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
"The Evil That Men Do" begins with a truly repellent torture scene, followed, a little later, by graphic verbal descriptions of equally repellent torture methods that the sadistic, heartless villain likes to use. But despite the use of such strictly-for-shock effects, the filmmakers can't really cover up the fact that this is just a dull, low-grade Bronson vehicle. Bronson himself is solid here, but he should have chosen a better script.


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


user
The Evil that Men Do (1984) was one of the few non-Cannon films Charlie Bronson made during the 80's. Unlike most of the Cannon films Charlie starred in, this one wasn't fun or entertaining. Charlie basically tortures and brutalizes people for over an hour and a half. If you thought he was Mr. Emotion before, wait until you see this!
In this one, Charlie goes to an unnamed Central American country and shows the populace that whoever messes with Chuck or his people have to pay the piper. This one is no fun. It's not cheesy or campy, just brutal, sadistic and not in a good way.
I didn't like this one. I have no love for this film. No recommendations because it's not worth watching. Maybe if they didn't cut the hell out of it. Watch with precaution.
Don't bother.


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


user
Bronson took the money and ran with this film; he must have house payments like me! This low budget film made in Mexico reminds me of a few of those Italians stinkers from over seas. I heard, I do not know if this is true, but companies make these films in foreign countries for tax purposes. I believe this because why else would they make this film, it sure wasn't to make money. We had a whole lot of these Canadian made stinkers, because the government gave tax breaks to create a movie industry. I wonder if it payed off in the other countries like in Canada. Anyway, back to topic this film is poorly made in every aspect, I believe they grabbed Charles Bronson in order to sell this stinker; that dead body at the end looks very phony. 3/10


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


user
Other reviews have talked about how frank this film is, especially in terms of male frontal nudity. Well, those who've seen Grande Ecole with its frequently naked actors and expect something similar are in for a big disappointment. Other than a few seconds in the judo team locker room, the two leads' side by side shower lasts a grand total of 15 seconds. The female lead has comparably brief frontal moments. A lot of this film's marketing is geared to the gay male audience, but those expecting even a hint of homoeroticism between the two male leads (best friends who have a three-way with the girlfriend of one of them) will be most disappointed. There is not even the hint of either one's being interested in the other, or even scarcely aware that the other is part of the menage a trois. As a film, Douches Froides is curiously uninvolving; the viewer gets very little sense of who these three young people are, of how they are feeling, of why they behave as they do. About one hour of the original cut was deleted; perhaps this is why the finished film seems frustratingly undeveloped. Stick with Grande Ecole, a French film which more than delivers on its promises.


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


user
I chose this movie because I was looking for a triangle friendship between a girl & two boys. As I lived this situation and get lost in it, I hope a similar story would inspire me.
My major concerns are: - Why (a) & How (b) the triangle forms ? - Why (c) & How (d) the triangle degenerates ?
(a) The movie offers a plain answer: "because it's better !".
(b) here, it's an open triangle: the three share things together. Mine was a closed one: every ones knows the others but never the three are together or speak about the missing one:
(c) The movie doesn't offer spoken explanations but rather prefer visual & emotional assumptions: the end comes with sensuality, sexuality coming up in the triangle, or more accurately, when for one member, deep feelings are tied with intimacy, and, as for the latter and the former, they can be divided. I agree with that.
(d) In the movie & in my story, silence is the proof that something isn't well.. And in a ironic and painful way, the tool for this sad times, is always the phone: I lived this dreadful planned phone-call: "Call me back: I wait you" and when time comes, the phone is silent. A variation is also shown, when the line is connected but one refuses to speak All those scenes were very very hard to see for me.
If the movie was a great help in that way, he got also a lot of flaws:
- I zapped on the boy's family problems
- why the shower scene on the DVD cover is cut on the movie?
- how Mickael gets finally into the hotel ?
- is Clément always seeing Salomé ? he says "no" but has her address; and who is the girl with him in the bar: his girlfriend ? how can she knows about the address ???
- what finally happens to Vanessa: the ring at the final shoot is a proof of engagement ??? with whom ?????


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


user
It's been a long time since I have been in the art-house theater and I went to see Douches Froides because it has gotten such great reviews in the papers.
The thing is with this movie, is that it has no head or tail, but merely a section in time about the life of the three main characters.
When it started I already knew that it was gonna be a long sit down, but sometimes things can get better, in this case not. There is no real character development or interconnection between the players. You start in the middle of a situation, all of the sudden there's a girlfriend and then there's a guy with whom he needs to be friends with in order to fulfill his sports ambitions, but the way they are put together is quite odd, since they are "just put together", so it seems.
And all of the sudden they have sex with each other, at least one you can see of. The feeling of guilt or jealousy with the other guy is hardly noticeable and really all I could think of during the movie was "when are they gonna have sex again?". And when you think of it, it's quite insane really. Because it basically means there is nothing really worth looking at, but three teens going at it and that, for me at least, makes it a very crappy movie, stay clear from it and save your money (my 7,50 is wasted), there are better art-house movies than this one.
I give three stars for the acting performance, one each.


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 about a man who likes to blow himself up on gas containers.
He also loves his mommy. So, to keep the money coming in, he takes his act to Broadway.
SEE! CODY POWERS JARRETT BLOW HIMSELF UP ON HIS BIGGEST GAS CONTAINER YET! TONIGHT! 7.30PM!
However, one day, his mommy dies and Jarrett goes berserk. He kidnaps the audience in the theatre and makes them all stand on top of a huge gas cylinder.
Losing control further, he makes them all scream "MADE IT MA, TOP OF THE CYLINDER!" in unison.
The noise is so deafening that it bursts Jarrets eardrums, causing him to topple from the cylinder into a vat of acid.
This Warner Bros. movie is not all it's cracked up to be.


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


user
Ed (Kel Mitchell) is a teenager who lives for his job at Good Burger, a small but friendly neighborhood hamburger stand, while his buddy Dexter (Kennan Thompson) also works there, but lack Ed's single-minded devotion to his job he's there because he accidentally destroyed the car of his teacher Mr. Wheat (Sinbad) and has to raise money to pay the damages. When Mondo Burger, a mammoth fast-foot chain, opens across the street, it looks like Good Burger is history, until Ed formulates a secret sauce that brings hundreds of new customers to their door. However, the monomaniacal manager of Mondo Burger, Kurt (Jan Schweiterman), is determined to get his hands on the sauce and put Good Burger out of business. Meanwhile, Ed and Dexter must rescue Otis (Abe Vigoda), the world's oldest fast food employee, from the Demented Hills Asylum, and Ed might just find love with Monique (Shar Jackson) if he could take his mind off the burgers long enough to pay attention to her. Good Burger is a comedy directed for kids, decent story, acting, and overall a pretty harmless kids movie.


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


user
The cast of "All That" returns for good humor in the "Good Burger" a place similar to an old fashioned fast food restaurant. The comedy is terrific, the fun is non-stop, and though cliché, is a passer for kid and family comedy.
A movie for all ages, this movie is meant to enjoy, laugh, and pretty much a lazy movie for a rainy day, as that's what I'd save this movie for, a rainy day. USA aired it today, and since I know that the cast of "All That" is in it, I thought that it might be a bit of a chuckle burner, but in good fun, as Keenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell (probably one of the best young duos of that time) were terrific together, the pieces came together, and everything worked out, and it made it into good family fun together with some lazy day work to get off the bad day.
May I take your order?


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


user
Attractive husband and wife writing team Robert Wagner (as Joel Gregory) and Kate Jackson (as Donna Gregory) arrive at the spooky mansion of actress "Lorna Love" (actually, silent film star Harold Lloyd's house). Mr. Wagner and Ms. Jackson are contracted to write the silent movie star's biography. Wagner has a personal interest in the project, since his father was once the famed star's lover. Mysterious events unfold, and Jackson must fight to save her husband from the spirit of the beautiful blonde, who is "perfectly preserved" in a crypt on the estate; moreover, the evil woman seems bent on possessing her husband, and murdering Jackson!
This is very much a "Night of Dark Shadows" variation, co-starring genuine "Dark Shadows" alumni Kate Jackson, who knows and plays her part well. Robert Wagner lacks David Selby's intensity. Sylvia Sidney (as Mrs. Josephs) sidesteps Grayson Hall. Marianna Hill is not a match for Lara Parker (or Diana Millay). Bill Macy (as Oscar Payne) is good in a part that would have been played by John Karlen (in a Dan Curtis production).
There are smooth cameos by Joan Blondell, John Carradine, and Dorothy Lamour. Ms. Lamour's delivery resembles Joan Bennett, which begs the question: why didn't producer Aaron Spelling get more of the original "Dark Shadows" regulars?
Director E.W. Swackhamer was Bridget Hanley's husband; he worked with Ms. Blondell on "Here Come the Brides", and with Jackson on "The Rookies". "Death at Love House" has, arguably, a tighter storyline than the "Night of Dark Shadows" film; it differs in the movie star angle; and, in its "Father Eternal Fire" ending, it more closely resembles the TVseries' "Laura the Phoenix" storyline.
**** Death at Love House (9/3/76) E.W. Swackhamer ~ Robert Wagner, Kate Jackson, Sylvia Sidney


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


user
The 70s were without a doubt the golden age of "made-for-TV" horror. This is one of those that was probably churned out as an ABC movie of the week. It's the old story of a house and/or ghost possessing one of the new owners. The movie has promise, but it's never realized. Everything is rushed too much. Tension and suspense need time to build and grow. And there's nothing new. We've seen it all before and one better.
One final thought: I don't understand why Robert Wagner's character would fall for the long dead movie star when he's married to Kate Jackson for goodness sake!!!


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


user
Don't worry - no spoilers here, just saying there is a very predictable plot. A couple decide to live in his father's love nest so they can write a book/article/newsletter on his fling with a famous tragic Hollywood starlet. This whole production ran kind of like a high school troupe doing an episode of "Murder She Wrote". The only acting I was sold on was the old fogy's they interviewed for sources in the story. Apparently the directors thought the movie was getting too long, so towards the end they stopped pointing their camera to a kind of creepy image of the starlet and brought in plot enhancers to wrap this thing up. Don't waste your time - even the tried and true horror/intrigue classics fail in this movie.


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


user
This movie is not so good as I thought it would be. There is no story whatsoever, no characters and some dialog would have been nice. The gore effects are good and it gets quite bloody at times but nothing over the top. It starts with an autopsy on a man and when that is over the scene with the girl starts. The music is a classic score and fits the movie very well. They should have made a 90 minutes version in which they could have had some time for character development so we can feel sorry for the person on the autopsy table. And some more info about the morticians would have made this movie far scarier than it is. Don't expect a scary movie but a nice, gory special effects reel.


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


user
OK so this is about 30 minutes of gore with no story whatsoever. There is no spoken dialogue, no subtitles, not even any real characters. You see three people in the entire movie (that are alive) and two are just there for very little reason. The main guy has no emotion and just mutilates corpses for no apparent reason. That is the entire movie. I love to see very gory movies, especially since in America real gore just isn't very common in modern movies. So yeah the gore effects were pretty cool. But it just isn't really disturbing. Why does everyone think it's so disturbing? There are no characters at all, there are just 3 living people and 3 corpses. No one has any personality or back story. You see three corpses being hacked apart and you can't really identify with it unless you just identify with death itself and how this could very well happen (despite the guy losing his job and going to jail very shortly after.) To be disturbing the viewer has to care and to care they have to identify with the victim. For example in a good horror movie you should really care about the main character. Here it's just a guy and a corpse. It's as deep as a puddle made from only a single rain drop. They never give you any reason to care about anyone in the movie. All it is a guy hacking up a few bodies, then he has sex with a body. Now with the sex scene here is an odd thing about it, he makes sure to wear gloves but doesn't use a condom. So he couldn't care less about catching some weird STD from having sex with a corpse but as long as his hands don't get messy there is no problem, now that is really logical. I don't really dislike the movie, I liked that it was very gory but when it ends there is no reason to watch it again, no reason to even care, and it just isn't a very compelling movie. I say if you can find it for under 10 dollars then you might as well get it but if it's more than that it just isn't worth it.


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


user
Honestly - this short film sucks. the dummy used in the necro scene is pretty well made but still phony enough looking to ruin the viewing experience. the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear and I haven't made up my mind if this helps or hinders it. If the film was a little grainy it might have added some "creepiness factor" to what was going on. I have no idea why this film has so much hype surrounding it other than the subject matter - but to be honest the necrophilia scenes in films like NEKROMANTIK and VISITOR Q among others, are more shocking than in AFTERMATH. All this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****. This is an expensive, beautifully filmed turd. It's not that shocking, it's not that disgusting. if you insist on viewing it - rent it. I give it a 3 for the fact that not many people make explicit movies about necrophilia (there should definitely be a bigger selection for us sickos ;) - the filming is good and it does have some "gore" (if watching a rubbery looking doll get cut open is considered gore...) but other than that - absolutely nothing going for this over-hyped mess. On the other hand - GENESIS - Cerda's "sequel" to AFTERMATH (now available as a "double feature" released by Unearthed films) is an absolute masterpiece of a short film, really showing what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material. Although I don't care for AFTERMATH at all, GENESIS is so well made that I will forgive Cerda and Definitely keep an eye out for him in the future...


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


user
As a serious marathoner, I was seriously disappointed in this film. Its target audience is clearly those who have never run a marathon, or novice marathoners. Following the stories of 2 first-time marathoners, one senior, one injured runner, and two elites as they prepare for the Chicago marathon, the film dedicates the majority of its attention to one female beginner whose story is, for lack of a better word, boring. While I did enjoy the brief glimpses into the training sessions of Deena Kastor, the brief history of the Boston marathon and marathoning in general, let me emphasize: These were brief!! Watching some Joe Runners prepare for a Saturday run with their water bottles and talking about how they view the marathon is not inspiring, and the nonstop clichés about achievement and feel-good grinning runners will make you wish the film were about an hour shorter. If you are a first-time marathoner, this film may give you a feeling of "I can do it." For anyone else, run away.


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


user
I saw this movie with a friend who ran a marathon with me, and we both had the same feeling about it: it wasn't terribly motivating, and didn't even broach the idea of what a training schedule would look like, so that non-marathoners could have an idea of what it would take for them to train and run one. In fact there was almost zero technical information at all. I didn't expect this to be a tech-heavy instructional video, but when that info was near zero then the film just wasn't balanced, and wasn't particularly useful to non-marathoners contemplating their first run.
There were other problems. Some of the very first images were people collapsing near death while trying to run a race. Yeah, real inspiring. The timing was also hard to follow, because it was semi chronological, but the filmmakers rarely gave you any good clues as to what point in time you were looking at. And they withheld information. You see that Kantor has an injury, and you just assume it's from all her training, but then several scenes later they finally clue you in that it's because she tripped over a pine cone in her yard.
Some parts were very good, though, like the bit about a woman defying race officials who wanted the run to be men-only, and the coverage of a Chicago race where two of the runners portrayed earlier were vying for first place.
Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of other chronological documentaries, like Supersize Me, and Grass, where you always know where you are, and you feel like they told you everything you wanted to know.
In short, it wouldn't have been hard to make a better marathon film, and as it stands I can't recommend this to non-marathoners to educate and motivate them to try one, because I don't think it will have that effect.


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 a fan of the old SCTV show from the late 70's and early 80's and John Candy was a major reason why. He was given very funny off the wall characters and was simply hilarious. Unfortunately he could not get these roles to play in the movies. Time after time I was disappointed by the mediocre movies in which he was almost playing the "straight" role instead of the funny guy. "Armed and Dangerous" rarely tries to use John's comedic abilities, or that of Harold Ramis, for that matter. It is simply a very predictable cops and robbers type of movie. If you are a John Candy or Harold Ramis fan the movie is watchable, just don't expect to laugh much.


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


user
It's really too bad that John Candy wasted his skills on so many horrible films (Delirious, Wagons East, Who's Harry Crumb?, etc.. This one has maybe a few chuckles, but it's mostly just really bad one-liners and dumb physical stuff. Let's honor this comedian's memory by remembering things like Planes, Trains & Automobiles and Uncle Buck.


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


user
John Candy and Eugene Levy star as inept security guards who chase down a big time mobster. Inept is truly the right word for this alleged comedy...a few laughs but mostly groans and thoughts to yourself like "why am I watching this c**p?" Yes that is Meg Ryan in this too..which i am sure she doesnt want to be reminded of..a waste of a talented cast..on a scale of one to ten ..0


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


user
ARMED AND DANGEROUS is not one of the greats of John Candy. This film about a fired cop who ends up working for a small security system run by the mob is very weak and not very much a comedy. There are some moments that I did enjoy, like looking at Candy in a pilot suit, but it doesn't seem to matter much. ARMED AND DANGEROUS is still a dangerously disappointing dud brought to us by the director of the equally dumb actioner COMMANDO. What a sad excuse for a comedy!
1 out of 5


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


user
i didn't hate this one. i just couldn't adapt to the story. it didn't really grab me. Michael Mann is a very good director but i have to disagree with his methods in this. i'm also a fan of Daniel Day Lewis. some projects he's been in are pretty rubbish but his acting is brilliant. my favourite Daniel Day Lewis films are There Will Be Blood and Gangs Of New York.
there is one thing i loved about this and that was the musical score, it gave the film a lot of atmosphere. thats about all i liked in it though. this film has a high vote as well which is a bit random. i can see that a fair few people will like this but not enough to make the overall rating 7.8.
i would give this film a miss if i was you but there is a lot of high votes for this so i guess you should watch it and make your own views on what you think. i didn't really like it............. 4/10.............j.d Seaton


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


user
Personally, I didn't really gain a whole lot from THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES. I've noticed a lot of really highly rated reviews on here for the film, and I'm kinda surprised. Maybe I missed something that other reviewers felt "moved" by but I found the film pretty tedious and basically pointless.
The "action" of the film is a bunch of autopsy footage that is filmed in an "art-house" style - lots of extreme close-ups, weird editing, etc...and with no sound or dialogue.
I guess THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES could be considered a study of human anatomy, or maybe (if you really wanna dig a little) some sort of comment on the fragility of humanity or whatever - but I personally found it to be a bunch of semi-interesting but ultimately dull autopsy footage. If that's your thing, then this will be a winner for you. As for me - I've seen more interesting ER footage. Not a "bad" film, as it isn't really a "film" in any traditional sense - I just found nothing really notable about it - 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
Eaten Alive follows a young woman (Janet Agren) who searches for her lost sister. Turns out her sister have joined a sect that has disappeared into the jungles of Borneo. With Vietnam veteran Mark at her side she sets off to find her sister.
As per usual, the acting isn't of the highest quality but you do get cannibal flick poster girl Me Me Lai spending most of the time on screen with her breast bare, female lead Janet Agren covered in gold paint and abused with a dildo dipped in snake blood among other things. Now that's gotta count for something!
But, I must say that I find it bit hard to recommend this title. If you are fan of the genre, you will most likely recognize every gore scene in the movie bar a select few. And I mean that literally. A lot of the gore scenes are lifted straight out other Cannibal movies, like MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and LAST CANNIBAL WORLD. There's probably more movies stuck in there.
Ultimately, this is one for die-hard fans to check off their list. If you haven't seen any Italian jungle movies, you'd be better off watching CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and if you're an avid fan, you have seen most of the gore scenes in other movies.


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


user
Eaten Alive is a little film that opens in New York city and the arctic where tribe men shoot snake venom at a few people,then a woman enters the police precinct who's trying to find her sister that has disappeared after 6 months Sheila is from Alabama,but her accent sucks,she is teamed up with an adventurer who seems to just want her money and seems to say it a lot throughout the film.They venture through the amazon only to find a community with people and they find the sister,they're confronted by a mad man who has probably seen one too many Jim Jones preaches.He will bring them to a better place,it could be heaven but no,Mark and Sheila find out later its actually a suicide cult.
Why do I call Eaten Alive a "little film"? Ill tell you but when I watched it,I was floored through all the run ins with the cannibals,Robert Kerman has a different role than his professor in Cannibal Holocaust.He's a bit annoying,once we meet him at an arm wrestling match that looked like Russian roulette we know hes one tough guy.Plus the strong misogyny just makes you cringe and it looked like I saw it somewhere,oh the scenes of animals killing each other.But the whole film revolves on those scenes,its like were actually watching a images of nature with parts of a film But after watching this film I realized that most of the films scenes are taken from other cannibal films,even the demise of 2 of the characters,well..most of the film is.That's why I call this a little film,when I did found out that scenes were borrowed I felt like throwing the disc across the room,this isn't a film just a simple montage of sorts .


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


user
An Asian blowgun assassin takes out victims in Niagara Falls and New York City before getting run over by a car. Sheila Morris (former Miss Sweden Janet Agren, given a hilarious "Southern belle" dub to show she's from Alabama) finds a connection between these killings and the disappearance of her sister Diana (Paola Senatore) and sets out to investigate. This brings her to New Guinea where she promises a sleazy guide (Robert Kerman i.e. American porn star R. Bolla) 80,000 dollars to help locate her sister. After barely making it through a jungle full of bloodthirsty cannibals, they finally locate Diana, who's under the control of Jim Jones-type cult leader Jonas Melvyn (Ivan Rassimov). Jonas does the typical mad guru-style things, like passing out LSD, initiating group suicide, threatening to kill anyone who disobeys him and raping Agren with a giant dong dipped in cobra blood. Every once in awhile a character will look to the right or left and see a gory scene lifted directly from JUNGLE HOLOCAUST or MAN FROM DEEP RIVER (both of which were also directed by Lenzi). I'm pretty sure they also use at least two scenes from CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST as well. Here we get the expected animal slaughter scenes (gutting a gator; natives eating live snakes), plus some additional nudity and a castration. Me Me Lai shows up to give her breast implants another workout playing a widow who is gang banged by three of her brother in laws on top of the ashes of her freshly cremated husband. Mel Ferrer briefly appears as a professor and isn't given much to do.
So anyway, with MANGIATI VIVI! you pretty much get a promise fulfilled with all the nudity, gore, dead animals and bad taste you expect with one of these titles, so if you're a sleaze hound, by all means watch it. Personally, I got bored with it about midway through and just wanted it to end. The original (heavily cut) U.S. release in 1985 was titled THE EMERALD JUNGLE in order to trick people into thinking they were actually renting John Boorman's EMERALD FOREST. It was also called DOOMED TO DIE and EATEN ALIVE BY CANNIBALS!


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


user
Largely forgettable tale in which mercenary Kerman & employer Agren travel into the jungle in search of Agren's missing sister.
Despite its connection to the cannibal movie family, this film is more of an extreme version of Rene Cardona's "Guyana - Crime of the Century". Lenzi clearly aims to exploit the (at that time) topical Jonestown massacre, by depicting a rogue, self righteous zealot with a penchant for bigamy and just a hint of megalomania (played with ruthless intensity by Ivan Rassimov) leading his motley crew flock into self inflicted oblivion. With sister in toe, Kerman & Agren attempt to stop the rot, but after several failed coups, they end up fleeing into the "Green Inferno", only to run afoul the locals and their notorious appetites.
One in a string of excessive gore fests that emerged in the late seventies/early eighties, where every new addition seemed to engage in a one-upmanship contest with its predecessor, by attempting to contrive the most gory and graphic display ever brought to motion pictures. This inferior instalment employs all the motifs and gimmicks of the others, but with much less success.
Was it the so called "Amazonian natives" who looked like they were Bollywood rejects (this film was made on location in Sri Lanka), or the inept "decapitation" and "castration" scenes that seriously diminished the authenticity that was apparent in "Cannibal Holocaust"? You can decide. Without spoiling the conclusion, it appeared as though Lenzi put more emphasis in his shock and awe climax than in the basic requirement for a cohesive ending, where all loose ends are resolved. Most unsatisfying.
As with the others, where the extent of the graphic depictions of violence toward humans is limited (thankfully), the filmmakers have spared no extreme in inflicting the worst possible cruelty on hapless animals in their pursuit of the most sadistic shocks. Unfortunately, the only thing shocking about this film is that it rates a mention among others of the ilk, that deal with the subject matter more convincingly.
If there are any redeemable features at all, Kerman is an affable if somewhat one-dimensional leading man, and his bevy of scantily clad co-stars (Agren, Lai and Senatore) provide some visual respite from the relentless slayings.


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


user
Eaten Alive plays out like a bad rehearsal for the following year's Cannibal Ferox. The characters are universally bland, the locations are criminally under-utilized, there's no attempt to create tension or suspense, the physical effects are either laughably bad or shamelessly stolen from other movies, and the ubiquitous tribal rape scenes are barely worthy of a PG-13. Even the scenes of animal 'cruelty' are more tedious than usual. The only mildly shocking scene involves crazy Jonas, going a bit Goldfinger, wielding a blood soaked dildo; a scene that is just plain bizarre rather than graphic. My beloved wife, she of the 'Romeo and Juliet Collector's Edition', watched this movie without so much as a wince of disgust! And it calls itself a Cannibal movie! All-in-all, a pretty lame effort that thoroughly betrays the Cannibal tradition. Cannibal Ferox, Luci's follow-up, is a far superior example of the genre.


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


user
"Eaten Alive" goes down much easier than Ruggero Deodato's "Cannibal Holocaust," but it's also a far more sillier film. I mean, at times it can be unintentionally hilarious, but the plot is so mind-numbingly idiotic that it was impossible for me not to lose all patience by the end. Tough guy Robert Kerman (Cannibal Holocaust) teams up with Janet Agren (The Gates of Hell; here with an intolerable accent) to search the jungles of New Guinea for Agren's sister, who's been brainwashed by the leader of a religious cult (Ivan Rassimov). Along the way, they fall witness to (sometimes real) animal torture and some cheesily rendered cannibalism. As directed by Umberto Lenzi, the movie is so over-the-top it's hard to take seriously, but if you enjoy trash cinema with more than a few unintentional laughs, it's not bad.
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
A snore gore. I saw this piece of horrible, stinking, worthless, junk at the Cameo Movie House (Now the famous Crobar Night-club)on Washington Avenue on South Beach in 1980 or 81. I was 17, and my three buddies and I laughed at this horrible, gross, piece of trash. The theater was on it's last legs and there were mostly drunks snoring and sleeping in the place. They didn't miss a darn thing. The Worst acting ever.These actors deserve the Academy Award for the worst, and I mean worst acting roles in the history of the cinema. Joke was, the theater was showing another Mi Mi Lay(A great name at least!) stinker...barf city. Enough said. If you're under 12 years old you might get a few chills. Over 12, you will be snoring after the opening credits. It's just amazing that anyone spent a cent on making this movie. And to think, it's considered a "cult" classic. YUK!!!!


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 contains real animals been killed, like a monkey been eaten by a snake and an crocible been cut open. I find this totally deranged and sick, and seriously question the mental health of the director of this trash.
This movie is so stupid and daft, that it has no logic at all.
There is a lot of boobs and sex in this movie, still don't bother viewing this trash for that, if you want to see boobs and sex, watch a porno instead. There is also rape scenes in this movie, which i found disgusting, like women been raped and cut up, and eaten. This movie is for sadists and those who get their kicks, seeing people been cut up and eaten.
A lot of the animals, like the monkey that appeared in this movie, there is none in the jungles of New Guinea. The local characters, most of them appeared to be Asian and none look like they come from New Guinea. It looks like, this movie was made around the grounds of a resort, which i bet it was.
Stay away from this trash, its sick and deranged.


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


user
Umberto Lenzi hits new lows with this recycled trash. Janet Agren plays a lady who is looking for her missing sister. It turns out the sister is part of a Jim Jones type religous cult in New Guinea. She hires a scruffy guide played by Robert Kerman to help her get to the cult's compound located in the jungle. This is another (!) cannibal movie, and I probably would have liked it if not for Lenzi padding this film out with scenes from his superior "The Man from Deep River." I mean every cannibal scene is directly lifted from this film, which I guess makes him about as credible as Al Adamson. I felt ripped off. ***SPOILER*** 1/2 star and that's for the dildo scene.


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


user
Why is it that in the '50s and '60s, Italians made so of the best movies, and then during the '70s and '80s, made nothing but zombie and cannibal movies? Probably because art films didn't make any money. , The Cannibal Movie, unlike the Zombie Movie, which was created by Americans and `exploited' by Italians, is a purely Italian creation, designed as a mondo exploitation showcase, and to make as much money as possible (no artistic integrity getting in the way here). Eaten Alive came during the Cannibal Movie heyday. The director, Umberto Lenzi, hadn't even hit his stride yet; his genre classic, Cannibal Ferox, was still a year away.
In plotting similar to (read: ripped off from) Ruggero Deodato's seminal cannibal classic, Cannibal Holocaust, a woman (Janet Agren) receives word from the police that they've received a 8mm film from her sister. She's gone missing in Africa, and it's suspected that the tribal ritual depicted on the film may have something to do with it. Mel Ferrer, as a Professor of Somethingoranother, tells her that a man named Jonas (Ivan Rassimov) has started a Jonestown-like cult in New Guinea, and that's where the sister is. The woman hires a guide (Robert Kerman) to take her through the jungle to find the cult and her sister. And, wouldn't you know it, the jungle is full of cannibals.
One sentence should sum it up: if you've seen on Cannibal Movie, you've seen them all, mostly because these films steal shamelessly from each other (Lenzi copied Cannibal Holocaust to make this film, and retooled this to make Cannibal Ferox; Deodato copied parts of this for Hit and Run). And because they all share the same material, they all feature the same traits: awful photography, boring scenery, terrible dubbing, overacting, and exploitation, exploitation, exploitation. Genre fans will have a ball since everyone in it is a genre veteran. Rassimov and Kerman have a scenery eating contest. Agren exists solely to be naked, raped, or in peril. Plenty o' gore for all the sickos out there. The cannibals, who do actually appear to be native cannibals, eat lunch met disguised as human flesh. And, in the grand tradition of Cannibal Movies, any live animal shown onscreen is usually killed shortly thereafter. Overall, really not a good experience, but I'm sure there are psychopaths out there who find this excrement entertaining. I know I did.


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


user
I recently viewed a copy of this (under the title 'Eaten Alive') Talk about dreadful! Any movie Ed Wood ever put out looks like Oscar material compared to this laughable tosh. To be fair a couple of lines from the script will live long in the memory such as "These people (Cannibals) don't buy frozen meat from a supermarket like us, they get it fresh everyday from folk like you or me" Classic! The mad 'Jonesville' type leader out in the jungle was the best character in the film, he really did look like a nutter. I think he was the only actor not to be dubbed in (badly), if these Italians must have American characters in their films why dont they get Americans to dub in the dialogue instead of English people trying their best to sound like Annie Oakley. I'll give this 3 out of 10, I'll give it three because it really is funnier than most comedies out these days.


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


user
Uuuuaaa! Barf! Yuk! Yuk! Disgusting! Puke City! Worst piece of junk ever made. Sick. Weird. Horrible. Enough said. Hold your nose. Don't eat. After seeing this sick, demented, garbage pail of a movie, you won't be able to eat your food for a week. But, maybe that's good. A new diet has been invented. Go to see this vomit inducing film. Get sick to your stomach. And you will be so turned off by the whole mess, that you can't eat for at least a week, and you drop about 15 pounds.
Me Me Lay! With a name like this, it's really amazing that she doesn't have a "cult" fan following. She rates as the worst actress ever. Her films make Ed Woods look like Gone With The Wind. This movie rates a minus 10.


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


user
***SPOILERS*** This movie - called EATEN ALIVE here in the UK is quite possibly the worst film ever made and is brilliant just for that. A sexy rich girl teams up with a rugged action man to search for her sister in the New Guinea jungle. What follows is an unspeakably crap mixture of cannibalism, insane cults and religious maniacs that has to be seen to be believed. The cannibalism scenes are quite horrific but are so badly staged and acted that they prove quite amusing. The cast are awful except for Janet Agren as the female lead who is excellent. Look out for the scene where she is stripped naked and covered with gold paint! My rating - 1 out of 10.


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


user
The only reason I checked this film out was to see the "early" Kim Bassinger. That, and the fact that my TV guide said it was a "gripping suspense", and it was three-star rated. The rating must have come from the man who wrote this drivel because the only suspense in this movie was whether I would finish it or not. Robert Culp turns in what has to be the "disaster" of his career as a cop who is not even close to being believeable. At one point, EVERYBODY is a suspect, including a frail old woman. If you want to deliberately set out to watch a badly written, badly directed, badly acted movie...then go for it. It may make you appreciate fine films by comparison. I wish I had that hour and thirty six minutes back.


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


user
You would think that a film that starred three of the biggest male film stars of the post World War II era would have become a classic. These three who also happen to be three favorites of mine, walk around in a daze, looking like they'd rather be any place, but there.
The sad thing is that The Way West definitely had some potential to be a classic. In these days of political correctness, a film about American pioneers and the travails of their westward migration is something not done now. It should have been better done back then.
Kirk Douglas is a former United States Senator who's heading a wagon train west to build a settlement in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Being he's an ex-politician, he rates above the hoi ploi he's leading. The script calls for him to have not only a covered wagon, but a carriage to lead the train.
You think that's ludicrous, you ought to see the whipping scene where Douglas orders his black servant, played by Roy Glenn to whip him. I won't spoil it by saying what causes Douglas to demand this of Glenn, but trust me, it's bad.
Robert Mitchum is the trail guide and of the three stars he looks the most bored. There was supposed to be considerable friction on the set between Widmark and Douglas, but Mitchum just saunters through the film above it all.
Maybe the friction helped somewhat because the movie calls for Douglas, a widower, to have an eye on Mrs. Widmark, played by Lola Albright. Now she's the best looking thing in the movie.
The film billing says introducing Sally Field. This was made in between her Gidget and her Flying Nun days. She plays a piece of white southern trash with the musical comedy name of Mercy McBee. We first see her in the movie sitting on the back of her parents wagon, legs akimbo and inviting. Of course she gets taken up on her invitation.
Her character is something like what's found in every trailer park in America and then again what was a wagon train, but one large trailer park on the move.
Despite this film, Sally Field went on to a two Oscar career. What that woman had to overcome.
Victor McLaglen's son Andrew directed this item and together with a lousy script turned this into a turgid mess. Shame on Andrew McLaglen, he's certainly done better in his career.
And so will you, unless you're a stargazer.


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


user
While not truly terrible, this movie is still largely a waste of time, and paints an incredibly inaccurate and revisionist picture of Beach Boys history.
Basically, this movie would have you believe that Mike Love was the brains behind the band and Brian Wilson was just a pathetic psycho. In fact, none of the characters is developed beyond a one-dimensional parody, but this is a TV movie so what do you expect? Mike Love's foul stench is all over this turkey as he attempts to re-write history with himself in the role of band figurehead and resident genius. Yeah, as if...
On the plus side, the music is excellent. Unlike the previous Beach Boys made-for-TV bio-pic "Summer Dreams", this movie actually features real Beach Boys music, rather than anemic cover versions...Also, it features a surprising number of Beach Boys-related rarities and seldom-heard tracks - The Sunrays "I Live for the Sun" being but one example.
This movie was originally shown in two parts on American network TV. Part one is the superior of the two and documents the Boys early days and rise to the top. By the time part two rolls around, the Brian Wilson character has become a mere cartoon and the actor seems to be playing for laughs - but how could anyone take this crap seriously? If you're not a Beach Boys fan you probably won't get much out of this movie except an extremely warped and one-sided view of the band's history. But then again, why would you watch this if you weren't a fan?


assistant
0