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
I found this movie to be okay.
On paper, this movie has everything a person may want! Romance, comedy, drama. A bank robbery, a unique cast, great music and storytelling!
In reality, this movie ended up being mostly garbage, and I'll tell you why.
a) This is my biggest problem: The editing. This movie has by far the worst editing I've ever seen short of local-car-dealership commercials. The editing could've been done better by a deaf Parkinson's patient tapping away at iMovie with a a dead cat. There are scenes where two characters are talking to each other and you can see their lips moving and the audio/video isn't in sync because its clearly dubbed. Why was it dubbed? I don't know! Its English dubbing English! The voices were done in a studio elsewhere in certain scenes! Could they not find a boom-Mic?! They're not expensive; Jesus, even I own one! And i don't make films!
b) Andrew Keegan's performance lacked. It really didn't seem like he wanted to be a part of this project, and his acting was the equivalent of a skit performed by D.A.R.E. for schoolchildren. At least John Krasinksi showed some enthusiasm.
Yes, John Krasinski is the only reason I rented this flick, and its the only real reason worth watching. He's did a good, witty performance and he was the most three-dimensional character. Dean Edwards' character was quite thin, as was whats-her-face.
Final Word? If you're a fan of John Krasinski, this is worth your time. If not, don't even bother. The editing


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 to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.
This film has loads of technical/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).
It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.
How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?
Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.


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


user
This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.


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


user
Other than John Krasinski, this movie was absolutely terrible. The Lacey Chabert and Andrew Keegan love story was as clichéd as possible, full of unbelievably bad lines about how her parents wouldn't ever let them be together and super-hammy longing looks. None of the "emotion" had any depth or reality whatsoever. The two accented-characters (Dean Edwards as Rupert and whoever it was playing the gun expert)....once they saw how bad the accents were, couldn't they have decided to just drop them and rewrite a couple of lines to avoid giving the audience headaches? Apparently not. I don't even know where to start with the editing, particularly the sound editing. If you hate obvious over-dubbing as much as I do, don't watch this. That being said, Krasinski was great. Off the bat I'll admit that I'm a huge Office fan and that's why I rented this. But he's quite entertaining as the "off-the-wall friend with crazy ideas". He's got a clichéd role, but he still manages to make it as entertaining as possible. The ending was awful. Just flat out terrible. The idea of the robbery gone awry had potential, but Keegan floundering around after being shot, all the way to his studio to fall ontop of a painting of Chabert (which looks nothing like her) is the most cringe-worthy scene.


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


user
The story of Farewell to the King is intriguing. An American "deserter" (I had the impression he and his 3 comrades were only trying to escape capture in the Philippines as their desperate escape by raft to Borneo is not your classic desertion). But no sooner do they come ashore when they are discovered by the Japanese. Nolte's character (a sergeant) has only moments earlier walked down the beach alone and was not noticed. And incredibly, no one noticed his footprints in the sand which would have led the Japanese right to him. But anyway, Nolte is taken in by a tribe of headhunters and becomes their king after defeating another tribesman. So he's out of the war. Then the British commandos show up and want the tribe to assist them in fighting the Japanese.
Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.
There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.
Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.
What a waste.


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


user
I just caught "Farewell to the King" on cable, and maybe it's just because I'm a girl, but I thought this was on the craptastic side. The script and direction are pretentious (once I found out John Milius was responsible, it all became clear). The supporting actors actually weren't bad - James Fox was outstanding. The biggest disappointment was Nick Nolte, who I usually enjoy. Once he goes native, he starts speaking a very stiff, stilted English, and half the time, he seems kind of distracted, as if he'd just smoked some of the bounty of Borneo's rain forest. And then the end -- what the ??? Learoyd just happens to be on the same boat as The Botanist (by the way, had the Botanist dumped the girlfriend, or what?)??? The boat just happens to run aground conveniently close to an island ripe takeover by a crazy Anglo ex-headhunting Army deserter??


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


user
A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.
They've fallen into the "because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc." trap.
"Romeo and Juliet" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).
Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.
If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.
Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.


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


user
An interesting concept turned into carnage...
My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When i first took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interesting concept...
Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne Gangland
A very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...
Pros: -Interesting concept
Cons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologue
Overall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)


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


user
The story of Macbeth was one of the most successful Shakespeare ever wrote. This may be due to some features that place it close to the slasher genre, murder, murder, kill, kill, gallons of blood, a tense sexual relation between the main characters etc. More than this, the original play is very appealing taking into consideration the length (it's only half the size of Hamlet) and the focus on Macbeth for whom we are constrained to care in spite of his bloody nature. The play would seem ideal to base a movie on. Not so lengthy it gives the directors the possibility to explore it's many levels, a good actor can play the role of his lifetime, the film has deep meaning in any historical period. Unfortunately this has not been the case with Macbeth. Polanski's version comes quite close but it insists too much on the medieval period. Welles' film is too personal, with an interesting twist towards totalitarianism, the 1990 or so TV version is too shallow. This 2006 movie is no exception. It is very far from a Shakespeare film, but it is interesting to see how the director understood the story and where he places it in contemporary life. No knights in shiny armor but gangsters in shiny cars. A lot of drugs and trippy music replace the dread of night in the original play. The idea of Macbeth is so simple that to take and implant it in modern day life doesn't need Shakespeare at all. The worst part in the film are the lines. Most of the poignant scenes of the play, such as the dagger scene are trimmed so much they seem pointless. Replacing the knocks in the door with doorbells and horses with cars seems funny. If they wanted to make a movie about power and its temptation they could have done it easily without Shakespeare. This Macbeth seems to be a looser with a brain injury not a valiant warrior, brave and ambitious that wants power so much he is prepared to to kill and who gets caught up in a net of fears and despair. The movie doesn't make clear what drives Lady Macbeth to madness, it doesn't give a reason why some of the characters should fear Macbeth and his "terror" (since there is no hereditary ascension to the throne, what with no throne and all) and it places Macbeth in an awkward position, since the leadership of a gang is as far from kingship as this whole movie is far from any Shakespeare. In conclusion, we have two superimposed ideas that never quite meet making this a film that's ultimately pointless.... Stand not upon the order of your going but go!


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 illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.
Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.
An "adaptation" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.
And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.
Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.
I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.
A shame. An absolute shame.


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


user
Recap: Not entirely familiar with the Shakespeare story of Macbeth, but my wild guess is that this is pretty close to the original, only set in present time. It tells the story of Macbeth, a member of a crime syndicate in Melbourne (?). He is a valued hit-man and in the favor of leader Duncan. But he and his lady has higher ambitions than that, and plan the murder of Duncan, and any competition of the throne. This is a story of betrayal and cold, brutal death.
Comments: Very interesting idea, I must say. To use the story but change the setting to present time, but still keep the original (?) dialog. It sets a huge contrast between the classical poetic work and the violence. Promised to be extremely violent, it is a promise that it keeps, but not in the notion I imagined. It is very bloody indeed, but the violence is slow. Not just figuratively speaking that it is calculated, which it is too, but also literally. A lot of action is actually slowed down to slow motion and that is what brings the movie to its knees.
What could have been a unique strength, the contrast between the superfluous and poetic dialog and the extreme violence, now turns into something else entirely. Now both slow the move down painfully much, so much that it actually becomes dull and boring at times.
Also I can't figure out the context the three witches act within. Set to present time and reality I figure that such magical witchcraft had no place in the movie. Apparently it does, but to me it seems completely out of place. Not a subplot but a complete sub-story with it's own rules, completely different than the rest of the movie. Seems completely out of place. Surely it must have been possible to convert that part too to something modern. Drug-induced hallucinations perhaps (which I suspect that the director hints at but then he has left way too much witchcraft in it to be believable)? Now they only bring stretches of the movie that is clearly beside the story and I just waited for the real movie to begin again.
A clear disappointment, but maybe something for Shakespearean-buffs?
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
If you want a horrible interpretation of "MacBeth", then this is your answer. Filled with archaic Shakespearic English language in a 21st century Australian setting, this film lives to disappoint and leave you scratching your head. But that isn't all.
Not only is there sophomoric action sequences but there are plenty of scenes where the female body is displayed. The witches, played by actresses that resemble school girls more than witches, put on a soft porn display with MacBeth in a unremarkable display of affection. Welcome to stupidity and depravity - all at the same time.
Its a wonder why this project was green-lighted. So much for modern cheesy movies. "D-"


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


user
Geoffrey Wright, the director of "Romper Stomper", transplants Shakespeare's "Macbeth" in the contemporary, criminal underworld of Melbourne, Australia. The result is a semi-awful piece of cinema. Sam Worthington is Macbeth, and walks around looking very self-conscious and bored. Victoria Hill, who wrote the script with Wright, is Lady Macbeth, and she's neither awful nor good. Lachy Hulme, who plays McDuff, is the only actor in the cast who exudes any kind of authority. The rest, including Gary Sweet, are wasted and misdirected. Shot on HD by the late Will Gibson, the movie's visuals lack character. Everything is too clean and too deliberately lit. Wright's direction is uninspired in the extreme and the action sequences are confusing and inept. Marketed erroneously as "the most violent Australia movie ever", the film is violent at times and reasonably bloody, but it fails to deliver a single impactful moment. Slow moving and terribly pretentious, this umpteenth silver screen version of the classic play is the personification of wrong-headed.


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


user
Aussie Shakespeare for 18-24 set.with blood ,blood and more blood.and good dose of nudity. this will not be for every one on may levels, to violent for some too cheap for most. done on low budget they try and do there best but it only works sporadically.and this macbeth just seem to be lacking ,its just not compelling. although there is some good acting on the part of most you don't get into there heads especially mecbeths. the best performance came from gary sweet and the strangest mick molly. if your into Shakespeare then see it,but if you like your cheese mature you will love it.it not a bad film but it not that good either. sam peckenpah would of loved it, that is if it was filmed as a western. i was expecting a lot from this, as i loved romper stomper. but this is was a vacant effort.


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


user
Love sublime says the title. Another blurb during the promotions of the film talked about inner vs external beauty. Well in this case the beauty - you decide inner or external - is provided by scantily clad (or is that scantily dressed/ undressed) Zeenat Aman who the director Raj Kapoor called "a volcano of talent" while the film was being made. One can't accuse him of sarcasm of course - after all he was promoting his own film.
The paper thin plot is about a woman with a disfigured face who has a - er - well proportioned body , a great voice (thanks to Lata Mangeshkar) with whom the hero Shashi Kapoor falls in love. He doesn't want her face only her voice. The acting is desperate and even the 4 is because of the music with Lata Mangeshkar giving some good numbers. The rest is of course bunkum. Avoid - save your money. Inner beauty vs Outer beauty. !!! You need not be an Einstein to figure out which one the director was concentrating on


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 not worth the time it takes to put it in the VCR or DVD player! Michael Dudikoff and Lisa Howard are two bounty hunters in love, yet they are total opposites. She is ambitious and organized, while he is laid back and totally scatter brained.
In this movie, bad guys are chasing Jersey Bellini (Dudikoff's character). This opens the door to bad Godfather impressions, ludicrous fight scenes, and Tony Curtis playing the most effeminate looking mob boss I have ever seen! The ending has to be the most...unbelievable scene I have seen in a movie in quite some time. I would believe the Terminator, even the Matrix, has a better chance of possibly being true than this ending! This movie just reeks of cheapness. The script had to have hit someone as being totally ridiculous. Yet, the green light was given for this piece of dung to be made and let loose on on unsuspecting public. I watched this movie with several other people who all agreed that we had been cheated. No one in the group could say anything good about the film except that it was over.


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


user
I only bought this DVD because it was dirt cheap and it seemed interesting in its own special way ("special" meaning "retarded"). The movie turned out to be quite uninteresting - boring camera work, nothing really driving the story, and of course the acting is horrible. It wasn't even "bad" in a campy way - it was just plain bad. There are actually a handful of great lines of dialogue but for the most part its awkward and weak. All I could think about while watching this was that this could actually be a good movie if the script was given a major overhaul (if it were written by someone who actually understood drug culture) and if some decent actors were cast. I wouldn't recommend "Weekend With the Babysitter" unless if you plan on a career in film and want to learn what not to do in a movie.


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 just seen this film in a lovely air-conditioned cinema here in Bangkok. And since the temperature outside is hovering somewhere around 37C with very high humidity, my 100Bt was not wasted.
Failing that, I haven't seen such a piece of extremely well-made junk in a long time. This is the kind of film that provides a test of taste, as it were. Anyone who claims to like or love it goes immediately onto the same list of tasteless phonies who still go around talking about the superiority of British television. At least the gormless old broad in the wheelchair was good for a few guffaws.
Pseudo-profundity and fat lips, while characteristic of much French cinema, really do not a good movie make. I'd rather watch Independence Day 10 times in a row than sit through this stinker one more time.


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


user
After watching the first movie in BCI's new Aztec Mummy Collection, it's difficult to believe how excited I was about the set and how upset I was when the release date was pushed back. I've watched a lot of Mexican horror in recent months. Some great  The Curse of the Crying Woman. Some entertaining despite obvious flaws  Night of the Bloody Apes. And some Cheesy  Pick any Santo movie. One thing that all these movies have in common is that none can be called "dull". Well, that's not the case with The Aztec Mummy. It's been awhile since I last watched something so sleep inducing. I wasn't hoping for or expecting a great movie, but at least entertain me! The Aztec Mummy takes every situation that could be interesting and sucks the life out of it through repeated scenes of people doing nothing and then extending those scenes for what fells like an eternity. I guess that's what happens when you make an 80 minute movie with only 30 minutes of material. Padding extraordinaire! For example, for anyone who has seen the movie, what purpose does The Bat have other than to bring a masked wrestler type to the screen and to extend the runtime by 15 or so pointless minutes?
I can only hope that the other two movies in The Collection are more entertaining than 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
First of three Aztec Mummies film is the only one that to the best of my knowledge was never completely dubbed into English. The film was chopped up and used in pieces by people like Jerry Warren in other films (he combined it with another Mexican horror comedy with Lon Chaney to make Face of the Screaming Werewolf. And it showed up in Attack of the Mayan Mummy and elsewhere.) The longest of the three films, a good chunk of this film makes up the two later films which use this as a basis of flash backs. The plot of this film has a scientist conducting a past life regression experiment which causes his subject to travel back and discover hidden chambers in an Aztec pyramid. The group, as well as a sinister figure known as the Bat, hope to use the information to discover hidden treasure. Instead they discover a living mummy who has other plans. Long and long winded this film has way too little action to sustain its 80 minute running time (worse the mummy doesn't even show up until an hour has passed). Probably the least of the three films, its easy to see why this film was cut apart, it's the only way to fashion a non-sleep inducing film. Watching the film late last night I found myself fighting to stay awake. It was a tough haul and I found that I ended up scanning to the point where the mummy showed up. Given the choice I'd take a pass and watch the second two films.


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


user
Being a science fiction fan from my early childhood (long time since) I always hated implausible plots. It's a pity that most authors of science fiction stories for children do not show this kind of respect for their audience. I always suspected them of thinking: "children are to dumb to realise, so we don't have to strive". The writer of "Science Fiction (2002)" is no exception. The story is about a boy who is instigated by his new friends to spy after his parents, because they think that the parents are aliens. As intriguing the idea sounded to me, as much was I bored by its realisation. It seemed to me that the filmmakers had exactly this one idea and tried to stretch it over the ninety minutes by dunking it into a dark, stylish and painstakingly slow atmosphere. The only thing that kept me in my seat was the question "how do they manage to get out of this implausible rubbish"? And then - bang - they did not even try. So if you are looking for good entertainment for both children and parents, go and watch "Klatretøsen (2002)" instead.


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


user
First off just to say i didn't get the edition I thought I would - I chose the Italian version over the R2, but what actually arrived was a UK release from 1998 - claiming to be a special edition - i never knew there WAS a UK DVD release - but the promised biogs were not actually on the disc - just a couple of duff trailers. Anyway - as to the film itself - just as I was recovering from "Night TRain Murders" my second genital mutilation thriller turns up in the same month - this time in (an Italian) UK nubile schoolgirls are being offed and Teacher Fabio Testi - (unhappily) married but nailing one of his students - becomes the main suspect. Joachim Fuchsberger is the detective on the case. Sorry to say I was less than entranced. It was watchable but more than equally miss able,and aside from the aforementioned gruesome nature of the crime, the "surprise" killing of Cristina Galbo which was actually "spoilt" by the DVD cover telling me about it - Grrrrrr!!!! and a surprise twist that cast the "victims" in a new light - i thought this was very routine. Itwont put me off the two "sequels" though. with Karin (Hannibal Brooks)Baal and Camille (I Spit on your grave") Keaton.


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


user
Solange is not a great Italian thriller. Get ready for the spoiler - the main suspect, the professor, didn't do it. But is it really a spoiler? No, because you know that he couldn't have been the murderer from the very beginning; he and a student witnessed the first murder. So, there is absolutely no suspense as to whether or not the professor is the killer. There is a long, tedious build up to the final explanation of the mystery. The solution is interesting, but it comes out of nowhere. The rest of the movie (and it's not a short movie) is just not exciting enough to hold your interest. Even in the tradition of "wrong man accused" it fails, because the police never seriously accuse the professor, and the killer is never after him. Dull, dull, dull.


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


user
I love watching a good gory giallo. Unfortunately, SOLANGE is definitely not one of them. It's long. Very long. The story is tacky and makes very little sense even if it's very obvious. The script spends so much time on the killings and the girls but it spends almost no time at all on the killer. This leaves a big hole in the story: we might get to see a bunch of young women showering together but we get zero characterization of why the killer decided to murder those girls. Yes, what happened to Solange is terrible but we still pretty much left in the dark over when, why did the [boring] killer decided that it was worth going through the effort of offing those oh so naughty girls. It's all so contrived that I couldn't get into it one bit.
As for the look of the film, again, boring. Nothing memorable about it. The actors? Boring. The script? Laughably boring. The whole "torrid" love affair between the teacher, the blond and the student was really embarrassing. What planet are they living on? The music? Boring. Skip it.


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


user
Let me preface by stating that I have lived in Louisville, Kentucky all of my life. I grew up about ½ mile from Waverly. In the wintertime we would pull our sleds down Maryman road and cross Dixie Highway to go sleigh riding on Waverly Hill. Many times during the winter of 76-77 we would climb into the Tunnel to warm ourselves. The place was still being run as a "Geriatric Center" at the time. We would go all the way through the tunnel up the hill to bang on what we thought was the "Door to the Morgue". I have to be honest. The only sensation we felt was that we were getting away with something we should not be doing. I would have to say we went up that tunnel over 50 times that winter. Nothing stranger than teen-aged boys acting stupid ever happened. I love the fact that it is getting attention after all these years. One evening when I was young we looked out our front porch and it appeared that the entire hill was on fire. There was an older hospital on the hill that burned down. It burned for hours while the entire neighborhood sat outside and watched. The thing that gets lost about Waverly is that many people survived TB there. Let's face itThe doctors back then did everything they thought was correct to save people. It took a lot of guts for people to work there knowing how contagious TB was. Too much is focused on those who suffered. I also have traveled into the building several times in the early 70's. We would go and visit shut-ins in the Nursing Home through a church youth group. By the way, the doors there were not prison like steel doors with chains and padlocks as portrayed in the film. They were wooden and opensometimes too open. It did smell of urine and feces and you saw the occasional open gown associated with patients with dementia. It was true that it was closed by the state in the early 80's. A lot of that may have to do with the age of the building or the right guy wasn't paid off. This is after all Kentucky. The part of the documentary that turned me off the most was the piling of bodies into a cart. If I am not mistaken it appears to have been Holocaust footage. That was added for dramatic effect. It left me with a sour taste in my mouth for the filmmaker. I am a skeptic when it comes to "Ghosts". I do believe that many around here truly think the place to be haunted. Waverly for me however symbolized a fun place for adventure for a boy with a sled.


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


user
I am very into Waverly Hills and first watched Death Tunnel The Movie.Couldn't have been much worse. Then I heard that the documentary was coming out and got excited thinking that since it was a documentary it would be more serious and not have the horrible special effects.Wrong the same guys did the documentary and ruined it with effects instead of producing it raw the way a documentary should be.Waverly Hills doesn't need help with goofy effects its fine just the way it is. Tours are $20.00 per person and $100.00 for 8 hour overnight investigation per person minimal group of 10 for overnight investigation.Tours must be set up ahead of time. Awesome place for the Ghost Hunter!


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


user
I watched this AFTER seeing "Death Tunnel" (this being, without question, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life) so you can understand I went in rolling my eyes a little at seeing the directors and producers of that cinematic gem being in charge of this one. First of all, I thought the director and producer were the same guy. They both are Kid Rock meets Dawg the Bounty Hunter. I watched the TAPS investigation, and I am not a skeptic- I think TAPS is the closest one will ever get to a scientific method in the field. That was cool and believable- I do believe they are haunted.
But this, like the reviewer above mentioned, like taking a tour. Okay a tour, fine, but the "investigators" and "group leaders" seemed to make a pretty penny and have a financial investment into whether its haunted or not, so when THEY have fantabulous stories, I have to take it with a heaping teaspoon of salt.
As someone else mentioned, I could make out whatever they wanted me to see in the picture about 50% of the time. The rest of the time, I couldn't make out anything. Also without any context to the photos- time of day, type of camera, moisture in the room, dust particles (which 75% are what the orbs are), weather and a ga-gillion other factors, I cant accept them. I also cant help thinking that some might be doctored.
Why would that band keep the numbers from the door? Vandalism? Also during the TAPS investigation, they tried to dig up the death certificates of those nurses- and they only found one which was ruled "accidental" (people didn't want to officially proclaim suicide). Yet when one of the guides was mentioning this, he said "yep, and its marked suicide." It really felt like the guides to the haunted houses here in October.
I DID however like the interviews with the patients and staff from the old hospital(s), that really gave it a lot of perspective and a personal touch. I'm also glad that they mentioned that the staff had the best of intentions, and weren't some ghoulish-wardens. They weren't the best methods, but its all they had. They were desperate to stop the disease.


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 film I saw from these people was "Children of the Grave" and when I heard that this one was coming on I thought it would be good to watch mostly because Waverly is a real place that is rumored to be haunted. This documentary/film was AWFUL! There was too much fake commentary from the producers, directors, camera men...they needed to keep their faces out of this film. Waverly has been rumored to be haunted for a long time yet if anyone in doubt about it watches this film they will no doubt start to believe that every story about the place is as fake as this documentary. The paranormal proof was horrible and almost non-existent. I have heard better EVPs from high school students with tape recorders in a bathroom! They tried too hard to make things scary and the end result was that nothing was scary. Not the stories, not the blurry too dark to see anything videos, not the pictures, not the tape recordings! Children of the Grave was bad as well but at least it had some substance and a little bit of a creep factor. The only reason I am giving this a 3 is because the history portion of the show was very good and informative. Learning about how the hospital came about, the daily life there,and how it ended was the only thing worth while in this 2hr piece of crap.


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


user
Basically, this was obviously designed to be promotional material for the movie produced by the same horrible director, which happens to be even worse than this documentary and absolutely the worst movie I've ever seen, so avoid it at all costs.
As for this documentary, it's entertaining; entertaining and blatantly misleading! Most of the "historical" looking footage is most likely just that, historical footage from completely unrelated events that were sadly cut and pasted into this documentary to make it more dramatic than it would have ever been otherwise. There's no doubt that Waverly is a pretty interesting place with plenty of it's own fascinating history, but manufacturing a documentary to market the locale and the related production is, for lack of better words, appallingly useless.
And yes, I've lived in Kentucky my whole life, and I have visited the location numerous times. Waverly Hills deserves respect; and there's nothing respectful about this lame documentary.


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


user
How is this a documentary? Much more like a walking ghost tour one might take in any given Southern city. Quotes were generously dropped throughout without the first effort at identifying the source. George Orwell was the most identified quoter.
Documents were referred to without ever being produced in any form. Flat out fraudulent shots depicting period film stock were spliced aside historical film reels with no separation from reality and self-promotion. Film reels which were entirely unrealistic and improbable for the time at hand were dropped in, as if trying to ape Blair Witch, hoping to drum up a spook house on what would otherwise simply be dead real estate.
Is this not in some way a great disrespect to actual victims of TB, a dance on their collective graves for the sake of commercialism? The line between actual footage and manufactured self-service is so thin; the drippings of doubt so insignificantly played down; the scientific boundaries so blatantly ignored... how could this possibly be listed in my TiVo as documentary?
It's a vacation promo, and at that it fully succeeds.
Hell, I'd visit the joint if I could locate it on Google Earth. Not scary said a previous poster. Not too serious either, says I. Fascinating story. Flimsy 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
It was like someone was trying to make a scary video game and a documentary at the same time. The historical aspect was great. Everything else was horrible, the plugs for the directors other movie that seemed to happen every other minute, the video of the actual ghost hunting was edited like a scary movie rather than an investigation, they had haunted house music and sound effects that would distract you from what was happening. THanks for wasted 2 hours of my time! When there was evidence, it would fly by! Most of it was just people talking about the place.The episode of the Ghosthunters show that went there absolutely destroys how this show was. I am so upset with sci fi channel for playing this, I haven't watched it since it aired.


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 just a long advertisement for the movie "The Death Tunnel". Although it is an interesting history of the Waverly Hills Sanatorium, the whole ghost theory is up to your interpretation. More "Ghost Orbs" which you can duplicate with dust in front of a flash camera, and the "Ectoplasmic Mist" is just someone's cigarette smoke lit up with the camera flash. I couldn't see any "Shadow People" until they drew an outline around the blurry distortion of the image. No scientific explanations were suggested for the phenomena, only paranormal. Perhaps these are only events one would have to see to believe, so be sure to make plans to visit the Sanatorium on your next vacation in Louisville, Kentucky.


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


user
The incomparable Paul Naschy, horror film icon of Spain, lends his talents to this entertaining if not scattershot film. What begins as an action flick ends up a horror story. All I can say is just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Paul Naschy plays a cold-hearted hit-man hired by some shady Japanese diamond hunters (one of which is his flame who is carrying his child) to swipe a cache of diamonds from a Belgian businessman. When the deed is done, the allure of the diamonds is too tempting for Paul to dismiss so he kills his Japanese cohorts. His girlfriend, whose brother Paul killed, vows revenge and chases Paul through the forest, shooting him up and leaving him for dead. However, Paul is found by an egghead with two horny daughters and brought to his estate to recuperate.
At the estate, the two daughters, Silvia Aguilar and Azucena Hernandez, fight for Paul in his weakened state, with the busty Silvia Aguilar determined not to lose out to the sweet and prim Azucena. But things get hairy for Mr. Naschy who begins to see the ghost of the daughter's long dead mother on the estate grounds. Couple this with the Japanese lass looking to finish the job of killing Paul and he gets pulled from two sides.
STORY: $$ (The story goes a number of ways and doesn't fully satisfy. The script builds up a fight for Paul between the daughters but Silvia, whose character seems assertive and volatile, simply lets Azucena win in the Paul Naschy sweepstakes without putting up a fight. Personally, I would have preferred the ghostly apparition story to the revenge seeking of the Japanese woman)
VIOLENCE: $$$ (You get gunplay, a blown-up babe and pigs eating some poor schmuck alive. Gore hounds will not be letdown with this Naschy flick).
ACTING: $$$ (Paul Naschy, as always, is fun to watch but he does spend a bit too much time in bed recovering from his wounds. Starring with him again are the luscious Silvia Aguilar and the beautiful Azucena Hernandez, who teamed with Mr. Naschy in the little gem "The Craving." Both girls do a fine job).
NUDITY: $$$ (You get very brief glimpses of both Aguilar and Hernandez but they are strategically placed, keeping the naught bits covered. Full nudity is supplied by the two lesser appealing actresses: the Japanese woman chasing Paul and the African maid that works for Silvia and Azucena).


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 read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!


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 my opinion of this movie, expressed in its dialogs.
To be more serious, i can't say this movie is a bad moment but i didn't enjoy it either.
First, I was simply indifferent & couldn't get my mind into the apes world. Even though the make-up are very realistic, the constant screaming was irritating. May the film have changed apes for cats and it's a cult movie for me in relation to my fondness of the latter.
The second part is more interesting, with the talent and freshness of then newcomers (Macdowell & Lambert), but i felt alienated: all the story is located in a big British mansion: no matter how luxurious is it, it was like a prison for me.
At last, it could be a good adaptation of the Burroughs' story of Tarzan ? I don't know, having never read the book (or seen the Disney): .
In conclusion, i don't have any good moments to remember, so one viewing would be enough for me.
I should have guessed my boredom after the endless freeze called "Overture" at the beginning... What's the meaning? Only the director knows it.


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


user
I am very interested in animal children and I have read many Edger Rice Burroughs novels -- but this awful movie couldn't keep me interested, nor could I stomach all the absurd, unrealistic scenes. I only managed to sit through the Africa part and John's first few days in Scotland. Let's talk about 'unrealistic' and 'downright silly'! The actors in ape suits looked like extra large chimps, rather than great apes (there is a difference). They did not move with the grace that a wild animal would. (For comparison, see some of the better Planet of the Apes movies where they trained their actors to move in simian fashion). The apes eat large haunches of meat -- not a common ape practice as far as I know. I am a sucker for animal stories but the script did not make me care about the apes. The great white hunters of the expedition that finds John Clayton are charicaturish entirely. The parents of Clayton were shipwrecked on an ocean beach, but somehow it is a very long trip down the river to get to the coast -- give me a break! Let's talk about 'slow'. Even the folks who think this is an excellent movie admit that it is not an action movie. Far from it. It tries to be a character study -- unfortunately the downright silly part predominates! I did not read Burroughs' Tarzan books, but many of his other series -- they were packed with meaningful action and heroic purpose! This film just isn't there.


assistant
0