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
The Man with the Golden Arm (the movie) is a decent career vehicle for Frank Sinatra, but fails abysmally as a good adaptation of a fantastic book. You always hear about how books are "changed" when they are made into films- things are cut out, dumbed down, etc. Well, you can't even say they "changed" anything with the movie- they just told a completely different story. The characters and setting are the same sure- but not the ambiguous characterization, the depth of the men and women of Polish Chicago in the book. As for the setting, it's become merely a play stage, complete with the unnecessary "supporting role" players walking all too busilly down the claustrophobic, interior exterior streets. The movie is a dumbed-down, completely different take on Frankie Machine and drug addiction. When this happens, Zosh, Frankie, Sparrow, all lose their psychological edge. Frankie's drumming, a modest dream in the book, becomes his full passion in the movie (probably because Sinatra is a musician). And drug addiction is treated as shlock, exploitavely. The acting is decent, especially the snakelike Louie, who is more menacing in the movie than the book. But it's just a shame this kind of movie can be heralded as a classic alongside the book it is "based upon," the real story of Frankie Machine. The movie just goes to show Hollywood can' get anything right without dumbing it down and adding a happy ending. In this case, they just changed it completely, cheapening an important and realistic story into Hollywood fluff. I'm sure as hell biased because I read the book first, so I can't really treat the movie honestly by knowing how good the book is. I actually thought about turning the movie off (and I never do that), just so I wouldn't get its silly plot confused with the beauty of the book. But this is an overrated film, and while it's not so bad, the book should come first, as it was the first. And it should have remained the only story of Division Street and Frankie Machine.


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


user
Despite the fact that this was a Made-For-TV movie (and an obvious one at that: ie., cheap looking), CLASS WARFARE left me wishing I could get my money back, and considering this lame production was partially funded through Canadian dollars, I might just be entitled.
What made me sit through it in the first place was seeing actress Lindsey McKeon, who I've watched for the last couple years in her role as "goody-goody" Mara Lewis on the soap-opera GUIDING LIGHT, taking a turn at playing "the bad girl" for a change.
Surprisingly she does quite well, as Kristen, a spoiled rich-b*tch who suddenly finds herself dirt-poor, but with a conniving streak, and a twist of fate, that will possibly change her fortunes back around. The twist of fate is provided in the character of Richard (Robin Dunne), a socially-radical outcast who discovers that he has just gone from having nothing to winning $23 million on a lottery ticket. Now, put Richard, Kristen, her jock-boyfriend Jason (Wade Carpenter), and their camcorder-obsessed mutual buddy Graham (Dave McGowan) together for the weekend in a remote cabin, cut off from the world by storms, and just guess what unfolds.
The film suffers from congesting both the story and characters'personas and motives too much. Everyone is pretty one-dimensional and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that some things, and some people, are going to go very bad, very quickly. I don't think this is that original a plot and it doesn't go out of it's way to make itself anything more. The acting is OK, McKeon is spot-on as the manipulative female lead, and Dunne is very good, perhaps a little too good at times, but no one else is worth writing home about. The only other real credit I can give the film is the one twist I didn't see coming towards the end (not the very end though, that one is so obvious it hurts). Regardless, I sat through all of it and lived to tell the tale so I can't say it was a complete write-off.
4/10. A "something-to-watch-when-nothing-else-is-on" type 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 just watched this movie on Bravo! and it was absolutely horrible. It has the plot of a Shannon Tweed movie without the nudity. The premise was interesting enough, a winning lottery ticket in a secluded area and people who have reasons why they want the money. The characters were trite as were the observations on human nature and greed.
For a movie called Class Warfare it had very little to do with class differences other than the first 20 minutes and the predictable ending. This movie could have done a lot better if there had been more characters with motivations to get the ticket and was a "who done it?"
The acting wasn't fantastic but it's hard to seem believable with such a terrible script. Lindsey McKeon is very cute and I'd like to see what she could do in a better production with a better script. She's probably the only reason why I sat through 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
Clifton Webb is one of my favorites. However, Mister Scoutmaster is not one of his best. His patented curmudgeon role seems forced and even unpleasant rather than funny. The film itself is overflowing with mawkish sentimentality. In addition, the viewer is presented with numerous ham-handed references to religious faith and U.S. patriotism that come off as over-reverent rather than genuine. Clifton Webb does his best with a poor script. Edmund Gwenn plays yet another jovial clergyman and is given nothing to do. The child actor lead is played by a talentless child who displays a flat affect throughout the entire film. His sole claim to fame as a performer evidently is a bullfrog-like low voice unusual for someone of his age. However, once you've heard it, you've heard it and you don't need to hear it again. Unfortunately, he is in the majority of the film's scenes. I find this child so irritating that I fast forward whenever he shows up. Since he has a lot of scenes in this film, this means that I fast forward through a lot of the film. There were and are so many talented child actors; it's a pity this film doesn't have any of them in it. Still, Clifton Webb in the traditional broad-brimmed hat and shorts is a sight worth seeing.


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


user
As a physicist, talk about blackholes and cosmology gets my heart racing. However I found this presentation too slow and not packed with enough information for the interested layman (who is most likely to see it). If you have more than a passing curiosity in this sort of stuff, go to the library and check out some books. You will find they explain current scientific cosmologies with far more detail while at the same time filling you with more of a sense of wonder than this movie does. Also to set the record straight: Hawking is NOT considered the "greatest mind" or the world's "smartest person" as commonly asserted even among the user reviews here at the IMDb. Hawking himself has commented that "It is rubbish. It is just media hype. They needed somebody to fill the role model of disabled genius. At least I'm disabled." To be fair, he is probably a genius but among history's greatest scientists, people like Einstein, Newton, Gauss, and many others easily are even more highly regarded. This is not to disrespect Hawking who is a undoubtedly a great scientist but rather not to disrespect others who have done even more than he has. Anyhow, see the movie if you are truly into science. But if not, I think it would be boring for you.


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


user
You'd hardly know that a year later MGM put Norma Shearer in THE DIVORCEE which glows with MGM technical know how. How far they came in one year. CHENEY is a very stagey early talkie. The camera hardly moves. Shearer is her usual charming self and Rathbone does well in a romantic leading role. They are all very careful to speak clearly and slowly into the microphone source which does mitigate against a naturally flowing dramatic scene, but the play is a sturdy and fun warhorse so one can enjoy oneself if one's expectations are not too high. Oh, by the way, the plot involves a ring of upper class jewel thieves who infiltrate themselves into society to prey on their victims. There are some clever twists in the script and true love conquers all. An Oscar nom for Best Screenplay Adaptation.


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


user
I found this early talkie difficult to watch and I'm a Norma Shearer fan! It's not her fault, but the primitive production values of this film would cause any viewer to become bored. 90% of the movie is filmed with "medium shots," and it's very similar to watching a dull play.


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


user
This version is very painful to watch. All of the acting is very stilted but especially that of Norma Shearer who is still acting as though she were in a silent movie instead of a talkie. Check out the 1937 version with Joan Crawford, Robert Montgomery and William Powell which is much more entertaining.


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


user
I saw this movie as part of a Billy Graham program. The church I attend was part of a community wide outreach to present God and Christianity to our community (Hartford, Ct. USA). I was one of the counselors who helped attendees (who were invited to come forward and make whatever kind of religious profession they wanted...and to follow up on them after the movie. As such, it did what it was supposed to do, and I personally found it to be a medium to strengthen my faith in God.I also found it to be very helpful to those I counseled. I especially like the work of Kim Darby in this movie. And the parents (the Wintons?) were , in a way, a little overdrawn....no one says to their child if they think that he or she may be the parent of an illegitimate child something like the Wintons did "oh, no, no, not thaaat." That isn't exactly what they said, but the sympaathetic audience I saw had a laugh at whatever it was they did say, and also at the son's emphatic "No, MOm, not me." Don Berghuis


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


user
It's exactly what the title tells you...an island inhabited by fishmen. Shipwrecked doctor Claudio Cassinelli and crew land on the island, they're either picked off by the fishmen or roped into working for treasure hunting lunatic Richard Johnson. Cassinelli discovers that Johnson, who believes he's found the lost city of Atlantis, has been keeping disgraced scientist Joseph Cotten and his daughter Barbara Bach hostage for 15 years so the fishmen can uncover a treasure trove beneath the sea. Cotten, of course, is a complete madman. Bach and Cassinelli have great chemistry. This insanity was directed by Sergio Martino and is not, surprisingly, without merit. It's fast paced, reasonably well acted and the fishmen look pretty convincing (though it's unlikely anyone could prove that these things DON'T look like actual fishmen). There's an excellent music score by Luciano Michelini.


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


user
Yes, the video cover of this movie made me want to watch this film as a child. It was called "Screamers" on this particular cover with the tagline "Men turned inside out!". It even featured this warped looking skeleton on the cover as well that made all sorts of cool gory images run through my mind. Perhaps some sort of movie about some strange virus that caused a person's flesh to burn off, maybe a movie about undead zombies that are more bloody looking than what you usually get, a science experiment gone incredibly wrong and now strange men with the flesh dripping off their bones go on the rampage. Yes, all these thoughts ran through my mind, one that did not was fish guys on some island with virtually no gore and all bore. This movie is really more like the Island of Dr. Moreau than anything else and quite frankly that movie bored me too, it is way to much scientist and not enough killing for my tastes. These films are to much figure stuff out and not enough blood for my tastes. Yes I know, I have strange tastes, but I can not help it, I like my horror movies either really bloody or fast moving and exciting this movie is really neither.


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


user
OK by the time you read this I MIGHT have stopped crying. This movie was so horrible as to be quite vexing. The creatures are kinda cute, but the only really good thing about the movie was the growing attachment among the prisoners and their guard after getting marooned on this daffy island. Even seeing Barbara Bach with her hair all riffled was no payoff for buying this sterling bit of poop. She goes about with a whispery I've-never-used-my-voice-before breathiness that just don't wash when one is screaming bloody murder. (Hey the leading man was cute too but I'm still not assuaged.) This is a cry-into-your-beer ripoff of the good ole Island of Dr. Moreau. Poor Richard Johnson, who was surely born for better things, is just unrelievedly bad as the bad guy. I mean, HOW bad can a BAD guy BE? (Ask Richard Johnson). Joseph Cotten tries hard not to look embarrassed as he staggers through his cameo appearance. In the name of all that's holy, don't rent this darned bomb.


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


user
I watched this movie only because I was under the impression that I was going to be treated to a cheesy horror flick. I mean, look at the tag line: "They're men turned inside out! And worse... they're still alive!" Does that not scream cheesy horror movie to you? And the then there's the title itself-- "Screamers." What a perfectly apt title for a horror movie, I thought! Unfortunately, I wasn't aware that the real title was, properly translated, "The Island of the Fishmen."
So, about an hour into watching this I realized that this was not a cheesy horror movie at all-- it was a cheesy "adventure" story about slimy fish-men from Atlantis. "Men turned inside out"? No. There was nothing of the sort. I was grossly disappointed.
Damn you, misleading taglines! I want those 81 minutes of my life back!


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


user
I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job.


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


user
I think its safe to say that if you only really watch box office standard films or any premium production don't bother with this film as you will hate it. If you are an overly critical film buff don't bother either. If you love science fiction films and don't care what capacity you get a glimpse of the future in then you'll be mildly entertained. It is very obvious that the budget for this was super super low but what they have done with the money is worth a pat on the back. Some of the burning fire scenes were pretty bad and the evacuation scenes were terrible but it is quite obvious that they had some good support from a computer perspective as the planet scenes and the alien images were quite inventive. The dialog is down right hilarious but acting not altogether poor. As for the story well, I'm not too sure what actually happened at all to tell you the truth.


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 is proof you can't just go to a Redbox and read descriptions of films and pick one and give it a try.
While I'll give 'em great credit for having produced a film with halfway-decent special effects on such a low budget, and at least a halfway decent script and story line... unfortunately, it was only just that: halfway decent.
If you like movies where things aren't all neatly wrapped up, and don't mind low-budget effects, you might like this film. Honestly, it wasn't really my cup of tea. I should've just gone to bed rather than spend my time watching.
For a better science-fiction movie produced on an even LOWER budget (!) have a look at "Primer."


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


user
It is OK movie if it would be done by high school kids for their friends. It is way below limits be called "professional". There isn't plot, no actors' play and visual looks like you see it through the plastic film. I was so glad that I have FF button on my remote, 32x worked really well. I understand that everyone need to start somewhere, but it shouldn't be reason to bring it to the public. If you have concerns about quality and budget - "Open water" was made on $60000 and more than half went to the guy who provided the security in the ocean and trained sharks. And that movie looks 100 times more professional and it was an event in the indy film-making.


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


user
I was excited about this movie after reading other reviews. What a disappointment! There are so many ways that this movie is bad. The computer graphics were lacking to say the least. I found the acting stiff and unbelievable. Watch the sand as the lost "e-pods" (what an original name!)are found. Where did all the tracks come from? I immediately recognized portions similar to other movies, ie Alien, Pitch Black. Come on,one huge ship to transport one prisoner? And what is with the prisoner? Does he speak, can he speak? I kept waiting for something to tie the bits of the story together, but it never came. If this movie was made on a low budget, it shows. The only part of the movie I liked was when it finally ended. I don't mean that I liked the ending, I didn't. I just liked the fact that it was over. A trip to the dentist would have been more enjoyable. In my opinion. don't waste your time on 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
Going to need to take a deep breath for this one...
Terrible special effects that tried to reach far beyond the limitations of the budget. Blatant and unashamed plagiarism of other sci-fi movies (like Pitch Black). Terrible acting. Endless slow motion scenes of characters walking aimlessly across sand dunes. Meandering dialogue that does nothing to further the story. Characters wearing turtle neck sweaters on a desert planet with two suns. A "cargo" ship staffed by a camouflage-wearing crew of gun-toting soldiers (why exactly would you need forest-camouflage in space anyway?). Some of the worst casting choices in the history of no-budget film-making - a steroid swollen "captain" who comes across more like a muscle-beach jock than a trustworthy commander, and a "convict" who looks and acts about as dangerous as a bunny rabbit. 70 minutes in length, 35 of which could have been trimmed out if the director had any concept of "compression of time through editing"...
I won't go on. Suffice it to say that while some components of this awful movie can (and should) be forgiven due to it's low budget; the bad conception, laughable plot holes, and snore-inducing script are unforgivable on *any* budget. The end result is a tedious, dull, waste of time. Sorry guys, I hate to be so harsh on an amateur film, but you've no excuse for turning out this kind of work.


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


user
Even with it's low budget this movie could have been worth watching if there was a story to tell here. It started out pretty good, and fairly engaging and believable. The actors and characters were interesting although there wasn't much character development. My favorite scene was when they were all eating their rations. Some seemed to hate it, and some seemed to think it wasn't too bad. The story starts out very airtight. And then...
And then it dipped into a little horror which is usually a death sentence for most sci fi. Suddenly no scientific basis for any of the goings on. No real believable end game for the villain? No real explanation of what's going on. Generally if a movie has to use the F word for every other word it usually spirals down from there too. I still get offended believe it or not. I often wonder what inspires people to make bad sci fi? Isn't there a universe of fantastically good stories out there? Don't people feel like they are wasting their time and everyone else's when they put out stuff like this. Why do we get so much mediocre sci fi like this? No female actors/characters either? None at all? This had the makings to be another "Predator" but alas fell far far short.
My final comment - poor editing and finally too low a budget to build a real campfire? What gives?
My advice for any low budget sci fi movie production companies out there. Make sure you got a good story before you start, and edit out bad special effects - it's better we see nothing than something that looks fake or ridiculously fuzzy.


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


user
I really didn't like this film~!!!! it was boring and didn't interest me that much at all.. i'm more of an action girl, and it had NONE. i went and rented this movie because of the other comment that was left.. but was totally mislead! don't get this movie unless you like the dessert and plenty of boredom. i just really didn't like the movie. it wasn't my style, but it could be yours.. you would just have to watch the previews or something but it's my recommendation if you're a girl.. don't get this movie! This Scandinavian production draws on some of the observational strategies of Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, allowing us to reflect on patterns and phenomena of human and natural existence from both intimate and sweeping viewpoints. this just isn't for me!


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 got 10 plus year old computer games with better special effects! Plot is choppy and very predictable. Most of the actors seem like extras with no experience! Everyone has Scottish accents. It's like watching a crew of 'Scotties' from Star Trek without the personality or charm. Needless scenes of people putting up tents! Tents with all of the supposedly high tech equipment! Actors looking like they were not sure the camera was on them. Nothing to make you care if these people survive or not! Looks like it was made in someone's backyard and garage using low end equipment! Nothing seems original or even slightly entertaining. Do not waste your time!


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


user
This movie was awful, plain and simple! The animation scenes had absolutely terrible graphics. It was VERY clear to see that this film had about the budget of my grocery bill!! The acting was just as bad.. I've seen better acting in pornographic films. I would seriously like the hour and twenty minutes of my life back. In fact, I registered on IMDb just so that other people don't get sucked into watching this like I did. Don't get me wrong though, I love sci-fi films! This one seemed more like the intro to a video game :( I'm glad I only spent a dollar to see this one! The story line reminded me of the movie pitch black, A prisoner on a ship in outer space escapes. Oh my goodness.. what are we gonna do??? I would not even let this play in the background of my house while I was cleaning! Bottom line here, you can do better.


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


user
I pride myself in being able to sit through everything. I think "if I've paid the rental fee, then I'm going to at least watch it". I have found the exception to this rule- The Planet. I don't know what the exchange rate is, but reading through the other comments I can only guess that £8000 must be around $150. I'll date myself but this movie reminds me of the old Steve Reeves movies of the 50's. He was a bodybuilder turned actor. He was in these really awful Italian, dubbed movies that starred Reeves as Hercules or some other muscle bound hero. As a kid watching them you couldn't quite articulate why these movies stunk- you just knew they did. Mike Mitchell IS the new Steve Reeves. That's it.. that's what this really was- a new telling of an old Italian "Spaghetti Sand and Sandals" movie. And, I kid you not- where was Reeves born? Glasgow, Montana. This movie isn't so bad that it's kind of fun to watch- it's just plain bad.


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


user
I went through great efforts to get this movie after reading the comments on this site. I really don't have time to write reviews but I felt this was my duty as a sci-fi horror buff. This is only the second review I have written. The other was for Dracula 3000. Now to the point. This movie sucked. Plain and simple. I kept wondering if I was watching the same movie as those who wrote all those "lovely" comments. I have seen movies with bad effects, bad acting, bad sound, you name it and I've seen it. But this really sucked. I don't care how much it costs or didn't cost to make, movies like this and Dracula 3000 should be banned and the whole cast and crew arrested and jailed for time murder. By the way, Did I mention that this movie sucked. I mean really sucked. The plot was non exist and the acting was weak. It seems like the writer saw Pitch Black and got upset because he didn't think of a plot like that first so he decided to make his own ripped off version. But instead, the suck factor took over and possessed him. DON'T WATCH THIS. You'll have more fun if you pull down your pants and sit on burning coals.


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


user
I really did not want to write a harsh review of this movie because I genuinely appreciate how hard it is to make any kind of movie on an incredibly low budget, let alone attempt something as ambitious as a sci-fi.
However this movie is truly awful. The acting is among some of the worst I have ever had to endure and as a fan of low budget movies that is a pretty serious accusation to make. There are plenty of aspiring actors out there who would work on a deferred payment scheme if they believed in the movie and what the director was trying to achieve. I'm sure the actors did their best as did everybody else involved in this production, but it simply was not good enough to pull off something of this magnitude.
Then there is the dialogue. Very poor indeed. There is no excuse for that. I got the impression the script was hastily written on the back of a beer mat after some epic boozing session. I hesitate to use the word 'laughable' but that's exactly what the script is. I had no empathy with any of the characters. Indeed they grated on me with the result that on more than one occasion I wanted to thump a couple of them Mr Stirton has overstretched himself by taking on too many roles. Clint Eastwood he is not. Again, there are talented people out there willing to work on deferment if they believe in the project.
Much has been made of the special effects in this movie. For the money, they are exceptional, if somewhat overused. It is like someone said "I have after effects and boy am I gonna use it". Whoever did the CG work was among the most talented of this crew.
Quite simply the money was not available to make as ambitious a movie as this attempts to be. Kudos for attempting it, but unfortunately it fails to reach its heady goals in far too many ways.
I salute everyone involved with its production, I really do, but for their next effort they either need to get a better producer or lower their sights to something more manageable.
In conclusion I cannot recommend this effort to anyone other than the most enthusiastic of film students or habitual insomniacs. If you want to watch a true masterpiece of low budget sci-fi films try the student made "Dark Star" by a certain Mr John Carpenter.


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


user
I felt compelled to write a review after seeing the only review which gave this film a suspiciously high 9/10 rating. I say suspicious because it looks less like a review but more like a publicity statement. Perhaps the filmmaker himself, or one of his mates, has written that "review"? Naughty, naughty.
I watched this movie on the Propeller channel on Sky TV expecting it to be truly awful. The special effects used were to be honest very, very good for a low budget film, and some of the acting wasn't that bad either, but most of the acting was really awful, but well done for trying, as I expect most were pals of the filmmaker.
I think the filmmaker has done really well by trying to punch above his weight. I did find some of the film funny because it was trying to be super cool when it just wasn't.
If you don't take this film too seriously and watch it whilst drunk with some mates you might well have a good time but probably not in the way it was intended. This film is no way a 9/10 but worth watching for a laugh bearing in mind it was made on a very very low budget and in fairness due credit to those involved in it's production.


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 known Brad Linaweaver at Florida State U in the early 70's when he was an inspiring, inventive writer who I thought was headed for greater glory.
And that is why I rented this video. Well, well, well, the time has not been kind to Mr Linaweaver. I suppose the pressures of making a living makes higher aspirations expendable. Another flower whose bloom has come and gone un-noticed in the summer breeze. Amen. There is nothing more to say. And nothing more to add. A sad epitaph to a once blossoming career as stated above. But it is the price one pays for chasing shadows without a firm foundation or goals for oneself in life. Because this movie has no goal, no purpose, and I kept telling myself, what happened to Brad's creativity, his once shining genius? Gone, gone, years of neglect has deteriorated his once shining mind.


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


user
I bought this out of curiosity. How did John Carradine (who died in 1988) and Cameron Mitchell (who died in 1994) make appearances in a film made in 1995? Thanks to the miracle of unused film can footage that's probably been sitting on a shelf somewhere for ten years, that's how! You can tell because the film stock used to shoot their scenes doesn't match the film used for shooting "Jack-O." The curse of Ed Wood lives on. The good thing for both Carradine and Mitchell is that this is exactly the kind of movie you'd expect to find on both of their filmographies. Same goes for Scream Queens Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith.
The setting is Oakmoor Crossing on Halloween, and some kind of curse is released when dumb, beer-guzzling teens disrupt a grave. The result: a hulking killer with a scythe and a big plastic pumpkin on his head! He (it?) goes after the wholesome Kelly family for revenge (and kills others who get in his way). The father opens a Haunted Garage for the neighborhood kiddies. The son (Ryan Latshaw, son of the director) has one continuous, perplexed facial expression for all his scenes and one hilariously badly acted dramatic scene lying in a grave. At least he's a kid. The mother's eyes about pop out of her head while she strains to read her dialogue. There is also an annoying woman who shows up to explain things who seems to be trying to phonetically pronounce all of her dialogue.
So what about the name actors? You see Stevens, Wildsmith and Mitchell briefly on a TV screen (they're used to pad out the time). Linnea has a bigger role as a babysitter, and she does exactly what she can with it. Her enthusiastic performance helps a little bit. There's also one out-of-nowhere laugh when an ultra-conservative couple who watch a Rush Limbaugh clone on TV bite it. The woman slips on a rug and stabs a toaster with a knife. She's electrocuted and the end result looks like a flame-broiled Muppet.
All and all, pretty entertaining stuff! I wasn't bored!


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


user
Man, this movies sucked. It appeared to have like seven different plots going on at once and they all made little to no sense. The special effects, costumes, and all that stuff were beyond awful. The acting was particullary bad. Everything seemed so forced, especially the lines from the woman with the huge eyes and the little kid (his "Noooooo" as he gets burried is so unenthusiastic it's laughable). A good portion of this movie is rather funny anyway. The one woman's death where she shoves a knife into a toaster, gets electrocuted, and magically turns into the crapiest skeleton dummy in the world had my friends and I laughing for a good ten minutes.
Bottom line: If you're into watching really horrible movies, seek this one out. If not, run for your life.


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 always loved horror flicks. From some of the usual well-known like "The Exorcist" to some of the more underrated like "Black Christmas" or "Just Before Dawn". But who are people kidding,even calling this trash a b-movie. It's straight up bottom-of-the-barrel Z-grade. The acting is the worst ever on film. Really,I've seen better on an episode of the "Young and the Restless"...SPOILER...Lookout for when the woman comes to tell them about the legend of Jack-o. She pauses sometimes for a matter of seconds as if someone is flashing her cue cards and she's struggling to read her lines. A RIOT!
Oh,and besides the bad acting,absolutely no gore or F/X. And Jack-o looked like a plastic lit pumpkin. Watch Linnea Quigley in "Night of the Demons",or "Silent Night,Deadly Night",far superior flicks.


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


user
I bought Jack-O a number of months ago at a Blockbuster video sale, and at the time I wasn't expecting anything outstanding from it. Upon watching it, I realized I not only got less than I could have ever bargained for, but a whole lot more as well. It seems, strange, I know. And it is. But it's perfectly fitting when you consider that the utter weirdness that is "Jack-O"
The movie follows a young boy named Shawn Kelly. Somehow, thru ancestral ties, he is marked for death at the hands of a demented, scythe wielding Pumpkin man. This pumpkin man was killed by Shawn's Great-grandfather-uncle-cousin-etc, and now that the villain has been resurrected, Shawn's death is apparently crucial to his hell-bred mission of vengeance. Anyway, much "horror" ensues as Jack-O hacks his way thru various neighbors before battling Shawn to the finish.
I'm not so much here to discuss the plot as I am to determine who may find any worth in this movie. I can honestly tell you that Jack-O is one of the most poorly made movies in the history of time. The acting is deadpan (except when it should be), the script is apparently a 1st grade group project, and the production budget must not have exceeded $150. Some of the most laughable death scenes are carried out in this anti-thriller, and they're all the more humorous when you realize director Steve Latshaw actually seems serious in his movie-making.
And yet I heartily enjoyed the film. I can call it a terrible horror movie, yes. But I can also say I had a great time watching it with my friends, and have watched it several times since that fateful first viewing. Many people (including some of my friends) will find this movie intolerable and needlessly time-consuming, and that's understandable. If you're like me and enjoy ridiculously bad horror movies that take themselves seriously, you'll find Jack-O an instant classic, which is also understandable.
That's why it's so hard to rate this movie. If I were rating Jack-O's quality as a film, I wouldn't give it anything. In fact, the studio would owe me stars. Yet if I were rating it's on the basis of pure enjoyment, I'd give it an 8 or a 9. I'll give it a 4, so to be somewhere in the middle. I recommend everyone go out, rent this, and form their own conclusion.


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


user
When you watch low budget horror movies as much as I do, you get to where you can tell who was involved in creating the movie, as each film-maker adds his own flavor to the cheese. Such is the case with Jack-O. When I watched this truly awful movie, I was left with the undeniable feeling that Fred Olen Ray was involved, maybe not as director but in some fashion, and as I researched, I found that I was correct. Only Fred and a handfull of others could write something this pathetic, and this movie just reeked of Fred Olen Ray. Unless you like Fred Olen Ray (and God only knows why anyone would)avoid this movie. If you're going to rent an Olen Ray pic, rent Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, it's the only bright shining star in Olen Ray's dark cheesey universe of terrible movies.


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, without a doubt, the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. Seriously, if the makers of this movie are ever discovered, they'll put guys like Jim Carrey out of a job. Rent "Jack-O" tonight! Believe me, you won't regret 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 thing, it shouldn't be called a film, is almost worse than "Manos", but you just have to see it it's hilarious. If you see it at video store rent it, if you see the 10th anniversary edition, yes there is a special edition, for under $10 buy it, if your friend has it borrow it, you just have to see this. The acting is so bad, and the gore is is so fake. After viewing this you'll be asking yourself why did they make this insult of the art of film? That's assuming your face doesn't melt off like the Nazis's in "Raiders" . If you manage to see this, be sure to vote this movie as 1 (awful) so it can make the bottom 100, it really deserves a spot there. I'm surprised it's not number 1, right now.


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


user
In Halloween, three friends seek an ancient cemetery in the suburb for fun and remove a cross from a tomb, where Jack-O was buried many years ago by the farmer Arthur Kelly. The evil creature is unleashed, kills the trio and seeks the descendants of the Kelly family for revenge.
The cheesy "Jack-O" is a combination of a terrible story with awful acting. I was curious with the name of John Carradine in the credits and I can not imagine how a relative authorizes the use of archive footage in such a bad movie, showing a total lack of respect with the name of this great actor. It is impressive how bad the acting is, shifting the film to a comedy instead of the proposed horror genre. This is the type of movie good to see with a group of friends, drinking beer, making comments and laughing a lot. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Jack-O  Demônio do Halloween" ("Jack-O  Demon of the Halloween")


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


user
Ugh. Pretty awful.
Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.
Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.
Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing "The Coven," in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.
Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.
There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.
The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.
Not recommended, not even for Halloween.


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


user
Wow! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.


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


user
I hope this group of film-makers never re-unites.


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


user
If you are looking for a cinematic masterpiece, this ain't it. If you are looking for one of those awful movies that are so horrible that they are actually good, then this may be for you. There are so many unintentional laughs in this film, that it could almost be considered a comedy. Let's start with the opening titles, that say "Jack-O", and then add the word "Lantern", as if the viewer wasn't able to figure out the movie was about a pumpkin by the giant pumpkin shown on both the cover and in the opening scene of the movie. After that, the movie goes in about 20 different directions, none of which make much sense. Jack-o is everywhere, he's in people's houses, in the woods, and yet he doesn't ever seem to do much of anything. He does make a few kills, but the long buildup to those killings is so poorly acted and constructed you almost wish Jack-o would take out his rage on you the viewer. Other than that, the plot consists of poor acting, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous plot line. The acting in this film is among the worst I've ever seen in my 35 plus years of movie-watching. The boy who is the lead in the film (the director's son) has about as much emotion as a corpse, and just about all of the other actors/actresses are just as bad for numerous reasons (especially the bug-eyed lady with eyes bigger than saucers). But, having said all this, if you take this for what it is, (that is a steaming pile of dung) then you will get a few laughs from this movie. What I also found amusing is that the makers of the DVD saw fit to release a "10th Anniversary Version" of this movie (as if the original wasn't good enough). And someone actually had the idea of making a "behind the scenes" mini film which is also included in the 10th anniversary edition (I'm not sure why).......I'll give this 3 smashed pumpkins 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
If you are in search of a masochistic thrill, rent this movie, and show it to a group of your friends sober. This movie is just plane lame, but there not completely without value. The brief tits are nice, and there is one victim's death that is funny as hell. Other than that, this is straight garbage. But it is still better than "Grim" or "Spookies"


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


user
My mother and I rented this gem a few years ago while she was here visiting for Thanksgiving. I have rarely laughed so hard. This is a typical low-budget horror movie with dumb special effects, a worse plot, and even worse acting. But are you really expecting a classic when Linnea Quigley receives top billing? I thought not.
Since this movie does have some entertainment value, I give it a 3 out of 10.


assistant
0