is Cassandra, who has self-deprecation down to a science. ("I used to be a nurse, now I'm not much of anything.") She and Fallon plan their escape and ultimately encounter an enemy more fearsome than de Sade and Mantis combined.
This movie was shot in San Antonio and directed by a man more competent at drawing horror comics than making horror movies. (I'll say this much for Mr. Boyette--he does showcase his fixatation with contagion here, as he did in his comics.) It's rather like an Andy Milligan melodrama minus the meat cleavers. The period wardrobe, library music, abuse of the handicapped and all-around misanthropy makes one wonder if Andy wasn't called in as a consultant. However, Milligan made better costumes and wrote better dialogue. Technical gaffes are too numerous to list here but you know this flick is in trouble when you see the opening shipwreck, which looks like it was shot in a fish tank. Also, a film made in Texas should have had real spiders and snakes rather than rubber ones. Glorious Eastmancolor gives this melodrama the garish look it so richly deserves. Fallon's initial encounter with the leprous Countess is truly horrifying, as is the movie's parting shot. If the rest had been half as harrowing, THE DUNGEON OF HARROW would have been a terror classic. Instead it's a funny piece of schlock that trash-fiends will love, for all the wrong reasons.


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


user
Buyer beware. The Alpha Video release uses a print that defies description. The movie was shot in color but you wouldn't know it for the first 25 minutes or so. The print that is used is so faded and decrepit that it appears almost sepia toned. After 30 minutes some color seeps back into the print but from there to the conclusion the color comes and goes. Keep in mind, even at it's best the color is pale and washed out. It looks like the print was recorded off a television that wasn't getting the best reception. Adding to this travesty is the most plodding delivery of lines that I can recollect. Even the voice over narration is stupor inducing. Every line is delivered in this irritating plodding demeanor. I found myself wishing that they would hurry and get the words out. For this reason I couldn't wait for this movie to end. It's one of those so-bad -it's- good movies but I wish that someone would find a half decent print.


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


user
The basic idea behind "Dungeon of Harrow" isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say "Special Guest Star" and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln." because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner.


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


user
This weird movie from Texas is about Fallon, a dilettante rich boy in the late 1800s (although he looks like a 60s C&W singer with greasy hair and sideburns) whose ship wrecks on an island owned by Count DeSade (pronounced de-sayd) with his captain. The count is afraid of pirates and tortures a young girl who was once a pirate hostage and also tortures the captain. Meanwhile, creepy former nurse Cassandra tells Fallon the secrets of the castle. The Countess has leprosy and went mad! Fallon is trapped but brings supplies. The captain is killed by a racist-caricature slave. Fallon is thrown in the dungeon with the leper, who always thinks it's her wedding day. The leper bride is horny, bu Cassandra kills her. Fallon and Cassandra escape the castle, but the Count and his slave chase them with dogs. DeSade kills the slave and Fallon kills DeSade. Fallon and Cassandra fall in love over the course of the next year, but when the supply ship comes, the crew refuses to take our lovers because they're both lepers now. They live for years in the castle...Fallon's hair turns gray and Cassandra goes bonkers. Fallon puts her in the dungeon. Our tale of love and leprosy ends.
So bizarre it's watchable, and you can smell the drive-in popcorn.


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


user
"Dungeon of Harrow" had a lot of things that could've made this quite a good horror film. Creepy mansion, a torture chamber, a paranoid host, a henchman, a ghoul in the dungeon, etc. But sadly to say this wasn't made very well.
A writer and a skipper get shipwrecked on an island owned by a count in a castle, his slave, and a mute maid. The count becomes more and more suspicious that the two shipwrecked men are pirates (of all things) and gets more inclined to turn on them and subject them, and the mute maid who befriends them, to torture and imprisonment. Sound not-bad right?
Well, not quite. I used to call this one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but now I hesitate. Because it had so much potential it can't really be called "one of the worst." However, seeing all this potential go to waste is a really big hit against this film. All in all, it's not a very good movie.
There is a very Gothic-suspense scene when our hero is chained in the dungeon and is confronted by the insane and leprous rotting bride, adorned in a tattered wedding dress. This was both creepy and disturbing the first time I saw the horror unfold in this scene. Man I wish this was a better movie!
This movie had all the right stuff to make this a moody late-night chiller, but ultimately took all the wrong turns. I suggest someone remake this one.


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


user
A couple of men are ship-wrecked on a remote island. They are then captured by an insane count who lives there with a small group of servants; while in the castle dungeon lives the count's unfortunate leper wife.
The Dungeon of Harrow is pretty much a hack job of a movie. The amateur actors all sleepwalk through the film while an annoyingly insistent score continually plays in the background. The various bits of action are all filmed in an incredibly unenergetic way; in fact the film in general is completely lethargic. It just seems to drag on and on. And even though the ending isn't too bad you will be hard-pressed to care by that point. As an example of 60's Gothic horror, this is strictly a bargain basement example. I sadly can't recommend this one really.


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


user
This movie tries to be more than it is. First of all, the acting is horrible. You have to get past the incredibly bad delivering of lines and terrible emoting. The plot is quite interesting. A shipwreck occurs (apparently because it was made out of strings and balsa wood), and a couple of guys find themselves on shore. If this weren't bad enough, some guy named Count de Sade is living there as well. He lives in fear of pirates and has gone utterly insane. Anyway, he has a large slave, a young woman, and some dogs. There's another woman who doesn't speak and his wife, who is a leper. Anyway, things get bad as these men have to deal with this nut case. He is arrogant and likes to pose and deliver lines. The rest of the movie involves an attempt to escape. It has an ironic ending which I won't reveal and it kind of rescues the film. I wouldn't bother if I were you.


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


user
Why can't a movie be rated a zero? Or even a negative number? Some movies such as "Plan Nine From Outer Space" are so bad they're fun to watch. THIS IS NOT ONE. "The Dungeon of Horror" might be the worst movie I've ever seen (some of anyway. I HAD to fast forward through a lot of it!). Fortunately for the indiscretions of my youth and senility of my advancing age, there may be worse movies I've seen, but thankfully, I can't remember them. The sets appeared to be made with cardboard and finished with cans of spray paint. The special effects looked like a fifth grader's C+ diorama set in a shoebox. The movie contained unforgivable gaffs such as when the Marquis shoots and kills his servant. He then immediately gets into a scuffle with his escaping victim, who takes his flintlock and shoots him with it, without the gun having been reloaded! This movie was so bad my DVD copy only had name credits. I guess no company or studio wanted to be incriminated. Though I guess when you film in your garage and make sets out of cardboard boxes a studio isn't needed. This movie definitely ranks in my cellar of all time worst movies with such horrible sacrileges as "The Manipulator", the worst movie I have ever seen with an actual (one time) Hollywood leading man-Mickey Rooney. The only time I would recommend watching "The Dungeon of Harrow" (or "The Manipulator" for that matter) would be if someone were to pay you. (I'm kind of cheap) I'd have to have $7 or $8 bucks for "Dungeon" and at least ten for "Manipulator". phil-the never out of the can cinematographer


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


user
If it was possible to give negative stars I would for this stinkburger.
Don't get me wrong I LOOOOOOVVVEEEE a good crappy movie. I am a big fan of films like Octoman, Wizard Of Mars, Queen King and others. Real classics of B-Cinema.
But this film actually makes Jack Nicolson and Boris Karloff in The Terror look like an academy award winner!! The Dialouge is so needlessly long-winded, and mostly inappropriately used. (ie. "I will now Condensened (yes, condensend!!) to your wishes. The acting might have been a lot better if they had some more logical lines.
The story? What story, A count is exiled because his wife had leprosy? I'm still not sure on that count. A (Rich?) Fleet one and the Captian of one of his ships crash on the island? People acting unnaturally? OK, I like camp in b-films a lot, there lies a lot of it's charm, but this was just dumb..plain dumb. A salty sea Captian who sounds as well versed as a college professor? A fleet owner who is as clueless as they come (I felt this guy had no idea of how to play it, one scene he's Spanish acting, the next English/European)? The count, who's not sure if he's a reincarnation or really DeSade (Don't ask me how DeSade figures into this, after 4 beers my wife, friend and I still couldn't figure it out.
The scare factor? I could show this turkey to my small grandkids and only worry about them sleeping through it. I like a lot of early 60's horror movies, and some still have good shocks, but this thing...never had a shock, or even a hint of of a scare.
On the info on the back it says, "This Movie contains scenes that are so vivid and degrading that they will surpass your worst nightmare." The ONLY degradation is WATCHING THIS MOVIE. It's 90 mins.(The case says it's 74 mins.) of your life you do not get back.
I paid only a buck, yes one buck, for this and another film. I still feel like I am owed .50 cents for even sitting though this.
To sum up Dungeon Of Harrow had NO ONE Named Harrow in it, but, it did have a lovely cardboard dungeon.


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


user
That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious "star" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The "special effects", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.


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 seven people fear they are the only survivors of a near world ending H-bomb blast. Not only do they fear the radiation, but also mutants in the surrounding hillside. One of the group is already contaminated, but strangely poses no real threat to the others. Just surviving the friction of assorted personalities at close range is the sub-plot. Richard Denning plays the hero. Mike Connors is close to the edge playing a tough guy. Lori Nelson is the girl destined to start populating a brave new world. Not one of director Roger Corman's best. This is predictable black and white sci-fi.


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


user
A 1957 Roger Corman non epic in which a sundry bunch of characters end up in a lead lined valley (sic) just as stock footage thermo nuclear heck is unleashed. It's the end of the world. Four men with guns, two women, (one an unmarried virgin the other a Las Vegas show gird who drinks and smokes - guess which one makes it to the end of the movie?) Time passes, tensions develop (or are supposed to). Something is in the woods eating radioactive rabbits. A mutant monster! Seven weeks of radioactive dust has performed "a million years of evolution" (on an already living human) the result is a laughably bad, zip up the back, rubber monster who is strangely scared of their only source of fresh water. It rains. The monster dissolves. The remaining two characters, the Hunk and the Virgin. set out to repopulate the world as the caption 'The Beginning' fills the screen after it transpires that the brief shower of rain had washed all the radioactivity away and dissolved all the monsters running around 'out there'.
The only thing of real note about this is the incredible amount of 'curtain acting' that goes on in it. One of the staple elements of bad and lo budget movie making of the period was the superabundant use of curtains in the set design. It was cheap. Finished with one set-up? Pull a curtain across, drop a different piece of furniture in front of it and you have a different location in minutes without having to move the camera or change the lighting.
'Curtain acting' is a skill in which the actor will get to comment on what's going on outside any building he happens to be in ("It looks like Rain", or "Here they come now, and it looks like they've got the sheriff with them!", that sort of stuff). He'll do this by standing to one side of the window - reaching across his body and lifting the curtain away from the window but along the axis of the shot - ie towards the camera - thus enabling him to pretend to look out and tell us what's happening off screen, without letting the audience see he's staring at the studio wall three inches away from his nose behind some cheap velvet curtains. There was a lot of that in this movie.


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


user
This is a very low budget film, set in one location in a valley shielded by the effects of radiation. The cast, an older man and daughter, a handsome visitor, a couple (a tough buy and gal), a drifter, a donkey and a radiation affected man, interact during the after effects of a nuclear blast. Added to this is an entity watching the women take a bath.
They all have guns, some of them get shot, some of them are told to have children, others are murdered and others just drift away and, well this is the movie. Harvey Cormann's first film, it shows a certain simplicity in movie making. To avoid expensive sets, actors go through curtains to enter and exit the house (ie the studio). The location shots filmed in the hills near Hollywood are the backdrop.
I would not say this is worth going out of your way to see, but interesting to see how movies with human subjects were made in the 50s.


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


user
This story starts at the end ! So the film's opening credits advise us. Unfortunately that's not true as we then are treated to around 70 minutes of a typical B science fiction movie of the 1950's. The story is dreary; the plot is very weak and has clearly been filmed on a low budget, as was often the case in those days.
The story could have covered any situation where people are taking refuge in an isolated house and being threatened by someone outside. it just happened to be adapted to fit round a sci-fi story.
The scenery consisted of a few rocks, bushes, and smoke. - Oh yes there was a pool of water as well. Someone wore a rubber mask with a beak like face and what looked like feathers.
Written by Lou Rusoff, who penned several sci-fi stories around that time including The She Creature and It Conquered The World The filming was completed in a matter of days, not allowing the actors time to develop their characters to better advantage. The low budget restraints also prevented this film reaching its potential. It could have been a much better film than it turned out to be.
Mike Connors and Richard Denning brought some life to the film, but even they could not lift this film into the category where you could say- 'I enjoyed that film' Richard Denning's acting career began in 1937. He starred with Gregory Peck and Deborah Kerr in An Affair to Remember and later became more well known on television in the series Hawaii Five-O and The Flying Doctor series.
Directed by Roger Corman who has many films to his credit both as a director and producer. He has made some good films and is still making them. He became very well known for his direction of films from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe, often starring Vincent Price. He also made other low budget films; some were good and entertaining for one reason or another, and most were much better than this.
I would not recommend this film to anyone.
Darnmay
10th September 2007


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's only redeeming factor was the fact that it was on TV for free, and that it probably helped the Romanian economy. Other than that, Hallmark needs to re-evaluate this division of their empire, and maybe keep their movies more oriented towards bizarre love affairs between cancer-stricken hemophiliacs in Mississippi. To go into details about how mindless this movie is would give credit to it for being memorable. It wasn't. I remember the act of watching it, there being vampires (some of them teenage) and some very bad dubbing. Whoever worked on the dubbing track of this movie needs to be relocated to another sector of society...maybe food service, to the deaf. If you have the opportunity, watch this movie, just because it makes so many other really bad movies seem Oscar-worthy in retrospect. Then again, if you actually ended up at this movie's profile, I imagine that it may be too late...


assistant
0