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


user
This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.
Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.
Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'.
There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.


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


user
Admittedly, I watched the MST3K version of this, but it's not actually too bad outright, at least compared to others which deserve my cinematic hatred.
The story centers around a troubled girl wrongly sent to a "reform school" called Girls' Town. Along way, races, redemption, and wackiness (unintentional) happen. The story and acting are a little flat, as is the action. However, the entire thing is actually entertaining to a degree if you are absolutely bored.
Overall, just a simple sub par 50's flick, but far from the worst movie ever made, with some bright spots in the movie (The Ave Maria sequence was good for me).
If you get a chance to watch the MST3K version, you won't be disappointed. By it self, not so much, but I can think of worse methods of torture ("Spiker" anyone?).


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


user
Froggie is upset that he never has a big party like all the other kids. Spanky and the gang seek to remedy that by giving him a surprise party. Unaware that all the decorations and preparations are for him Froggy sabotages everything only to find out too late that the party is for him.
Okay Our Gang comedy works in fits and starts. The bits work but I don't think it really works as a whole. Part of the problem is that we all know where this is going and since much of the humor needs to have some form of surprise for it to work the whole thing falls down. I think in a weird way the film just sort of misses. Its the type of thing that had they actually thought about it might have amounted to something more than a misfire. Worth trying if you lower your expectations


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


user
Two years after this short, the last "Our Gang" short was made. After seeing this, you wonder how it even lasted that much longer. The quality of "Our Gang" nosedived soon after moving from Hal Roach to MGM, and this short is a perfect example. The gags are all very unfunny and Froggy's last line of this being the happiest day of his life paints a bad picture in your mind of what it's like for him the rest of the time. A very poor example of film making.


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


user
For an indy film this is probably a bit better than a 3 out of 10, but in general it only gets a 3. The effects aren't horrible and at least they have some adults playing adult roles rather than all kids as a lot of indy low budget horror films do. The acting is very wooden, but at least they had a better "display" than some films in the shoestring budget category. It's filmed a lot inside a building rather than a friend's basement. The plot as a whole isn't the worst. It's a Resident Evil rip off about an evil corporation invading a small town and an outbreak makes people into zombies. I would have liked to have seen some sort of creatures rather than the big baddie just be another "super" zombie. I try not to write spoilers but this review has one so be warned!! SPOILER ALERT!!! Not only do some of the cast just seem to shrug past the zombies (the same ones are recycled over and over but at least they have more then 5 people playing them). But one of the plot twists really doesn't fly with me. The deputy who goes inside turns out to be on the evil corporations payroll. He kills one of the other employees in cold blood and then meets with the head bad guy in an office talking about cleaning up the mess. The deputy has just shown us that he is a real bad person too and talks like he can clean it up (meaning kill all the surviving witnesses) no problem. But then 2 seconds later, he is helping them out. There was no real "change of heart" emotion or anything to make me feel that this bad guy went from killing an innocent guy just minutes ago and then talking about taking everyone out no problem to being their savior. There was no incident or anything to make me buy into this. Worth watching if you are a fan of low budget flicks, otherwise you will not enjoy this.


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


user
This film is perfect for over the top cheesy zombie lovers. its a film you can laugh at from the acting to the terrible zombie action. that being said, i gave this a 4 outta 10 for effort cos horror is a hard genre to make. going down the list the bad points of this film were as following.
#Bad make up #terrible sound and sound effects #really bad continuity #cheesy dialogue #one song played through the whole film #stein couldn't act and in my opinion one of the worst I've seen #terrible ending #racist moment and stealing Simpson's character named
the good points #good costume #police officers seemed to have the best acting exp #the actors with less lines or small roles did appear to be better #good attempt with gore
i don't wanna bad mouth the film, its funny to watch cos of these bad points and i think thats what makes this film OK. if it was any better i don't think it would of made any difference but it wouldn't be interesting to see a remake with all the same cast as i believe they have possibly improved over the last 7 years.


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


user
The film is a pathetic attempt to remake Ingmar Bergman's "Autumn Sonata"(1978) starring Ingrid Bergman,Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson.It did not take me more than 5 minutes to figure that out.
It is time Film journalists like Khalid Mohammad took out time to do some creative thinking. It makes me sad when potentially good film-makers waste their talents by making substandard remakes of Hollywood and European films.
You've got to give the film-maker something though. The film he picked for copying is one of Bergman's classics, and easily one of the finest instances of the portrayal of a strained human relationship in European cinema.


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


user
Certainly not a bad little low budget film, this "Bride of the Gorilla", but nothing special, neither, and not memorable enough to be ranked among the meaningful Sci-Fi efforts of its time. Director Curt Siodmak was an eminent scriptwriter during the 1930's and 1940's and delivered stories for some true genre classics ("I walked with a Zombie", "The Wolf Man") but, as a director, he obviously lacked the required competences. "Bride of the Gorilla" is similar to the aforementioned "The Wolf Man" in story and atmosphere, but the film looks a lot more amateurish and pitiful. Both handle about cursed men that turn into large animals at night, but the titular gorilla doesn't look half as threatening as the werewolf, even though the film got released a whole decade later. During a cheesy opening speech, actor Lon Chaney tries to convince us that the jungle is an ominous place and hiding many mysteries, but actually there's no real mystery in the plot. It's just handles about a plantation manager who's jealous at his older colleague for having such a beautiful young wife and he kills him. A native woman witnesses his crime and puts a spell on Barney that causes him to transform into a hideously big gorilla at night... Or maybe she just wants him to believe he's turning into a hideously big gorillaLon Chaney himself plays the police commissioner charged with the murder investigation while Raymond Burr (who starred in about a thousand Perry Mason TV-movies) portrays the greedy plantation manager/nightly gorilla. Siodmak attempts to make the film look like a supernatural thriller  is it or is it not all just happening in Barney's head?  fail miserably and it causes way too much talking and too few jungle-action. Several of the jungle-settings are nicely pictured but the rest of the "special" effects are tacky and poorly done. Still the acting is pretty good, Barbara Payton is looking beautiful and  although very predictable  the story is strangely compelling until the very end. Weird movie, it probably voodoo-cursed me


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


user
It is a story as old as man. The jealousy for another man's wife and possessions. There are even commandments against it.
In this story, Raymond Burr ("Perry Mason", "Ironside") is the manager of a runner plantation who lusts after the owners wife and feels that he isn't treated with respect. The wife, the starlet Barbara Payton, who was trying to make a comeback after a string of sordid affairs, was lusting after Burr, who killed her husband, Paul Cavanagh.
But, lurking about was a strange woman, the housekeeper (Gisela Werbisek) who sees everything, and who was capable of some voodoo to avenge the wronged, which also included another young woman (Carol Varga) to whom Burr also professed love.
Burr is poisoned and becomes , or thinks he becomes, a gorilla. Payton will have to mate with Kong if she ever wants her marriage consummated, as he goes into the jungle every night.
The end is predictable. But, the stirring question of this film is why Payton would ever be afraid. With those sharply pointed missiles jutting out from her chest, no animal could get near her to do harm.


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 cheesy and it was more than that. It was about this guy who gets a curse on him and he turns into a gorilla. I had to see how bad it was because of the title. Before this guy turns into a gorilla, he gets married. I was a little upset because she wasn't a bride of a gorilla: she is now the wife of the gorilla. She should have married him when he was a gorilla then the title would have made more sense. There are all these people in the middle of the jungle too and they all want to leave. This isn't just a B movie, it's more like a Z movie. I didn't even see any bananas for a wedding gift. Oh, right he wasn't cursed yet.


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


user
Barbara Payton is the suppose-to-be sultry sexy young hot Chickie wife of the geezer plantation owner somewhere in a jungley back lot set at a cheap studio in Hollywood. Raymond Burr wears his working shirt with the top button undone as the hunky chunky plantation foreman who Mrs Payton is desiring to blow the joint with. There is another girl, some sort of peasant slave thing that Burr used to fool around with but he's given her the old heave ho so the obligatory squatty old voo-doo hag is conjuring up a good spell to cast on him and the Payton tramp. I watched this only part way through because its really awful, so didn't even get to see the star of the show---which I guess is a gorilla that the voo-doo hag turned someone into or whatever.....who cares. I give this one half star out of a possible ten. It's not even campy, just really 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 walked into Heart Of Gold thinking I was going to watch a documentary about Neil Young. Instead, I witnessed a self-serving tribute to the arrogance of aging baby boomers who have lost their edge and forgotten their roots. Highly rated by aging baby boomer critics, directed and performed by more aging baby boomer artists, Heart Of Gold is a bore-fest from start to finish, that is if you can manage to sit through the entire near 2 hour movie. Neil Young and crew have long lost their edge and want the rest of us to join them on a cushioned rocking chair of middle-of-the-road mediocrity. What happened to the raunchy guitar of his earlier solo efforts? I guess all of his fuzz boxes rusted out and his over-driven vacuum tubes exploded in the hot air of his generation. As far as Demme goes, this is the daring director of Something Wild & Melvin And Howard? A student filmmaker could have made a more daring film than this poorly visualized surface performance film. Don't waste your $$ on Heart Of Gold and go straight to The Last Waltz and Gimmie Shelter. And if you really want to dig deep into the personality of a rock and roll icon, scrounge up a copy of Chuck Berry: Hail Hail Rock And Roll which is sorely out of print. And baby boomers, don't bother squawking about how this review is jaded by someone younger. I too am one of those baby boomers who listened to Cinnamon Girl on acid and danced in the streets to the Stones' Street Fighting Man. Go back and watch Don't Look Back or Gimmie Shelter and then come back and tell me that Heart of Gold has any worth as a document.


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 has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a "10") from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given.
The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here.


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


user
Julien Hernandez is certainly an attractive and likable on screen persona. In fact, his character pretty much carries this whole film, or what's worthwhile about it. The problem is, with the exception of his gal pal (played by Marisa Petroro) and Paul Lekakis (as a trick/date/ boyfriend for some of the characters) no one else even comes close. Hernandez plays a 30- something director of Cuban heritage, and unknown sexuality, who comes to L.A. and gets a job making a gay documentary. In the process of meeting a group of gay people while finding subjects, he comes out...but very s l o w l y. Even at 88 minutes, the film has obviously been stretched out and padded with various film-school devices, most of which only end up pointlessly interrupting the narrative (which ain't much to begin with) or pointing out the overall amateurish-ness of the film-making.
Which is a shame, because there's a love story in here somewhere, and the final three minutes, when Hernandez's Sebastien finally clicks with a wealthy West Hollywood party- thrower (nicely underplayed by Lonnie Henderson) and they share some sexy soulful kisses, it works despite all that came before. But we don't really care about any of the other characters or their situations: Why would handsome Dante have a Eurotrash priss for a boyfriend? He wouldn't. And don't even get me started on Sebastien's friend Paulie's "rules" for dating -- no gay man I know, hell no sane person, period, would put such constrictions on himself or others. And please tell me how Sebastien gets a peeled banana (which is normally fairly shmushy, right?) stuck up his butt and has to go to a doctor to get it removed?
I noticed Hernandez won an award for this film as a "short" -- it probably should have stayed that way. All this said -- I'd look forward to seeing Hernandez on screen again, in a better scripted comedy with more assured direction.


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 wanted to like this film but it barely eked out a 3. It's surprising that equal amounts of the votes were 10, the other half 1. All the characters were entertaining and even talented but as a whole the film didn't pay off. Sebastian Hernandez is appealing; charismatic and likable (he even physically resembles Marc Anthony in a more approachable yet ultimately conscious sort of way...) but even he couldn't save this mess of a movie. Scenes dragged on far too long and points were ultimately beaten to death. The banana scene fringed on self-absorption, seemingly showing how much movement was in his boxers. But in his defense it was his first movie as director (that I'm aware of) and I appreciate his labor of love. It just left me empty despite what was trying to be said. Ultimately I think the story would have been better handled by a more experienced director. From what I've seen of the 'extras', there is a real story behind this and, perhaps when I finish watching them, I'll appreciate this attempt more.


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


user
I unwittingly walked into this "trap" of a movie.
If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.
It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.
It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.
Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.
This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the "Gayness" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.
I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as "loud" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.


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


user
Greedy land baron in the tiny western town of Prairie City wants all the ranchers off their land, using intimidation tactics and arson to get them to vacate; seems the town is swimming atop oil, and when a Swedish farmer refuses to leave, he's mowed down by the baron's hired gun. The farmer's seafaring son soon arrives, slowly realizing what he's up against and attempting to rally the rest of the residents to fight. Another lawlessness-in-the-West story, with everybody under the thumb of the villain (who naturally holds all the cards). Derivative and uncomfortable at times to watch, with a long wait before our stoic hero finally gets his dander up. Sterling Hayden's half-hearted Swedish accent is a big problem, though he cuts a sturdy, sympathetic presence on the screen and almost makes the picture worth-watching. Director Joseph H. Lewis stages most of the scenes stiffly, like a TV western, and Gerald Fried's bugle-heavy score is no help, though the rich black-and-white cinematography by Ray Rennahan is excellent. An independent production released via United Artists, the film has a bizarre start (beginning with shots from the finale, followed by shots from the movie's midsection), yet it does have a certain needling power which most assuredly gets the viewer on Hayden's side. ** from ****


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


user
Big (and we mean plus sized big) baddie Sebastian Cabot is trying to run salt of the earth farmers off their land in order to get the oil rights. When sea faring Sterling Haden's pop is killed, how will Haden put an end to TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, armed only with a harpoon?
First off, this isn't a B-western. There are no singing cowboys, no daredevil stunts, no interesting action sequences. It's just an independent movie -- you know, the ones that use unimportant actors to say "important things" and cover the general low budget vapidity of the goings on with Interesting Camera Angles.
Second, this movie, to avoid compromises (one expects) that would cause the elimination of Trumbo's Important Statements about Justice in America, and the rather sick relationship between the chief henchman and his girl, IS really low budget. The main problem that causes is that the acting is really, really bad. Sterling Haden is decent enough in tough roles, but he is the last guy you want playing a sensitive Swedish sailor gone to find his fortune in the West. Sebastian Cabot tries to do a Sydney Greenstreet as (very) bloated plutocrat. It's not a bad idea, but Cabot does not have the acting chops for it. The guy who plays the hired gun with the missing arm and soul (Johnny Crale) has the best role in the film. He does nothing with it.
Third, the script really isn't all that. Trumbo gets some digs in about the immigrant isn't going to get a fair shake from the sheriff in a corrupt town, and the people, when up against real oppression tend to back down. This is a pretty stale movie message by 1958 -- High Noon, Bad Day at Black Rock, Devil's Doorway -- are all Westerns that deal with the evils of Western society with an eye to the evils of 50s America. Trumbo, in '59, certainly had every personal reason to agree with those sentiments, but he isn't doing anything new or interesting with them.
So, given all the negatives, why does this movie get a 4? Mostly because there are interesting quirks throughout the movie. (The relationship between Crale and his girl is, um fascinating.) And Trumbo, while a mediocre writer when pursuing his political affectations, is very good in creating both interesting characters and intelligent interactions between them. Just when one is ready to pass out from Indy movie boredom, will come an exchange of dialog or simple quirkiness that gets one realize that guy writing the script was not simply a hack.
If you don't like Trumbo or westerns, give this one a miss. Otherwise, try it. You might like it more than I did.


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


user
Sebastian Cabot is a rich jerk who wants to buy up all the land because there is oil--though none of the locals are aware of the oil. With the help of an evil gunfighter in black, they kill and terrorize everyone. When the son of a murdered man arrives, he refuses to back down and stands up to these forces of darkness.
Wow. As I watched TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, I felt as if I'd seen this film many times before and would probably see something like it again. That's because aside from a few novelties (such as Sterling Hayden using a harpoon on the bad guy), it has a plot that is too familiar. Once again, we've got a rich guy who is trying to drive out all the farmers in order to gain control of all the land. And, to do so, he's brought in hired guns to force people to sell or kill them. Been there, done that in just too many films.
I love Sterling Hayden in films, but just couldn't recommend this as anything other than a poor time passer.


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


user
First of all, let me just say that after watching this movie I felt like I'd been sold a bill of goods. Mind you it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has it listen as a comedy first and a horror second (although I don't know how that's entered...maybe some moron from the film's crew put it in). Being a fan of the horror/comedy genre, I checked it out based on that and I'm so, so sorry I did. Where to start? First of all, to touch back on my beginning, there's no comedy in this movie. It tries once or twice, but never gets more than a chuckle at best. My reaction was primarily rolling my eyes and wondering why someone thought such tired material would be funny. Also, there's no horror here. Not a second of tension can be found. You think I'm exaggerating...I am not. No tension, very little blood, and not much violence on screen (sorry, but in a horror flick cutting away just as the good stuff starts is a major foul). Hell...there's even zero nudity. Call me a purist or juvenile...I prefer some in a horror flick if it can't come up with an original plot/premise. And that tired as all hell "reality TV show gone wrong thing"? It's been done before and a lot better. Like Wrong Turn 2 or...ummm....whatever that movie was called with Edward Furlong. That's how bad this movie is. I don't even remember the name of that movie, but it was better than this. I also enjoyed the one comment claiming the timing for this was good because "reality TV is taking over". Did someone from the past post that with a time machine? Are you freaking kidding me? This thing is trash...and not in a fun way.


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


user
Realty television crew are assigned to cover a small town high school hockey team running into a serial killer wearing a black mask and hoody. Lots of interviews where the members of the crew(and some of the locals who live in the town of White Plains where most of this film is set)talk into the camera about each other, those they encounter in the town of White Plains, their current situations, and the showbiz side of their lives. The screenplay is often acidic, cynical, and caustic and Killer Movie essentially pokes fun at realty television shows, featuring a cast of characters one might find on The Real World. If this plot is attractive to you, knock yourself out. I found the characters tiresome and the satire is old hat. Out of the cast, Paul Wesley, the director needing a big break, encountering more than he could possibly bargain for, Jake Tanner, is a nice guy, coming off very likable and tolerant of the crap he must contend with, considering the prima donnas and immature people in his entourage who often cause nothing but migraines. Particularly irksome is his producer Lee(Cyia Batten), a tyrant constantly barking orders to everyone, her poisonous attitude creating much tension..she's the type of producer who wishes to capitalize on a small town eruption regarding the killer, using the hockey team cover story as a front to exploit the tragedy occurring in White Plains. Those familiar with Kaley Cuoco know that by now she has perfected the pampered princess, got it down pat because it's the only role we ever see her in most of the time. As Blanca, she's polarizing the way she demands attention, milking what little celeb status she has to the hilt, manufacturing much friction as she becomes a source of frustration, and has quite the potty mouth(Cuoco may've taken the part just so she could escape her usual television sitcom roles, allowed to spout profanity without restriction) Cuoco, along with the entire cast, services Killer Movie as eye candy, but it's hard to find any character you wouldn't want to see hacked to pieces with a meat cleaver. Jason London is the sound/equipment guy, a real creep with a sour attitude, often tormenting the others with his foul comments that are uncalled for. We witness lots of personality clashes, watching how these self-absorbed Hollywood types in the cast snipe at each other. The killer's identity shouldn't surprise anyone, it's quite blatantly obvious. Some minor gore, but most of the violence is shot off-screen. Despite some tame lesbianism, not even this is satisfying. Leighton Meester pops up in the film as a cute victim. Director/writer Jeff Fisher assembles quite an attractive cast, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish this from the innumerable slashers that have stocked the horror shelves over the last ten or so years since SCREAM. While I've never liked any of Cuoco's characters, I never tire of looking at her, but eventually she needs to come up with a role that doesn't consist of her preening, with smug arrogance, always whining and complaining.


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


user
I still remember when Frog Baseball first aired on MTV. In some sort of odd, surreal manner, the cartoon captured the stupid actions that I think every boy growing up in America engages in. I cringe now thinking about how I burned a crippled grasshopper using a magnifying glass, but it was interesting at the time for some reason. Growing up in the 1980s we all knew "stoners." These were the kids who wore Iron Maiden t-shirts to school, grew their hair long, had immature moustaches and were at least two inches taller than everyone else because they had flunked a grade or two. We laughed at them because they were so stupid even when not stoned. So it was easy to understand Beavis & Co because we already knew them, some of us were even them. To the extent that GenXers like myself would spurn the excess of the 1980s and embrace the grunge movement of the 1990s, Beavis & Co were sort of a strange post-modern anthem for us. Strange because like Beavis & Co we didn't care if we had an anthem. It was just an inside joke that we all immediately got even if it was awful.


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 care if this show is suppose to be communicating profound messages about human existence.
The show is crap....how can anyone derive pleasure from watching it? Yet it was received so well. This reflects a sad state of affairs for Joe Moron out there.
I tried watching this program when it first came out as friends were talking about it. The inane laughing between the two main characters and the pitiful dialog made me want to cry.
It is beyond belief that people can watch this show. Yet I guess the creators had the last laugh....making themselves wealthy by taking the p.ss out of the very people that would watch a show such as this.
I would wager they are laughing all the way to the bank.


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


user
According to Milan Kundera, a porcelain-cat holding a red rose is denying the crap. Well, those criminals guilty of making this series probably wanted to show how to make a total opposite of the porcelain-cat holding a red rose. Because teenaged sleazoids Beavis and Butthead are enthusiastically from the place where the sun doesn't shine and their crappiness infects the whole stoopid series. MTV has received a LOT of bad-mouthing from it's half-nude stripper beauties, while THIS is gathering positive reviews in IMDb. Well, newsflash to everybody - your butt is cool too, if you go out showing it in the middle of the winter - something these two probably would do. Still, there is no need to make a film about your butt - and yes, these two probably would do that, too.


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


user
Seriously... I'm amazed at all the good feedback this show has here. All we have in this show is two stupid kids who keep doing an annoying laugh and they do OCCASIONAL funny things only in like... 2 of the shows, while most of the others sucked... as then they comment on music videos which I cannot stand personally while they either love or like.
In most episodes, the only things you will hear are the repitive "let's go score with some chicks", or "I'll kick your ass beavis", or the better yet and usually used quote "that was cool", and above all, their annoying laugh.
If you want a good animated show, try The Simpsons, Ren and Stimpy, South Park, this show is just not worth the time or energy it takes to watch this awful MTV series truthfully.


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


user
Dreadful film about a doctor who goes fishing and winds up catching a mermaid when he is thrown overboard. She traps him into bringing her back with him.
Glynis Johns, in the title role, is really a silly individual with a tail hanging out.
Margaret Rutherford is the nurse who is supposed to be so eccentric but we see no eccentricity here. In fact, Miss Rutherford was not allowed to use her true comedic gifts.
Nice to see David Tomlinson in the film. He would get together with Johns in the far superior "Mary Poppins," 16 years later.
Miranda causes mischief in that two guys, a neighbor's fiancée and chauffeur (Tomlinson) fall for her.
Ask any mermaid you happen to see, what's the best tuna, Chicken of the Sea! As for this film, forget it.


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


user
Yumiko (Wakana Sakai), the pretty adopted daughter of a recently-deceased Japanese businessman, inherits control of her father's company; her uncle Kazuo (Shun Sugata), miffed that he wasn't left the business to run, orders a hit on his niece. When jug-eared chef Kensuke (Takashi Okamura) enters the wrong hotel room by mistake and knocks out hit-man Invincible (Jung Yuen), he is mistaken for the killer and sent to kill Yumiko. Instead, he falls for the pretty heiress and ends up vowing to protect her. However, she is kidnapped by Kazuo's men while Kensuke is preoccupied playing an arcade game with cop Daniel (Sam Lee).
Uncle Kazuo keeps Yumiko in a hypnotic trance, and takes control of the business, but runs into a spot of bother himself, when his gangster pals threaten to reveal his illegal activities unless he allows them total control.
Meanwhile, Kensuke teams up with two martial arts experts, Lam Kau (Yuen Baio) and Lam Doi (Candy Lo) who are hunting Invincible. He learns Kung Fu and attempts to free Yumiko.
A mixture of broad slapstick humour, spoofery and fight scenes, No Problem 2 is a disappointing film considering the talent involved: 80s kung fu superstar Yuen Baio manages a few fight scenes but is getting a little old for acrobatics these days; director Kar Lok Chin delivers the kind of dumb parody schtick I'd expect from a Scary Movie film; Jung Yuen resorts to mocking his character in Operation Scorpio; and Sam Lee well, Sam Lee is as annoying as always!
On the other hand, Collin Chou, as gangster Ben, impressed me; he has an obviously strong screen presence which has not gone unnoticed by Hollywoodhe has since starred in two of the Matrix movies and is soon to appear in D.O.A., directed by Corey Yuen. I was also impressed by Wakana Sakai, but for an entirely different reason: this beauty is easy on the eye and should go much further in the film business.
There is some fun to be had from working out what movies are being parodied, but at 104 minutes I found this film a real chore to sit through. If people pulling funny faces accompanied by silly sound effects makes you burst your sides laughing, then No Problem 2 might appeal to you. Otherwise, I would leave well alone.


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


user
Unless there's some huge ironic conspiracy going on, my jaw dropped when I read the positive reviews of this film; I cannot believe that this film was even released, it's so bad.
I admit it is not my kind of movie, but I tried to watch it objectively anyway, you know, so bad it's funny, and was still offended at its sheer awfulness.
The acting is atrocious, they can't have watched the rushes and I'm guessing there was one take per scene, it really is that terrible. It is the worst film I have seen in many a year, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a film, it's a tragedy. The gay black friend, whom no-one actually calls "gay", it's just implied because he's so crazy? Homophobic. This is not good, in fact, this is downright vomit inducing. The jokes die on their pathetic arses, the music is so bad it defies belief. The person who compiled the soundtrack essentially chose the most ear-mutilatingly bad songs they had ever heard and put them in this waste of film stock. Oh my good Christ I can't believe the 80's produced utter garbage like this, I grew up through them, and I cannot find one thing worth of note here, it must have been a dark time to be a cinema-goer.
If you even contemplate watching this film go see a psychiatrist, he will then accordingly slap you, you sick, sick person.


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


user
Nearly everything that Stephen King has ever written seems to have been turned into a film or TV series; in fact, I'm surprised that no one has tried to make a mini-series from the guy's grocery list. Let's face it, if they did, it couldn't be any less interesting than Children of the Corn.
Based on one of King's many short stories, this 1984 horror flick sees Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton playing a couple on a long car journey who run into a spot of bother when they chance upon the sleepy Nebraska town of Gatlin, where all of the adults have been murdered by children who worship an ancient evil that lurks in the corn fields.
Although director Fritz Kiersch does manage to build a fair amount of atmosphere at the beginning (after Hamilton's silly song and dance, but before we get to meet the freakish Isaac, leader of the killer kids), he completely blows it with endless unexciting scenes in which Hamilton and Horton are hunted down by the town's homicidal half-pints. Courtney Gains, as violent redhead Malachai, manages to appear genuinely menacing, but the rest of the children are not the least bit threatening; as a result, many of the film's 'scary' moments fail to work.
Towards the end of the film, when we finally get to see the malevolent force that inhabits the field surrounding Gatlin, the film descends into a glut of terrible 80s visual effects that probably looked pretty ropey almost 25 years ago, but look positively laughable nowadays.
Children of the Corn might be of interest to King fans keen to see how the writer's work has been translated to the big screen, but your average horror-film fan will be most unimpressed.


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


user
I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.
Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.
The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.
A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other "Children of the Corn" aren't really all that scary.
Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video


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


user
While this is horribly dated, I MUST insist...PLEASE, NO REMAKE! Frankly, it just won't help, as there's nothing which could be added or changed, contemporarily, to make this cinematically better.
The novel upon which this is based, was atmospheric, well written, truly spooky work, but on film, it just doesn't translate. Most of King's written masterpieces fail to translate to film. I'm not sure why this is, but when you view this work, if you view it, you are likely to see just what I mean.
The book? It's wonderful. It's not a masterpiece, but it's more than just entertaining.
The movie? Do something else. You can thank me later.
It rates a 3.1/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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 sorry, but for a movie that has been so stamped as a semi classic and a scary movie, but seriously, I think when the director has me laughing unintentionally, that's not a good thing. The characters in this film were just so over the top and unbelievable. I just couldn't stop laughing at Issac's voice, it was just like a high pitched whiny girl's British voice. Not to mention Malicai's over dramatic stick up his butt character.
Children of the Corn is about a town where all the children have killed off the adults and worship a God that commands them to sacrifice any 20+ aged people. When a couple has a bad car accident they come to the town for help, but of course they get caught in the kid's trap and are getting sacrificed! But Malicai has other intentions when he is sick of following Issac's orders.
Children of the Corn could've been something great, but turned into a bad over the top movie that you could easily make fun of. As much as I love Stephen King, I'm sure this is not what he intended and it was a pretty lame story, or at least the actors destroyed it. Like I said, for a good laugh, watch it, but I'm warning you, it's pretty pathetic.
3/10


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


user
A traveling couple (Horton and Hamilton)stumble onto the town of Gatlin, where kids have slaughtered the adults and are always eager to slaughter more, along the way they're separated and Peter Horton of course must save his wife from these tiresome, er terrible tykes in this very bad adaption of one of King's best short stories. In the original story King managed to create tension and draw personality of his characters, however all of that has been zapped from the production and all that is left is a repetitive bore which is far too predictable to be all that suspenseful. Also the effective ending used in the story is in favor dumped for a happy ending which makes the overall impact mute. There is some atmosphere and stylish directing but no plot to back any of it up. The kids are woefully unconvincing also.
1/5 Matt Bronson


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


user
The first word i can find to describe this movie is Awful.
This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. First of all is the plot a very thin plot (Wont comment further on this part) and a plot which a lot of movies from this genre is following. This makes the movie so bad, because you know whats going to happen. Secondly does the movie contain a lot of questions which never is revealed. One of the questions (and this is no spoiler) is: WHAT THE HELL ARE THE KIDS DOING IN THAT CORN!!!!!!!!!! Thirdly is the characters very bad, not only because the movie is bad, but also because of the sorry actors. They are bad as they can be.
The last thing that make this movie bad, is that its a horror movie. You are supposed to be scared of the killings or the sudden shocks, but you are not scared, you a not horrified because you know whats going to happen.
Conclusion: The movie is as bad as the movie about the killer ants! I hoped that it was a very great movie but because the story is bad, the actors are bad, the film raises a lot of questions and because its not scary, the movie is best unseen.


assistant
0