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
A chilling and gory tale of a couple inheriting a 150 room Italian castle while still grieving the loss of their young son. The couples marriage seems to be on the rocks due to the car accident that took the life of their son and left their daughter blind. Upon taking inventory of the castle for a future sale a hideous, tortured and misshapen creature breaks lose from the bowels of the 12th century castle. Pretty gory with great horror atmosphere and some sexual overtones. Starring Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Jessica Dollarhide and Elisabeth Kaza .


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 couldn't get into this movie. The plot is some old woman has been torturing someone so long that he is deformed. She dies and he is left in the basement to starve. Months must pass and a family moves in. The daughter is blind because of an accident caused by the father. Well anyway this guy in the basement, who for all rights should be long dead is still around. He eats a cat and now is superhuman. He now wants to eat people and have sex. And when a hooker dies father gets the blame. I always dislike movies where someone else is blamed for the killings because you always here the typical lines "I didn't do it", "I could never do such a thing", blah blah blah. And the family storyline could be a lifetime movie storyline.


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 a disappointment. The story is essentially The Shining with a castle (or a very cheap set masquerading as a castle, to be specific) substituting as the hotel and a monster instead of the ghosts. The budget is the same you'd see from a Cinemax softcore porn, as is the photography, sets, lighting, and video it was shot on. The story is a failed attempt at sincerity: there's no easier way to make your audience feel sympathetic for your characters than to show them experiencing emotional trauma. And the trauma in this movie is pretty trite. Want an example? A blind girl listening to a language tape teaching the Italian words for colors begins to cry at what she will never see.
This movie had a few things going for it, however: the monster is actually pretty cool, pretty scary-looking. And there is a pretty decent amount of nudity from Raffaella Offidani, herself a star of Italian "erotic" films. The gore, however, leaves much to be desired, as does the acting, even from the experienced Jeffrey Combs.
Other than this I've only seen two other Stuart Gordon films: Re-Animator and From Beyond, both of which were outstanding. But I won't let this little footnote in his career keep me from watching many more of his movies.


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 rather disappointed. The first Tetsuo made me an INSTANT Tsukamoto fan, from the first 5 mins of the film. It was fresh, innovative, and just.....different. I rather enjoy having a movie be in your face and push all those "make you squirm" buttons. Tetsuo did just that where for me, few movies can.
For those of us who enjoy getting a breath of fresh air, those that appreciate those offbeat styles used that make indie films so worthwhile, Testuo II will likely be a disspointment. If your looking for that visceral "HYPER-KINETIC" feel of the first movie, skip this one, as thats all been stripped away. Tetsuo II is for some odd reason, just a typical Hollywood style action flick. I was rather confused. However, it's still worthwhile in my opinion for any die-hard Tsukamoto fan.


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 reading in a Stuff Magazine about some of the goriest, bloodiest films that Asia had to offer and I immediately jumped to Netflix to quench my thirst. Boy what a mistake I made. This movie is one of the worst films I have seen. First and foremost no plot, what I expected to be the plot (see: "Revenge") turned into a series of events just happening in a effort to spend their special effects budget of $14.89 and waste studio time. They should have kept their money and not wasted their time nor yours.
When a major plot twist occurs, Tetsuo II: Body Hammer is given a new identity and I wasn't buying it. A flashback is given that should answer our questions, but seemed to me like I turned on Showtime at 3:47 am and dropped ACID. The movie continues and spirals out of control with cheesy graphics and special (olympic) effects.
Do I seem bitter about this film? Yes. Did I see Iron Man? No. Was there a plot? No. Was it so symbolic that I didn't understand? NO. Was there a Body Hammer? Beats the Hell out of ME. So take my advice and STAY away!!!!!!
(I must admit though I have had so much fun writing this and laughing to myself about this film that if you want to laugh, WATCH IT!!!)


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


user
This is strictly for Pryor fans. Just because he was a great, funny guy doesn't mean this is more than a B-Movie. The script is awful, it just meanders around constantly ridiculing crime and prisoners of war. It balances between comedy and melodrama and keeps falling on its face doing justice to neither.
First there are 30 minutes of rather unrealistic, uninspired Vietnam prisoner of war time  the guy is playing basketball at one point... How more can you pander to your audience?... That prison time is boring, unconvincing and already can easily put one to sleep.
Back in the U.S. the guy for no real reason at all is considered a "war hero". Yet he is of course quickly forgotten by the public and seems to be stumbling into all kinds of wacky mishaps. Or are they really? We will soon find out. Yawn. There are annoying clichés: his sick mother, his little daughter he never meets, a high end whore falling in love with the hero etc. It is very odd how this movie constantly switches from tragedy to slapstick in one instant. Doesn't work at all.
Overall this in fact is just a bad comedy and does a disservice to prisoners of war. Just because this guy was a great stand-up comedian, played in a few good movies and died of MS is no reason not to be annoyed by this silly, unconvincing, unfunny comedy. But if you like Richard Pryor you will probably be thrilled by him reading 3 hours of Dadaist poetry.


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


user
Well, well... Even if you're a fervent admirer of Lang's silent films, this early one - the first part of a two-part unfinished four-part serial(!) - will leave you in doubt about Fritz's narrative skills. (His directorial skills aren't that evident either, but here and there one senses his talent for building up atmosphere.)
The pic's just pure juvenile nonsense, which wouldn't be half as bad, were it not for the long ponderous stretches in between the childish action scenes.
But the whole affair almost gets by on its amiable innocence.
4 out of 10 Inca treasures


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 understand the exaggerated good critics about this film, except that a lot of people from Venezuela are understandably very excited, based on that the Venezuelan cinema is really a bit behind of what other countries are in the region.
The movie first of all is too repetitive, a lot of scenes are almost identical from each of the both leading roles, so you get the impression that it's a time filler. A time filler is also a good point, as this movie is definitely too long with 105 minutes, you will start to get tired after a while and watch on the clock.
All actors are quite bad, by exception of the venezuelan guy Edgar Ramirez, who brings in a bit of slapstick and plays the role of the venezuelan recruit "Pedro".
By the way, this is not a representative movie about the people of the region (caribean zone), it tends to ridicules them.


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


user
I'll not comment a lot, what's to??? Stereotype characters, absolute ignorance about Colombia's reality, awful mise en scene, poor color choice, NOT funny (it supposed to be a comedy and they expect that you will laugh because some distend music it's beside the nonsense scenes), Very poor actors direction (if you see somewhere those people, I mean the interpreters, you'll know they are at least good, but seeing this so call film, it is impossible to guess it), you get tired of the music... this "comedy" has no rhythm, the only good rhythm in it, it's the rap sing in the final credits....pathetic, doesn't it? etc...etc... It has been a long time I haven't seen a movie so bad!!


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


user
I grew up in the 90s; therefore, you must understand that i witnessed firsthand the premiers of the greatest DCOMs. I was there when Brink! appeared, Zenon, Halloweentown, Johnny Tsunami, etc, These movies constitute my childhood. When these movies came on, not only myself but whoever I was watching them with would stand completely in awe for 1h30, talk about it for the week to come and catch it again the next weekend. I don't think words could express the amount of excitement Zoog Disney brought.
Even when I watch them now, the dialog doesn't seem that bad (so effective in fact, that I actually remember parts of conversations literally word per word, from movies I saw over ten years ago). The characters are believable, funny, granted a little stereotypical but that's what makes Disney's charm...
I sat my little brother down in front of the Disney channel to try and convey and make him understand my feelings for DCOMs. Enter Stuck in the Suburbs... my brother looked at me slightly puzzled, asking me if I had always been gay. I feel more disappointed and betrayed now than, what could I compare this to?, when Han Solo found out Lando sold him out to Vader...
Half the movie, and I'm not exaggerating, is flashbacks. There is no talent in these young actors (some of which are older than I am) whatsoever. The plot is ridiculous; it feels like a bunch of old rotting corporate people over at Disney sat around a table and asked themselves "How can we seem hip to these youngsters?" OK, maybe all the DCOMs were like that, but they at least made a little effort to not let us realize they think we're complete idiots.
And apparently this type of movie works... Stuck in the Suburbs is rated almost as much as Zenon or Airborne. How is this possible? DCOMs got even cheesier and people prefer them now? (though apparently the lack of curse words is enough to give it 10/10 for some people) Christ, it's a completely different generation.


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


user
i found the film a bit predictable and boring but i am 14.
i was really annoyed with my little cousin as she was very hyper that day so i saw a film on the Disney channel and put it on and told her to watch it.
she is 6 and she loved the film, some bits she didn't get like the ending but i didn't get that either y was Eddie the star of the video shoot i thought it was Jordan's video?! but she did enjoy it.
i noticed the mistakes such as at the end Jordan was not actually playing the guitar, but she never.
it is definitely a film for if you are seriously bored or 10 and under.
it calmed my cousin down well.
although all she did was sing for the rest of the day then.


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


user
...if only Disney had stayed away from it. See, I think that this movie has some potential. Well, the main character's situation does, at least. Take out the whole Jordan Cahill thing, and you've got the beginnings of a decent movie! Of course, you also lose more than half of the film, but, oh well. Not that much of a loss.
So, here it goes: you take a typical, preppy, suburban teenage girl (Danielle Panabaker, who's actually a decent actress) whose best friends screech a lot, mostly over a "pop sensation" (I'm assuming it's a direct quote from the movie; movie's like this almost always involve that particular phrase) named Jordan Cahill. Except, of course, TPSTG wants more out of life. Enter Brenda Song's character, a sophisticated individual who is just what TPSTG needs (honestly, I don't care what the character's real name is, I like the acronym better). The two new friends go to see Jordan Cahill (one to drool, one to make fun of the droolers), and they come out of it with his cell phone. Hijinks ensue, and everything turns out alright in the end.
If only Disney, or any major film studio for that matter, didn't have such a low opinion of 8 to 14 year olds. Or maybe if 8 to 14 year olds expected a little more out of the movies targeted at them. It's sugar-coated crap like this that make me more than a little unsure who to be more disgusted with (a little film called 'High School Musical' comes to mind...)


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


user
In short this movie was awful.
I understand it's a Disney movie, which are generally shallow movies with mediocre plots and bad acting. HOWEVER, i must say this is the worst of all Disney movies, with bad acting, LOTS OF IRRITATING SHRIEKING TEEN GIRLS(my god), and an extremely unrealistic plot. Even as a 12 year old there is no way i would have liked this movie. The only way this movie could have been any worse is if they attempted to put it in theaters or tried to sell it in a local video store.
Do yourself a favor and change the channel before watching this, no matter how bored you are on a Sunday afternoon.


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


user
Right this moment I am watching this movie on TV here in Tokyo. Beautiful scenery, beautiful sets of biblical proportions, beautiful costumes, beautiful color, beautiful Gina. Great climactic scene when God destroys the Sheban idol and a lot more with de Millean thunderbolts at the moment when Yul and Gina are about to consummate their love. Yul does a halfway decent job of delivering his lines, though he sounds a lot like Yul delivering his lines as Ramses or Taras Bulba. George Sanders sounds like George Sanders playing George Sanders. Given the limited range of acting she is asked to display in this role, Gina does a good job, though by the time the movie ends, she is completely converted into a demure remorseful lass and looks likes she might be playing in a biography of Mother Teresa. I guess thunderbolts will do that to you, but it is almost breathtaking how quickly she jettisons her own beliefs for her new religion. The supporting players are mostly awful, lacking credible emotion and timing. The usual big battle scenes, what passed for lascivious dances in 1959, and an orchestra blasting out plenty of trumpet calls behind a huge chorus singing lots of "Ah's", but none of it quite of topnotch Hollywood quality. The final swordfight between Brynner and Sanders is at the laughingly low skill level of a junior high school play. The film is one big piece of eye candy but not much more.


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


user
It wasn't until I looked at the trivia section that I found out that the original producer/star of this movie Tyrone Power died during its making . This no doubt explains why everyone on screen seems to have their minds on other things , a symptom of which appears in a very early scene involving a battle that can only be described as pathetic . You know when you've been painting a wall until you're completely bored ? Well that's the sort of expression the combatants have on their face when they're swinging their swords in a highly unconvincing manner
The plot centres on Soloman the King of Israel having an affair with the Queen of Sheeba and his people not being happy about it . You can't really blame them since there's few things more beautiful in the world than those Israeli moteks , though the Israeli women here all seem to look like Cherie Blair ! Modern day Israel is also very cosmopolitan with the majority of Israelis being born outside the country but would this have been true a couple of thousand years ago where everyone speaks in European and American accents
After much talking and a dance sequence that has to be seen to be believed ( And no that's not praise ) we have a climax where the heavily outnumbered Israelis have to defend themselves against a massed Egyptian army who can't read a map otherwise they would have known there was a canyon in front of them . This is what I don't get - Even though their blinded by the sun the Egyptians spend ten minutes charging towards the Israelis never ever realising they're charging towards a gaping ravine ! Isn't this somewhat illogical ? It's also something of a revealing error since the horses , chariots and men falling into the canyon are obviously miniature figures
Anyway the film ends with Soloman killing his treacherous brother and praising God for his victory . But who needs Moshe Dayan , Arik Sharon or God when you've got an idiotic enemy who can't see a ravine in front of him or waves a sword like he paints a wall ?


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 and several other movies from the 1950s with a religious overtone, such as The Robe, Quo Vadis, and Samson and Delilah, unfortunately depict all pagans or anybody who isn't a Jew or Christian as morally depraved and decadent. The focus is only on biblical-related stories that ignore the world outside the Bible. As far as they are concerned, nothing good came from pagan Egypt, Greece or Rome.
Any movie that preaches about the "one true god" gives a short shift to freedom of religion. The movies ignore the fact that ancient Judea's lack of religious freedom made it a fertile ground for religious extremism. Most 1950s religious movies also overlook the loss of freedom the occurred after Christians assumed political power in the 4th century.


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


user
"Solomon and Sheba" was the kind of film that you just had to go and see back in the late 50's when I was a kid: a biblical epic spectacular with well known performers, unusual costumes, lots of extras and battle sequences. So I went to see it; but I remember that back then "Solomon and Sheba" didn't impress me at all, which was a strange thing since I had enjoyed a lot "The Ten Commandments", "Quo Vadis", "Helen of Troy" and others. The point is that when you are a kid you disregard things in pictures that adults don't (bad acting, for instance) and you are easier to please with warriors in their armors, battles, sword duels and action, so if your'e not impressed then something is wrong with a product of this genre.
This film, though it has some of such features, is definitely standard and average. Yul Brynner's wooden performance as the Hebrew king doesn't even light when he has voluptuous and half naked Gina Lollobrigida dancing around him provocatively. She is better and renders an acceptable acting. George Sanders doesn't look interested in what he is doing, and Marisa Pavan (Pier Angeli's twin sister) doesn't add at all as a sort of Brynner's conscience.
The final sword duel between Brynner and Sanders is just for the plot and lacks interest and intensity (it had to filmed, that's all).
Not a good farewell for director King Vidor, Solomon and Sheba will probably be remembered as Ty Power's last unfinished picture.


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


user
Mostly uninvolving biblical mumbo-jumbo that drags on for well over two hours. The only thing that saves this film from God's wreath (and there is only one God, remember) is the unintentionally funny dialog, and a good battle scene which comes far too late in the movie. For most of the two hours until the action scenes there is too much talking; the dialog is so inept that the movie just begs to be spoofed by MST3K.
George Sanders is absolutely awful; one of the most animated, overly-theatrical performances I've ever seen. Brynner isn't much better; his stiff, wooden acting, combined with the horrendous fortune-cookie wisdom utterings make for a rather boring and silly Solomon. It seems that every time Brynner opens his mouth something oh-so wise and ridiculously high-and-mighty comes out. To an extent it's not Sanders's and Brynner's fault, because of the crappy, comical dialog and the typically biblical one-dimensional characterization, but they made little effort otherwise. Brynner's accent even reminds a bit of Schwarzenegger's; this is not a plus. Only Lollobrigida manages to avoid embarrassing herself, by playing the role with more conviction and in an appropriate way which befits a role in such a silly film. To describe these biblical characters as one-dimensional would be too give them undeserved credit; the characterization is half-dimensional.


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


user
Tyrone Power was cast in the lead as Solomon. However, part-way through the film he died unexpectedly. The studio chose to cast Yul Brynner in the lead and re-shoot the scenes that Power had done. In hindsight, considering how awful this film was, Power was lucky--as this would have been a horrible way to end his lovely film career!!!
Of all the Biblical epics I have seen, this one is by far the worst--and that's saying a lot because Hollywood has made many dull Biblical tales--so many you wonder if the creation of these films was an Atheist conspiracy!! In fact, the film was so dull that it deservedly was included in Harry Medved's brilliant book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time". There are so many reasons to hate the film but the worst is how incredibly ponderous the whole thing was! Sure, casting people with Italian, Eastern European, Scottish and English accents to play Egyptians and Israelis was pretty bad--but at least this made the film oddly humorous. Having bosomy Gina Lollobrigida playing the role of a woman reputed to have come from a place around Ethiopia was also just awful, but at least she was beautiful even if she couldn't act. Having an overweight and post-middle aged George Sanders play such a young role was also pretty bad, but at least he had a pretty voice. Creating an orgy scene that was choreographed and revoltingly dull was pretty bad, but at least you got to see in the credits a mention of a person as the "orgy choreographer"! No, the worse thing about this movie is that almost two and a half hours, it seemed like nine it was so poorly paced and insipid! Considering that the only mention of this Queen of Sheba and Solomon is only in a few measly verses in the Old Testament, it's amazing the film just went on and on and on. THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD was a bit longer, but that movie was based on four gospels--not a dozen or so verses!
The bottom line is that the film is wretched in practically every way (except for Gina's cleavage). Even for devoted Christians and Jews, this is a must-avoid film because it plays so fast and loose with the truth as well as injects an amazing amount of sex into a Biblical film!!! Terrible in almost every way, it is truly a blessing for Tyrone Power that he's not remembered for starring in this bloated turkey.


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


user
How does a movie become a Biblical epic? Simply by quoting a couple of Scriptures & using some names out of the Bible for your characters? The only thing that was Biblical about this epic was the names of the characters. Oh, I almost forgot the 3 kingdoms, Israel, Egypt & Sheba were also used. Where did King Vidor get the rest of his story from? It surely wasn't from the Bible. It was complete & utter nonsense. If you want to read about Solomon's reign as King in Israel then read 1 Kings 1-11 & 2 Chronicles 1-9. You will even come across Adonijah in 1 Kings 1 & 2. The Queen of Sheba, (who doesn't show up until King Solomon has been king for about 20 years or so, which by the way, is long after Adonijah & Joab had been dead) can be found in 1 Kings 10 & 2 Chronicles 9. One of the first thing Solomon does is make an affinity with Pharoah by taking his daughter.
Yes, King Solomon did get involved with the worshipping of false gods & this is why the Kingdom was split after his death, not the Temple being destroyed by lightning. Also, I think Solomon was too busy marrying & providing temples to the false gods of his 700 wives & tending to his 300 concubines to be fighting Egypt, let alone a dead brother.
Like I said this movie was utter nonsense. If you aren't gonna use the story in the Bible then call it something else. This could've just as easily been called Romeo & Juliet or Sid & Nancy.



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 childish in its writing and laughable in its visual effects. Scenes where Father Merrin is tossing in his bed and his glimpses of a gimpy native are signs of bad acting and poor imagination. Nothing seems to fit. The story jumps from scene to scene. The elementary writing leaves no fact to the imagination and leaves no room for suspense. The lady doctor at one point states that she thinks the town is going to "explode soon" from all the crazy happenings. There was, in fact, nothing in the movie to make that line relevant. From the terrible job the movie had done, I would have never known that there were any tensions in the village. If you are into cheesy movies go ahead and rent this, but if you want to see this done right check out Exorcist:The Beginning


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


user
Well, after seeing "Beginning" I thought why the hell they burned Schraders Version and did that poor one. But now, after seeing "Dominion" I deeply understand this decision. Even they got it not much better.
Sorry, but this movie is really crap. Some good moments, but a really boring story-telling and some major plot-holes are killing this movie.
I thing the Exorcist-story has a lot and in a prequel on this you can built on a lot and give references the audience will like to see. But there is so much little of it in the movie. The effects are really bad - not even TV-standard.


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 to admit it, but they were right to sack Schrader. The opportunity is here to build an atmosphere, to draw an audience into a movie. It wasn't done. The characters are weak. The story was weak. The directing was very poor. Schrader was out of his depth and it shows. I've watched it several times now in the hope that there will be at least one redeeming feature. But no, nothing. The next stage will probably be a remake of the original or hopefully it will be left well alone. Anyone wanting to know what the best sequel to The Exorcist was should read 'Legion', penned by Blatty it has to be the best follow up to an original piece to be committed to print. Sadly, it did not translate to to screen very well and I doubt if it ever could be. As for Dominion, Beginning. Avoid 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
Once again, I've been duped by seemingly intelligent reviews making seemingly intelligent comments about an obviously crappy movie. I actually put my shoes on, got in my car, burned expensive gasoline and drove to the nearest rental place AFTER reading said reviews and paid the requisite 4 dollars and change to rent this thing. I'm telling you, this one's not worth the minuscule kilo-calories spent on lifting one's index finger to switch channels on a TV remote.
I even gave it a few more minutes after seeing all the tell-tale signs of a pedigree dog-pile. These presented as clinical symptoms of a director who is a. going senile or, b. is only marginally interested in the film he/she is obligated to create. I saw similar deterioration with John Carpenter's string of ridiculous caricature's over the past number of years.
Here are a couple of scenes as incriminating evidence. The priest is having a disturbing dream...supposedly a harbinger of nastiness to come since he seems hell bent on opening the archaeological feature which houses the demon. The dream is a goofy collage of disjointed images right out of the Twilight Zone's stock footage. A ticking clock careens through the dream scape's blackness implying, what?, the unfathomable mystery of Time?....big deal! A disembodied head, painted in demon features with convenience store quality Halloween make-up, flickers back and forth in a convulsive frenzy. Every time I see this effect, a big fat rip-off from Jacob's Ladder, it pisses me off. This, in itself, almost instantly discredits a film.
The whole build-up of the archaeological dig itself is laughable. Everything is so obvious...so tired and over-wrought...the only possible response is boredom. At one point in the dig, the priest comments on finding the statues of Angels surrounding a sarcophagus...they're all pointing down toward the crypt with their weapons. He queries "Look at these surrounding statues....It's as if they are holding..something..down!" This is supposed to build tension...critical mass..but it doesn't even come close! How can there be suspense if you treat the audience like a bunch of morons having to EXPLAIN the suspense as you go along. The imagery is over-done in the first place but the added comments only add insult to injury in my opinion. Soon thereafter, the tomb is "decorated" with the remains of the soldiers placed there to guard the main atrium (another shameless rip-off of The Keep, btw). Who, for crying out loud, did the make-up effects for this film??! The blood actually had that pinkish quality one might see in 70's Tromaville flicks. At this point I became almost convinced that they simply forgot the make-up and had to go to Wal-Mart in the interest of time and money.
DON'T listen to glowing comments on this one! I'll be keeping a suspicious eye on Schrader too. Looks like it might be time to hang up his gloves. Perhaps a close friend will offer a gentle admonition to quit while there's still dignity in memory of films gone by.


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


user
Absolutely one of the worst movies I've ever seen! "The Beginning" was not the greatest either but better than this one. This is not a good way to lead up to the original movie. It's just simply awful! The CGI hyenas were so fake looking in both movies! Why not use real animals? I enjoyed the old Sinbad movies better than this. I was royally disappointed! The only good thing I can say about this waste of film is the cinematography and clothes which really captured that era well. I understand why this movie was redone as "The Beginning". It's just that bad, in my opinion. where does the money come from to waste like this? Give me a multi-million dollar budget and I'll show you how it should be done!


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


user
I found Dominion to be a lousy attempt to continue the success of the story. The original movie was a story about evil, and how it can infiltrate our lives.
Schrader's version is lacking in evil. Viewers do not get an overwhelming sense of dread, fear, or even foreboding. Harlin's version offers evident evil, shows violations of the church's sanctity, and builds a convincing story that is plausible, given Father Merrin's background. Schrader's story leaves one wondering exactly what happened. Dominion does not evoke the emotions of the viewers to empathize with Father Merrin, and leaves the viewer wondering exactly why he was troubled in the first place.
Anyone interested in seeing a sequel which lives up to the original should see Exorcist: The Beginning.


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 nothing at all against Paul Schrader. In fact, HARDCORE (1979) is one of my very favorite films. But some horror movie fans were in a premature uproar when his original version of the EXORCIST prequel (DOMINION; this one you're reading about right now, as it turns out) was scrapped by Warners, and when Renny Harlin was substituted to spruce things up and make a new version that was "more scary". In my opinion, some viewers were prejudiced and became automatically juiced up for hating Renny Harlin's take on the subject (EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING) before the first frame of film was ever even unspooled for them to judge. And I ought to know; because I myself went into the theatrical premiere of BEGINNING with stubborn arms folded, and prepared for the absolute worst, which I was sure had to come. Imagine my surprise when I found Harlin's BEGINNING to be much more serious than I ever could have conceived, with a good performance from Stellan Skarsgard as a young version of Father Merrin, who was struggling with his faith in God. It wasn't a great film by any means, but it was nowhere near the garbage I had prepared myself for, well in advance, sight unseen.
Well, now I finally HAVE seen the true garbage version - and it's Paul Schrader's DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST. It was relentlessly talky, uninteresting, and insipid. Stellan Skarsgard's troubled priest was nowhere near as interesting as he had been for me in Harlin's film, and the actor himself not as good in the part. For all those who pointed out the obvious CGI effects in BEGINNING, guess what? They're here in DOMINION as well. Remember the silly ending in Harlin's rendition (which I'll also agree tainted the rest of that movie)? Well, you're going to find that this ending from Schrader isn't a hell of a lot less lame.
Let me also say that I resent the nonsense that's been presented by those who appreciate this film better than Harlin's, by saying that we're "retards" or "cannot appreciate subtle film-making". As a person who despises Stephen Sommers' MTV-fashioned MUMMY of '99, and being a true fan of the very suggestive and discreet old horror films of the '30s and '40s, I can assure you this is not the case with me. At least there was "some" degree of terror and Exorcist-type goings on in Harlin's BEGINNING; this one here is just a real exercise in tedium and a great challenge even for the most certified of insomniacs. It's going to be quite interesting to hear horror fans try to convince themselves that DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST was as good as they'd already made their minds up for it to be in advance; just as they were already pre-disposed to lambasting Harlin's BEGINNING the second they learned Paul Schrader's name was getting soaked with the White-Out.


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 get me wrong, I love most of Paul Schrader's movies, so it was with sheer excitement I was able to attend at the "Rolling Thunder" screening at the Parisian french cinemathèque with surprise movie on the 17th Dec 2004. Of course the surprise movie was The Exorcist and most people were there for that (I was too). The film was then finished but the score, so P Schrader used excerpts from The Return of the King and some other movie I forget (Was it Conan?). Anyways, apart from that the movie was finalized. The happy few there (maybe 200 people) were told to please not write about the film on the internet or magazines since it may have jeopardized its chance of getting selected to the Cannes Film Festival. Then came the film, then came the realization that the film might not get selected for the Festival because of its quality : Never in my life had I experienced such a feeling of awkwardness in the audience as people went from being skeptical to plainly laughing out loud at the pity-full spectacle. I couldn't believe how low the author of Light Sleeper, Mishima, Blue Collar and Affliction had sunk.
Forced over-the-top acting thorough, stupid ending, black and white moral, awful FXs, worst take on Christianity from Schrader ever, not even suspenseful, just boring as hell (no pun intended) and unsurprising at all! Some good locations but sadly miss-used or at least not fulfilling the initial hopes! In the end I was 100 times more satisfied by the Schrader penned Rolling Thunder and wished my 2 hours back.
Don't believe the hype, even the John Boorman movie is more exciting and original. Oh, and the Billy Crawford casting, the poor guy does his best, but what where you expecting? He's now part of the small club of worst casting mistakes ever! I give the movie a 1/5 just because I didn't leave the room, but I should have.


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


user
Let me begin by saying that I had been eagerly anticipating this film's release for awhile. After finally getting the chance to see it last night, I'm sorry to say that I was incredibly disappointed. It's hard to imagine a film that could make last fall's "Exorcist: The Beginning" look good, but "Dominion" does just that. No wait...it makes it look like a GREAT film.
Perhaps I got myself too excited about this movie, and that contributed to the let down. After all, the idea that Warner Bros. was releasing two versions of what is essentially the same film within six months of each other was an exciting attraction. Plus, I'm a huge fan of Stellan Skarsgard, and in true fashion he gives a great performance, despite the often ridiculous content of the film. On the other hand, the supporting cast in this film is abysmal. Clara Bellar seems to be capable of only one expression - blank stare, and delivers all of her lines with the same monotonous tone, while Gabrielle Mann's Father Frances is just ridiculous. The effects in this film are laughable at best and the sheer cheesiness of it all is enough to rob the film of any chance of being taken seriously. This movie brought about more stifled giggling than anything else, and with the exception of one really chilling shot that lasted about three-seconds and made my friend cover her eyes and whimper, it neglected to offer anything in the scare department either. I could go into more detail and possibly give away some spoilers, but frankly I'm too exhausted from thinking about how bad this film was to write all the things I'd love to say.
The saddest part about the whole thing is that the basic idea that both versions of the film tried to give...a story about a priest who has lost his faith and then regains it after coming to terms with his troubled past...had huge potential, especially with Skarsgard as leading man. Unfortunately for us, that potential was wasted. Go and see this film only if you're really curious about how it differs from the Harlin version, but don't expect to see a good film or you'll regret wasting your money and two hours of your life. Otherwise, be content with the version first released and move on.


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 about you but i go to horror films to be scared and this was anything but scary, the movie had several chances to be truly scary and failed miserably EVERY TIME! Several of these supposedly suspenseful moments were haunted by some of the worst cg you will see this year, perhaps decade! I mean when i say the cg looks like daytime TV, I'm giving daytime TV a bad name, I've seen better stuff on the sci-fi channel. Who i really feel sorry for is the actors,(that they have their names attached to this film) they did a good job, i cared about most of the characters and i felt that their performances were quite good, but that was not enough to bring this movie out of the gutter. Whats really amusing is the reuse of some of the sets, if you have seen "exorcist: the beginning" it will be easy to spot the reuse of some of the buildings. However what i thought was the worst thing about this film, even above the cg problems was the main demon, he was just not scary in anyway, his form, the way he talked, he was extremely bland. all in all this movie was a horrible experience and i would have walked out of the theater if it weren't for my wife wanting to see the end.


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


user
Well, I remember when the studio sacked Schrader and hired Harlin to do reshoots to this film, they were quite right to do so.
Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist is simply a bad movie, it's boring, really it is.
It would be nice to think that the studio put aside a psychological masterpiece and that all those who in such big words condemned Harlin's version and praised Schraders, even if no one had ever seen it, would have been right.
But they weren't.
To put it in a nutshell : Schrader has no idea what a horror film should be, and it shows in a big way.
Droll, boring, unintentionally funny in all the wrong places and bad supporting cast.
Save your cash and your nerves, don't see it.


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


user
OK, last night I saw the world premiere of Paul Schrader's The Exorcist: The Beginning at the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Films. With all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated.
The director was there and so were most of the stars (except Skarsgard).
Unfortunately the movie sucked big time. It was a real disappointment for me because I'm a huge fan of both Shrader and Friedkin's (RIP) original 1973 film.
What was wrong with it? Most of it actually. The FX (you would think that the Matrix and LOTR digital revolution never happened: it was so badly rendered!), the editing (no real pace or rhythm), the acting (only Skarsgard at times could convince). The script was a, IMO, set up to explain the African scenes in the original film. So the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing.
The only thing that I did like was Vittorio Storaro's cinematography although I've seen better from him (Apocalyps Now).
All of the time I was thinking this was just a rough cut, a work in progress. And that, given the (well known) circumstances, is probably what it is. But that doesn't change the obvious problems with the script.
I had the chance to meet Schrader (very briefly) but I didn't have the guts to tell him what I thought of the film and I was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote Taxi Driver for Christ sake!!) that I forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his Taxi Driver script...


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


user
Help! Once again, Paul Schrader has sabotaged his own intentions with dull, pedantic storytelling. I rearranged a vacation so that I could see this "world premiere." What a mistake! Why did Schrader even want to make an Exorcist film? Lofty intentions are fine, but if I wanted 2 hours of theological babble, I would visit my nephew's Sunday school. Father Merrin's struggle with his faith, as presented in his younger days, is a potentially interesting subject. But an Exorcist movie needs more! The relentlessly draggy presentation, along with ridiculous special effects, makes for a strange production. Who is this movie for? I didn't bother seeing the Harlin version, but at least they apparently tried to deliver some sort of visceral thrills.
The Exorcist series has been quite strange. The first film was excellent, but every sequel has been unloved and pointless. Why do they keep making them? I suppose Schrader made it so that he could get a lot of money. But why should we go?


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


user
As long as you go into this movie with the understanding that it's not going to contain any historical fact whatsoever, it's not bad.
It's on par with Sam Raimi's "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys", as far as plot, acting, humour, and production values are concerned. You'll see the similarities at several points. Most of the fight scenes are not as good however and the film suffers from that.
Jack Palance commands the screen as well as ever, and at no time do you have the impression he's giving anything less than his level best. Same for Oliver Reed. The problem is that their strong performances make square-jawed Don Diamont's less-than-stellar acting skills seem even more awkward. Perennial bit player Cas Anvar was very good as well, playing a character much like Salmonius in the aforementioned Hercules.
If you enjoyed the low budget swords-and-sorcery movies of the early 80s, you're probably going to enjoy this show as well. It's actually a shame they attached the Marco Polo name to it. It really has nothing to do with Marco's life, contrary to the expectations of most of the people who will want to watch this movie.


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


user
Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, "I don't remember sending for room service". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the "Turkeys" shelf.


assistant
0