empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is only the fourth effort I’ve watched from this director (whom I met and found quite genial at the 2004 Venice Film Festival Italian B-movie retrospective) and also, possibly, the worst. As was the case with THE BRONX EXECUTIONER (1989), which preceded it, this is a prime example from the tail end of the Euro-Cult era – prime because it shows the depths to which the previously invigorating style had fallen by this time!
Here, in fact, we get a plot revolving around – I’m not kidding, folks – a killer phone! Pretty but bland Charlotte Lewis – in her third film after PIRATES (1986) and THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) – is a model who, apparently, has just ended an affair; she keeps expecting her architect lover to call her back but, every time the phone rings, all she gets is static accompanied by voices from the beyond (or some such crap). She befriends a new tenant at her apartment block who, conveniently, knows of an authority on paranormal activity (William Berger) – who, hilariously, explains that the negative energy which is unleashed, say, during family arguments can manifest itself via home appliances into a deadly force (I swear I ain’t making this up)!
Among the highlights...er...lowpoints of the film are: the grumpy bartender from whose dingy place the heroine calls a couple of times (it seems that the chain-of-events can only be broken by having Lewis go through her paces again, EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)-style!), the sheer variety of preposterous-looking phones on display, the apparatus of the heroine’s photographer friend sneaking up on her before the kill, the sarcastic cop who greets Lewis on reporting the strange occurrences (“And what’s the toaster up to, I wonder?”), the would-be rapist killed by a barrage of coins shooting out from a telephone booth, and Berger’s own bloody demise (with the phone affecting the pacemaker he’s fitted with and causing the doctor’s heart to explode)!
The film’s climax is rather confusing and, apparently, finally sees all the ‘lost souls’ inhabiting a flock of doves and flying out the window of the ‘possessed’ office (a lonelyhearts service!). For what it’s worth, the score – by ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti no less – is effective enough, despite the inclusion of dated heavy-metal numbers on the soundtrack.


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


user
Don't be fooled by the plot out-line as it is described on the cover (at least the Swedish version). The story on this seems rather interesting, with speculative hints. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the absolute most sad movie experience I've ever had... It is plain and right AWFUL and should not be sold or rented to anyone. If you still think the plot seems intriguing, reflect on this: telephones can move, run and kill people as can also any other electric appliance. It can throw things at you, haunt you and run after you. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE it is a disgrace for the horror genre...


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 truly saddening to see a once-great director such as Deodato delivering such a second-rate giallo such as this. This movie was so terrible it effectively put an end to his movie career. The box lies, this is no "erotic thriller", hell during the film's 97 minute running time, Charlotte Lewis barely shows us one nipple! I thought it would pick up once William Burger showed up (in one of his last roles), but his character is killed off rather abruptly and lamely. This movie fails in pretty much every way. Claudio Simonetti's music is little more than noise, and the plot made very little sense at all. For some reason, Lewis is terrorized by ghosts which attack using phones. (?) By the end, the characters all seem to have forgotten the previous 90 minutes of hell they went through, and casually laugh as they sick the evil spirits on someone else, Lewis's ex-boyfriend. What?!? This movie did little for me besides anger me.... and bore me half to death. For genuine 80's Deodato fun, watch THE BARBARIANS or THE ATLANTIS INTERCEPTORS, let this one rot on the video store shelf. Argento could make a better giallo than this!


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


user
Robert Aldrich's brutal, quasi-black comedy "The Grissom Gang", a reworking of the 1948 British film "No Orchids For Miss Blandish", has 1920s heiress Kim Darby kidnapped by a pack of clumsy thieves; soon, that gang is dispatched and poor Kim is then transferred into the clutches of another crooked bunch--third-rate gangster brothers with sweaty, pasty faces and a mother who looks like Buddy Ebsen in drag. At first, Darby (not very plucky, and not very smart) attempts to escape this drooling brood, but they're onto her. Eventually she just gives up trying, and therein lies the trouble with the story. Are we in the audience supposed to sympathize with her? Is her growing concern for the family half-wit supposed to be heartwarming? These are disgusting, cretinous characters, and I wanted to see as little of them as possible. But since the side-stories (the progress of the cops on the case and another one involving floozy-singer Connie Stevens) are rather dull, the director has no choice but to keep foisting those sweaty faces on us. Pretty soon, nervous Darby starts sweating too, although her scene up in the hayloft is sensitively performed and Aldrich's climactic moments are thought-provoking, if disorganized. ** from ****


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


user
These days, Asian horror films are among the best in the world, noted for their atmosphere and reflection of contemporary society. This is not one of those films! Instead, "The Record" is a mediocre slasher movie highly derivative of American movies like "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Scream". The plot is familiar - 5 teenagers accidently commit a terrible crime, but cover it up swearing to secrecy. One year later, they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac (with the decidely unscary disguise of a hospital sterile mask and an orange jumpsuit). It doesn't help that the teenagers are a generally unlikable group (this is one of those movies where the killer's motives seem pretty reasonable) and there are numerous stupid plot setups to keep the story going. The direction of the movie is unsubtle, more influenced by MTV than by current Asian horror films (like "The Ring"). The last third of the movie isn't too bad though, delivering some decent suspense scenes, though there is probably one "twist" too many in the end. 4/10


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


user
Stay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding.


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 rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.


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


user
Korea's answer to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?
Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from "I Know...", "The House On Sorority Row" and "The Faculty" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.
Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!
RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended.
** / *****


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


user
I have recently found this film on one of my husband's VHS tapes (the blank variety which he uses to record stuff from the telly). The film looks as if it was last shown in the eighties and I don't remember having seen it since. It has not (to my knowledge) been released on DVD or VHS although I shall browse around for a copy.
The film tells the story of three young people: two girls, one on the edge of puberty and the other much younger, and a young boy who go to live with their mother's brother and his young, mute Irish wife. His wife also has two brothers who live with them. The children's uncle is an unpleasant control freak who forces his young wife to wear a silver collar whilst she watches a marionette show put on by him and her brothers in his toyshop.
The eldest girl and one of the Irishmen (the younger) develop a love for each other whilst they live in the same house. The girl helps her aunt out in the shop whilst her brother helps his uncle to make things in the workshop.
There are a lot of very disturbing elements to the film. There is the uncle's treatment of his wife as some kind of dumb (literally) possession (illustrated by the collar) whilst the Irish indulge dancing, drinking and somewhat forbidden love. Interestingly, though, I have seen far more explicit themes played out in other movies made in Hollywood today.
Makes you wonder whether the British film industry and the BBC have some kind of hidden agenda going on.
Still, despite it not being a children's movie, there are a lot of playful, magic moments in it and the one Irishman does some beautiful paintings.


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


user
I don't know which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !


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


user
It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.
Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.
Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.
The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.
Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.
No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.
Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.


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


user
Love the TPB's but this was a lame episode. Didn't have the same feel that the series or the movie has. Looked like it was put together in a hurry. I didn't enjoy it at all. The so-called acting was awful. The cast appeared like they knew this was a money-grab of an episode to get to market quickly. I hope we don't have an easter special next because that will be it for me. The writing of this episode was definitely Mike Clattenburg's worst in the history of this show. The direction left a lot to be desired and I almost felt bad for the cast and crew of this weak attempt at a Christmas special. Like I said, I love the TPB's but this one goes to the trash bin.


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


user
The whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she "wants one more than anything else in the world") is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * from ****


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


user
Let's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : "Let's see who is meanest" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.
How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?
Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.
After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy it.



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


user
Throughout watching "End of Days", I got the sense that the film makers were perhaps trying to make this unique to the average Hollywood action film. They failed, of course, but you have to give them credit for trying. Peter Hyams actually tried directing this time, instead of just churning out another flat action film. He attempted to inject atmosphere into the movie by darkening the lights and adding tons of blood. This method can work if used correctly (see "Se7en") but here it just feels like a cheap trick to try and scare us. Hyams is a decent action director, and offers nothing more here than basic shoot outs and fight scenes, except for the lackluster, sub par f/x end "battle". As a photographer, Hyams demonstrates actual ability, displaying some good frame work and movement, but it is nothing above solid work.
Screenwriter Andrew Marlowe is the film's greatest enemy. At parts, the script actually shows the makings of good religious thriller, and at times it even shows some quasi-intellectual thought (the Temptation scene between Arnold and Gabriel Byrne), but these small pluses are choked out by a river of negatives. Generic dialogue/characters, gapping plot holes, and convenient plot points that just happen to point all the characters in the right direction are just a few of the standard Hollywood black holes Marlowe's screenplay falls into. The shadow of the good movie it could have been faded very quickly.
The film surprisingly has a good cast. Arnold, still possessing that larger than life attitude, tries to play a depressed, on the edge cop with no more than average results. Stick to be the invincible hero Arnie, it's what your good at. Gabriel Byrne is the strong point of the ensemble, bringing a nice air of cynicism to the role of Satan. In a villainous role ripe for overacting, Byrne restrains himself and it adds a bit more menace to the character. Kevin Pollak, as normal, is able to bring at least a few chuckles to the movie, but he's done better. Also look for a stellar small role from Rod Steiger.
Hyams looked like he was trying to separate this from the faceless mass of Hollywood action films. He was heading in the right direction, but had neither the script or originality to take it there.
4/10


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


user
End of Days, starts off pretty well, Arnie plays a down and out cop (a very similar character to Riggs in Lethal weapon) and the story looks like a kind of serial killer action thriller that will be good entertainment.
Sadly it fails to deliver, Arnie is as good as we we have come to expect, but as for Gabriel Byrne i expect him to chose his roles more carefully than this. cast as the devil; this is probably the weakest portrayal of the lord of darkness ever.
This movie gets a little too daft for me, and the end sequence, aside from being very weak, is visually one of the worst i've seen in recent years, CGI is have been better than this since the early nineties.
Quite simply not good enough. 4/10 (Watch it if you have too, but don't expect too much, cause it won't deliver)


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 don't know why I'm writting this. I think most people agree that this movie is bad. Well, let me say this:
When I first get done watching some movies, I like them. Then as time goes on, my opinion changes about the movie. this happened with End of Days. I liked it the first time I saw it. I thought it was entertaining. But, a few weeks later, my opinion has changed. So, to resolve this, I watched it again at a friends house. Well, it's bad.
I'm a logic person. If I see a logic hole in a movie, I try to ignore it. If I see two, then I start to get annoyed. More than two and I'm p***ed off. End of Days made me p***ed off after my second viewing.
First off, the movie is a bit depressing. Everything about it is sad. Everything from Arnold's acting to the movie's colors. But dark looking movies don't bother me, but some thing else did...
If Satan can regenerate his wounds, how can you possible kill him in his mortal form? If you shoot him, his skin grows back. If you cut off his head, a new one should pop back up. So question: what's the point of even trying to kill him? I'll tell you why: because this is a stupid movie that has a recycled villain. This isn't the devil my friends. This is a human being reminescent of those Bond villains who give away there entire scheme to the hero.
Like I said it's worth a look, but don't see it twice, because it's crap.


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


user
What does this movie have? Lots of gunfire and expensive effects. Nothing makes sense on any other level.
Watching Arnold cry is seeing acting so bad that it is laughable. The plot is ludicrous.
If you think the Devil will be impressed by a bad actor with a machine gun, well, this movie is 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
I never thought I would absolutly hate an Arnold Schwartzeneggar film, BUT this is is dreadful from the get go. there isnt one redeemable scene in the entire 123 long minutes. an absolute waste of time
thank yu
Jay harris


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 waiting to welcome Arnold Schwarzeneger's return to action after the dismal movies he'd made after "Eraser." "End of Days," however, can be added to the dismal films he's had the misfortune of appearing in.
"End of Days" starts well with a gripping action sequence, yet quickly becomes a bore, taking the focus off action and suspense and instead concentrating on the investigation of demonic happenings and the quickly approaching millenium (read "Doomsday").
Performances are stale, special effects so-so, and gore plentiful. Considering myself a die-hard Schwarzenegger fan, I couldn't believe I didn't like this film, but with such an awful, lame script, what could Arnie have done, besides passed on this turkey?
3 out of 10



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


user
I like Arnold, and I love the subject matter, but this was a very disappointing movie. When I first saw the previews, they were dark and ominous, and Arnold's name wasn't even mentioned. But I recognized him, which led me to believe that he was making a movie that had more of a serious, suspenseful mood. That it wasn't just another Schwarzenegger action vehicle (though I admit, most of his are pretty good!). He had, thus far, avoided movies with any real religious theme. And I was excited. I was wrong. This is just another action, explosion, gun fire movie. And it's a pretty bad one.


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


user
To sum it all up, skip End of Days and watch rent Roman Polanski's The Ninth Gate instead. This movie is the perfect stereotypical American movie vs Ninth Gate being the perfect stereotypical European movie.
Ninth Gate: Noir-ish, intelligent, nicely scored, atmospheric, excellent acting (Johnny Depp, esp), beautiful scenery, good cinematography, funny one-liners, intellectual, minimal foul language, thought-provoking. The only fault is it that a few people didn't understand the open-ended ending and said the movie was "crappy" because of that and there were a couple of questionable scenes.
End of Days: Overly violent, liberal use of foul language, NO musical score except for a poor attempt at a commercial soundtrack that was only heard when Gabriel Byrne stalked around NYC as Satan (but all you could pick out was Korn's Jonathan Davis unintelligible screaming), sex that had nothing to do with the plot, violence, incredibly predictable, violence, and did I mention lots more violence? I guess some of the special effects were good but that's about it.
Well, maybe I'm wrong but I thought Ninth Gate was far more interesting, quirky, original, and intelligent. But maybe Americans don't need need that. *dripping with cynicism* Even though I am an American, sometimes I wonder.


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


user
One of the worst Arnold movies I've seen. Special effects were terrible. Script was horrible. Hopefully his next movie will be much better like T2, Total Recall, True Lies and Eraser(not as good as the rest). Watch Stigmata if you want to see an apocalyptic future movie. It's much 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 felt that the film was rushed, and the acting was full of holes. Arnold was good, but the main girl was stupid, and the guy who played the devil was awful. The story was confusing and idiotic. The film had no point, and was unbelievable. The movie is not the worst movie, but is not too far away from it. Overall I was awfully disappointed, it could have been alot better. My score is a 3 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
The plot of this boils down to Ah-nuld versus Satan, and what I remember most about the movie is a lot of explosions, gunfire, blood, noise, and let's not forget that flammable satanic urine. The story is nonsensical, utterly predictable, and so full of holes I couldn't take a bit of it seriously. Stick to "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Exorcist" if you want to see a really good devil movie and....um, well, I can't think of any good "Action" movies at the moment (probably because they're so far-and-few-between), so you're on your own in that category. This flick does get a 3 out of 10 rating from me for its camp value, and for a pretty-good performance by Gabriel Byrne as that old debbil Satan!


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


user
this film sucks a big one. so many holes in the plot. if the devil is invincible, why does he require the protection of arnies bodyguards? I couldn't fathom why arnie didn't turn up for work for several days and then suddenly appears, takes their entire armoury and disappears again!! Nice work if you can get it. It's sad that the last 1/2 hour has to result in the standard arnie 'uzi 9mm' finale. Arnies interpretation of a depressed cop is to bow his head and sniff. i thought he had a bad cold for most of the film. Dreadfully scripted, Arnie is called 'buddy', 'dude' etc for 95% of the film and then suddenly we hear him being called by his real name of Jericho Cane (where do they get these names from??). The ending is so twee you'd better get the barf bag ready. Shame that Gladiator pulled off the same ending with 100% more class.



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 hype! All the adds! I was bummed that I missed this on the big screen. Where this film worked was in the little details. In EVERYTHING else it failed. Arnold has done so many better performances in the past few years. I thought the days of Commando and Last Action Hero were gone from our lives. Sadly this film panders to the lowest common denominator and reduces Arnold to a bellowing, grunting, face contorting muscle that just knows how to shoot guns and blow things up. In a cliche last moment (and at one other time), that was predictable from the start, we see a glimmer of the actor that has proven he is more than what he got paid for early in his career. I was unimpressed with the film as it never broke new ground or went anywhere but where you expected it to.


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


user
The core issues at play (God & Satan / Good & Evil) can be & should be tremendously compelling (as demonstrated through thousands of works of art/music/literature/film). End of Days, unfortunately, is nothing but a 2Dimensional Cartoon. Byrne's acting ability stands so obviously in sharp contrast to Arnold's corresponding lack of ability and is further underlined by a plot filled with nothing but stereotypes.
The single compelling scene occurs at the very beginning with the transformation of the Gabriel Byrne character and his subsequent interaction with his wife? girlfriend? It is both erotically charged & repellent -- modernizing the vampirish themes, the seductive power of evil.


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


user
Quite liked Flesh and looking forward to Heat but couldn't help but feel Morrissey grossly exploited most of the "performers" featured here. Stumbling around naked in a narcotic stupor seems to be all Dallesandro was capable of in this feature--a huge and heartbreaking contrast from Flesh. His semi-erection in a few scenes is the only indication that he might be acting; mostly it looks like something he did to buy drugs. Woodlawn is a revelation all right--she is the embodiment of the Lower East Side. But hers is a one woman show--she rarely engages the other performers though, it has to be said, her sex scene with a beer bottle definitely leaves Halle Berry in the shade when it comes to cinematic displays of raw passion. When she pounces on a young, would-be lover it is with the ferocity of a vampire. Two of the female performers, Andrea and Jane, have such annoying voices you'll have to mute the sound to get through their scenes. The fact that several of these performers committed suicide or were murdered a few years after only adds to the air of exploitation. But they were probably desperate to get in front of Morrissey's camera anyway. There probably isn't a worse way to spend a Saturday night but at least it brings a specific time and place vividly to 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 like underground films when they have something to say, or show, for that matter. I tried hard to like "Trash". I tried to see some artistic achievement, or some interesting representation of New York City life in the early 70's. Or at least being entertained by it? But the movie stinks and can't be called either art or entertainment.
"Trash" is basically an excuse to expose Joe Dallesandro's nude body for 2 hours, while he meets other uninteresting, annoying figures (I agree, that's a gorgeous body, but no excuse for a whole movie about it, right?). Holly Woodlawn, as Joe's girlfriend, provides a few good laughs by the end, but then it's too late to save those wasted couple of hours. Lou Reed's classic song "Walk on the Wild Side" is a better portrayal of those people and that time, even if it's more fascinating than they actually were. 1.5/10.


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 absolute drivel, designed to shock and titillate the 60's mindset. The acting is completely wooden, consisting mainly of ad-libbing, which results in the sub standard actors dribbling the first thing they can think of, repetitively.
The end result is of a badly written play being read by people who have no idea and couldn't care. The one exception to this is the lead character "Joe" (played by Joe Dallesandro) who spends a lot of the film in a naked stupor (either stoned, or the only one in the piece who can act!) Please don't think I don't "get" Warhol - this is plainly and simply a Stinker that should never have made it out of a film class.


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


user
Yes, it's pure trash. It might be interesting for every guy who likes experimental cinema (like me) to see lowlifes babbling and doing nothing for almost two hours, but it gets very painful when you realize you have actually paid for this. Probably, this is one of those films you love to watch for its complete emptiness and nihilism. I accept it though for its shock value, decades before Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction.


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


user
From the portrayals of Andy Warhol in the films I Shot Andy Warhol and Basquiat, this is the type of movie I would predict Andy Warhol might make--airy, illogical, snobbish, amoral. The movie's (almost non-existent) plot which is sometimes increduously unbelievable is offset by the movie's rough, real-looking cinematography. The film has a way of being unreal, yet dictating reality to the viewer. The only worthwhile part of the movie is the development of the relationship between Joe and Holly and every thing in it should be viewed as a characterization device. There are a couple of comical scenes that I do admit are funny, but Trash is really just about a character study of unengaging people that is mildly enjoyable if you do not mind watching nudity and i.v. drug use.


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 Trash really sucks. I watched it a couple of weeks ago and I haven't seen that kind of c**p at the cinema since Female Trouble by John Waters and that was even worse. The dialogues, the acting; it really stank, it was so bad it made me want to leave the cinema and ask for my money back. But actually I am glad I saw it, because then I could tell my honest opinion on it. One should see this film, even though it stinks.


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


user
This was obviously the worst movie ever made...ketchup was the starring role in this movie and would be the only nominee for an award..cause the plot, actors, and anything related to this farce was absolutely horrible and ridiculous. I could have made a better horror flick in my backyard within two hours with a hand-held camera using grass stuffed dummies as the actors, atleast the acting would have been better! Don't waste your time or money on this one...it's extremely cheesy and horrible!!


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


user
I HATE MOVIES THAT END LIKE THIS!!!!
This 16mm disaster is full of clichés, stereotypical characters, a generic, over done "plot" and terrible dialog.
In this "Movie" we have the Aggressive Black Guy, The Black Guys Girlfriend, The Blonde Bitch, The Possible Lesbian "hacker chick", the Pedophilic teacher...Blah, Blah, Blah....And then the Pumpkin Man.
"Do you think someone is taking the legend too far?" This question is asked towards the end of the film. Taking the Tagline of Scream 2 too far.
SPOILERS*****Typically I don't go into spoilers but I have to rant....
A dream? The whole thing was a Dream!!!!! This is the most sissified way to end a movie. "I don't know how to explain all of this, and we don't have any more money...Let's make the whole thing a dream." This is what the director/producer/actor/FX guy must have been thinking. Yes, the director is the character of Mr. E He did almost everything on this garbage movie. This is such a cope out ending....And what of the principal, okay, so he has been doing all the kidnapping! What did that have to do with the movie? Of course the Black people are killed, the bitchy girl is killed, the teacher that has a past of sexual harassment with students gets killed ( he is main suspect)....YUCK YUCK YUCK!!! This movie gave me heart burn.
Pointless, senseless, and made with parents Visa and Mastercards (which tells me it is probably still being paid off), this movie is dumb, boring and just plain stupid....
The only thing I liked was the credits. The way they presented the names, etc, in the beginning and at the end. It had a creepy feel to it. Too bad the movie didn't!
1 out of 10


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


user
This is a horrific re-make of the French movie Ma Vie en Rose (http://imdb.com/title/tt0119590/). The only scenario that I can imagine in which anyone (Sinise?! Bates?! Butler?! What WERE they thinking!?!) agreed to be associated with it is MacLaine seeing the original, being rightly impressed, and enlisting a friend (with no writing credits -- or talent! -- to his name) to translate the themes for American audiences -- whom they both agreed are stupid, stupid, stupid. Then she enlisted other friends to sign up, and they did so as friends -- certainly not on the merits of this pathetically contrived, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink script.
I'm not a knee-jerk fan of French film, but Ma Vie en Rose is a subtle, thoughtful, and thought provoking treatment of sensitive cultural issues. I would love to see it get wider exposure among English-speaking audiences -- and if that means an American re-make, so be it. But puh-leeze! a little respect for the issues AND the intelligence of the audience -- and better direction for the actors, who couldn't seem to decide if they were working for Tennessee Williams or Jerry Lewis!


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


user
Brainy, cross-dressing little boy finds success on the Spelling Bee circuit despite an unconventional and dysfunctional upbringing. Shirley MacLaine directed and stars as the child's grandmother, and it is always fascinating to see long-time actors getting their chance at directing a film, the material that they're drawn to and the actors they choose to work with. Here, the only person well-cast in "Bruno" is MacLaine. The child actors seem to have been picked for their twinkle and cuteness, and squishy-hearted MacLaine holds their close-ups for excruciatingly long periods; nothing about these cherubs seems natural, not the lines that fall without consciousness out of their mouths or the interaction they have with adults or even each other. As the boy's disgruntled father, poor Gary Sinise hovers around the edges, in mock shame, always with a pained look on his face. Towards the end of the film, MacLaine turns the whole thing into a passel of hugging scenes, and even concludes with the kid hugging the Pope in Rome! Another ungodly treatise from a talented actress-turned-director who, much like Sally Field and her film "Beautiful", cannot seem to stop winking at and nudging the audience. Shirley uses ethnicity for shtick, and childhood innocence as a punchline. The children in this cast roll their eyes, crack wise with mature comments, use big words--but when one mealy-mouthed boy calls our pint-sized hero "gay", MacLaine's granny instructs him to go over and punch the kid out (in front the media!). How's that for progression? * from ****


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


user
*****Spoiler or two, not that is matters******
Two things stand out about this movie. First is it's been titled both "Bruno" and "The Dress Code," and if you've seen this movie you'll catch the irony in that.
Second is it's addressing issues completely off the wall. The adventures of a grade school cross dresser isn't something that there was a crying need for a movie about, nor a topic that I think most people would be interested in. Shirley MacLaine manages to walk around the issues of gender by tying Bruno's desire to wear a dress to religion, which probably opens up an even thornier can of worms--what was she thinking?
Yes, there's some humor and it's not directly offensive, but the kind of unsettling feeling in the beginning just keeps on growing. It doesn't do much except repeat the liberal mantra that "different" people should be accepted (or maybe excepted?) no matter what.
Which is fine----but in order for people to live in a society everyone has to give a little to get along. Bruno doesn't just want to wear a dress, he wants to show up looking like a miniature Gladys Knight on awards night, and his final costume makes him resemble a Cabbage Patch Cowgirl Doll. Yet all the other kids dress and behave, well, like regular kids. So what gives? If it came down to it we all could declare ourselves special or different and behave any way we felt like, and the result would be total chaos.
This accepting of people who are "different" is also pretty narrowly defined, I doubt we will ever see a movie about a kid finding his true self and wanting to wear overalls, hunt geese, and go to tractor pulls, and demanding everyone else just accept him as he is. "Bruno" is one stupid movie, and a complete waste of 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 terrible. The plot was terrible and unbelievable. I cannot recommend this movie. Where did this movie come from? This movie was not funny and wasted the talent of some great actors and actresses including: Gary Sinise, Kathy Bates, Joey Lauren Adams, and Jennifer Tilly.


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


user
First the premise stinks...little boy likes to dress in girls clothes. It reminded me of Norman Bates in PSYCHO or Ed Wood in ED WOOD. The jokes are lame and old, You've seen 'em in a dozen 50's & 60's films. The whole cast is wasted. I bet people signed on just to be in a Shirley MacLaine vehicle. Please, Would somebody tell Shirley she did her best comedy in TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA. See it...if there's no reruns of Andy Griffith on.


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


user
Somehow, this documentary about Miles manages to include very little music and no complete tunes. Though Miles appears in the film, 95% of the interviews are other folks, not Miles. There are huge chronological gaps, many aspects of his life (his childhood prodigy, his drug addiction) are skipped or glossed over, and you'll learn little about what made the man and his contribution to music so groundbreaking. Skip it.


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


user
Stunning blonde Natasha Henstridge is the young, not-so-grieving widow in the mansion on the hill, telling her story to a TV reporter in Monroeville, Virginia. And among the community's well-heeled horsey-set, she's suspected of involvement in the death of her older husband. That's James Brolin, trusting as a babe-in-arms. Flashback teledrama made in Canada, based on an article that appeared in Vanity Fair magazine. It must be true! Whatever, it's far more romance than mystery, and a very familiar tale. Leggy Species star Henstridge as a gold-digging hospice nurse? It could happen, I guess. And it's good to see Brolin in a sizeable role after his titchy turn in Antwone Fisher, even if he doesn't make it to the end of the picture. The end of the picture? He doesn't even make it to the beginning of the picture. Which is why flashbacks were invented, of course.


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


user
To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is "doing it" in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start "doing it" right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money...


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


user
I started off being interested somewhat in the movie. It appeared it might be serious drama, dealing with death, grief, and healing, with some realistic human conflict thrown in. Alas, it didn't hold up.
I need a movie with somewhat consistent and believable characters. Too many characters in this movie were portrayed as extremely gullible and inconsistent. Look, I know this was not supposed to be Shakespeare, but come on, I need some quality in script and characterization.
The acting was alright, the writing not so much. At one point, James Brolin's character is berated for showing up at a picnic under-dressed. He states that ordering him around will not work. His new wife says that if he goes home and changes she will rip his clothes off later. That is a howler. This movie had a few unintentionally funny lines.
It was hard to care about Jame's Brolin's character. When he so readily gave his first wife's things to his new wife, even allowing his daughter to be snubbed, I lost most of my sympathy. Who really cares what happens to him. I must confess that I did not finish the movie. If it did a 180 in quality in the last 45 minutes, let me know. It was just unpleasant to watch and so predictable I felt there was no need to finish it.


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


user
Alas, it seems that the golden times of stylish Italian cinema have sunk into oblivion. And the recent brainchild of celebrated filmmaker Lamberto Bava is yet another obvious proof to that assumption.
I felt lucky to watch many films from this prolific director (like Body Puzzle, Delerium, Macabre and both Demons). Albeit not entirely satisfying they have never been that dull.
A suspicion that this new entry to my DVD collection was money thrown to the winds arose shortly in the aftermath of the car crash scene exhibiting an awkward and unlikely position of the body under the flip-over car.
And the sense of shallowness grew up in the course of the ponderously narrated chain of events that followed.
Dumb dialogs, suspenseless script and a total waste of talents from the international cast. The only character that provided more or less passable performance was the mischievous Mark's son juicing up the entire boredom.
Unfortunately, Mario's son job on all accounts could hardly be hailed.
I look forward to seeing his Murder House hopefully expected to be an improvement.


assistant
0