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
Troma founder, Lloyd Kaufman is The Crapkeeper in this anthology film made up of two films that were such celluloid feces that Llyod tried to salvage them by combining the two into one anthology film and throwing in copious amounts of nudity whenever possible. Does it work? nope, it's still crap that I'd have to scrape off my boots if I stepped in it.Will anyone like this mess? Sure, Young teen aged mongoloids with the combined IQs of a Vienna sausage have to laugh at something, I guess. For those who have brains that are even semi-functioning steer clear though and watch something less insulting to your intelligence, even "Dude, Where's my car" would do.
My Grade: F


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


user
With Matthias Hues on the cover and only $3.00, i had to buy it. I enjoyed some moments, like Hawks annoyance with the pleasure droids, but i only really watched to see Matthias Hues' scenes. I particularly enjoyed the showdown at the end. It was a cross between Clint Eastwood's "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" and "For a Few Dollars More" (a 3 man quick-draw showdown, with a musical pocket watch used as the countdown timer). Apart from that, there's really nothing more I can add. The actors gave good performances, (all except the "Assassin Droid" whose performance was nothing outside of comical) but the movie really lacked depth and purpose; simply not enough to fill up 1hour and a half of standard movie time, so we're stuck with the main characters aimlessly wondering around from place to place for an hour or so, until the ball gets rolling. For example, the main character returns to the same strip club about 4 times, taking up two-fifths of the movie.
The scenery really lacked depth and creativity, probably due to the films budget. I don't think we ever did get to see this "perfect city" of New Angeles that was always talked about, in fact, when the main characters finally reached New Angeles, its set in a factory or warehouse full of pipes and walkways; hardly the kind of "kingdom" the owner/creator of an entire city would dwell in. The "super-high security" of New Angeles was also always talked about, but only a total of 15, maybe 20, security guards were counted, even when the alarm went off; not even close to Matthias' approximation of "at least a hundred men out there".
If you are a fan of any of the actors/actresses in this film, then you may want to watch it, simply to "add it to the list". However, if you value 1 and a half hour of your time, or $3.00 of your money, you may want to give this one a miss.


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


user
My first thoughts on this film were of using science fiction as a bad way to show naked women, althought not a brilliant story line it had quite a good ending


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


user
Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. "You gets what you pay for" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster.


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 given this film by my uncle who had got it free with a DVD magazine. Its easy to see why he was so keen to get rid of it. Now I understand that this is a B movie and that it doesn't have the same size budget as bigger films but surely they could have spent their money in a better way than making this garbage. There are some fairly good performances, namely Jack, Beth and Hawks, but others are ridiculously bad (assasin droid for example). This film also contains the worst fight scene I have ever seen. The amount of nudity in the film did make it seem more like a porn film than a Sci-Fi movie at times.
In conclusion - Awful film


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


user
In the early 1990's "Step-by-Step" came as a tedious combination of the ultra-cheesy "Full House" and the long-defunct loopy classic hit "The Brady Bunch". The differences between "Step-by-Step" and the two aforementioned shows was of course better writing, excellent comedic timing from almost all of it's actors, and a great deal funnier situations that weren't quite as sugar-coated as it's extremely popular predecessors. Admittedly though, even with the big boosts in the show's basic dynamics and all it still wasn't exactly spectacular, nor was it really even that memorable in the long line of corny family programming! It was just a much better time-passer, you might say, in comparison to the cutesy migraine-inducing "Full House", which coincidentally, ran neck-and-neck with "Step-by-Step" during that time period in terms of overall popularity. The show, now in syndication obviously, is certainly suitable family-fare but be sure to not expect much beyond that when watching it.


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


user
Back in the cold and creepy early 90's,a show called "Family Matters" aired and became an instant classic.The trick was to buy a manual in standard family situations and their solutions and insert some attempts to sarcastic remarks in it and you had yourself a lovely little stealing-is-wrong,parents-are-right-show. So that worked out fine, so Bickley-Warren had a new ambitious plan: making the exact same show again.
Here's the difference though: "Family Matters" had Urkel. "Step By Step" has the guy from those "Kickboxer"-sequels nobody saw. He says things like "dudette" and "the Dane-meister", and somehow the audience is still not supposed to hate him. I mean seriously, "dudette"? How can you even get that across your lips?
The rest of the people were mostly white versions of the whole Winslow-bunch, combined with some more one-or-zero-dimensional characters, like the dumb guy (JT. Well, Eddie), the smart girl (Laura), and a pretty girl who spends her days looking pretty(in theory).The character development was just awful in this show. Grover and The Cookie Monster have more depth than the Lambert family. Everybody just milked their stereotypes for what they were worth. They weren't worth much.
Powered by a massive laugh-and-cheer tape stolen from something funny,this show aired for a whopping 7 years,which was humiliating for the competition.Although,you'll have to note that this is the time where family sitcoms were pretty much all big hits,everybody just ignored their crappyness because well,it was the 90s,one more crappy show didn't hurt.


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


user
Yes, my summary just about tells it all.
If you haven't watched this, try it. But not for pleasure. For studies of one of the worst examples of trying to be politically correct, family-oriented and "cool" at the same time.
The men always think they know everything, are stupid, and finally loose to the magnificent women. Etc.. This is especially offensive, when all the characters are just as terrible and stereotypic. I mean, ok, "Cody" was funny one time or another, but unlike other "stupid characters(tm)" like Woody in Cheers or Joey in Friends, he doesn't get good lines. His stupidity is cast in a "duude" way, which gets quite annoying after a while.
The family morale is awful. Everything for the family. Mother and father are supreme dictators, who inbetween severe punishing and old-fashioned parenting, constantly say they "love" their kids, and then of course, in the end, the kids love them back *barf*.
And: There's always a "tender spot" like that squeezed into the "action", where american(c)(tm) morale lessons are forced upon the viewers, about sex (in a mature, you can't have sex before you're 18 (!!), kind of way), or drugs. Even church-habits are thoroughly described here. The whole concept is directly sickening, all made in a half-hearted way to make money. If there are people like Karen and Frank out there, please lock them up and desintegrate the key.
So, with themes ranging as far as revolting religious propaganda, I think it's fair to conclude as I did in my subject...


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


user
I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man.


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


user
I'm not sure what the point of making this film was. It looked as if it was made by some historical society to be shown in your local 'Pistol Pete' museum. At first it appears that it could be the beginning of a Mad TV or SNL sketch. But then the joke is on you when there is no punchline and you realize that someone was taking this seriously. The story wasn't bad but the inclusion of the SASS members seemed to be a ploy (that worked) to get me to see the film. I swear, the trailer listed every character in the film down to "dead cowboy #5". The reason Westerns are so fun is the atmosphere and the characters it brings. I just had the feeling I was watching Civil War rean-actors dressed up as cowboys. Not even worth the digital video it was recorded 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 love a good Western movie, but this was more like watching a play on stage or an act at the local street carnival show. I could only stand 38 minutes of it in hopes that it would improve, but it only got worse and I had to end it. Each actor(s) stated the lines as if reading directly from the script or cue cards. There was too much predictability to the lines and actions not as if a natural occurrence or conversation. The wig on Rachel Kimsey was obvious. The actresses playing Native American sisters, could have played non-native parts and should have. Wardrobe for the Native Americans could have been better and a little more authentic looking. If I decide to watch it with any friends in the future, I will do so, not with the expectations of watching a good Western, but with the expectations of watching an amateur comedy film production.


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


user
There's no use trying to describe in detail the convoluted, overly melodramatic plot involving Civil War bitterness, a crooked town boss, and other complications. It's all bad.
Stella Stevens, Andrew Prine, Bo Svenson, William Smith, Tim Thomerson and Lee Majors are all good actors that may not be big stars (or big stars anymore) but always made fun movies.
Here, they're all wasted on a picture that looks like it was shot in a wild west tourist trap, with costumes borrowed from the local high school theater department. In fact, most of the acting appears to be on the high school level too, which might not be so bad if it weren't so pretentious.
The name of Ed Wood is invoked way too lightly these days. I think in this case the comparison is warranted. However, I suspect that old Ed would have made a more entertaining western 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
I am not sure who is having more fun, the people that wrote the reviews or the director of the movie. I could not go any longer reading this comments or watching this movie, I had to say something.
I can see a low budget western film that is done with passion and interest on the detail, but using a garage with art deco lettering, pastel colors, actors that seem to be falling sleep because the script is so boring and the boom getting on the way of the camera every two scenes, that is definitely not my definition of "one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium".
Please if any of you guys had friends in the movie just say it!


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


user
The seasoned actors in this do know how to act and have proved that before but the Director, who also wrote and produced this travesty, is incompetent on so many levels. O.K. it's low budget but I know films students with lower budgets and lesser known actors who can do much, much better. For example, since there were people involved who should know better some of the gun rigs were totally out of place and never existed in those days. The stunt work was clumsy - the story stale and hokey. If some one gives you a copy of this use it for a coaster. By the way, I love westerns and have known many stunt men and even went to high school with one of the actors so I was looking for it to be good.


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


user
I simply cannot believe the folks that made and performed in this movie really took it seriously. The skits on SNL look more real. Everything was laughably fake. The goofy gunfights, the ridiculous fist fights, the dialogue, the sappy background music, and even Bo's blind eye. Had it been billed as a comedy, it still would have made more sense but still would be bad. I can see this as "entertainment" only if you get a room full of stoned college kids watching it like it were Rocky Horror Picture Show. Imagine some of the stuff you saw on Blazing Saddles, like Mongo knocking the horse down or the old lady gettinf stomach-punched. Now imagine the producer wants you to take those scenes seriously and you get the gists of this disaster.


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


user
Not sure if this is just a lousy movie or if it was intended to be a mockery of a "B" Western. Story line was so-so but the filming, editing and acting were just plain bad. Plus the music in the background was irritating to no end, too loud and just non-stop. Many times you could not make out the dialog over the background music. I'm in SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) and do some Old West shooting with them, and a lot of the actors are members of this group, so that's why I bought it. If you have no interest in this group of people, or that sport, you certainly most likely wouldn't even have this little bit of interest to help out with the film. The acting of even the veteran actors (particularly Stella Stevens) left a lot to be desired also.


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


user
This has got to be the worst case of over acting since the silent era. Not just one or two actors but virtually the entire cast. Lee Majors and Bo Svenson were fine but the rest of them look like their first time acting.
So the budget was not tremendous. Much of the costumes and set were believable but there were many things that jump out at the viewer to let us know that they couldn't double check or get all of the props to match the period.
I can't think of one aspect of the film that I liked or didn't shake my head. Your time will be better spent burning lint collected from your bellybutton.


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


user
Hell to Pay was a disappointment. It did not have anywhere near the substance of a B Western movie, and should in no way be compared to a fantastic movie like Silverado. The dialog was dull, the plot was torpid, the soundtrack was overbearingly unnecessary, and the acting was awful. Even the professionals could've taken some lessons from the Sunset Carson School of Acting. The only positive thing about this movie is that it showcased some of the top Cowboy shooters in the nation, but you can see them in a better light in any SASS video. The packaging of this feature makes it very enticing, and the preview is decent, but it's all over after that.


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


user
You know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.
It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.
The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him "to live to see this!" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from "Hard Boiled" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.
Other Hong Kong films stolen from include "Prison on Fire", "Island on Fire", "Burning Paradise", "Police Story" I, II, and III (aka "Supercop"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.
There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.
Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons.


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


user
I do not know which one was first released earlier in 1970 . Cannon for Cordoba is an "Europen Western" It was made in Spain. This means this is fairly inferior to Sergio Leone's so-called #Western Spaghetti and to the Real American Masterpieces of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hugues,John Sturges and Anthony Mann, in my order of merit. This order is not to be interpreted as all John Ford Westerns are better than all by Sam Peckipahn's. I think IMDb's 100 Sort them out all pretty well.
The worse about this firm is the Casting. George Peppard is fit for a sergeant's role, Raff Valone for a "Maffia Capo" and Giovanna Ralli to a "puttana" in "Piazza Vennezia" in the sixty's in Rome.


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


user
After slightly over 50 years of avid film watching, I've come up with some simple rules for making good movies.
1.	Introduce your main characters early, certainly within the first half hour 2.	Keep your characters to a minimum. If adapting a novel, combine characteristics and actions of minor characters
into one person 3.	Make sure your characters actions have credibility; if necessary, create additional scenes to establish motivation 4.	Keep the action clear. Violence does not have to be explicit, but it must not be confusing, either 5.	Get the best music money can buy. Frequently it matters more than acting, photography, etc. 6.	Usually if a movie isn't very good within the first 10 minutes, it's not going to get any better
`Cannon for Cordoba' is a textbook example of what happens when these simple rules are not followed. Elmer Bernstein's score is rinkydink, one of the worst I've ever heard in a modestly budgeted movie. This is altogether surprising considering Bernstein's credentials (`Man With the Golden Arm,' `The Magnificent Seven,' `The Great Escape,' `Sons of Katie Elder'). Paul Wendkos' direction is lackluster and confusing. Performances vary from very good (Don Gordon, Peter Duel) to terrible (Raf Vallone, Giovanna Ralli, Gabriele Tinti) with the usually reliable George Peppard falling somewhere in the middle. This should not be surprising, considering the mediocre direction and amateurish script, which breaks rules 1, 2 and 3.
Don't waste your time. I give `Cannon for Cordoba' a `3'.


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


user
His significant charisma and commanding presence are about all that keep this afloat, but Fred Williamson has done far better urban action films including many of his later, vid-released fare. The big studios' Williamson films of the early-to-mid 70's rarely had the punch of their mid-level counterparts, and this is a prime example. Clumsy action, little violence, and the PG rating is nowhere near questionable. Worth a look for Hammer completists in any case.


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


user
BLACK EYE (2 outta 5 stars) Unimaginatively-filmed '70s action movie looks like it was made for TV... only the occasional cuss word and a subplot about lesbianism tip you off that the movie was actually made to be shown in theatres. Fred Williamson plays a tough guy ex-cop who becomes a tough guy private eye. He stumbles upon a couple of murders and attempted murders linked to a mysterious cane. There are some fistfights, a Bullit-inspired car chase, a fairly original elevator scene and even time for Williamson to confront the rich, lesbian lover of his girlfriend (Teresa Graves). There is also a scene with Williamson bullying a poor old man by tearing up some priceless old autographed photos in his memorabilia shop. Yeah, way to go, tough guy... maybe you can find a cripple to beat up later? Obviously meant to cash in on the success of "Shaft" (this and about six thousand other movies), this movie doesn't have enough edge or enough originality to make much of an impression.


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


user
Ahem.. I think I'll be the only one who's saying this but yes, I was a lil bored during the film. Not to say that this is a bad movie, in fact it's a very good attempt at portraying the innermost emotions - dilemma, sorrow, love.., esp it's the director's debut (read from somewhere, is it true?). I felt that something's not quite right, maybe it's just me, I'm not drawn to the characters enough to immerse me in their world. This is a simple story, about ordinary people, ordinary lives. Through simple and short dialogs, the director tries to relate a simple guy's life, and how copes with the news of his illness by laughing it away every time. Oh ya his laughter was kinda cute at first but gradually it gets to me, such a deep hearty roar for a gentle man! I must say, I didn't feel the impact that most readers felt, in fact I was more drawn to the trivial scenarios like spitting of watermelon seeds with his sis that clearly shows that they're comfortable with each other, the granny who came back for another shot - this is kinda melancholic, the thoughtful gesture of writing down the procedures for his dad - hmm but this is predictable.. Don't misunderstood that I'm an action-lover, independent films are my cup of tea! Perhaps I just have a really high expectation after watching many deep films that have stronger imagery. Some Asian films worth the watch:
Tony Takitani (depicts loneliness) Wayward Cloud (only 1 dialog) My Sassy Girl (I like it!) 4.30 (loneliness as well) 15 (gangsters lives in local setting) Before sunrise and Before sunset (I just have to mention these even though they are not Asian films. Fans will understand!)


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


user
If I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting/script/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.
I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?


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


user
I cannot get over how awful this movie was. My eyes want to jump out of my head and my ears are gushing blood from the horrible awful one song soundtrack. There are four kids and dog and they run away from a hospital then get away with stealing two cars and a bus. No one gives them any punishment or anything to correct them. The acting is just so awful it sounds like an instruction video for social studies class. I cannot think of one thing that I like about this movie. Nothing. Even the kid that loses his dog made me want to vomit. He gets his dog back without the lady even seeing the dog run out the door. Maybe the dog was trying to escape out of this movie. Then there is some horse manure in the whole mix. It was torture watching this movie. Then at the end the oldest boy says something like staying together isn't a crime and they all hug him and love him. Stealing gas is a crime. Stealing two cars and a bus is a crime and he should have went to juvenile hall or something. Avoid this movie at all costs and especially if you want to keep your family together.


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


user
Italians movie-makers love to rip off American movies. All of our movies, and as often as possible.
I'm not stating that as a slur against Italy as a whole, but I would like to further observe that the Italian film industry does itself great harm by allowing travesties like this to go overseas to be seen by the world at large. That's all I'm saying.
And no more grave injury do the Italian people subject themselves to than by not sticking a harsh penalty upon those who made the world watch "Shark rosso nell'oceano" - which is, admittedly, a ripoff of the far-superior "Jaws" (as if you didn't know).
Let's dive into the plot (Get it? Haw-haw...): this huge monstrous swimming thing that looks like a cross between an octopus, a shark and Steven Tyler attacks many innocent Americans (ie: Italians) off the coast of Florida (ie: Italy) and the intrepid, beer-swilling Peter (Sopkiw) sails out with his anorexic, beer-swilling girlfriend and other beer-swilling people whose main purposes are to be eaten by the creature, killed by mysterious forces who want the creature left alone or just stand around and be otherwise useless (and swill beer)...or be the doctor in this film who defibrilates dying patients repeatedly (20, maybe 30 times in a row) without waiting for his paddles to recharge (must be one heck of a good battery there, doc).
Then there's the monster...brother, if you thought the "Jaws" shark was fake, look herein and have your mind changed IMMEDIATELY.
This is a movie that was directed as an afterthought (by a Bava!), edited with an onion chopper, acted by ambulatory (beer-swilling) pieces of driftwood and written by (PRESUMABLY beer-swilling) people who should never ever ever ever be let near a typewriter, movie studio or major city in the world ever again. If this is how the people who made this film think real people act in such a situation, they've obviously made one too many of them zombie movies. Or swilled too much beer.
Need I say this movie is bad? It is: bad like green cottage cheese; bad like a Hawaiian shirt at a formal wedding; bad like the "Bad Theatre" skits Dan Aykroyd used to host on "Saturday Night Live"; bad like Calista Flockhart Weight Gain Tablets - get it? Good.
Mike and the SOL gang slap this beer-drunk beauty upside the head repeatedly and reveal this "horror" film as what it is: horrible. Though, with a certain European charm: it's charming, when watched by a European - preferably a beer-swilling one.
No stars for the waterlogged, dead fish known as "Shark rosso nell'oceano"; six stars for the MST3K version. ...and now, anyone for a beer?



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


user
I'm not sure what the director and editor were thinking when they were editing this poor excuse for a film, but whatever they thought of didn't help this movie, it only hurt it, and it hurt this film badly. The acting, for once, isn't the problem, it's the horrible editing, scenes will end for no apparent reason, while in the middle of an action sequence or people will be cut off in mid sentence. I'm not sure what the story was, but it didn't really matter, since what I did see was fairly uninteresting. Just bad all around, a huge "Jaws" rip-off and not a good one at that. The MST version was funny though. 7 for that, none for the film itself.


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


user
Sometimes it's hard to judge how bad a film made in Italy or Spain really is, because they all seem to use the same stable of 9-10 ESL trained voice actors to supply the English voices for release in the US. And things are always lost in translation anyway -dialog, character shtick and plot elements written for the expectations of European audiences may not go too well with our American ideas of what is funny, hip, or dramatic. I imagine that the team responsible for making the translation for the sound track of this movie to English had about 3 days to do it from start to finish, and they probably each earned the equivalent of an installment payment on their used Fiat to do it. In other words, pure hackwork, tossed off in one or two takes and never reviewed or redone by someone with a real ear for the American language.
Watching "Devil Fish", I can imagine that if you were an Italian watching this presented in your native language, you might find it a mildly amusing little piece of fluff. You'd laugh at the 'in jokes' and the amusing drunk, you'd gasp at the monster and the villainy of the bad guys, and you'd ogle at the attractive pair of Peter and not-quite-Daryll Hannah as they couple on the beach for no apparent reason in the middle of a search for clues about a man-eating monster who has already killed one of their friends.
But since the jarring voice acting and tin-eared dialog keep yanking we Americans out of the film experience, we can't help but notice that the editors had serious Attention Deficit Disorder, that no one on screen can really act so much as project an Attitude, that the stated reason for the creation of the monster makes absolutely no sense, that the action sequences have all the impact of a cereal bowl full of cooked oatmeal and that the director, screenwriters and producers really hate women.
Don't even THINK about buying or renting this movie - watch only on cable TV on Saturday afternoon with one of several beers in your fist, or with the help and protection of Mike and the Bots on MST3K.


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


user
boring, horrible piece of Italian euro-trash about a scientist who seems to spend most of his time guzzling beer(this is what makes him American, right? Our scientists spend most of their academic life soused out of their minds, sure. That's where all the really great theories come from), who's studying something(dolphin calls, fish migration patterns, who knows). He hears a weird sound through his headphones, proving that his radio is picking up a station in Jamaica. At the same time, a Jack Skellington girl with one of the worst, most bleached manes of bad 80's hair that it has ever been my pleasure to witness is trying to calm down the dolphins in the Seaquarium she works at, as they're apparently upset about the amount of fish she's been doling out lately. The beginning of the film was a really badly colored storyline about two annoying, very Italian people who's boat is attacked by something unseen under the water. The whiny woman is never seen again(best part of the story), and the guys' corpse is found with no legs. The dim, alcoholic scientist(who has an inexplicable, English- American- Italian accent) and the stick girl with the hay hair begin to theorize that there's some kind of giant monster lurking under the seas off the coast of Italy...err..Florida.
They enlist the help of an electrician to set up an underwater mike, so that the monster can sing karaoke. This guy has a beautiful girlfriend, who's only drawback is that she pronounces Peter "Pey-tah", but for some reason he's sexually drawn to the anatomical skeleton with the frizzly hair, a situation that leaves one blinking.
The dubbing is awful, the editor a spaz, and the storyline generally a yawn. There's a bit about how this weird scientific corporation genetically engineered this monster giant shark-squid-barracuda thing for some reason that makes no sense, and a really unpleasant greasy haired guy goes around killing women, again for no apparent reason. A stupid sheriff and his bulked up deputy are along for the ride, along with a female scientist(who we know is smart because she wears huge glasses). At one time the woman scientist takes on the huge, terrible monster(yeah, right, Ed Wood's giant octopus was more believable) with only a small handaxe, and she wins the contest. Hooray for skinny little women, who obviously make the best monster hunters!
The solution to the problem of the giant thing is to blow up half of the Everglades, leaving a dead zone for several miles in every direction. To Hell with ecology and the environment, right? We have to kill this giant monster! At the end, the electrician and his broomstick love ride off into the sunset on her Vespa, which is o.k. since she's gotten over her colleagues' death and he's not very upset that his girlfriend got whacked by the crazy guy with the greasy hair. Hooray for true love! Wait a minute, isn't there something fishy about all this...


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


user
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.
The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.
The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.
Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese.


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


user
Never before has such a large cast of ugly people gathered together to make an equally ugly film.
Something huge and horrifying is loose in the waters off the Florida coast, something that leaves half chewed up bodies behind in its wake. Unshaven beer dependent Bob thinks he has caught the Thing's "evil voice" on tape. Bob's assistant, the amazingly unattractive and painfully skinny Stella, decides to enlist the help of slimy ladies man Peter, an electrician whose equipment may be able to help them locate the mysterious creature. But anyone who sticks their nose too far into the mystery winds up dead, killed by a baboon faced hit-man with a bad perm. What is the terrible secret behind the Sea Killer?
Ugly scientists have torrid affairs, inept cops and doctors puzzle over the increasing numbers of corpses, Stella and Peter make out on the beach and characters we don't care about are killed off or munched up. The Sea Killer, a weird combination of an octopus, a shark and a pair of large dentures, never really seems as threatening as it should. The conspiracy behind the monster's creation makes no sense whatsoever. None of the characters are particularly likable, and the ones who might be are killed off immediately. This is a poorly shot, badly dubbed, plot less mess. The whole thing is so scuzzy and smelly it made me long for a hot bath. I've had sushi plates scarier than this film. Avoid it, unless it's the MST3K version.


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


user
A "40 foot long" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the "Devilfish" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!
Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) "Seaquarium" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.
This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.
Score: 4 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 stupid, anti-environment wannabe "Jaws" is sad, pathetic, boring, poorly dubbed, and stupid. There is nothing redeeming about it.
Plot follows some shark/octopus creature-thingy that appears off the coast of Florida and kills some people (including a boring, stupid couple with a whiny wife and a silent husband who stabs himself with a fork for some reason). His ascent to the surface is always represented by a vague sideshot of something bumpy over and over. It makes no sense, it's horribly boring, and it's conspiracy plot sucks.
There are moments of camp that cannot be ignored: the same shot of the boat of the couple of the opening sequence THREE TIMES; the doctor slamming a dying patient's chest twenty times with a difibulator without stopping, even though he's clearly dead; the porno-esque soundtrack; the shot of the couple making love on the beach, with three different thems ("That us is getting ahead of us!") doing this; the ancient computer that sounds like Kermit the Frog; a beer-guzzling scientist screaming "I know!" a la Dr. Smith; the list goes on and on.
Oh, and everyone drinks at least thirty bears in the course of the movie (much noticed by Mike and the 'Bots) . . .
The MST3K version is their best episode, but it's certainly better than the movie itself. "This is how I like to go fishing, guys . . . with a flashlight and a flamethrower . . ." - Crow
One star for "Devil Fish"; seven for the MST3K version



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


user
movie I have ever seen. Actually I find it one of the more entertaining episodes of MST 3000 I have seen. Not that it was good, but for anyone who has seen Manos: the Hands of Fate knows this one wasn't two bad. The monster in the movie looked terrible, everyone wore upsetting swim suits, and the plot was laughable. I still don't have a clue as to why they made the monster, they never really gave a good reason. The lead female had to be the scrawniest gal I have ever seen. They would have done better if they cast the gal that was killed at the beginning as the lead. On the plus side the dolphins acting was great!!!


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


user
I wish I had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those "so bad, it's good" kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline  especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations.
However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, "Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should"  highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish.


assistant
0