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
It's difficult to decide whether this movie suffers from crap dialogue or if it's just made to appear so by crap actors. In any case it suffers from storywriting which is mediocre at best.
Although made in the late '80's, the first part of the movie plays like a 60's teenage screwball comedy (barring the absence of any actual humour), especially the part of the 'good girl', which is as annoying a Doris Day figure as you could hope/fear for, including the slightly whiny opposition to anything 'fun' her friends want to do. The net effect is, after a while you start to hope she'll bite it so you don't have to listen to her voice anymore.
Some profanity and gratuitous nudity, plus some really 80's style clothing is your only clue that this movie was made in the 80's. Oh, and some pretty passable music, too.
Storywise, it's pretty formulaic stuff. A bunch of horny (apart, obviously , from 'miss nice girl') teenagers decide to celebrate Halloween night by throwing a party in a haunted house. Partying and fornication ensues, along with an ill-advised 'seance' which kicks off the demonic possession spree which is the subject of the movie. After this, the only suspenseful part will be trying to guess in which order the characters will expire. You're sure not to care whether or not they will. The actors are so bad that becoming demons/zombies/dinner actually improves their performance somewhat, and the ridiculously cliché dialogue is so annoying that you squirm in your seat.
Gorewise, this flick ain't nuthin' special, unless you think cheesy is kind of 'special'. For example, the demon head which occasionally appears is so screamingly fake that you wonder if it's a 5-year old trick-or-treating.
This is not to say there's nothing enjoyable in the flick. Some of the music isn't half bad, and the first of our insipid Scooby gang to get possessed performs a marvelous and really sexy dance routine at one point, before she turns nasty.
Also, and I don't know why, towards the very end of the flick, I actually managed to get somewhat involved. The suspense lacking in most of the movie made a late appearance, and I started to squirm out of unease instead of annoyance. Which is what a horror movie is supposed to do.
Concequently, I cannot bring myself to give this movie a rock-bottom rating, since by some inexplicable miracle (I don't rule out being possessed by demons) I was actually a little creeped.
Don't pay money to see it, though. It's hardly worth your time, yet alone hard cash. Watch it on YouTube while it's there.


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


user
When I first saw this I thought bits of it were fairly scary. But the horror is a little undermined by the fact that the dozy teenagers are so irritating that you don't really care what happens to them. There are some genuinely good moments such as Angela's speech about demons, and the briefly-seen demon itself is effective. But this really doesn't stand up to repeated viewing or close analysis. It's all pretty tacky and cheap-looking and often downright silly, pornography and unfunny wisecracks all too often replacing horror. The music is excellent, however, and the epilogue is certainly amusing, but this film doesnt have much to recommend it, just comes across as another Jason-type stalk-and-slash fare.


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


user
Dear friends, I've never seen such a trash movie as NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (1988). It seems that the director Kevin Tenney had the intention to copy classics like THE EVIL DEAD by Sam Raimi (1978) or George A. Romero's RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD from the same year. The cinematography was lousy, the movie was very dark, so I had to turn the brightness control to the maximum. Indeed, horror pictures have to be dark, but not the way like NIGHT OF THE DEMONS. The entire movie was ridiculous, no suspense, worse actors except Alvin Alexis in the role of Rodger, and horrible make-up effects. An average vote of 5 stars for that movie? I can't believe this. Perhaps the users were pleased about the tits, asses and pussies of the actresses, they were indeed worth 5 stars. Regards, Hans-Dieter


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


user
And you know why? Because they thought (or at least made horror fans think) that a bunch of obnoxious, foul-mouthed, screaming teenagers, some stupid demons (Where do they come from? What is their purpose? Who knows?) and a dark mansion are all you need to make a horror movie. Needless to say, they were wrong. You also need a script, some logic, some rules, and some invention. This flick DOES have one scene that lives up to its reputation (the lipstick scene, of course), and a couple of funny moments (the kid brother's description of his mother's cookies, Linnea Quigley's "don't look at me" scene). It also has more profanity than any movie I've watched since I last saw "Reservoir Dogs". Literally every fourth or fifth word is a "f***" or a "b****". Then again, when a movie begins with FOUR false scares in its first 5 minutes, you know not to expect anything resembling good filmmaking. (*1/2)


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


user
Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have "The Dunwich Horror" and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that "Night of the Demons" (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than "Dunwich Horror." This is just like "The Howling," how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (just don't get any of its sequels though) or "The Evil Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead." "Night of the Demons" is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells.


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


user
One of the many silent comedies Stan Laurel featured in before he teamed with Oliver Hardy, 'Mud and Sand' is a ho-hum hokum. The story is badly disjointed - though this could be because of the modern-day edit - and the humor itself is not at all inventive.
Potential plotlines are started and ignored; for instance, Stan's promise to make Fillet de Sole pay for what she's done to him never comes to fruition. Stan's character doesn't seem very centered, either, but this is a common criticism of his work before he developed 'Stanley' of Laurel & Hardy fame, so it might be that I was just expecting to see this shortcoming.
I strongly believe that all the silent films should be preserved and viewed, and I'm glad this one is still available. It's just not a great film.


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 starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clichés.
The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.
The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.
Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.


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


user
Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-


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


user
This starts out interestingly, as there's a carnival right next to someone's house with an oil rig right there too and some kind of store-front church across the street with a neon "Jesus Saves" sign, all right in one tiny area....Now that's pretty dazzling, if improbable...and then we go right into the movie which takes improbable to new levels. Of course this is a lame remake of the 1979 thriller starring Carol Kane as the babysitter Jill Johnson....now Jill is some chick that ran her cell phone minutes up so high her evil parents are punishing her by making her work it off, probably something that the audience this movie targets can identify with. Jill is taken to this huge and fancy house on a lake in the middle of nowhere (of course) by her dad to babysit for the Mandrakis family. The children are already nestled all snug in their beds when Jill arrives, and the housekeeper is still there, huh, she couldn't babysit? Of course, despite the remote location one of Jill's friends pops by, one whom with which she apparently has issues as in "boyfriend stealing" or something. Anyway, of course the alarm in the house goes off for no reason and then calls from someone start coming in, calls from someone that wants to kill her. Of course Jill calls the cops and since there hasn't been any actual threat on her life they blow her off, but tell her to call back if there's anything else they can do for her. Check out the scene with Jill calling her friends at the high school bonfire/pep rally or whatever it's supposed to be, it looks like some kind of "Burning Man" festival, ??!!?? There's all kind of contrived scares in this including the cool cat Chester who of course pops up here and there, one of the tiredest "horror movie" clichés there is. I will admit that I dozed off at some point during this, and did I miss anything? Hard to tell, or care, really. This is one of those films that makes me wonder how bad the remakes of "Amityville Horror", "House of Wax" or "The Fog" could have been. Anyway, from reading online reviews, it seems like the folks that were the most scared by this were 12 year old girls, and I can only assume that from statements like "it made me pee-pee my pants". Well, one can only hope that this will put an end to Hollywood remakes of films that weren't exactly stellar to begin with, but don't bet on it. 2 out of 10 and I'm being overly generous.


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 is bad. Really bad. So bad it made me want to shoot myself in the forehead. I hated this movie. First off, the plot went absolutely nowhere and anything shocking about this movie was seen in the 30 second teaser trailer. Secondly, Anyone who saw the original in 1979 knows that it was a bad movie too and completely unworthy of a remake. By far the best part of the movie is the house it takes place in. Which is not saying much for the actual movie. There were parts in the movie when the music gets very suspenseful and you're positive someone is around the corner and it turns out to be the maid or the cat, but when someone actually is around the corner it is impossible to be even startled because you've been expecting it all movie. So save yourself the money, save yourself the time, save yourself the headache and just watch the trailer. There is absolutely no point in seeing this movie, not in the theater, not on DVD, not on TV, never.


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


user
What should have been a routine babysitting gig at a secluded lake house turns into a night of terror, as high school student Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) receives threatening phone calls from a sadistic stalker, while trying to stay one step ahead of him.
The first 20 minutes of the original film were pretty good but it was all downhill from there. The remake takes those first 20 minutes and stretches them into an 80 minute feature film. That's a good idea because its eliminating everything that made the original bad. However, if they wanted this film to work more effectively then they should have hired a better lead actress, better director, writer etc. There's no suspense, everything can be figured out long before it happens and it's a very dull film since not much happens. At least there isn't much to sit through since its less than 90 minutes.
If this premise were to work, then the lead actress has to give a realistic performance. Camilla Belle gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen and throughout the whole movie, she seemed to be reading her lines. You get a lead role in a Hollywood film that will be viewed by millions of people and you give no effort at all! Why did they hire this girl? Sure, she's pretty but she can't act at all yet I suppose this won't matter to the target audience who will most likely eat this film up. The rest of the cast is bland and forgettable especially the woman who plays the maid, Rosa. Even the stranger was lame and his lines on the phone were not effective at all.
This movie reminds me of last years disappointing horror film Boogeyman. That movie was a bunch of cheap scares and false alarms and When a Stranger Calls is pretty much the same. Jill enters a room because she hears a noise but its just a false alarm like a cat or the maid. This type of scene happens over and over again until finally after about 50 minutes, the stranger appears. He has to be one of the lamest killers ever. He carried no weapons and didn't seem to pose much of a threat. The ending is bad but it matches the rest of the film so it doesn't really matter. The film is directed by Simon West and he is really bad at building up suspense. He was using every cliché he could think of and the results weren't very good. The house was amazing and I'll give the film credit for that. It was an isolated house so it was pretty creepy but that's about the only good thing this film has to offer. In the end, if you're not a teenage girl then you should skip the movie. Rating 2/10


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


user
That's pretty much all I can say about this flat and uninspired remake of the 1979 Carol Kane vehicle. Camilla Belle isn't much of an actress, and she brings no energy and vitality to the role of Jill Johnson, the babysitter harassed by an anonymous phone caller.
But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going "bump" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.
Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.
The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.
2 stars - both for the house.


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 had potential to be a good little high school thriller. Instead, we got a bore fest about a whiny, spoiled brat babysitting. The problem was there were too many unnecessary things. A fight with the boyfriend, random friends coming over to be killed. It was obvious they were just killing time. The main character was bland and uninteresting. Camilla Bell had no emotion during this movie. She was just there. Another problem was the fact that the killer was not a threat. The children survive, so it's obvious they are going to let Jill survive. The only reason this got a four was because the last ten minutes (when the killer FINALLY comes out) is actually exciting.
4/10


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


user
While babysitting at an isolated Colorado house, a teen girl is terrorized by an elusive murderer on the telephone.
Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.
On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.
It's just another unimpressive remake.
* 1/2 out of ****


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


user
This is so overly clichéd you'll want to switch it off after the first 45 minutes. The beginning is very interesting, with a fair going on and someone gets killed. This movie would have been better, set on this setting.
So, Jill Johnson is a depressed sprinter with boyfriend issues. I don't see the point of adding her breakup with her boyfriend occurs in any of the events in the story.
Since Jill has come home late, her father sends her to babysit for the Mandrakis's in their glamorous home in a deserted lake. The kids are sleeping and the maid is cleaning, another empty house to the side for their son who's at college. OK.
After about half an hour of her stalking around the house by herself, she gets a couple of hang ups. Ooh, scary ones. TO which her friend comes to the rescue, to come up with a couple of high school lines about 'love' and whatever. Friend leaves and goes to her car. TO which then, she drops her keys. Uhhh...then the music! DumDumDum..! She fumbles to pick them up, and gets into her car. Which of course, doesn't start. How cliché'd is that..? So..She disappears =D Jill, alone again. UH. (Most of this movie is with her by herself, so there's not much dialog) So more hangups, she calls the police. Who say they cant help her, but call back if she has any more problems.
So then she suspects that her boyfriend is calling, or her boyfriends friends are calling. They have been but only once. Like thats supposed to be scary much? Oh, and did I mention? Her friend just now comes on caller ID and some creepy man voice comes on. She gets all freaked out and shyt.
Yeah, so skip that. She see's the light in the house of the Mandrakis's son go on. So she runs through the woods with music as her companion and goes in. Bleheh.
AH ITS SO BORING I CANT CONTINUE!!!!!!!!!


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


user
Simon West's remake of the 1979 horror classic is a pathetic attempt to bring old school thrills to a contemporary audience. Starring talented teen Camilla Belle, When a Stanger Calls fails to even elicit a shocked, or even surprised face. Poor attempts at scaring the audience range from blurred coats that look like people to building the tense music up for a cat running out of the shadows. The plot follows Jill Johnson (Belle), a teenage girl that has to pay off a bill to her father via babysitting. She is invited to work for the night at a house by the river, and thinks it a perfectly easy way to make cash. But little does she know, a stranger lurks in the house, and constantly harasses Johnson via the phone. A pathetic excuse for a film.


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


user
When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.
Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.
The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.
There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.
The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.
The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D.


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


user
The original WASC isn't by any means a must see movie in the genre. In fact, if it weren't for it's chilling first 25 minutes there wouldn't be any logical reason for watching it. The remake takes those 25 minutes and turns them into a mediocre 85 minute teen Horror flick.
Now, I don't have anything against PG-13 Horror movies but the tendency surrounding them is getting lame. When you see the PG-13 rating you expect a movie filled with false scares, teen t.v. or music stars, and a plot that has been used for several times. Don't even ask for gore or violence.
I know that it's not correct to compare both the original WASC and the remake, but I think that it's necessary to do it because the whole idea of the new one is based on the beginning of the original. The tension that is felt through the first movie is not present by any means in the remake. Not even with the amazing settings or great use of lightning. No tension, suspense, thrills...nothing. The movie goes too slow before it gets a little "interesting", and that's when the stranger appears. The chasing sequence is probably the best part of the movie because at least there's a feeling of "what will happen next?". But that's it. The situations that set up for the climax are predictable, boring, and lack of suspense. The original has merits for having suspense in the most important scenes, and also, for a chilling climax for the most important scene of the movie.
Now, I understand that this is a PG-13 Horror movie but, if you pay respect to the original. Why change it's most important situation? The children are not supposed to survive! After the ending I felt like this movie was pointless. So the baby sitter was playing cat and mouse with a wacko...that's it?. Then, the sequence at the hospital was plain stupid. And worst of all, it means that a sequel may be on the way.
Camila Belle is the best thing about the movie. She delivers a cute, believable performance. She needs to pick better projects although this role will gain for her thousands of teenager fans.
Please, don't watch this movie. Some people say that in order to support the Horror genre we are supposed to support any movie that comes out. I don't necessary agree. If we ignore movies like WASC then the producers of Horror movies will understand that we won't accept CRAP. We want good Horror movies, not lame flicks filled with false scares.
Watch the original "When A Stranger Calls" instead because it's first 25 minutes are WAY BETTER than the whole (pointless) remake.


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


user
Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism.
The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience  which, first and foremost, is the writer/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating  innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype.
Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem.


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


user
Sorry this movie was a bad made for TV movie. Are the rest of you on drugs when you watched it? I thought the hair,make-up and characters were poor 2 dimensional types. The story is doubtful,especially since all of the main characters are dead,or nearly dead. I think it's not well acted either...what was up with that hair on the main guy in the Turtles? It looked glued on badly, and the sideburns looked like they were going to fall off at any moment. It didn't feel like anything new was revealed in the story of the band and how the members met other bands,and people. I laughed all the way through it,Frank Zappa looked stupid,so did Mama Cass, and so did the Beatles. They were made out to look stupid and ridiculous. Also the other band people like Jim Morrison,Donovan also took a big hit at looking stupid too. Kind of terrible,if this is how you remember these people. It's a poor history lesson on music,it's fictional the way it was made.


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 really misses the mark on most fronts. The accents are laughably weak, the acting amateurish and the comedy weak at best.
They've got a great idea, it could have been particularly enjoyable but for the reasons mentioned above.
The writer seems to think by putting the word f*ck into every sentence it'll make it funnier and the main character just seems to try a little too hard. He's no Brick top thats for sure.
Next time at least get a cast that can keep the accent for the whole film.
It's a crime to compare this to films like The Business, Lock Stock and Snatch.


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


user
I've sat through less painful operations than the time I spent watching this film.
If you give it a try thinking it's going to be something in the vein of a Guy Ritchie flick.....Think again! The production, dialogue, acting, script , film work and plot were about the worst I've ever seen in a film. My fave part in all honesty was the closing credits. In all the history of cinema has there never been a better excuse for turning off the TV and going out and doing something better with your life.
Have root canal work done rather than wasting your time and money on this!


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 moves along quite well but the acting, direction and editing leave a lot to be desired. The characters are mostly lifted from other films and the Vinnie Jones lookalike is straight out of Gone in 50 Seconds. The comedy gangster movie is a genre that should have lots of contrast, the stupid dealers in Lock Stock and the shoot out that leaves everyone dead. You should never really know whether to laugh or just sit there in shock. This movie had the right elements but it is too easy to sit there like a person knitting and tut at the small details that should have been fixed somewhere along the line and once belief has been unsuspended one just become increasingly critical. A pity cos it was a brave attempt and although Clint Eastwood is famous for saying that'll be OK for a scene, he puts the work in before he shoots and he is Clint Eastwood. Here a bit more imagination with the camera and and a bit more coaching and rehearsal for the delivery of the lines would have made a big difference.


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


user
Words almost fail me to describe how terrible this Irish vanity project (funded by Canadian taxpayers - both federal and Albertan) really is.
There's a sudden appearance by a nice looking Canadian woman (Kathy Ranheim) who in real life was a star athlete in Alberta, for no other reason to ensure Canadian content. Credits also indicate that certain Calgary pubs were of assistance.
Everything here is poorly filmed and at least third-hand (chunks of poorly digested Trainspotting, Lock Stock, Snatch and Reservoir Dogs are the most obvious steals). Avoid like the plague unless you fancy one of those campy "so bad it's almost funny" nights in front of your telly.


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


user
DIRTY WAR
Aspect ratio: 1.78:1
Sound format: Stereo
Emergency services struggle to cope when Islamic terrorists detonate a so-called 'dirty bomb' in the middle of London.
Daniel Percival's frightening movie uses all available evidence to dramatize the possible effects of a radioactive explosion in the heart of the UK capital, using the kind of documentary-style realism which has distinguished this particular subgenre since the 1960's. In essence, the film reveals a catalogue of flaws in the British government's current strategy for dealing with such terrorist outrages, and Percival's carefully-honed script (co-written by Lizzie Mickery) vents its spleen against mealy-mouthed politicians who would rather maintain the economic status quo than tackle this issue head-on. The film covers all necessary bases, and makes the salient point that this kind of terrorism is practised by a tiny handful of fanatics who have tarnished the Islamic faith with their reckless disregard for human life, though viewers won't be reassured by the subsequent scenes of devastation and horror. Not merely a drama, the film acts as a warning against complacency. Either that, or its just another post-9/11 scaremongering tactic. YOU be the judge...


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


user
Highly suggest not to watch this film 'TV' if not mentally mature enough , the film create quite realistic simulation with the steps how they prevent from terrorism if such touch wood incident happened , London suppose a Lovely and chill ful City , while these kind of wars still going on , just wasting the time and money for study and Living, every time passing around P Square, the feeling really obvious, uncomfortable actually , I don't want to vote , the scored means nothing , just 4 'fill in the blank'
Only Safty and Positive thinking cities encourage better Economy and investors to keep investing Time,Energies and Money


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


user
Anyone remember the docudrama THREADS ? It's a drama documentary which shocked Britain in September 1984 . Whilst not exactly wholly entertained by Mick Jackson's nuclear holocaust horror film I could respect it . Unfortunately I can't respect this docudrama broadcast 20 years later which deals with terrorists letting off a radioactive dirty bomb in the centre of London
The problem I have with it is that director Daniel Percival production values are far too good when in fact this would have benefited from rather cheap production values . The cinematography is superb but in this type of speculative drama do we need superb and well lit Oscar standard cinematography ? What we certainly don't need is a musical score as the survivors of the blast slowly stagger out of the smoke . Neither do we need vaguely well known cast members . Did anyone else sit there asking themselves " Hey what was he in ? I know that face " several times ? I know I did and it's very distracting .
Perhaps the biggest production flaw with DIRTY WAR is that someone decided to make it a docudrama with too much stylistic emphasis on the drama . In THREADS the action cuts away from the action in Sheffield umpteen times and becomes an edition of HORIZON on the effects of nuclear war before cutting back to the fictional protagonists again and THREADS is very effective because of this . Here the information presented suffocates the drama which drowns in expositional and totally unconvincing dialogue . The characters in the teleplay aren't really characters they're just cyphers there to inform the audience what happens when radioactive material is exploded . It would have been better for the action to cut to captions to convey this type of information ala THREADS . The worse thing is that director Daniel Percival used the same technique as seen in THREADS a couple of years ago with his docudrama about smallpox . He should have used the same style with DIRTY WAR
I should also lay my cards on the table and state that while I don't consider most Muslims are terrorists I am getting slightly fed up of TV productions like THE HAMBURG CELL , THE GRID and DIRTY WAR having to point out this fact to me by whalloping me over the head with it which is somewhat typical of patronising PC attitudes in TV companies nowadays
I managed to miss the studio debate that Bob mentions here but I have also heard it discussed elsewhere and I can't help thinking it makes better viewing than DIRTY WAR itself with its heated arguments between differing factions of the political spectrum . If DIRTY WAR is remembered twenty years from now ( Highly unlikely I know ) it may well be remembered for the discussion it caused more than anything


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


user
I have watched this movie over and over since it first came out. I was fifteen and even then, I knew it was cheesy. It had such great potential and I constantly rewrite the script in my head. The Capoeira ruined what could have been a good drama. I loved the fact that it was shot on location. Too bad that the characters were underdeveloped. It's like they wrote a first draft of a script then made the movie right away. At fifteen I could have written a better script!Some scenes and dialog seemed to come out of nowhere and you were left with a lot of unanswered questions. And was it just me, or did it seem like Lobo was sexually attracted to his cousin? "Elena's grown into some kind of woman!" And the way he was always touching her. Would have an interesting plot twist, Elena working for her drug dealing cousin who is also a perv. Too bad they missed the mark on this one.


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


user
Begotten is, no doubt, someone's attempt at originality, but, what we have here is art in its most morbid, grotesque form, so, for that, Begotten has my respect, but, to be realistic, it makes no difference what this abomination is about, but for the record...
In the ultimate in incoherent horror, we begin in an unknown time, in an unknown place. Right off the bat, we are plunged into the psychotic nightmare that is Begotten, a god is, seemingly depressed, mutilating himself with a razor, I mean, really trying like hell to end it all, it takes a while (why wouldn't it?) After this ultra-morbid introduction, something is happening, something is rising from the corpse, say hello to Mother Earth. What does she do? Well, she gives birth to a thing. The thing would have probably preferred to stay in the womb, but that's life. The psychotic nightmare realm of Begotten welcomes the thing the only way it knows how. The thing, along with Mother Earth is mutilated by unknown, hooded, assailants, with evil intentions being the only clarity available. From this point on, things drag as they've never dragged before. Interesting, grim images, with a totally decent soundtrack, is the high points of the remainder. Not to give the impression that I don't recommend this evilness, because I do, but only once, and only for people with an appreciation for the dark side.
From my description, it may appear that I don't "get" Begotten. Trust me, I get it, and yes, Begotten is art if I've ever seen it. Everything in this film, regardless of how unrelated it may seem, is significant. That, perhaps, is the only thing that makes Begotten art. With that said, most of us require some form of entertainment value, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed The Chooper. Probably the most intriguing first five minutes, I've seen in a film, but let's be realistic, the next 7 hours and 55 minutes would put one in a coma, that is, unless it's just meant for some kind of psychedelic purposes, in that case, never mind. But, how would one rate such a uniquely boring masterpiece? Depending on how much your attention span can take, It should be either 1 or 10, any other number just wouldn't make a statement. It hurts to do this, but as far as entertainment value goes, Begotten just ain't it. 1/1


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


user
Directed by E. Elias Merhige "Begotten" is an experiment with a few interesting ideas that don't quite succeed in what they were trying to do. The film is a 76 minute ultra slow, questionably effective, irritating experience that tries to present an intriguing philosophy about the creation of the Earth and human nature.
It opens with god presented as a chair-bound psychopathic man who tears open his stomach using a knife. From the guts, blood and human waste Mother Nature emerges. She proceeds to impregnate herself with the dead god's semen. Later she gives birth to the Son of the Earth. A retard who is constantly abused a group of cannibalistic people whom I believe to be the representation of mankind.
"Begotten" takes a twisted and disturbing look on the origin of life. Demonstrating the self-destructive nature, violence, lust and greed that have become a trademark for mankind. The problem in the movie come from two points. One is that the film is just too slow in it's exhibition. What we get is a good thirty minutes spent on showing how the Son of the Earth is constantly shaking naked on the ground while at the same time being molested and tortured by mankind. Such tasteless prolonging gets boring pretty fast and lacks the punch in delivering a blow to the viewer's senses.
Another point is "Beggoten's" visual appearance and sound. The grainy, inverted, black and white low frame cinematography enchants the disturbing factor of the plot, but such novelties often work in only short periods of time. Then gradually begin to lose their effect as the audience becomes accustomed to the look. The audio suffers from the same problems. It's constant repetitive and similar sounds become annoying so fast I had an urge to turn off the volume. "Begotten" loses it's charm shortly after it begins. It tries to be original and creative but it fails to expand on the ideas hinted by the vague plot instead it repeats the same scene again and again.
The conclusion is that "Begotten" is stuck in one moment. Even though plot-wise it tries to move forward, the visuals and audio remain the same throughout. Showing the same action in a slightly different way with just slightly a different sound. A gimmick cannot alone make a movie. It also needs pace and variety, something Merhige seems to have forgotten.


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


user
Good lord.
I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the "what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.
This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has "I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of "God" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.
If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.


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


user
Wasted is just that, a waste of time. MTV is churning out made for TV movies at quite a clip nowadays. A friend of mine recommended this and i rented it, needless to say i will not be pursuing anymore recomendations from her anytime soon. This movie shows the rollercoaster of drug use. The problem is, you really don't care about any of the characters due to lack of believabilty and their own self discipline. This movie is in a word, annoying to watch, from the terrible camera angles to the quality of dialogue and pacing. The 'digital' format tries for realism, but comes up distracting. If you want a true scope on drug use watch Requiem for a Dream.


assistant
0