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


user
This is about some vampires (who can run around out in the sunlight), that are causing some problems down in South America. Casper Van Dien is sent in with his team of commandos to investigate. The movie opens with Van Dien & Co. walking through the jungle, and there's this huge black guy who just absolutely, positively cannot act. He speaks all his lines as if he's reading them off the cue-cards for the very first time. His voice is also so low that, well, it's positively hilarious. Great way to get the movie started! Anyhow, they run into some of our vampires, shoot them (this causes them to appear to die for about 20 seconds), and then of course they come back to life. Van Dien notices that one of them was impaled across a tree limb, and yells to his buddies to kill them with wood. The stunt work must be seen to be believed - the vampires are on wires that pull them up trees, which is supposed to make them look like they can climb really easily, but it just makes them look like they're bouncing around on bungee cords or something.
Yeah...anyhow, later on, the huge black dude is down in South America with some guys (Van Dien not included), and they're attacked by more vampires. It's really too bad these guys never heard of a crossbow, because it would seem to be the perfect weapon to kill the little bloodsuckers with, but instead they use big old wooden stakes that they try to impale the vampires with by hand. The big black dude ends up getting captured and he eventually becomes some big powerful vampire leader. Van Dien ends up battling him later on. It doesn't help that all through the movie, everyone forgets that if you shoot a vampire, they are knocked out for 20 seconds or so, which would enable a person to stick a stake in them fairly easily. They just try to stick stakes in them in the middle of hand-to-hand combat. Yeah, not exactly brilliant tactics.
There's a hot babe (remember Veronica from The Lost World TV show? Yes, it's her!) who also happens to be walking around in the middle of Vampire County on some sort of research mission, and she also just happens to be Van Dien's ex-wife. Hey, what are the odds? It's a shame she's not in the movie a whole lot more than she is. Will her and Casper get back together in the end? Will Van Dien defeat the huge black dude who can't act? Will the circus performer vampires make you laugh through all the numerous action scenes? Will we hear the three stooges music when somebody does something funny? Has even Lynda Carter forgotten how to act in her small cameo (she's more convincing in her Sleep Number Bed commercials)? These questions and more will will be answered if you make it all the way to the end of the movie.
I don't know, it might score some points on the so bad it's good scale, but that's about it. Eh, it's a bunch of goofs running around in the jungle, I guess it's kind of entertaining.


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 a relatively watchable movie (+1). After watching UKM: Ultimate Killing Machine, this one looks good, in comparison. There are no obvious technical gaffes, although the vampiric teeth look odd.
The story line makes no sense. Let's see. An American GI fights vampires. Comes back to the states and is rehabilitated for seeing... Vampires. His commanding officer is the aunt of his ex-wife. Who happens to be doing some research on the biodiversity of the South American area where the vampires are. Huh! Don't pile on too many coincidences. Who cares about the head vampire? Or, his daughter? Or, any one in this film? The only originality in this is that most of the myths about vampires (allergic to crosses and garlic, can't come out in the day, etc.) are wrong. But, they can't be killed except by beheading or a wood wound in the heart. Yeah, right. It's obvious they just didn't want to film a dark movie, since this is a made for TV film.
It would have been nice for the viewer, if they had hired some actors. Oh, they've got Lynda Carter (TV's Wonder Woman), and a big, black dude with a tremendously deep voice, who snarls appropriately in order to show off his vampire teeth prosthetics. But, otherwise, you would never know they had actually paid people to read these lines.
There is more than enough fight scenes, and some vampire-biting-neck blood, but no real violence.


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


user
I like vampire movies, I like B-movies, I love B vampire movies. But this one has nearly nothing going for it. Some of the acting is horrible, especially by 3 of the male leads. The story is not particular interesting. At a relative short 88 minutes it still seems too long and you'll find yourself fast-forwarding quite a bit. There are an awful lot of kung-fu vampire attacks. Sound cool? It isn't when it's done on a low budget. It gets repetitive very quickly. There is some minor blood and gore, nothing to get excited about. There some good wire work where you can see the wires. It has some good landscapes being filmed in Puerto Rico.
Not worth the rental


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


user
I suggest that in the future, any movie made by the Sci fi channel and subsequently released on DVD must say that it was indeed made by such channel as I would not buy this stuff if I had known this fact. Not that this was all bad, but when you have fade out for commercials in the middle of your movie it just ruins the flow of said film. This in turn makes the movie rather more boring. This one had an interesting story however the light hearted and extremely generic soundtrack distracted one from the film as did most of the bad actors with the exception of Dien and Linda Carter. The story, vampires are on the attack in South America, of course the rules of vampire movies are not in effect, which the usually aren't in any of the movies about vampires I have seen lately with the exception of the Blade trilogy. Group of soldiers are sent down to battle said squad another team is sent to meet up with the team and to track down the ex wife of one of the soldiers...why she is not just his wife, who knows as this part of the plot really goes no where. Still we get an interesting boat ride some nice jungle scenery and a lot of blood. This fact, however, does not save the film from being way to jerky in its presentation and really dull seeming at times. I don't know maybe it was the cgi blood, and smoke and whatever they have to make cgi now even though old effects look better and don't cost that much more. I mean cheap Italian zombie movies could do a bullet hole without cgi why can't we now?


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


user
This proved to be a rare case of a poliziottesco made with British funding; unfortunately, the result is undistinguished (except by its exceeding unpleasantness and borderline-camp approach) despite stars and director. The former is led by a wooden Franco Nero and an ultra-hammy Telly Savalas as a couple of would-be robbers (if anyone is able to believe either actor  who generally exude cool  as a duo of bumbling crooks, he's more gullible than I am!).
Their 'job' goes awry (ending in murder and saddled with cases of cutlery instead of jewels!)  however, the mismatched criminals see an opening to their dilemma when they inadvertently 'kidnap' the son of a British diplomat (a miscast Lester, who even gets to kick trigger-happy Savalas where it hurts at one point). Still, they never actually ransom him and their sole intent is to cross the border into France; tagging along with them is Nero's girlfriend (a wasted Ely Galleani): soon enough, though, she's had enough and decides to run away while the others are sleeping; the crazy Savalas notices this and, following the girl, kills her. In the meantime, Nero and Lester have woken up  the former thinks his accomplices may have double-crossed him, so he goes on the lam with the boy in tow; after a brief spell at a rich old lady's country estate (which features totally gratuitous rear nudes by both Nero and Lester!), Savalas catches up with them. They continue their trek, where the trio run into a family of German campers: the situation degenerates to the point where Savalas shuts them inside their trailer and tosses the lot into the river  though he's badly hurt in the process himself; typically, it all ends with the 'heavies' getting killed just as they're about to reach the border.
The film, therefore, contains most of the genre's typical elements  sleaze, sadism, violence, chases (the aftermath of the opening robbery when the getaway car causes havoc in the city's narrow back-streets and even disrupts a funeral procession is downright farcical), etc.; one mildly interesting aspect to it is that, by the end, Lester himself is seen to have been definitely (irrevocably?) marked by the experience  coming to feel excitement when an act of violence is committed.


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


user
I actually went into this film with some expectations, not because I thought the film sounded particularly good, but because I'm a fan of Italian exploitation flicks and with a cast that sees Franco Nero and Telly Savalas starring alongside Oliver Twist, I figured it had to be interesting at least. Well...RedNeck does have one or two positive things going on, but for the most part; it's a dull, lifeless film that is as ridiculous as it is pointless. The plot simply focuses on two criminals (Nero and Savalas) who kidnap a young kid (Oliver). The twist in the tale is that the kid realises that he'd have more fun if he gets accepted into the 'gang'. Telly Savalas and Franco Nero are two actors that have proved they can carry a film on their own on numerous occasions, and they do have some memorable moments in this film - although really for all the wrong reasons. Savalas in particular gives a silly portrayal of the 'bad' criminal. The plot doesn't flow badly, but since nothing interesting happens, that's not really a positive point and doesn't save from the film from being mediocre. Overall, I can't recommend this film; it may appeal to some for its cult value but it didn't do anything for me.


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


user
Definitely not your typical Polizia, Redneck just never worked for me. The movie tells the story of a jewel heist gone wrong and a young boy who is inadvertently kidnapped in the process. In their attempt to get away, the robbers leave a bloody trail of death in their wake as they hatch a plan to ransom the boy. The plan is never carried off as the robbers are more intent on getting to France and the boy is intent on staying with them. While I could cite a number of problems I had with the movie, I'll focus on the most obvious  the character Memphis played by Telly Savalas. From his work in The Dirty Dozen and Kelley's Heroes to other Italian films like Crime Boss to his most remembered role as Kojak, Savalas was a winner. I've always thought of him as one uber-cool customer. Unfortunately, Savalas is almost unwatchable in Redneck. Did the director turn on the camera and instruct him to act as psychotic as possible? It might not have been too bad had his actions been done within the context of a plot I cared about, but here he seems to be acting bizarre for sake of being bizarre. It's appears to be random lunacy. And what's with that accent? Savalas might have been a lot of things, but Southern isn't one of them. He sounds completely ridiculous even attempting the accent. Beyond that, I found little of interest in the rest of the movie. As I indicated, the plot never drew me in. I just didn't care about what was going on. And the notion that the boy is so quickly attracted to the criminal lifestyle doesn't ring true. As for the other actors, Mark Lester is almost as bad as Savalas and the usually reliable Franco Nero isn't a whole lot better. Three "name" actors and not a good performance between them. To make matters worse, I believe the director filmed many of the night scenes with nothing more than the glow from his watch to light the shots. I couldn't tell what was going on. Characters I hate, a plot I don't care about, and a production values that failed  little wonder I've given Redneck a 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
I know a lot of people would claim certain films as 'the worst of all time' but I think Redneck stakes a claim for this prize. A combination of quite dreadful acting from both Mark Lester and Telly Savales and plot progression that defies belief.
On Telly Saveles: was he drunk when he acted in this? He seems to play a slurring, laughing lunatic with no sense of conviction. Maybe he mixed his medication with his whiskey, I don't know.
On Mark Lester: A performance more wooden than a carpenter's workshop. His clipped British tones don't belong in this film; and his transformation from sheltered teenager to gangster's apprentice in 24 hours is mad. And the strip scene with Mosquito does not have any relevance to the plot at all; perhaps the director likes this sort of thing.
Plot logic: when Memphis and Mosquito ambush the car at the beginning, why doesn't Mark Lester's mother do or say anything to get her son out of the car, before the loonies drive it off? She just lets them all go, without saying a word!! On the other hand, Redneck has to be seen - you won't believe how bad it is otherwise!


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


user
sdiner82 had clearly not seen the film in decades, and his memory is appalling. His attempts to paint the Mark Lester shaving scene as suspect are utterly erroneous, as are his incorrect comments about the bad guy "sneaking peeks at the kid's body". Lester is clothed for the entire time the man is in the room, and the man barely gives him a glance.
The scene is a crude attempt to show Lester's innocent curiosity about the man's body.
Like everything in this film, it's badly done, but nothing more.
Even sdiner82's comments about Savalas' character who "casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff" is nonsense (it was a single woman, she was already dead, and she was in a car).
I suggest that sdiner82's review says far, far more about his own, far from liberal mindset, than it does about this valueless film.
The only reason I even bothered to look it up, was out of curiosity to see if it was made before or after Kojak.
The film is a worthless piece of 70's trash, but sdiner82's review of it is the worst kind of slander. He wraps up his review in pseudo-intellectual "facts", but the only fact is that he is plain wrong on almost every "factual" matter he discusses.
I can only assume that sdiner82 saw exactly what he looked for, which is disturbing. Now he can return to burning copies of Catcher in the Rye.


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


user
In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable "star" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed "dogs" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called "Redneck" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious "Georgy Girl"), and the three leads were Mark ("Oliver") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the "nice" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called "M*A*S*H"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw "Redneck" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like "Redneck")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?)


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


user
Have just seen this film for the first time after purchasing it on DVD
It comes across as a cheap attempt to cash in on the two Conan movies.
Unfortunately, this film didn't appear to have the same budget as the Conan films and hence some of the sets and effects aren't as flash and some scenes seem hurried.
Nielsen is OK to look at but unfortunately she couldn't act if a gun was put to her head.
Arnie's supporting role looked like it was done as a favor to director Fleischer, who also directed Conan the Destroyer. Maybe Arnie wasn't confident that he would go on to headline films like Predator, Total Recall, T2, etc.
Some of the female guardians of the talisman early in the film looked like they were struggling to lift their swords and the looks on their faces suggested they were having great fun making this film. I couldn't be so jovial if I was fighting for my life.
All this aside, this film required very little concentration to watch and was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Two stars.


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


user
Sometimes intentionally campy, at other times unintentionally silly (like in the opening scene, where a woman is "informed" that she has been raped and that her family has been slaughtered, just for the sake of exposition), this film is ultimately neither funny enough nor competent enough (as a straightforward adventure story) to be really enjoyable. I'll leave you to decide which may be the highlight, but the low point is probably the fight with a silly metallic dragon. Brigitte Nielsen was a good choice for Sonja, with her fresh face and her firm, slightly muscular body (and I think that her dark-red hair suits her perfectly), but Schwarzenegger gives one of his few colorless performances as Calidor. (*1/2)


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


user
It is sad that Schwarzenegger was the best thing about this production, especially considering the fact that he had not yet come into his own, and was still as stiff as cardboard in his dialog delivery.
Actually, this isn't as bad as some critics say, but it isn't good, either. It IS amusing, and DOES play like a poor country cousin of the Conan line, making it a conflicted, uneven, poor work. And speaking of poor, the quality is terrible, due to the era in which this was filmed, but that is not the only reason.
The story herein is inferior, even to the Conan line, but moreover, it loses itself in the "Red Sonja must be dominated by big strong Schwarzenegger" ploy, and entirely forgets its purpose, if it ever had one.
It's entertaining, but in a low-budget, guilty-pleasure "B" kind of way.
It rates a 4.2/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
"Red Sonja" is flawed, weak and lacking. Even the camp-ness isn't good.
There are only two good things about "Red Sonja"; The costumes (even though the Red Sonja costume is ridiculous. It's ironic that a girl who is even afraid to be touched by men, because she was raped, still choose to wear so few little clothes, even when it rains.) and the music by Ennio Morricone. Still the movie is somewhat watchable but certainly not recommendable.
The story is extremely simple and they didn't even bother to make it interesting. The story could have been forgotten if there had been some good action sequences and some humor, both are present but are seriously flawed in many ways. The movie takes itself too serious and tries to impress but fails completely.
Brigitte Nielsen is an horrible leading lady. I don't know who's accent is worse; Hers or Arnie's and on top of that; She can't act. There is also absolutely no chemistry between the two characters which makes the love story totally unbelievable. Even worse was Sandahl Bergman as the main villain who acts more poorly than a paper bag. Ronald Lacey was somewhat good in his role, but my God he looked horrible, he changed so much since his (only well known) role in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Maybe it had something to do with his illness which claimed his life in 1991? And by the way, what was with all those "Raiders of the Lost Ark" actors in this movie? Next to Ronald Lacey, Pat Roach, Terry Richards and Tutte Lemkow appeared in a role, it seemed like some kind of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" reunion.
The only times when the movie gets a bit interesting is during the (sword)fights even though some of them are needless and weak.
Only really watchable for the fans of the fantasy-genre.
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
I watched this movie, or part of it, in hope that it would be fun to laugh at how bad it was, but it soon became clear that this was just plain silly. For one you have the worst acting EVER! The lead "actress" Birgitte Nielsen is terrible, uninspired and hardly even attractive. And she certainly do not look like the female warrior who could easily kick some veteran warrior kings butt, but she does. And whats with the feminist attitude, it's plain hypocrisy. For one her family was killed by a women, then she joins some warrior school or something so she can learn how to fight men. She then joins up with a fat servant and his child king, whose city was destroyed by Gedren. Those two characters are just plain stupid and destroys the little of atmosphere that the movie managed to create. After this i could not take any more of Nielsen painful acting, and the stupid clichés and lack of some real action.
Schwarzenegger as Kalidor was the only part of this movie which actually made it remotely watchable.
I liked the Conan movie, but this is pure crap!


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


user
I figure the company that made this movie wanted people to think of the Conan movies, but unfortunately for the ones who made this one it does just that. You will be thinking, man the Conan movies were pretty cool...this one is totally boring and sucks. The story, who cares? It isn't going to help you like this movie more or less as it just seems like a really cheap film. Arnold, doesn't look like he belongs in this one, why he agreed to play the role is beyond me. Well probably for the money. I just love the monster in the water that turns out to be a machine. Lame! This movie is just plain and simply terrible.


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


user
This, in my opinion, is a very poor movie that advertises Arnold Schwarzenegger as starring (despite him being the co-star) only to sell more copies. Obviously taking influence from the similarly themed Conan' movies, this film fails to prove as enjoyable and eventually fails to entertain at all.
Bridgette Neilsen stars as Sonja, a beautiful woman who has been given unbelievable strength by a ghostly figure after her village was pillaged, her family killed and she herself raped by the soldiers of Queen Gedran (Sandahl Bergman). Gedran is a tyrant Queen who wants control over the barbaric world and seeks out a talisman protected by Sonja's sister to do it. After discovering what has happened Sonja sets out for revenge and at the same time she must save the world from the wrath of Gedran. Kalidor (Schwarzenegger), the master of the talisman, sets out to protect her whether she wants him there or not.
The first major problem with this movie is the beginning. The events leading up to the point where Sonja receives her powers could have easily made a good ten to fifteen minutes of enjoyable film. However, the beginnings are rushed into what seems like a quick one-minute `Previously on.' segment from a television show. Had they actually made these events part of the story and cut out some of the filler later on they may have been able to start redeeming this movie but unfortunately they didn't (I wonder why director Richard Fleischer has only currently directed two movies since Red Sonja).
This film also features some of the most annoying characters in history like Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr.) who is a stupid character and just adds an over abundance of camp to the movie, which sometimes works but in this case fails miserably. He was quite obviously written into the movie for some comic relief but with the overall absurdity of the film anyway this was another costly mistake for Red Sonja'.
For all it's faults there were some good fight scenes involving both Neilsen and Arnie which are worth noting but these are nowhere enough to save this turkey. The acting is about as good as it gets for movies of this quality and even Arnie didn't seem too bothered about his performance. I don't recommend this film at all; to me it's a waste of an hour and a half. My rating for Red Sonja'  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
This film was released soon after the Conan films, a sort of female Conan, Red Sonja played by Sylvester Stallones ex-wife Brigitte Nielsen. She's not a very good actress unfortunately as proved in Rocky IV and Cobra. The whole film feels cheap, but strangely Arnold Swarzenegger appears in this film but not as Conan, although he looks, acts and fights like Conan from the two Conan films, I don't know what thats about. Anyway he only appears about every twenty minutes and doesn't hang around for long. Maybe Arnold filmed this in his time off from filming Conan the Destroyer or something? Anyway the film is way to slow and boring for an action film, skip this and watch Conan the Barbarian instead.


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


user
... when dubbed into another language. Let's face it: Neither Nielsen nor Schwarzenegger are really good actors when it comes to dialog. And given the campy lines they are supposed to utter this is a loose-loose situation. Any type of voice-over is sure to be an improvement (and it actually is - at least in the German version).
But that is only a minor point. The acting is bad. The speeded up combat sequences are pathetic. Nielsen couldn't use her sword to fight her way out of a wet paper bag. This becomes painfully obvious when compared to the fluidity of motion exhibited by the kid (who has had some martial arts training, no doubt) and to the athleticism shown off by Sandahl Bergman.
Schwarzenegger does his Conan thing - nothing new here.
Some of the visuals are nice, I'll have to grant that. The dragon skeleton bridge looks cool. But more often than not the plaster is all too evident.
Overall the movie isn't worth seeing. Even 'Conan the Destroyer' is better than this (although only marginally). I would have much rather seen Bergman as Red Sonja as she was originally supposed to be, but I doubt that that could have saved this movie - oh well.
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
Recap: Since the warrior queen Gedren raised and slaughtered most of Sonja's family, she has trained in the art of sword fighting. Now, Gedren has taken a very powerful talisman, that threatens to destroy the world if not destroyed, killing Sonja's sister in the process. Now Sonja is out for revenge, and to save the world. Along the way, she meets the very Conan-like (but not Conan, no!) Kalidor, the child-prince Tarn and his bodyguard Falcon. At first Sonja declines all help, but is later forced to accept it, and together they go to save the world.
Comments: When you watch a movie like this, and you think that it is the story that the is the best element in this movie, the movie is in big trouble. Because 1) a movie like this should draw its strength upon good swordfights and effects, and 2) the story is really, really bad. It is simple, and uncomplicated and really offers nothing in way of character development or even suspense. It is predictable and boring, and the obvious couple, Sonja and Kalidor, has no chemistry at all. And the kid is just annoying. And most of the scenes is drawn out so long that they become boring. Though the movie is not very long, it has not material enough to fill its time. And so back to point 1). The fighting is slow, uneventful and really bad. It clearly shows most fighters clearly blocking the opponents strokes far ahead of the opponent has even begun to strike. In my honest opinion, I believe most kids, fighting with sticks, creates more exciting fights playing knights than this movie did. All in all, this is a really bad spin-off, that should be avoided by all who liked the Conan-movies.
2/10


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


user
Okay, I admit I like Brigitte Neilsen in an unhealthy way, I just have a thing for 6' tall women with swords. There I said it.
What's wrong with the movie? Just about every mistake you can make was made. You take a successful movie series (conan) and you drag it through the mud with a bad script, bad casting, bad effects, and the worst thing of all...you put a cute kid in there for comic relief. This kind of thing almost killed the Indiana Jones series ya know. Cute kids are for Disney movies, not real movies. Neilsen at least took the movie seriously, even though it seems nobody else did. The plot had Schwarzenegger repeatedly pulling Red Sonja's fat out of the fire and that undercut her character considerably. A warrior woman doesn't need a dude to get her out of a mess, thats her job! To not re-use the Conan character in this movie was a crime. Kalidor? Sheesh. The movie never set the proper mood and its pacing was rather disjointed and sloppy, unlike Conan the Barbarian which had multiple story lines that flowed gracefully. When it comes to fantasy movies, its okay to have cheesy costumes, its okay to have harryhausen style animation, its okay to have silly exorbitant sets that make no sense, but to have a horrible script is unforgivable.
This movie could have been a classic, but the script felt like it was written by a 12 year old.


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 movie is weak. Very weak. Only capital character can something. She's work like supercharger on bad engine...so, if you like red-haired Valkyries - see that. But better find picture of Brigitte as Sonja and put it on desktop. It will save of disappointments. Well, Arnold also do his deal...but it definitely not best his role. Other characters - bad is not that word. Sword fights? Monsters? Ridiculous. Plot is really shame. Why was necessary rape she? Especially, we don't see it.
Anyway movie is weak. Though worse movies exist...Without main characters it would be just ******. And if somebody even discusses it, maybe...


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


user
I remember the trailer for this infamously weak spin-off of Conan. I saw the movie years later and laughed my head off. Unintentionally! Poor Briggite Nielson. Her career never had a chance thanks to Cobra and Red Sonja. The plot of the movie is this: Sonja(Brigitte Nielson) hails from a tribe of female warriors who were killed off by an evil queen Gedren(Sandahl Bergman). Queen Gedren steals the orb the female warriors were protecting and uses it to destroy each town she passes by. Sonja goes on a hunt for Queen Gedren and later finds out that Gedren killed her parents. On her quest she reluctantly joins Kalidor(Arnold Schwarzenegger), an arrogant prince named Tarn(Ernie Reyes Jr.) and his bumbling idiotic servant, Falkon(Paul L. Smith). Together they go on a hunt for Queen Gedren and the orb. The acting is sub par and the action scenes are soso. I mean Briggite Neilson looks so emotionally distant. For someone who lost her whole family as well as her female comrades, Sonja doesn't look fazed at all. Arnold is playing his usual stoic role and Ernie Reyes Jr.... what an annoying snot-nosed brat he was in this movie! The moronic manservant Falkon had more personality than these guys. The action scenes are the only redeeming moments of the movie even though sometimes they fall flat. The scene where they fight the mechanical sea creature made me laugh till my ribs ached. The dialog is a hoot also. Its as if the screenwriter thought that nobody was going to take the movie seriously so he gave everybody stupid lines to work with. I can only recommend this movie to you if you like your epic movies extra campy. Anyone else 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
After a long hard night being partied away at the Walkabout in Islington, I needed a pick-me-up. My throat hurt, my wallet was empty and I ended up chatting to a drug addict at a bus-stop trying to sell me some petrol. Today, I watched "Red Sonja" and I can honestly say that I felt much better last night than I do right now. Brigitte Nielsen leads a bunch of ass-kicking warriors in various shapes and sizes to recover a green rock from some evil queen whose motives are never fully explained. Yep, it's that good.
"Red Sonja" isn't in a genre known for great films until Peter Jackson came along with a certain Oscar-winning trilogy. In fact, the best swords-and-sorcery film I could think of before "Lord Of The Rings" was George Lucas's kiddie-friendly "Willow". Perhaps, in view of this, one should go a little easy on this film. But I can't - it's poorly written, badly acted (with the exception of Paul Smith, who's just average) and dreadfully put together. The film is as convincing as an episode of the Flintstones, with costumes and scenery seemingly lifted straight outta Bedrock. Considering the comic-book source material, it is easy to forgive the various plot inconsistencies. Why Sonja insists on saving the most annoying kid, in this world or that one, is bewildering. His personality seems to flick from spoilt brat to polite gentleman at the flick of a switch. Schwarzenegger displays less charisma than a field full of cows and just goes through the motions, a perfect actor for his breakthrough role in "The Terminator".
It's simple to kick a film when you're down but the fact remains that this is not a good film, by any stretch of the imagination. When Nielsen mourns the death of her sister and Schwarzenegger tenderly places his hand on her shoulder to comfort her and then blurts out, in that distinctive Germanic accent, "she's dead" then you know you're in for a rough ride. A few smiles were raised at inappropriate points, such as the priestesses of a temple who, when sent plunging to their deaths in a hole in the ground, seemed to enjoy the experience - at least, judging from the orgasmic moans that seemed to echo around the place. If you have to watch an Eighties fantasy film that wasn't porn, watch "Willow" (but never take that as a ringing endorsement). For the real thing, take yourself to your local multiplex and show Peter Jackson what a great job he did with "Lord Of The Rings". Trust me, 11 Oscars really does mean it's a great film - unlike bloody "Titanic".


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


user
Corny and some really bad acting but for a Golan-Globus film about right on par. Saw this movie back in 1985 mostly because I liked sword and sorcery films(what was i thinking?). Arnold is in it playing a high lord trying to make sure an ancient talisman is destroyed before it blows up the world.Brigitte Nielsen is the title character who at the time was Sly's girl and a pretty bad actress.Movie producers like to cast Playboy type women who cant act in low budget B movies. Brigitte cheeses it up as Sonya and Arnold acts wooden as Lord Kalidor.There is also Sandahl Bergman(who was in the original Conan movie as Valeria)here she plays the evil Queen Gedren,an obvious camp to her Conan role. And then one of the most irritating child actors onscreen(ernie reyes)as Prince Tarn who should have been slapped hard and sent to bed.What a little irritating scut. Some of the swordfights arent too bad but the music really sucks. Special effects are cheap and look very 70's ,like the explosion of the evil queen's castle at the climax of the movie.
Overall a very low par film but b movie film buffs might like it for its campiness.


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


user
You know that this film is in SERIOUS trouble when the BEST acting job is the support role played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. While this was still relatively early in his career and he wasn't the best actor, compared to Brigitte Nielsen, he's Sir John Gielgud. In fact, this film proves that the only reason she got much of any attention were her boobs and because she was involved with the incredibly self-destructive football player, Mark Gastineau. So, instead of this being her "break out film", this and a Beverly Hills Cop movie mark about as high as she went in her one-note career. It was obvious, too, that the financing wizards gave up on this movie as well, because the supporting cast (aside from Arnold) is pretty lame and the script is dull, dull, dull. Fans looking for another CONAN movie would no doubt be very disappointed in this slow and uninvolving film.


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 nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from ****


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


user
Honestly, buying this movie was a waste of money. It's one of the most boring movies I have seen in my life. The only part I liked is the ending, but it's so slow that not even the fantastic ending can save 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
What's up with this movie? Does Mr. Lyne and his writers think that a sado-masochistic fling between two screwed up Yuppies can carry a feature length movie? Maybe if it had some comedic elements (which is doesn't, at least intentionally), or there were some additional dramatic elements (which there are not), or maybe if it was hardcore. No, it's simply the history of the affair; a chronology of a bunch of R-rated trysts. Ho-hum, who cares? "Nine ½ Weeks" deserves every Razzie nomination it got. It's a loser.
And by the way, what's up with Roger Ebert and his rave review? Where was his head back in 1986?


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 high-gloss soft-porn; a boring soap opera concentrating on one thing: sex. They actually made sex boring, sad to say, because I defy you to watch this casually and tell me what the storyline was. What this is, is an excuse for Kim Bassinger to show off her great body and for Mickey Rourke to smirk a lot. That's it. Rourke's smugness is so bad it's sickening and Bassinger, despite the great figure, looks cheap more than beautiful.
Kudos to the photographer for some nice closeup shots and some wonderful color, but the story is so weak - no character development and no plot - it's unable to compensate. Let's face it: this movie was made for only reason - to titillate male viewers. On that level, it probably succeeded. If I recall, it's why I gave it a look being a fan of Bassinger's looks, but I actually expected a story, too.
Those trying to pass this off as "arty" and something deeper than soft porn are only fooling themselves.


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


user
Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke star in this controversial story of a wall street exec and an art gallery employee who hook up and begin a very experimental sexual relationship.While the acting by Rourke and Basinger is ok, the flim doesn't allow their characters to truly form. Allegedly there was a lot of film left on the cutting room floor that delved deeper into the characters and the effects of the relationship on them - Basinger's character considering suicide - that would have made the characters more involved for the viewer. As is it is a glossy, well produced, with MTV style editing piece of soft core voyeurism. 4 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 bought the DVD was to satisfy my curiosity about the scene when Liz (Kim Basinger) strips to the music of Joe Cocker: You Can Leave Your Hat On! That was the best part of the whole film. Not because the scene was any good; only the song. I am not saying it was a terribly bad film just not that good. Disappointingly so!
Especially when the exploration of male and female sexuality could have been expanded upon. Instead of expanding on the dangerous side of lust, obsession and infatuation and where it can lead to it drags its heels obscurely from one idea to the other. For example when John (played by Rourke) is able to leave her on the top of the Big Wheel, Liz (Kim Basinger) is unconvincingly rattled at the bizarre experience courtesy of John's sense of humor but less rattled at his sexual exploits involving the ever willing Liz; and like one reader mentioned, that for a woman to enjoy sex she has to experience the dangerous side is unconvincing. This "dangerous" side is not exploited enough in the film and one gets a sense of anti-climax from the view point that it all could go horribly wrong. The theme of bondage makes an appearance often but only just takes one to the brink of danger and then all goes well.Is the film sending the message out that this kind of "foreplay" is FINE! If the film was making a point about the pitfalls of bondage and by extension the ugly ramifications of sad-masochism then maybe it would make a good moral point. Instead the film awkwardly jumps from one "sizzling" scene of Rourke feeding Basinger and blindfolding her to another. In a film that could have been good it falls flat on its face because it does not expand and extend the themes the film is MAYBE trying to relate; thus for me it doesn't have a plot nor a theme just a mixture of ideas.


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


user
I can't really see how anyone can have any interest whatsoever in seeing this movie. A woman meets a man, he wants to play games, she too, but only until she realise what she's missing. She leaves, and that's it really. It took 9 1/2 weeks before Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) left John (Mickey Rourke). She should have left him after 30 minutes and ended our misery.


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


user
A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened.


assistant
0