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
Pilot Mitch MacAfee (Jeff Morrow) sees a UFO while test flying a plane--but nothing shows up on radar. Then planes and ships start disappearing and reports of a UFO increase. It turns out it's a giant monster bird that is attacking and killing. But what is it and why is it here?
This has all the right elements for a classic. It has an actually pretty entertaining script--I was never really bored. The acting is good (for a 1950s monster movie). Morrow doesn't overdo the macho hero act and Mara Corday is quite good as the requisite female love interest. She's also strong and takes care of herself--even though she IS off getting food and coffee for everyone all during the movie. The problem here is the monster. Dear God--it's TERRIBLE! It looks like a deranged turkey! It has a long neck, a hilariously stupid BEAK, some teeth, a few strands of hair on its head and claws. And--oh yes--it squawks! Not roaring--squawking! The actors had no idea what it looked like--it was added after production. Actors Morrow and Corday were horrified when they finally saw it in a theatre. Morrow said his audience burst out laughing and he left the theatre quickly before the movie ended! Producer Sam Katzman was responsible for this. He wanted to save money and gave the world the stupidest monster ever. And you can SEE the wires moving it too! This gets 4 stars only because Morrow and Corday are so good and the script is well done. It gets no stars for the pathetic monster--wait till you see it attack what is obviously a toy train! Worth a look if you're a horror fan to see what has to be the stupidest monster ever.


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 almost Ed Wood territory. Yeah, that ridiculous wreck of a flying monster looks like a cross between a turkey buzzard and a bad day at the dentist's office. And that sound effect screech makes fingernails across a blackboard sound like Mozart. And why The Giant Claw when the goofy critter gobbles its victims with a mechanical jaw. We get big close-ups of the ugly chicken foot, but nothing more. I guess the producers thought a more appropriately titled Big Mouth might suggest a Jerry Lewis comedy. And speaking of comedies, all that "anti-matter" gobbledy-gook is funnier than anything in a Lewis movie. I guess the scripters were stuck for a reason why an ordinary duck hunter couldn't take care of a 1950's flying menace, so they concocted a real whopper-- anti-matter from another galaxy. Yup, this fugitive from KFC is supposed to have flown in from another galaxy behind a shield of anti- matter as explained in excruciating detail by one of the film's resident geniuses. In this case, it's Jeff Morrow a pilot who I gather in his off-hours advises Einstein on the secrets of the universe.
Unfortunately, it's also Morrow who keeps the ridiculous proceedings out of the bad-movie Hall of Shame since he actually delivers his lines with a straight face. What's more, he even sounds as if he believes them. This is a movie acting triumph of the first order. To heck with the Oscars, Morrow deserves a combat medal for performing above and beyond the call of duty under the most extreme bad movie circumstances. Watch leading lady Corday, then you can gauge his fortitude under fire. She looks like she just woke up inside a bad dream and maybe if she stands stock-still, no one will notice her. I barely did. Oh well, the first time I saw this drive-in disaster was through a beery haze in the back row of what's now a housing development. I should have learned my lesson and broken out another 12-pack this second time around.


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


user
Spreading panic from Broadway to Bombay, 1957's The Giant Claw boasts perhaps the ultimate flying monster in movie history. Described by one terrified Quebecois witness as "La Carcagne  she's de devil in de storm with de face of de wolf and de body of de woman with wings, bigger than I can tell," it doesn't say much for Canadian women since when we finally see it in focus it's a cross between an overgrown buzzard, a chickenhawk and Gonzo the Great. But this isn't just any old giant turkey  impervious to rockets, invisible to radar and with a taste for swallowing parachutists whole and pecking away at the United Nations Building, it's an extraterrestrial giant turkey from an anti-matter galaxy millions of miles from Earth that's come here to build a nest: "No other explanation is possible." Luckily for humanity Jeff Morrow, test pilot and "chief cook and bottle washer in a one-man birdwatching society," invents a weapon to disable its impenetrable shield so they can hit it with everything but the kitchen sink  but don't worry: Morris Ankrum's general assures him "We've got kitchen sinks to spare, son."  just in time for a last-minute clinch with co-star Mara Corday. Some of the dialogue has dated rather unfortunately  "I admire your spunk, and you keep climbing on our backs whenever we've messed up"  and strangely enough it's nowhere near as much fun as a film with a giant flying turkey should be, but the beast itself is such a truly memorable creation for all the wrong reasons that it's hard to dislike even if you are liking it for all the wrong reasons. And full marks to the cast for delivering gem after gem of direlogue with a straight face: "Honest to Pete, I'll never call my mother-in-law an old crow again!," "The only trouble is that the last time I talked to a chaplain there wasn't any telephone line to the one and only place where we can get the kind of help we need" and the immortal "There it is now, attacking the United Nations Building!"


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


user
This one's as cheesy as they come  the concept of a massive and indestructible extraterrestrial bird is already too loopy for words, but wait till you get a load of the goofy creature as it appears on screen! I tell you I laughed so hard through this thing that I missed out on some of the expository dialogue  then again, the latter is often so heavy on scientific jargon and laws of Physics and such (at which I've never been any good, in spite of my love of sci-fi movies) that it didn't really matter anyway! The bird  first depicted as a mere blurred form whizzing through the skies but subsequently shown in all its dopey glory  is so sublimely silly that it wouldn't be amiss in a Looney Tunes cartoon (witness the series of intermittently-taken photographs that start with the creature in the distance and end on a side-splitting extreme close-up of its face)!
Director Sears had fared much better with his other film about UFOs, the fine EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956)  with special effects provided by a master, Ray Harryhausen (speaking of which, I've just given away my copy of the latter in anticipation of acquiring Columbia's recently-released SE DVD); also, it seems to me that some of the footage illustrating the bird's rampage in New York here were lifted from the destruction of Washington seen in that earlier sci-fi classic! Again, the leads are played by genre regulars  namely Jeff Morrow (from THIS ISLAND EARTH [1955]) and Mara Corday (from TARANTULA [1955]); as with the afore-mentioned FLYING SAUCERS, these titles are highly-regarded and beloved by fans  consequently, they are vastly superior to this lamentable addition to the alien/monster animal cycle prevalent during the sci-fi heyday and beyond (incidentally, other flying menaces were featured in THE FLYING SERPENT [1946], which I haven't watched, and Larry Cohen's tongue-in-cheek updating of same in Q: THE WINGED SERPENT [1982]).
Unfortunately, THE GIANT CLAW can't even rise to a decent climax  which is so rushed as to be "a wash-out", to quote a jet pilot from the film itself whose assault with rockets on the bird proves completely ineffective (that is, before Morrow realizes that it's shielded by an invisible barrier and then has to figure out a way how to be able to penetrate it). Ultimately, apart from the intractable (and frankly tedious) technical asides, one gets a feeling of "so bad, it's good" watching this: after all, it only lasts for 74 minutes  and, in any case, the bird is such an unforgettably daft creation as to put a huge smile on your face every time it turns up!


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


user
Personally, I have no problem with the acting, nor the script. I do have a problem with the giant bird. It was simply AWFUL. Plain and simple.
One's first impulse is the roll around laughing when one sees it. What were they thinking!? Budget be damned. The monster bird was a monstrous joke.
Of course, in my opinion if the producers could obtain actors such as Ankrum, Corday and Morrow, then they would have the special effect people come up with a much better beast. Oh well. What is done is done. This will be the case of the eternal joke on them that was unintended.


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


user
Largely forgettable monster film from the 50s features truly awful special effects -- the "claw" in question is a giant puppet that would make Jim Henson want to kill himself. I just saw the movie last Thursday and I can't even tell you who was in it. That's a bad sign. I'm told that when the movie premiered audiences laughed it off the screen.... and that was in the 50s when standards in special effects were much lower. Basically I should have walked out of the theater as soon as the words "produced by Sam Katzman" came on the screen if I knew what was good for me, but then I sat through "Harum Scarum" also so I guess I deserve 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 is one awful movie!! Some people told me that it was not that bad actually but I sure disagree! The monster is amazingly cheap (and funny) looking but this is something we all knew I guess. In addition to that, the dialogs are awful and the writing is just plain terrible.
As bad as it is, this movie as the quality of being entertaining. Not always for the good reasons but it's a good "so bad that it's fun" flick.
By the way, there's no such thing as "La Castagne". According to a secondary character in the film named Pierre (described in the movie as a French Canadian), there's a legend among French Canadians about a giant bird know as "La Castagne". As a French Canadian myself, I can assure you that I never heard of such a legend. It sure made me laugh though... :))


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


user
I wish I could have voted this movie a ten, it's that funny. If they had intended for it to be that funny I would have given it a ten. I have to give it a 1, but it's the funniest darn 1 you'll ever want to watch. See the giant blur flash across the screen! Where did it come from? What is it? It flies, it terrifies, it's electrifying, it's on strings! This bird has real personality. I was about ten when I saw it for the first time, and when Big Bird appeared on Sesame Street, I was sure they were one and the same!


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 when I was about 12 when it came out. I recall the scariest scene was the big bird eating men dangling helplessly from parachutes right out of the air. The horror. The horror.
As a young kid going to these cheesy B films on Saturday afternoons, I still was tired of the formula for these monster type movies that usually included the hero, a beautiful woman who might be the daughter of a professor and a happy resolution when the monster died in the end. I didn't care much for the romantic angle as a 12 year old and the predictable plots. I love them now for the unintentional humor.
But, about a year or so later, I saw Psycho when it came out and I loved that the star, Janet Leigh, was bumped off early in the film. I sat up and took notice at that point. Since screenwriters are making up the story, make it up to be as scary as possible and not from a well-worn formula. There are no rules.


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


user
The Giant Claw is in fierce competition with films like, 'Robot Monster' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for worst film of all time. A phony looking giant vulture attacks 'Lionel Trains' in this completely unconscious film. The script is so bad that everything the characters say to one another is ridiculous. It's no wonder that this film is a prime target in the movie, "It Came From Hollywood," where this gem is hammered for the line, 'A Bird As Big As A Battleship', with gleeful, endless needling. The line pops up relentlessly through the course of the film, so there's no escaping it. There are several shots from, 'The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms' and 'Earth vs. The Flying Saucers' among other sci-fi films from the 50's to beef up the scraggly vulture's attacks. At one point the big vulture is responsible for a few deaths, so the military puts the entire world under martial law and no one is allowed to go out of their homes. Of course, the huge buzzard is mainly concerned with pursuing the stars of this classic, Jeff Morrow & Mara Corday, wherever they might be. Yet the director is so lame that he doesn't even provide for a few honey shots of pretty Mara in a decent dress and black heels for a little relief from the tedium of this zero star thriller. That's the second time this blunder has been made. In 'Tarantula', Mara Corday struts around in hot dresses for the whole film, but is relegated to pants throughout, 'The Giant Scorpion'. The budget for this film must have been not more than thirty or forty thousand dollars and I doubt whether Morrow or Corday got more than three thousand to make it. It looks like the whole thing was shot right out of somebody's garage.


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


user
Before we start, may I say I hope you've already eaten when you're reading this. Why? Because, after I'd seen this film for the first time, the bird's look and sound made me want to eat chicken after the words 'The End' had appeared on the screen. So don't say you weren't warned.
Fred Sears might have directed "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" (an okay film and one of the bigger examples for Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks"), but "The Giant Claw" is not that giant a film. Yes, it's a prehistoric monster that flies in the air, attacks planes and cities and occasionally treats itself to a man on a parachute. The beast is giant except in the scenes where it's considerably smaller, but who needs consistent proportions in a movie? Scary? It could have been, but not if the plot is hopelessly silly and the monster looks like like a puppet that ran away from Sesame Street.


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 truly terrible sci-fi/horror film from 1957. In fact, despite Ed Wood, Jr.and his dreadful films getting a lot of publicity, this turkey is every bit as bad as the worst of Wood. Now the acting is a bit better than you'd find in the Wood epics (such as PLAN 9 and BRIDE OF THE MONSTER), but the special effects managed to be significantly worse than Wood's! However, bad movie aficionados will be happy to hear that it's so bad that it's still excellent viewing. Like a Wood film, it's great to watch this crap-fest and laugh along with your friends.
The film begins with a scientist flying about doing some testing in his jet. However, out of nowhere, a UFO streaks by and his report of this over the radio triggers a panic by the Air Force. However, later, they realized that the UFO didn't appear on the radio and they think the scientist is a nut! But, when soon after this planes start disappearing all over, they realize there must be something to his sighting.
So far, the film isn't great but it's watchable. However, by the time the horrible flying monster appears, you know you're watching a turkey. First, through horrid use of stock film and crappy models, airplanes keep changing mid-flight. Some may not be bothered by this, but with airplane lovers like me, seeing an F-80 turning into an F-86 to an F-102 fighter plane made me crazy--especially since the planes look nothing like each other. Second, through "clever" cinematography, all you really see of the monster is a ball of fuzz for half the film! This is frustrating and you hope that when you finally do see it clearly, it will be worth the wait. Well, no such luck!! The "monster" looks less realistic or scary than the duck from Groucho's "You Bet Your Life" TV show!! In fact, it's significantly less realistic than any of the Japanese giant monsters!! In fact, Big Bird from "Sesame Street" is even a bit scarier and realistic!!! It's just god-awful in every way and might just be the dumbest movie monster in history--about as bad (or worse) as the monsters in ROBOT MONSTER or TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE!!! The bottom line is that this is an absolutely dreadful film that sane people won't like. Bad film fans like me (who are a crazy bunch) will probably love it! All others...be afraid,....be VERY afraid!!
FYI--You might notice that some clips in this film are from other sci-fi movies!! I am positive the crashing Washington Monument scene was stolen from EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS but I also saw a couple other scenes that I swear are from other films. What a hack job!


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


user
This terrible moovie is fun on many levels - the moost obvious is the lame, fake-looking bird puppet which floats around the cheap sets, without ever flapping it wings (like it was on a string, perhaps?), attacking model trains and toy cars. The "science" is asinine - a masonic atom gun?? And what's up with the enormous amounts of Brylcream in everyone's hair? I guess the 50's were the Slimeball decade! Well, this bird puppet apparently comes from "some god-forsaken anti-matter universe", and it's here to build a nest & lay eggs in New York. Seriously. That they manage to kill the puppet is almost a shame. I give it 1 hoof out of 4 - it's silly and stupid, but moore fun than Armageddon. :=8)


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 one of the most laughably bad films I've ever seen. I cannot believe whoever wrote the review above was serious. Perhaps he was connected with making it. It doesn't have anything going for it. There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless. The music score (?) is three trite notes played ad nauseam. The plot (?) must have taken all of five minutes to write. The dialogue is what a 10-year-old would come up with if asked to do a homework project. The only (slightly) redeeming feature is the actor playing the psycho himself, who grimaces, trembles and gurns magnificently and thus is amusing at times. The only reason you would be on the edge of your seat would be if you were suffering from a weak bladder. Don't 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
Without a shadow of a doubt this is and probably will always be the worst film i have ever had the missfortune to see my whole life. Take 5 wooden actors who got thrown out of acting school because they were so wooden someone sat on them thinking they were a bench.
Then add a cheap camcorder. You know the old VHS types that cost £20 on ebay. Add a terrible story line with no effects and yes you have this film. What a shocker it was. They couldn't even save it by having a fit girl in it. She was fat and ugly and was the worst of all. I actually watched it all as i could not believe this crap ever got funded.
MISS AT ALL COSTS


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


user
San Franpyscho: 1 out of 10: So you want to make a serial killer movie. But your budget is non-existent, your camera equipment is elderly and your stars are Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother and a staple in really bad movies) and Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. There are probably ways to pull of at least a watchable film. The Quiroz brothers have no clue.
First of all much of the cast seems to have been chosen in a desperate attempt to make Bridges and Estevez look like Oscar caliber thespians. Really how hard is it to play a priest or an overbearing mother? Certainly a city the size of San Francisco has a few professional actors willing to work for a few bucks and a screen credit. Clearly Chris Angelo and Bonnie Steiger who play these roles have other talents such as landscaper or waitress they ought to be fine tuning.
Joe Rosete as the killer (yes the serial killer is simply known as "The Killer") is also pretty awful in a mentally ill method kind of way but I am almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as his character is written with zero style or personality. A boring almost laughable serial killer is a problem for a serial killer movie.
In addition the Quiroz brothers seem to have originally planned this as an ABC Family movie of the week. There is no nudity or violence to speak of and the R rating clearly is for the adult style pacing. This move meanders like an 85 year old woman driving with wraparound sunglasses and her turn signal on. The only occasional horror comes from lighting Estevez's face with a glare that makes it look like his lower jaw was removed.
I wasn't expecting a great film when I rented San Franpyscho but I wasn't expecting mind numbing boredom either.


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


user
go get your camcorder, your little brother, and the disturbing neighbor next door who throws boiling water on raccoons; and you got yourself a film! well, that's what these guys thought anyway. it was so bad i can't even remember the majority of it except for flashbacks comparable to someone who toured in 'Nam. despite the really corny title, the horrible quality, the terrible actors, and the cliché writing, i think this movie isn't the worst i've ever seen. i'm saving that slot for everything with steven seagal, chuck norris and jean-claude van dam. anyhow, if you are out of options when it comes to finding new "horror" films that you haven't seen 1,000 times already, (as i was) and you are debating this one, i would still skip this. it had absolutely no redeeming qualities. this mock serial killer thriller was a weak, puny attempt at an even B film. if they're really lucky it might make the wal-mart $4.50 bin. but, i highly doubt it.


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 isn't a portent of things to come. High-definition camcorders are getting cheaper all the time (although I wouldn't swear that's what was used here), so it's open season for all the wannabe Scorseses and Tarantinos.
There is no hiding the cheapness of this stinker, and calling it a 'film' would be doing the industry a big disservice. The photography is of a standard you would expect on a family outing to the zoo. I could build me a new house with all the wooden acting. What's remarkable about that is that nobody stands out as the worst. They are all equally terrible. Like a whole bunch of Ben Afflecks. Or Steven Seagals.
What hooked me was the title. I'm a sucker for this sort of thing, like Frankenhooker, or Monsturd. Frankenhooker was pretty bad, too, but at least I got some laughs out of it, and the acting was merely bad, not awful. I can't comment on Monsturd as I've yet to get hold of a copy of it.
Anyway, I hope the people who made this didn't make any money from it. Else they might be encouraged to try it on again. Please, guys, pawn the camcorder and go back to your regular job.


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


user
With David Arquette starring you would immediately think this to be a stupid movie. Well, it is a stupid movie with a horrid script. But the F/X, namely the eight legged freaks, makes this flick a hoot to watch. A tribute, albeit on the silly side, to those great mutant creature features of the 50s. Arquette and Sheriff Sam(Kari Wuhrer)summon help in fighting off the toxic waste induced giant spiders wreaking havoc on their tiny town in Arizona. Also in the cast are Doug E. Doug, Rick Overton, Leon Rippy and the charming Scarlett Johansson.


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


user
My expectations were high after seeing the trailer. They were even higher when i saw the movie had the same director as independance day and godzilla. The special effects in independence day were much better then in this movie. The whole movie I was waiting for the spiders to show up. The rest of the storyline was really boring. And when the spiders came, they had a very amateuristic look, like the special effects were from a movie made in the 60's. I didn't watch the whole movie. When it was played for about one hour I switched off my DVD-player. I watch 3 movies almost every night, and I have never walked away from a movie, even if it was that boring. The only thing good in this movie was the pretty sheriff :) That's why I voted 2 instead of 1 :) So don't go see this one, instead you should go out and rent Starship Troopers, it's like the same only 10.000 times 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'm not going to say the story of the movie as some people do. I'm pretty sure people who read this will know what the storyline is. I'm also not going to go on and on about everything thats wrong with this movie, because I'll be here for ages if I do. The storyline is typical, and the special effects are below today's standards. This is not a movie you should watch if you are a serious movie buff (as most of us here are) little things will annoy you the whole movie and ruin the experience. If your a casual movie watcher, who likes to have a good time when they are watching a flick, then this movie is perfect for you, lots of fun. It would also be a good movie to take a partner to. Just not for us movie buff's.
5 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
Eight Legged Freaks is a modern monster movie, like a remake of any of the old 'Attack of the giant [INSERT ANIMAL HERE]'-movies of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Or rather, it should have been more like a remake of the, instead of what is was. So, how is a monster movie done in the year 2002? Well, from the typical opening with some chemical making the spiders grow to huge proportions, they mix movies like Gremlins, Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers and flavor it with some parody like Scary Movie. Gremlins is probably the best comparison, but Eight Legged Freaks was so full of parodies and stupid jokes that it was sometimes more like Scary Movie. It was way too much, at least if you're looking for a monster movie and not just another parody movie filled with jokes.
For a movie like this you don't expect much of the acting, and that is just the way it was. The story though was extremely thin, with just a bunch of loosely connected events to show off some action mixed with all of the jokes, leading up to an easily spotted and corny ending.
I rate Eight Legged Freaks a 4/10, and that includes the fact that the special effects where pretty good and that the noises the spiders made where hilarious.


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


user
Somehow, I really thought that I was going to enjoy this film because I love pictures with mountain climbing and a great mystery in the plot. I must say that the photography was fantastic and there was some scary scenes that captured my attention. I thought that Nicole Eggert,(Diana Pennington),"Thank You, Good Night",'01 played a very convincing role as a young girl who had a tragic loss in her life and meets up with some characters who want her to guide them up the mountain. Marc Singer, "Angel Blade",'02, played a very unconvincing weird guy and over acted in many scenes with a bad temper that looked comical. This film was a big disappointed and not worth watching, unless there is nothing on the TV to ENJOY!!


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


user
The limited scenery views were the only saving grace to an otherwise uneventful and boring movie. The acting was borderline absurd which I blame on the script and screenplay. Nicole Eggert didn't look the part, didn't act the part, and was totally unconvincing as a mountain guide. After watching this I was left with the feeling that some friends had some free time and decided to make a movie. It must have been produced on a budget of pocket change. The plot was thin at best and with the low caliber of acting at times it begged the question to be asked, "Why are we doing this?". I managed to sit through the entire movie but also asked myself, "Why?".


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


user
So I caught this one afternoon as "What Lies Above" and actually watched it because the beginning was somewhat promising. The heroine, Diana Pennington, is a mountain climbing expert...but that doesn't help her when her fiancé Brian gets hurt on a climb. When she goes off to get help and returns, he disappears from the mountain, never to be seen again.
Two years later, Diana is still a climber...but she won't go near Snowman's Pass. That is, until Curt Seaver appears and tells her that he can find the body of her lost fiancé with a new satellite program. She agrees and they take off up the mountain with Curt's two assistants: His "bodyguard" Hugo and the computer whiz Tyler. From the start, you know that there's some ulterior motive going on, but unfortunately the twists aren't good and lead to a laughably bad chase sequence that makes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the movie.
The major disappointments are the red herrings, most of which have supernatural undertones that never come to fruition. The object from the sky that fell into the mountains (which turns out to be not so supernatural), the story of how Snowman's Pass came to be, and the most memorable one of them all: Diana's dream sequence halfway through the movie. But what disappointed me most is where they dropped the ball. The majority of the movie revolves around the search for Brian, that's why I can't for the life of me begin to understand why the mystery of what exactly happened to him and where he was is never solved through the course of the movie. This was the major plot. This was how the movie STARTED! How do you NOT wrap that up?
I wouldn't tell too many people to bother with 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
I caught this film -- under the title of "What Lies Above" -- on Lifetime movie network last night, and just had to comment on it. Designed as a resourceful-woman-in-peril, action adventure yarn, it is so unintentionally funny (thanks in large part to Marc Singer's scenery-chewing hammy performance)that I thought I was watching a cross between "Cliffhanger" and "Home Alone 5." Heroine Nicole Eggert makes her devious but dumb as dirt male pursuers look like the Three Stooges succumbing to her ridiculous makeshift booby traps (somehow she manages to devise a swinging battering ram with rope and a log in a matter of minutes, which temporarily takes out one of the knuckleheads who want to kill her). Worth watching for a hearty laugh.


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 on a boring Sunday morning just this morning. Well I was drawn to the fact that it's an outdoor movie.. I was hoping to find some nice sceneries but it the views where just limited.. They just go back and forth in the same spot all over again.. I hate it when they're using this so called hi-tech stuffs like the this Motorola blue-tooth headset they're using to eliminate the use of a walkie talkie it was just so funny.. they look like amateurs. And they where like advertising those badly designed alien-ware Laptops that could link up to a satellite to find people.. I couldn't say more about this TV-movie.. The ending was bad that it looks like they cut it short eliminating the use of rescue helicopters and etc.. */**********


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


user
SPOILER ALERT.
This movie will spoil your afternoon or "wee small hours of the morning" viewing slot.
I like Marc Singer. He has portrayed good characters in the roles I have seen. Until this movie.
What starts as a promising movie soon disappears up itself with the disastrous cgi'd background and the extreme close up on the person about to die...
Then it gets worse.
A lot worse.
To describe it as hammy acting would insult pigs. This movie goes to the bottom of the ham barrel and scrapes the acting off there.
Apart from Marc Singer's overcooked hamming it up, Mike Dopud stomps and plods around the scenery looking as if he is afraid he might fall on the rocks and his wide-eyed 'manic' bad guy just makes him look like a moron. He isn't menacing at all.
George Stults looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He claims to have been threatened by the other two but his character would have been threatened by a cashier offering him "paper or plastic".
This is really a vehicle for Nicole Eggert as an independent woman getting her life back despite attracting the wrong sort of man... She was unremarkable.
This is not a remake but this is remarkably similar to "Cliffhanger" - seasoned guide, loses someone in a fall, conscience pricked to help out someone else, a missing treasure worth oodles of money and a gang of n'er-do-wells who exploit the guide. Except Cliffhanger was a great vehicle for Stallone and Lithgow. I must admit, Lithgow stole the show.
Even the unintentional comedy was poor. There were times when I wasn't sure if they were using a rubber-faced model as a stand-in for Singer as he tried in vain to storm the weather station (no pun intended). Pressing his face to the door post and his clumsy manner in general did nothing to help his character.
Avoid.
No, seriously, avoid it. Save 96 minutes of your life and do something else more constructive like watching paint dry or grass grow. Or just close your eyes and examine the backs of your eyelids for 90 minutes...


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


user
Charlie Chaplin responds to open auditions at Lodestone Studios. Rival Ben Turpin arrives at the same studio, obviously another unemployed comedian! Turpin tries to horn in on Chaplin's action after the studio head hollers, "Next!" Chaplin manages to walk in over Turpin, however. Charlie amusingly manages to botch jobs as an actor and carpenter. In the end, he manages to get a big break, but will a star be born?
There are a lot of jokes involving the buttocks. The initial scene involving slapstick from Chaplin and Turpin is a relative highlight. Note that Gloria Swanson is the typist in the far background left on your screen, in the film's opening. Agnes Ayres also appears.
*** His New Job (2/1/15) Charles Chaplin ~ Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin, Charlotte Mineau


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


user
Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.
Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.
The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.
Lines like, "It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.
Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, "Contains frequent strong sex references." One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.
The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything.


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


user
Rabbit Fever is one of those film oddities. It's an enjoyable 90 minutes, demands little of the viewer, and delivers as much, and on any terrestrial television channel even in a prime time slot I think that Rabbit Fever would be rather well received. Which makes me wonder why it has been pushed into cinemas.
The movie is filmed in the style of a television documentary, and introduces us to 6 women who have am addictive relationship with the Rabbit Vibrator. The film is primarily focused on investigating a supposed addictive quality to the famous sex aid product. The narrative is 100% tongue in cheek throughout.
The storyline is strong, an introduction to some well rounded and likable characters, some enjoyable back-story, peripheral characters and situations develops into an engaging story, and pleasing conclusions. Sadly there's nothing that feels clever or new.
Rabbit Fever has some sharp moments, a few switches that hint at what the writers are capable of, and all credit to them it's not just 90 minutes of knob gags and innuendo, I could probably watch it with my mother. But there's a laziness about some of the scenes that holds it back, those moments went you are up for it, when you want it to be outrageous, and all you get is a dollop of sit-com.
I chuckled, I left the theatre feeling empathy for the characters, but I also left with the bitter thought that someone had taken a 90 minute reel of made for TV, light entertainment and tried to put it into national cinema.
I think Rabbit Fever achieves some of what it set out to do, it's a quirky subject, a rounded storyline, a well presented cast and a good diversion for 90 minutes. But there's nothing in this that can justify the extravagance of a movie theatre environment. Quite the opposite - a few commercial breaks would have given the viewer chance to grab a breath of life that Rabbit Fever seems to lack.


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 in a preview screening and have to say that this documentary style movie is the biggest load of tripe I have ever seen.
Completely unfunny, low budget, boring, rubbish script, terrible acting - The entire audience (young and old) sat through the film comatose without laughing for most of it... there were literally only about 2 places you will laugh in the entire movie
Many people left halfway - Can't blame them... I stayed thinking that the film would pick up, however, it never did and I wish I'd left.
The humour was really lame and I am surprised that this ever made it on to the big screen. I am not someone who is offended by the adult content of this movie at all - It just wasn't funny. The people who made this movie really don't deserve your money, so please don't pay to see this film.
This isn't even funny enough to be shown on TV, let alone cinema...
I wanted to give it 0 out of 10, but the system won't allow it...


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


user
Not a balanced point of view. The director shouldn't express her opinion as truth. The movie has some criticism of Fujimori but it always gives him and his family the last words. So few critics of Fujimori were provided that it seems the only reason they were included was to be able to say the movie provides both views. But that is not the case.
The movie barely shows one of the massacres that Fujimori is accused of. And it gives him credit for the masterminding the murdering of the MRTA insurgents that took the Japanese embassy. It is well documented that the CIA did the planning. There is even pictures of a well known CIA strategist on the site published by Caretas magazine and other newspapers.
The fact that such well known information was not used by the director gives us a few possible conclusions: the director is pro-Fujimori and purposely and falsely chooses to give the credit to him; the director does not want viewers to note that the CIA and Fujimori worked together; or it was just out of ignorance since the director is not Peruvian and was not present in Peru at the time the events occurred.
The explanation provided by other commentators, that Fujimori is still fairly popular in Peru, does not excuse the lack of accuracy and balanced explanations.
Also, the statistics provided in the movie for the actual support of Fujimori were the highest I have ever heard of. Most statistics by major poll agencies are much lower.
Another point to mention is that the intelligence that was key in the capture of the leader of Sendero and discover the secret network was done by a police force led by Ketin Vidal and he had complete autonomy from Fujimori and Montesinos.
The first government of Fujimori did experience an improvement in overall economic trends (GDP) but this improvement was financed by the privatization of several national industries with contracts that were not beneficial for the country in the long term. Also, the gap between rich an poor continued to increase during Fujimori's regime. In his second term the economy was suffering and there was nothing else to privatize and by the end of Fujimori's second term the economy was about to collapse.
In terms of investments in infrastructure of Fujimori's regime, they fallow the paternalistic pattern. They were created to raise support for Fujimori but were not meant to last long. These structures needed continued maintenance but Fujimori did not provide political power for the civilians in order to demand further investment. In fact, Fujimori's regime was able to destroy most forms of political organizing such as unions and grass-roots groups and the increase in informal unorganized labor was immense.
Finally, the director chose to spend most of the movie talking to Fujimori instead of citing the cases of massive corruption in favour of Fujimori (the Media, Business Owners, the Military, etc) that were so wide spread it was impossible that Fujimori was not aware of it.


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


user
All the pro comments about this movie claim that the movie is balanced. That is their main justification to give a high rate to the movie. But a movie is not balanced when the main perpetrator analyzed is given the last world in every single subject. The director herself admitted to this at the first San Francisco film festival showing. She justified it by saying that she couldn't waste the chance of having access to Fujimori. That might be true but by showing so much of Fujimori's take on the issues makes the movie clearly pro-Fujimori and unbalanced. I dare any of the other commentators to prove this wrong Tips 1: claiming Harvard professors, intellectuals, and Latin American Diplomats agree with you does not help your argument (use logic). Tip 2: disagreeing with the director doesn't help your argument either (The director says she thinks Fujimori is charismatic and patriotic and therefore she portrayed him that way)


assistant
0