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
In a up and down career with all sorts of movies, this is Altman's one try at science fiction, and it clearly shows that it's not his forte.
The film is practically incomprehensible. It seems a disastrous combination of experimental theater pretentiousness and a major studio trying to jump on the post-Star Wars bandwagon (not that this film is at all modelled after that one, but you can imagine that the studio signed on hoping for a much different Paul Newman sci-fi film). The story is nonexistent, the characters remain strangers to us all the way through.
Altman has packs of dogs feeding on dead bodies throughout the movie, obviously straining to make some sort of POINT. But since the movie is so poorly thought out, starting with the lack of plot on up, it really isn't about anything at all.
The production designed is confused, the photography is undone by the blurs on the edges, and the score is terrible. However, "Quintet" does have one redeeming feature. Not only is the movie clearly filmed out in the snow and ice, but the interiors are kept cold as well. You see the actors' breath in every scene. You really FEEL the cold.


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


user
Altman's Quintet has to be considered more than just flawed: As so many other reviewers have pointed out, the ideas behind the film, even some of the choices in depicting those ideas, ought to work--and yet very little in this difficult film does. The partially fogged camera lens--I remarked to my wife that it has to be the most distracting directorial conceit I've ever seen--never allowed me to get "into" the film's world.
In general there are serious problems with the mise-en-scene employed here. It's clear that no small amount of thought went into factors like costume and production design, but neither is very effective in evoking a believable world. Perhaps it is a matter of scale; the film is so stage-bound that I laughed out loud once it was mentioned that "five million" people lived in the city. (Yes I understand the constraints of the film's budget. Matte paintings here and there might have helped.) In all the most disappointing Altman film I've ever seen. Great ideas and grand metaphors do not always come through in art--it's just part of the game.


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


user
This movie was sooooooo sloooow!!! And everything in it was bland, the acting, the plot,etc. It was such a disappointment, since the description looked so good! Do not be fooled! This movie is not worth the time it takes to watch it!!!


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


user
The earlier review is pretty much on target, which Altman was NOT with this film. I haven't seen it since its original release but I have seldom spent two hours in a theater feeling as miserable and disappointed as I was with this film. If some pretentious community theater attempted a sci-fi version of a Ingmar Bergman film, it might come off like this. I can't bring myself to give anything Altman has made a "1" but this is probably the nadir of a career that has had some remarkable highs and lows. I would have walked out, but as a paid film critic I couldn't. (Think about that the next time you envy movie critics.)


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


user
Robert Altman's "Quintet" is a dreary, gloomy, hard to follow thriller where you finally give up after awhile because it's so complicated.
I remember seeing this at my local twin on opening weekend with a full house. By the time the picture ended it was less than a quarter full. Never have I witnessed such a mass exodus without there being an emergency to drive people out. That should tell you how bad it is. I believe it to be the worst film ever made involving such major talent in front of and behind the camera.


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


user
"Quintet" is definitely not a film most people would find amusing or even interesting for that matter. There is no scene, dialog, acting or plot development that would light a spark. The icy world is one thing, but muddled plot is something you really can't bear. The characters are not only three-dimensional, they're not even one-dimensional, there is no emotion and there is no sense in anything that goes on. There is a world encased in ice, where nobody is doing any meaningful work, except playing Quintet, and the rules to the game are never even hinted. The homes are not heated, even there is electricity, but who and what produces it? There is wood, but there are no animals, except dogs, so where do clothes come from, or shoes for that matter, since, apparently there is no industry, and everybody is dressed as in 16th century Europe, which is in odd contrast to not so futuristic pavilion backdrop. The entire movie seams to be stuck inside Altman's imagination, and he never bothered to share his ideas or his vision with audience. Desolation or hopelessness have nothing to do with lack of appeal to this movie, the world of George Lucas's "THX1138" is no brighter place and characters are no more fun, but the story has it's path. In Quintet, there is no obvious or even hinted path, and in my opinion it doesn't even provoke thinking about the idea behind it all, as, for example, similar film, John Boorman's "Zardoz". It's not even done in Altman's unique style, so it doesn't appeal to his fans,either, and I'm one of them. All in all, Robert Altman had a dream, and he woke up without telling anybody what it meant, not even to him.


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


user
The things that I find irritating on screen, the things I nitpick about and annoy the people who try to watch movies with me are those moment where the writer, director, set-designer, on screen caterer, or whoever, doesn't think it through to the end and, by a single act of omission - or commission - undoes all the other work done by everyone else who has worked on the movie. That moment of "Wait a bloody minute.... What just happened?" that stops the narrative dead in its tracks. (Not that this film's narrative needed a lot of stopping, because anyone who has ever seen it will know that Quintet's narrative drive has pretty well frozen solid before the end of the opening shot.) There are several of those moments in this movie. And you get so long to think about them too. The film is two hours long and the scripted dialogue probably ran to five pages. There's a lot of time to ponder its deficiencies.
The movie is set in a frozen Earth. Another ice age has set in and the whole world is dying. It's cold. Very cold. It's actually very cold on the screen. The movie was shot in Canada in winter and there are icicles and real snow and people's breath misting from their mouths in every scene. Time and again we are reminded how fecking cold it is. People wear big hats and layers and layers of clothes and waddle around like over-dressed Weeble people. Must have been a horrible shoot. My nitpick comes in a sequence when our hero checks into a room of a hotel. Woken up in the middle of the night by voices coming from the room next door, he overhears a conversation of vital importance to the meagre plot through an large grill in the wall dividing the two rooms. I'm not questioning why there is a convenient grill in the wall between the two rooms. What got me annoyed was the fact that the grill had not been blocked up by the long term tenant with the noisy visitor. If you are trying to keep warm the last thing you need is a huge gaping draughty hole in your wall that leads into an unoccupied unheated room. Trust me. I live like this, I watched this film sat on my living-room sofa under a duvet with a hot water bottle. My breath was misting as much as the actors'. If that whacking great hole was in my wall I'd block it up with something. Maybe not the best choice of movie to watch in an unheated room in midwinter but boy did it make me notice the lousy insulation in the film.


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


user
The best thing I can say about "Quintet" is that it's not quite as bad as I remembered it being on my first viewing.
But that doesn't mean it's good.
This weird, sci-fi thriller is not quite like any other movie I've ever seen, which I guess at least gives it the stamp of novelty. But it's a borderline disaster of a movie, and one of the worst Robert Altman ever made. On the DVD special feature about the making of "Quintet," it's clear that even Altman didn't know what the hell the movie was supposed to be.
It's set in some distant future when the world is in the grip of another ice age. The film was shot at the abandoned site of the Montreal Expo '67, and I do have to admit that this gives the movie some interesting production design elements, even if much of it looks like it's being filmed in an iced-over shopping mall. Paul Newman, looking zonked out and absolutely disinterested in anything going on around him, and Brigitte Fossey, play drifters who wander into this futuristic city looking for Newman's brother. Soon Newman is caught up in a deadly game of "Quintet," which all of the bored inhabitants play for lack of anything better to do, and the rules of which are never made clear to the audience. All we know is that the object of the game it to kill everyone else you're playing with and remain the only person alive. This gives these nihilistic inhabitants their only thrill, because as one of them says at one point in a psychobabblish soliloquy, only by being near to death can one appreciate being alive.
The movie is slow, ugly and actually uncomfortable to watch due to its unrelenting gloominess. It's almost as if Altman was purposely setting out to make a movie no one would want to sit through. There aren't characters -- oh sure, actors walk around speaking lines, but none of the lines really means much and the impressive list of international actors Altman assembled for this register not a whit. Only Bibi Andersson gives the closest thing to a memorable performance as could possibly be found in a movie like this. But nevertheless, it does succeed in establishing an atmosphere, even if that atmosphere is one of pure awfulness, and it is oddly fascinating in the way that watching a man slowly starve himself to death would be fascinating.
Altman really hit a dry spell after nearly a decade of superb films. "Quintet" followed close on the heels of the atrocious "A Wedding" and was followed in short order by the not bad but mostly forgettable "A Perfect Couple," the by-all-accounts terrible "Health" (which I've never seen because it's not available anywhere TO see) and the disastrous "Popeye." Thank God he rebounded.
Grade: D-


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


user
Quintet marks the only venture of both Paul Newman and director Robert Altman into the realm of science fiction. It was said of Newman that he could not do comedy, but he tried until he finally scored a real success in that genre with Slap Shot. But the failure of this film left him gun shy and he never tried it again.
This is one of the biggest downer films I've ever seen. It's a futuristic ice age, brought on by who knows what, but presumably it's a nuclear winter. Even during the ice age of thousands of years ago, the equatorial parts of the earth still sustained animal and human life, but apparently not here. Seals have survived and Paul Newman is a seal hunter on the outside.
But hunters do need a little R&R and Newman goes to a futuristic city where things are so boring the natives have some kind of game played with six people and it's a kind of Russian roulette. To win you have to kill five other participants in your game.
It's a sad turn to see what man has come down to. Which is one of the reasons I just could not get into this story. The atmosphere is bleak, the story is bleak, the people are bleak, it's all so bleak. No wonder this thing came up short at the box office.
It's a film that just about everyone thinks is never going to be on the top ten list of Paul Newman films, including me.
This is man's future, what a bummer.


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


user
Legend has it that at the gala Hollywood premiere screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, about 20 minutes into the film Rock Hudson yelled out "Would somebody please tell me what the hell this movie is about?" Well, I have Rock beaten by about 19 minutes, 59 seconds. This movie made absolutely no sense at all. Who were those people? Where were those people? What were the rules of the game called Quintet? Are there any rules to Quintet? Were Robert Altman and his cohorts making the movie up as they went along? What was Paul Newman thinking when he signed on to this? Maybe ol' Fast Eddie saw Zardoz and thought "Well if Connery can get involved in a futuristic film that makes no sense, so can I." Maybe the good stuff is on the cutting room floor and all we get to see is the incoherent stuff. Also, did all the cast get to keep their individual funny hats? You never saw such bizarre looking hats all in one place in your life. Quintet just confirms what I've always thought: when Altman's good he's superb, but when he's bad, he makes stuff like Quintet


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


user
I supposed I was actually expecting a Bollywood remake of "The Fog", from the title, but this is actually more of a Bollywood remake of "I Know What You Did Last Summer", with some elements of "Scream", kind of, sort of, and not a very good one either. Apart from a couple very entertaining song & dance numbers, this is pretty terrible. It's obviously got a decent budget & yet it's wasted on reheated leftovers that weren't that tasty to begin with. A young woman is threatened by a creepy guy to not enter a beauty contest, because he wants his sister to win (she, thankfully, doesn't look as creepy as her brother), but she enters anyway and wins, and of course the creepy guy comes after her, and is killed, after which comes a rousing game of "hide the body". Of course, the body disappears and no one seems to know why, but someone knows, and they're waiting for the end to reveal a ridiculous plot twist. Interspersed with all this tired rehash are a few nifty dance numbers, especially the celebratory dance number at the party for Simran, the girl who won the beauty contest...it's highly colorful, it's well done & downright fun, and utterly wasted in this terrible film. I would much rather watch an old Ramsay brothers movie than this piece of crap, although someone has deemed that these don't need to be made available, for the most part, which is a crime in itself. But not as big of a crime as this film. I took one for the team watching this one, so take my advice, don't bother. 2 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
Ramsay  the kings of comedy (or was it horror, whatever) wake after years of hibernation. And yes, I did get scared. No not because of the horror element (of course I am not that squeamish) but because rats were constantly dancing on my feet in the khatmal-chaap theatre (where else do such movies run).
So check the plot. A man is repeatedly stabbed, choked to death, stuffed in plastic and dumped in a pool. But he still returns to take revenge. Now was the film a thriller or a horror? That itself is the suspense for you to discover. And the end turns out to be another mask mystery. Remember those trademark Ramsay undercover agents  men wearing some stupid horror masks. Only here the mask is of a human. I suppose, no more detailing is required to skip this flick.
Amarr Upadhyay tends to get over-dramatic and theatrical, forgetting the difference between cinema and TV soaps. A cheaply and skimpily dressed Aditi Gowitrikar in her typical pink lipstick looks like .. (Uh! you know what).
The background score is a straight lift from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Not a single department of the film, whether technical or creative, is worth commenting. Novelty lacks both in story and execution.
Dhund certainly fogs your senses.


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


user
When I think Bollywood. I think of lite feel good musical dance numbers, with gorgeous outfits on the men and women. And catchy tunes. Horror, Thrillers, Mystery and Suspense, don't come to mind though. And this, to my Western eyes, is like an abstract comedy.
I think it would have been a better movie, shorter even, if the writer and the director had made a definite choice. Either gone for outright Thriller-Horror, Comedy-Mystery, Supernatural-Suspense or Musical-Romance, instead of an awkward mixture of them all.
I'll have to say more than once I thought the director must have seen "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and tried to give it a Bollywood twist. My first film was Bride & Prejudice. Which I thought was acted well.
This seemed like what a Western Audience would consider a straight to video cheese fest.
The acting was over the top, at times it felt like they were intentionally trying to parody western thrillers, but when you saw them try to inject the dramatic crying, screaming or fear, it felt out of place.
The viewer was left wondering when one of the actors would wink at the camera. More than a few times when the audience was supposed to be horrified, we could only snicker a the absurdity.
I watch a lot of foreign films, and even though I don't know Hindi, I have to say they did a poor job subtitling the film. Sometimes it was difficult to read the white lettering against the bright background.
The villain was particularly amusing, at least to me, because he came with his own mood music. The supposed surprising twist, actually felt like a cop out.
The lead couples were handsome/pretty enough, and the musical numbers made it worth my rental fee. I'd suggest it to someone as a musical- comedy, but I'd tell them to just fast forward the rest of the movie, because it wasn't worth the effort of reading. If you're determined to read a whole subtitled Hindi flick, then check out the superior Romantic Drama 'Namasteay, London'.
But I was not scared..unless that's really what they think is horrifying in India. 1 out of 10 for what it's being touted as. 6 out of 10 for it's unintentional quickness & ability to illicit lots of laughs, and it's musical/dance numbers. Enjoy :)


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


user
This tatty am dram adaptation scrambles soulessly through the plot of Dickens' wonderful book, replacing the emotional impact with hurried transitions and any exterior locations with drawings. It's not the fault of the actors and the production team that the budget is so low, of course, but you have to question the point of making this in the first place when there's neither the time nor money to do it justice. Michael Hordern's Scrooge is far too gentle at the outset, making his transformation lack power, and this isn't helped along by a lack of reaction from him as he watches the visions. The other actors range from acceptable (Clive Merrison, Paul Copley), to non-committal (Bernard Lee) to seeming like they're about to forget their lines (John Le Mesurier). It doesn't even score points for effort, to be honest.


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 part of the first part of this movie, and tiny little bits of other parts. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think this movie is really worth watching. The odd characters and happenings does catch your attention and is rather interesting, but there are bad things in it as well, and some gross things. The magic and mythical side of it turned me off, and for most Christians this movie would not be very suitable or worthwhile to watch.


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


user
Director Lo Wei was known to read the racing papers and take naps on the set - tells us something about his "approach to film-making, huh? The reviews I've read fall into two categories: 1) this is a film so bad it is funny, or 2) this is a film so bad it is boring.
So let's get to the point we all agree on - this film is really bad.
I vote for category 2). The story is almost incomprehensibly complex, and it is further shredded and twisted by the remarkably poor camera work and editing. Yet Lo Wei was so in love with it that he slows the pacing so we can all have a long look at it, whether we want to or not.
Maybe Lo Wei was upset the day (or two) this film was made - he just wanted to make everybody suffer, cast, crew and audiences alike.
Spare yourself the agony.


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


user
Early Jackie Chan film where there is no sign of the Chan persona we know. This is Chan in a full on traditional revenge tale of the sort that was cloned and re-cloned by countless producers and studios all through Hong Kong Taiwan and Mainland China. Its a very serious story that shows none of the humor and warmth that would catapult Jackie Chan to super stardom. Its also clear from watching this that had he not reinvented himself odds are we would never have known him because his career would have been painfully short. As a film on its own merits this is a good looking but pretty unremarkable movie. I was watching it, in the midst of an all day marathon of martial arts films and it would have blended together with every other film that I watched that day had I not noticed Jackie in the film. Honestly I don't think the film is really worth bothering with (there are too many other better variations) except if you're interested in seeing where Jackie Chan started.


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


user
Yet another Lo Wei production to completely waste the talents of a young Jackie Chan, To Kill With Intrigue is a strange mix of wuxia, melodrama, supernatural action, and plain old-school kung fu fighting that is pretty dull despite featuring several surreal WTF moments and lots of laughably bad dialogue.
In an effort to protect his pregnant girlfriend Chin Chin from the Killer Bees, a gang of ruthless killers that are about to attack his home, Cao Lei (Jackie Chan) pretends to be a heartless cad, driving her away, and thus saving her from danger.
During the attack, Cao's relatives are all killed, but he is left relatively unharmed by the gang, whose leader, a scar-faced woman, seems to have the hots for him. Cao then goes in search of Chin Chin, whose safety he has entrusted to his close friend Chu Chuk.
During his quest to find his true love, Cao befriends the head of a courier company whose precious cargo has been stolen by the leader of the evil 'Bloody Rain' clan. Eventually, after being injured in a fight against members of the nasty clan (a fun scene with lots of silly weaponry), and then nursed back to health by the scar-faced Killer Bee (who shows her love by burning his face!), Cao ultimately learns that he is a lousy judge of character: his friend, Chu Chuk, is none other than the power hungry head honcho of the 'Bloody Rain' clan, who has plans to marry Chin Chin himself.
Cue the drawn out climactic battle, with Cao getting kicked in the face repeatedly before eventually choking his traitorous ex-pal to death with a scarf.
Even die hard Chan fans will find this one a chore to sit through, with only the final fight managing to showcase some of the star's amazing acrobatic abilities. Fans of general Asian weirdness might dig the spooky appearance of the Killer Bees at the beginning of the film (with one character inexplicably demanding back his severed hand!), or the moment when three men float through a window to attack our hero, but, for most, this film will have very limited appeal.


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


user
As many have detailed here with a level of seriousness that I find amusing, this is *not*:
A FILM. (cue dramatic music)
It's just a so-bad-it's good, totally surreal, Jackie Chan stunt-for-all. The women fighters are totally kick-butt and Jackie is definitely put in his place.
This is the movie you want to see with some good friends on a Sunday afternoon -- surrounded by munchies, ready to roar with laughter, cheer on the good guys, boo the bad guys, and continually yell, "WHAT?" when something totally bizarre happens. Great fun!!


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


user
I found this film to be a bit too depressing. I don't mind dramas, but this was a bit too much for me. Luckily, there does seem to be somewhat a decent outcome. I suppose it was well done. I'd watch it again, but it's nothing to rave about.


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 a waste of time. Though it has actors who have the potential to do something decent, the acting in the movie is sub-par, and has a cliché point. "You never know what's going to happen tomorrow, so live your life to the fullest and do what makes you happy." That sentence saves you from wasting hours of your life on this movie. People who like this movie are the same people who would enjoy sitting for two hours before finding that the entire movie was a dream sequence. If the most important part of the movie isn't even going to happen, at least make it enjoyable to watch and captivating. There's a reason this project didn't make a theatrical release, and though indy films can turn out very good, this one does not even come close.


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


user
"Stealing Time" actually dates back to 2001 when it was mysteriously titled "Rennie's Landing". Which explains how director Marc Fusco was able to afford this cast of now established television/movie actors in what is obviously an extremely low budget production. About ten minutes into the film you understand why this thing never got a theatrical release after it made the film festival rounds several years ago.
Its recent distribution by Franchise Pictures probably reflects a perception that the rising popularity of certain cast members can be milked to recover some of the modest production costs. Although not a great addition to anyone's resume, young actors have done worse things when they were desperately seeking acting work of any kind.
Peter Facinelli, Ethan Embry, Scott Foley and Charlotte Ayanna play college friends who do an early "Big Chill" reunion and compare war stories about the failure of reality to measure up to their dreams.
Unfortunately nothing else happens, absolutely nothing. Yes Alec (Facinelli) dreams about a liquor store holdup and a bank robbery, which are then "cheaply and lamely" staged to completely inappropriate music. It is the least suspenseful bank job since W.C. Fields was the guard in "The Bank Dick".
If anyone can point to any moment in "Stealing Time" where something "actually" happens I would like to know about it, because as far as I can tell, not a thing happens in the whole film. Perhaps Fusco, through incessant visual reflections, is trying to say something profound about taking control of one's life before it is too late. Like "St. Elmo's Fire" the movie is littered with every profound thought ever uttered by a young adult who has left the ivory tower to experience the real world for the first time.
I felt Fusco was going for a kind of Howard Hawks Young Professionals in Action "Only Angels Have Wings" motif. Then again, I'm sure I was reading much too much into the film. After all, things actually happen Howard Hawks films.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


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


user
This film is a hodge-podge of various idiotic cliches. For instance, boy-meets-spoilt-rich-girl and gets her to fall in love with him by harassing her in college (an over-used backdrop in recent Indian commercial films). A male chauvinistic glorification of sexual conquest. The climax is predictable (having been used ad nauseum in several other films). As with many other recent commercial Hindi films, the film abounds with the incongruous insertion of songs, which probably contributed to the film's success more than anything else.


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


user
Occasionally funny but generally boring. I did recognize Robert Hegyes from Welcome back Carter (aka Epstein) as the ex-celebrity criminal. There is a knee slapping, gut busting scene with the French lady having a bad reaction to American food. S. Baio, S. Kellerman, and Tom Arnold are billed but have only minor roles. You never get to know the characters and it's hard to care what happens to them. Not recommended.


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


user
"Bar Hopping" seems to be trying to be about the stereotypical bar tender and lay "shrink" serving up pearls of wisdom followed by example vignettes played out by the cast. However, this turkey is a jumbled mess with a script full of simple-minded cliched nonsense: Hard to follow, herky-jerky flow, unsatisfying, and not worth the time. (D)


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


user
For me it's a case you'll never understand if you didn't live it.. so read this to know why would i have such unlimited anger..
I heard a lot about (Bruce Lee).. my father loved him.. my mother who hates any minor shot of violence loved him ! and how she talks till now about his " The Big Boss" aka "Fists of Fury" , and the experience of watching it at the Egyptian movies 1973 with all the gigantic success.. further to that I watched a real good movie about him (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story - 1993).. so I found myself crying : where are your movies Bruce ?!!
I went to the video store.. and it was dumb move.. (you'll know why !).. and waw.. I found a lot of Bruce Lee movies.. I selected one named (Bruce Lee in New Guinea)
I did it to myself and watched that one.. OH GOD please forgive your servant.. I harmed myself but with no intended decision.. I wouldn't do it if I knew its evil damaging !! its mythical level of hideousness !!
After that I didn't understand at all what's the big fuss about Bruce Lee as a great immortal star ???.. why anybody would care whether he is here or there.. this hero (whom I've watched !) is not that gifted and not that genius and of course is not that sexy ???
Until my father saw THIS star and he asked me to pause at any of his close ups and after he examined his face a little.. he told me in a very definitive way "this is not Bruce Lee" ! so I became too confused to ask : who's this silly guy anyway ??!!
It was 2001.. 2 years after my first entry to the IMDb database.. therefore I tended to it immediately to know who the hell is that man.. and I discovered the truth.. he isn't Bruce Lee.. No my dear friends.. he is Bruce Li !!!
And what a huge.. so huge difference !! I just want to know who can love that bad clone ?? Or god forbid .. love his repulsive movies.. I watched 2 of them and couldn't bear finishing the third !
After that I ignored all our video stores because its cheap cunning (writing on the posters that THIS IS Bruce Lee !??).. and I've got the original.. The one and only Bruce Lee who is such a great star indeed and Oh BOY he certainly had the right to immortality.. and no less.


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


user
After looking for this Bruceploitation for months, and then accidentally buying it cheap, it was disappointing. I heard about it on a DVD-R site, and it sounded crazy.
But no, what I got was a pretty bad martial arts movie. The kung fu-ing wasn't too bad, but the rest of the movie was pretty awful, and made the movie seem really, really long, much longer then it's 85 minute runtime.
On a positive note, the ape was funny for a couple of seconds (especially when I think they took the only close up of it's face from another movie), and the black guy who pops up half way through was funny because of the one line he said, which singlehandedly made all black people look like complete simpletons.
But it wasn't enough, sadly.
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
There are a number of movies that my high school friends and I used to joke about. They are mostly the campy works of the 50's that showed up on television on the late show. This was one of our favorites. The soul of a fallen native being brought to life in a tree stump with a scowl on its face. Now my friends claimed that if you looked carefully, you could see the thing had shoes. I never saw this. What is most striking to me is that the natives seemed to be white men with black grease paint on their faces; some looked sort of Italian. They also spoke with the strangest timbre that didn't seem to fit their situation. Like the mummy movies, the mobility of the thing didn't seem to offer much of a threat. In a confrontation, one should only have to walk fast; I guess it's the old element of surprise. If you see this, don't take it too seriously. Be happy that we have a battery of old horror movies that gave us such joy.


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


user
Huge, waddling, grimacing tree trunk menaces fake "natives" on a "Pacific Atoll" (looking suspiciously like Southern CA...), reaking havok and revenge. Unlike the silly stumps in "Navy VS The Night Monsters", the Tabonga is actually a full-grown man-tree. Well, grown in 2 days: moost have od'ed on those Miracle Grow spikes...Anycow, it comes not from Hell, but from the grave of a fake native, Kimo(Greg Palmer, "The Zombies of Mora Tau"), murdered by the native elders for hanging out with those awful American scientists. The scientists include Dr. William Arnold (Tod Andrews, "Hang 'em High", "Beneath the Planet of the Apes") and Professor Clark(John McNamara,"War of the Colossal Beast"). Rounding out the cast is Linda Watkins("The Parent Trap") as the obnoxious Mrs. Kilgore, the obvious comic relief spurting out an obvious fake "cockney" accent. A stellar cast indeed!! Anycow, because his doughy, vacant wife, Korey, played amateurishly by Suzanne Ridgeway("Love's A-Poppin'"), helps set him up, Kimo declares his revenge on her and all of the elders. Then, the dopey American scientists uproot the tree, bring it back to life "in the name of science", & allows it to SLOWLY amble about the island, killing off everyone who has done him wrong. Of course, we all know that evil monsters carry off fair maidens, so the Tabonga grabs plucky female scientist Dr. Terry Mason(Tina Carver, "Hell on Frisco Bay") & waddles off with her. Vine-ally, a good shot with a Remmington hits a knife lodged in the Tabonga, and it falls over dead into the quicksand. This laughably foolish cowncept is one of the all-time cheesy howlers. The Tabonga is arguably the slowest monster in moovie history, right up there with the clanky, over-built robot from "Robot Monster vs the Aztec Mummy" and the perversly slow carpet monster from "Creeping Terror". Try not to laugh as you watch the Tabonga toss fake natives down hills & into quicksand, dodge spears, and lumber slowly about the "island". Shady writing, wooden performances, and sappy direction all point that this pulpy fertilizer has far mooore bark than bite. This tepid pile of wood chips was the last hurrah from long-time editor-turned-director Dan Milner, who quickly vanished into well-deserved obscurity following this film. You herd it through the grapevine from the MooCow first: "From Hell it Came" is a compost classic!! :


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 one time at a kiddie matinée at the North Park Theater in San Diego in 1959 when it was released and I was 11. It was one of three features that were shown that day.
I have not seen it since but have wanted to because I am a film buff and appreciate the terrible along with the great, good and average films.
What I remember most vividly is that the more sophisticated audience members, consisting of children between 8 and 15, howled with laughter at the tree monster.
A triple bill at a theater showing 3 adventure films is something an 11 year old does not forget, but I can't remember the names of the other 2 films. (One did star George Montgomery and David Farrar.)
UPDATE: The other 2 films in this triple bill were much better. They were "Watusi," 1959, with George Montgomery and David Farrar starring and "The Angry Red Planet," 1959, with Gerald Mohr and Naura Hayden staring. Ms. Hayden has written a couple of books on health and fitness also.


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


user
Native Chief's son is wrongfully accused for the death of his father. The evil Witch Doctor orders to execute him. He then comes back as a murdering tree(!), Tabanga. Well, what can you say about such a "film"? If it was intended to be a horror film, there obviously was some sort of bad judgment involved. And for a comedy, it still isn't funny enough. I don't know why people make films like this. I guess you have to be in a really silly mood to watch it. Or you might want to see the incredible "monstrous" tree, which gives a new dimension to "a slow death". Or maybe you want to check out the great acting skills by all involved. (Ms. Kilgore!) Or the dialogue and screenplay, which were strangely ignored at the Academy Awards that year.
"Shouldn't we try psycho-analysis on that tree? Maybe its mother was afraid of oaks." 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
I know it's not original, but what the hey? What else can be said about it? I feel unutterably silly just paying any attention at all to "From Hell It Came". The movie makes the important political and social issue of fallout from atmospheric atomic tests seem a matter for joking and dismissal, not the concern and alarm being raised by scientists all over the world at the time.


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


user
**May Contain Spoilers**
A luckless South Sea islander is executed by other (Caucasian-looking) natives after he befriends visiting scientists Tod Andrews and Tina Carver. The meddlesome scientists dig him up and find that he has taken the form of a humanoid tree. He comes to life and goes on a rampage and sure enough, that Fifties boogeyman, the A-Bomb, is blamed for this aberration. To state that this particular monster walks like it has a stick up its a** would be redundant. Suffice it to say that the critter lumbers along, like the film itself, throwing his enemies into some handy quicksand and giving the main characters one more thing to make stupid comments about. Paul Blaisdell created the tree-man suit and it's hardly his best work. Over the years this flick has been sujected to many comments like "To Hell it can go!" Personally I think it's the best walking-tree movie I've ever seen.


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


user
How many monster tree movies can you see in a lifetime?Well I'll go out on a limb and say one.This movie is better watched late at night,with a 12 pack of beer, the sound off and you and your friends making up the dialogue.
On a Pacific Island a young man is sentenced to death for consorting with the "evil Americans".(Seems his loving wife has been sleeping with the witch doctor and they set him up to die so the doc' can be king).Well he vows to come back and wreak revenge.
Before you can shake a stick the goofy natives run to the American scientists' hut screaming"Tobanga come!"
It seems the young corpse has done just that as Tobanga, the walking tree monster. Yes his revenge is terrible (and so is this movie).It seems that these natives cannot run from a lumbering tree so he tosses them in quicksand,rolls them down hills etc.Pretty soon the new king wants to trade his woman or kingdom for an axe or a chainsaw.
General problems with this movie are numerous. The comedy relief is an obnoxious woman with a Cockney accent (like this movie needs comedy).You want her to die upon her first appearance.The leading lady is whiny.The leading man is a boor.The acting is wooden (pun intended).The dialogue is stiff and lumbering.The natives have Brooklyn accents.The monster suit is pure giggles.
While this is a bad movie it still is fun to watch.It gets a 3 on unintentional laughs alone.Your dog may rate it just a bit higher but only if the tree wasn't mobile.


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


user
Did I waste my time. This is very pretentious film. In the beginning you will think there's something going on but by the time some 30 minutes go by you realize nothing is happening. I waited for another 20 minutes and by then i was so frustrated that I started reading reviews on IMDb and realized that the director has wasted precious time of so many people.
Unbelievably boring pointless film. Stay away. So many good soundtracks. I will give one point for the police inspector joke because that worked for me. I laughed for a long time but otherwise a very bad film. Stay away.1 on 10.


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 not plot driven, OK; it's not a character study, fine; there's no action, alright; there's no point, hmmm...
Maybe it's supposed to represent the boredom and absurdity of living in Palistine and parts of Israel these days in a state of violence, petty disagreements, deep rooted hostility, etc. But mostly it's long, long scenes of nothing happening - or things which look like they're dripping with meaning (a checkpoint tower crashing to the ground, an Arafat balloon floating into Jerusalem, a crouching tiger women deflecting bullets into a halo) but when you try to derive some meaning, there's no there there.
Bonus: you can watch this film in fast forward and it will make absolutely no difference except that it might be slightly less boring.


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


user
I really wanted to like this film for all sorts of reasons -- the subject matter is inherently interesting and is probably the major issue facing the world today and has thrown up fascinating works (e.g. Linda Grant's When I lived in modern times)usually from the Israeli side of the fence. Also, a bloke I like told me he thought it was the best film he'd seen all year, so with such a recommendation...
HOWEVER I actually found myself nodding off at points! Admittedly i was tired and the cinema seats comfy but I found it too much hard work trying to identify with the characters. Once I'd got my head round the idea that it was a series of vignettes, I went with it, but this made it disappointingly like a sketch show rather than a film. I liked the concept of a restrained, almost silent mise en scene contrasted to these utopian moments - the sexy girl, the red balloon and the ninja Muslim fighter. But personally i think the film has been over hyped. I'm not saying narrative and plot is everything (it's definitely not) but even a little more dialogue would have helped.


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


user
I was very concerned about this film, it was scheduled to play at a Jewish Film Festival, and was reported to be very hostile to Israel, while using clever humor and irony.
I was relieved that the film was not a diatribe, however as a work of film it was deeply disappointing. The film was full of random events, some of which eventually connected, most of which did not. Some of the events were very clever and funny, but some were merely random and pointless.
There are repeated scenes between two lovers where they sit in a car, wordlessly, and play some handholding game. Perhaps in some cultures this is erotic, but it's like watching thumb-wrestling. After the third time, it really became tiresome.
I have always found David Lynch to be gratuitously bizarre, using strange stories and images to cause audiences to think that he is SO sophisticated that they don't grasp his work; in fact, there is nothing to grasp. The same is true here, the stories do not add up to anything, and there is not much of a political point being made (in one scene a boisterous Israeli soldier humiliates Palestinian drivers at a checkpoint. That's news?)
I don't understand why this film has garnered controversy, nor why it has garnered attention. It is an inferior work and seeing it was a waste of time.


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


user
A Brazilian cable television is presenting "Yadon Ilaheyya" this month in its "Cult" channel. I saw the trailer and listened to the advertisement, and decided to see this movie. Indeed it is an absurd boring pretentious dumb pointless disconnected crap about the conflict in the Middle East, and together with "Soultangler", they certainly are the worst movies I have tried to see. I really wasted forty-three minutes of my life watching the first half of this crap, highly indicated for torturing enemies. How can this movie be awarded and nominated to prizes inclusive in Cannes? My vote is one (awful).
Title (Brazil): "Intervenção Divina" ("Divine Intervention")


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 like a school video project and a propaganda film that puts the whole class as well as the teacher to sleep.
Utterly boring long silent(yes, silent) strings of unrelated video clips.
Instead of this movie watch the paint dry or the grass grow- it will be more interesting unless you enjoy seeing Arabs being malicious to everyone around them.
Sulieman (the Director) should be embarrassed of this lame waste of film.
It deserves a one for the movie quality, a zero for the ridiculous propaganda message and a negative number for the script (or lack thereof.)


assistant
0