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
Coming from Kiarostami, this art-house visual and sound exposition is a surprise. For a director known for his narratives and keen observation of humans, especially children, this excursion into minimalist cinematography begs for questions: Why did he do it? Was it to keep him busy during a vacation at the shore?
"Five, 5 Long Takes" consists of, you guessed it, five long takes. They are (the title names are my own and the times approximate):
"Driftwood and waves". The camera stands nearly still looking at a small piece of driftwood as it gets moved around by small waves splashing on a beach. Ten minutes.
"Watching people on the boardwalk". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon and a boardwalk. People walk across the camera frame, their faces too far and blurry to make them interesting. Eleven minutes.
"Six dogs at the water's edge". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon with a sandy stretch of beach nearby. Far away at the water's edge, six dogs not doing much, just relaxing. Sixteen minutes.
"Ducks in line, gaggle of ducks". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon near the water's edge. Dozen and dozen of ducks stream in single file from left to right. I assume that Kiarostami released them gradually. The last two ducks stop dead on their track and suddenly a gaggle of ducks rolls quietly from right to left. I assume Kiarostami collected the ducks and re-released all at the same time. It is not the first time that he deals with the contrast between organized and disorganized behavior. Eight minutes.
"Frog symphony, oops, I mean cacophony, for a stormy night". The camera stands over a pond at night. It's pitch black except for what appears to be the reflection of the moon on the undulating water. It is a stormy night and clouds race to cover the moon. The screen goes dark. What remains for us is the cacophony of frogs, howling dogs and, eventually, morning roosters. Hit me on the head if this was done in a single take. I saw this segment as a sound composition put together in the editing room and accompanied by a simple visualization. Twenty seven minutes!
Except for the mildly amusing ducks, this exercise in minimalism left me cold. A nonessential film for Kiarostami admirers.
I thought I would rate "Five" a five, but four is what it deserves.
The film is dedicated to Yasujiru Ozu.


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


user
Can this "film" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous.


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


user
Billed as a romantic comedy set against the early years of WWII it fails to deliver. The problem is that while beautifully photographed it has no consistent story line or narrative. Starting as a murder mystery it offers no hope to its actors as it meanders through recent history. Depardieu is wasted in a trivial role he obviously is not comfortable with playing. Adjani cannot carry the picture. The hero is not; obviously an imitation of a Hitchcock "wrongly accused" role it lacks balance. Neither heroic, comic nor suspenseful.
This could have been a good film. I am reminded of "The Lady Vanishes" which did combine suspense, romance and comedy in a serious film dealing with fascism.


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


user
I've just been at the cinema in down town Prague watching this film.
Not due to the poster I found very Holywood old-fashioned heroic
style. Not due to the high level starring which remind me that most
of those high starring French films are usually pathetic. But just
because there are not so many films in my French mother tongue in a
city like Prague. And because I love Adjani, Depardieu and Rappenau's
Cyrano. Then I decided to write up this small comment because I think
I really don't agree with the comment main stream on this film on imdb.
I was not disappointed. The film just look like the poster. The
characters are just as stupid as they look like. For a while I
thought Adjani would be like a caricature -- just a funny character
you can laugh at. No she is not! For example when she decides to tell
Depardieu she is the one who murdered the fat one she killed at the
beginning of the film then come the violins in a big fat pathetic
music which should make you cry and realize Adajani's character is a
deeper person as she looks like. Maybe this was humor at the 10th
level but I am sorry my sense of humor is not that high! If I want to
see some funny French film on the WWII I watch once again La Grande
Vadrouille! It is definitively more fun! I have also read on imdb
that Lemoine is making a great performance in this film. I have to
say I have never seen a so bad acting! (Well I have never seen any Ed
Wood's film). Nevertheless the film is good filmed with a lot of good
(very costly) scenes like the one with the Pantheon in the morning
when the German army arrives at Paris or when the refugees settle down
on a bridge in Bordeaux. I think Rappeneau is a good filmmaker but
that he does better with a good script. It was easy with Cyrano. He
had not to write the dialogs!
I give 1/10.


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


user
The 33 percent of the nations nitwits that still support W. Bush would do well to see this movie, which shows the aftermath of the French revolution and the terror of 1794 as strikingly similar to the post 9/11 socio-political landscape. Maybe then they could stop worrying about saving face and take the a**-whupping they deserve. It's really a shame that when a politician ruins the country, those who voted for him can't be denied the right to ever vote again. They've clearly shown they have no sense of character.
What really stands out in this movie is the ambiguity of a character as hopelessly doctrinaire as Robespierre; a haunted empty man who simplistic reductive ideology can't help him elucidate the boundaries between safety and totalitarianism. Execution and murder. Self-defense and patriotism. His legalistic litmus tests aggravate the hopeless situation he's helped create. Sound like any belligerent, overprivileged, retarded Yale cheerleaders you know of?
Wojciech Pszoniak blows the slovenly Deparidieu off the screen. As sympathetic as Robespierres plight is, it's comforting to know that shortly after the film ends he'll have his jaw shot off and be sent to the guillotine.


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


user
The most remarkable thing about "Talk Radio" is how bad it is. The callers' voices all have a phony, reading-from-a-script ring to them. An evening with an annoying loudmouth at a Dallas radio station is told with the portentousness of a Sartrean glimpse into Hell. Stone tries for an existential revelation and gets unintended comedy instead. Whenever a caller makes a "profound" (empty) point about something, Stone shoves the camera at one of his character's face as they are stricken with some traumatic realization that is never revealed to the audience. Bogosian overacts throughout in one of the most irritating performances ever smeared onto celluloid. Underrated classic? Give me a break.


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


user
A very disappointing film from Oliver Stone which, unlike his recent epic "J.F.K.", fails to stimulate any sort of real emotion. "Talk Radio" is about talk-back host 'Barry Champlain', a very loud, opinionated man who manages to upset a lot of people and yet still draw an audience, most of whom mind you just want to ring up and abuse him. His boss in the movie (Alec Baldwin) sums up his character very well by saying he's just a shoe salesman with a big mouth. And as Barry (Eric Bogosian) gets death threat upon death threat, the final outcome is almost inevitable.
This is the sort of movie that usually has something very powerful to say. However, "Talk Radio" fails to make a serious comment and remains a frustrating, pointless film.
Thursday, September 17, 1992 - Video


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 would receive a much higher vote from me in general and I will talk about why, but first and foremost it receives four stars and should stay at four stars because of the directors ridiculously tasteless portrayal of rape and sexual assault. Not far into the movie Oyama sexually assaults a woman he rescued earlier, and while she briefly becomes somewhat miffed by his actions this attitude only lasts about five minutes before loving adoration sets in and carries her character through the rest of the film. I know many will argue that it's not that important in a kung fu beat-em-up, and as a fan of the genera I can't say that it's all that unusual, but that doesn't stop it from being completely tasteless every time I see it.
What I will say in this movie's defence however is that it's somewhat refreshing to see a martial arts, or even action movie of any sort, that offers no actual hero for the viewer to get behind. Oyama is portrayed as a rapist and murderer; a societal outcast whose only student becomes completely mentally unbalanced before being gunned down by the police. The final shots of the movie leave one with the feeling that Oyama himself is poised for a major breakdown and no longer seems to care for the woman he earlier assaulted into loving him and has since followed him with puppy-dog like devotion.
Whether this was truly the intended message of the movie or not, one can't help but feel a little hopeful that Oyama might be on the brink of suicide by the time the movie is over. This is a rare emotional treatment from the martial arts genre and its interesting to see a film that leaves you with a sense that its violence is not to be celebrated. If only Karate Bullfighter had treated the subject of sexual violence better, either by creating more emotional depth and recognition between the two characters involved, or by leaving it out all together, this would have been a much more interesting film.


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


user
I'm thinking of some things for this movie: First, really is a very bad movie. This is really "Superbad". The film looked very promising in the trailers but fell flat... Maybe the original idea was good, but between a bad script and bad acting the movie became boring and empty. My advise is don't waste 2 hours of your precious time. You have been warned. This is the first movie I rated 1 star at IMDb.com... Second, none of the characters are likable. You really don't care what happened to them... Third, the villain is very easy to identify. The grandson kills his father, sodomizes the friend's son, get the maid pregnant, smothers his grandfather... Like JT says, "If you like evil with no retribution, this is your movie". Nothing more to say...


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


user
Me and my friend read the summery and watched the trailer and were very interested and excited to go rent this movie. BAD IDEA. We thought a movie with actors that influential would have been a sure hit, but our expectations fell extremely short. First of all, the trailer and summery are misleading to the point of lies. The movie started out slow for the first 1 1/2 hours(reminder, its about two hours long) and when it finally started to gain momentum, It sucked. Plus, the plots were very hard to follow. It confused us because it kept skipping from one story to another in random order. The characters where not very realistic when it came to reality. Sure the mum and son could be actual people in reality, but everyone else seemed to be one extreme or the other. If your a person who likes sick, twisted, unusual movies, then go for it. But we advise not wasting two hours of you life you cant get back. Unfortunitly, no one told us that...


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


user
While this isn't an all time classic comedy it is a pretty good little movie to watch if you catch it on a rainy Saturday morning with not a lot else going on right then.
Harold Lloyd plays Ezekiel Cobb, an American coming home after growing up in China where his dad was a missionary.He has come home from China to find an American wife and plans to return to China to continue his father's work.Cobb unwittingly is recruited to run for mayor of his corrupt home town when the existing political machine that controls the town realizes that he would make a perfect patsy to run against the current mayor who also is the head of the town's underworld.They figure the bumbling ,stumbling Cobb has no chance to win and therefore the current mayor continues to run the town and run his schemes which makes them all rich.
Lloyd isn't doing the physical comedy here like he did in his silent films.He does a convincing portrayal of Cobb with a reserved understated dignity.The acting was good from all involved and the story and script were also quite good.
Being made in 1934 the film does have some rather racist language when talking about the Chinese and it also has a typical black character from that era but these stereotypes aren't nearly as mean as I've seen from other films from that time.
Although not close to being Lloyd's best film ,this movie does entertain and Lloyd is very good as Cobb.You won't be blown away by this film but it may be enough to peak your interest in Lloyd and make you want to see more of his work.


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


user
This lame Harold Lloyd sound film has nary a laugh in it, and makes one wonder if this Lloyd is even the same one that made all of those delightful and hilarious silents.
Lloyd's boyish likability becomes fey and limp when we can hear him talk, and a sluggish, restrained pace replaces the zany antics of his silents. Lloyd plays a young son of a missionary who grows up in China and then finds himself transplanted to contemporary New York City without a clue as to how life outside his Chinese village works. He finds himself an unlikely victor in a mayoral election and quickly draws the ire of all the government organizations because he refuses to look the other way in the face of rampant corruption. When he's framed in an attempt to bring him down, he decides to play just as dirty as everyone else, and stages a fake execution of every crook in NYC as a scare tactic. This darkly satiric ending feels out of place next to everything else in the movie, but it's the only part of the film that comes remotely to life. Everything else is a dull bore.
I don't like having to admit that a Harold Lloyd movie fails, because I like him so much, but I don't have a choice with this one.
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
Possible Spoiler alert, though there's not much to spoil about this film. I saw Project A part II not having seen the first movie. I don't think I missed much. Project A Part Two is not only the worst Jackie Chan film I've seen to date (yes worse than `Fantasy Mission Force'), this film is one of the most unwatchable films the world has ever seen. It's right up there with `Plan 9 From Outer Space' on the sleep inducing scale. The plot is twisted up and knotted like a 50 foot ball of yarn the cat's been playing with and finally left for dead. The `humor' if you could call it that, seems to have been written by an annoying High School freshman, who despite how many people tell him he's not funny, is determined to get his lame humor out no matter how painful a movie is made. And this movie is painfully bad. The plot involves Jackie Chan as a Navy officer recruited by the police force to round up `all known criminals'. He rounds them up in the first half hour of the movie, and I prayed for a quick ending which I didn't get. Why the movie bothers to progress from this point I haven't a clue. The movie drags on and on and on with no purpose, no plot, and attempts at humor that fail so miserably, they make Carrot Top look like a comedic genius. The Kung Fu in this movie is lame, and forgettable. There's better Kung Fu in that movie about the 3 Ninja kids. Project A part II is neither an action movie nor a kung fu movie, it is however a complete waste of the talents of Jackie Chan and Maggie Cheung who have made films worlds superior to this. As Jackie Chan repeatedly escapes certain death, I enter `Blair Witch' mode asking (and wishing) `Is he going to die NOW, so the movie can end? `. An Example of how ludicrous this movie is: Jackie Chan is handcuffed to another man. A gang of pirates (that look nothing like pirates) throw axes at Jackie. Does Jackie grab one of the wayward axes and break the chain on the handcuffs? No! You see that would spoil the `hilarious' gag of him being handcuffed to another person. If you have a friend who laughs at everything, I encourage you to watch this movie with him or her, and watch as even they won't get a chuckle out of this film. If you're an insomniac this movie is sure to put you to sleep. Do not operate heavy machinery while watching Plan A part II. Possible side effects include headache, retinal strain, and death by boredom. 0/9 Stars


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


user
Remember those old kung fu movies we used to watch on Friday and Saturday late nights when our babysitters THOUGHT we were in charge? Well, this movie plays exactly like one of those movies. Patsy Kensit's biggest claim to fame was the love interest to Mel Gibson's character in "Lethal Weapon 2," and this performance was one of the reasons why she's never made it big: she's a terrible actress.
In "Lethal Weapon 2," I thought she was cute. Cute enough to check out some of the other movies she'd been in, including "Loves Music, Loves to Dance" another big let down, which I, obviously, was not impressed with, either. But, as attractive as she is to my eyes, my soul screamed at me to turn it off because she played another cheap, predictable role, and done it very badly.
In this movie, Kensit stars as a comedienne (and not a good one, either) who's working the clubs of France (couldn't cut it in her own homeland, so she's making THEIR ears bleed), who's down on her luck, but, even worse, the French government wants to throw her out because of an expired visa (or maybe they just caught her act). But she gets married to this Casanova (Freiss), who is just as down on his luck, and the predictability begins...terribly! Is there any way to give this movie a NEGATIVE rating? 1 out of 10 stars is over rating it!


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


user
Documentary content: Amazing man, amazing movement he started, amazing stories- most of them yet to be really told.
Celluloid treatment: Nike Ad. Sorry, ain't got nothing else to say about this but that you can say all you want about the dire circumstances in the favelas, but... if you attempt to support that claim with flashy and romanticized images and camera-work of that life, the humbleness necessary to show this life as an outsider filmmaker goes out the window. And with that goes the legitimacy of the narrative. Besides that, the time-space continuum in the film is all off, and I'm not necessarily against that in films as a tool, but here it serves only to confuse the viewer into wondering what was said when; thus leading me to the question: is this a documentary or a docudrama?
cococravescinema.blogspot.com


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


user
Let's Get Tough is one of those movies that people probably regret years later that they made. Full of awful racist Jap talk and jokes, this East End Kids story details how the kids want to join the military to defeat the Japs. Since they're too young, they decide to clean the town out of those dastardly Japs. They find one, throw fruit at it (without anyone doing anything to stop them) and he pulls a short sword out to menace them! The cops say to stop annoying him! He's only Chinese! He's on our side! When the kids go back to apologize, the Chinese man's dead! It's all part of this huge Jap and German Spy ring! The kids see to it that this is stopped At All Costs! I'm sure all of this was fine when it was made (1942) but viewed now, you realize of course, that this is clearly a product of it's time. Full of stereotypes, German and Japanese. Funny how the East End Kids have a black kid in the group, and he's not spared either. Gee whiz.


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


user
Propaganda pro-American war effort film that came out in 1942 has the East Side Kids getting tough against any Japanese they spot in their own neighborhood when they learn they're too young to enlist. Ultimately they learn they were mistaken in their mistrust of some individuals but also happen to stumble across a spy ring they then set out to bust. The film is harmless enough in its fashion although some may well take offense given how innocent Asians really did get singled out during the Second World War. Overall though, it's a pretty generic effort and both Leo Gorcey and Huntz Hall would have better moments, the best of which tend to come here when they ad-lib.


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


user
Following the World War II Japanese attack on U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor, "The Eastside Kids": Leo Gorcey (as Muggs), Bobby Jordan (as Danny Connors), Huntz Hall (as Glimpy), David Gorcey (as Peewee), Ernest Morrison (as Scruno), and Bobby Stone (as Skinny) want to serve their country. But, both the U.S. Army and Navy reject them as too young. Still wanting to "knock off about a million Japs", the "boys" attack an Asian clerk, who turns out to be Chinese. The unfortunate incident does, however, lead the gang to help uncover some really nasty Japanese and German people.
If "too young" is defined as "under twenty-one", only Mr. Jordan and Mr. Stone would be rejected for military service. But, it's possible recruiters were turned off by the office manners displayed by Mr. Gorcey and Mr. Hall. "Let's Get Tough!" was made during what the script accurately describes as "open season on Japs" - for this and other reasons, it hasn't aged well. It's a wasted effort, but the regulars performs ably, with Tom Brown moving the storyline along, as Jordan's spy brother.
*** Let's Get Tough! (5/29/42) Wallace Fox ~ Leo Gorcey, Bobby Jordan, Tom Brown


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


user
And I may be being generous. The overwhelming majority of the movie consists of looped footage...the shambling monster, two women exercising, the shambling monster again, a bunch of people in the pool, the shambling monster again, none the worse for wear despite having been injured...you get the picture. I restrained myself from yelling "GET ON WITH IT ALREADY" on several occasions.
And it doesn't help that the footage they used was poorly produced. The sound is disconcertingly out of sync with the image. And in the one scene where they tried to get "artistic" with the lighting and camera techniques, the lighting guy, holding the flashlight that provides the scene's only illumination, is clearly visible in the shot.
My hope is that the production was the victim of some horrible disaster in which the original audio track and most of the footage was destroyed, but they decided to release it anyways, cobbled together from the editing room floor, in memory of the heroic crew members who gave their lives trying to save the *real* film - the one with the plot and the interesting dialog. Sadly, there's no evidence of this, and I'm forced to conclude that, in the immortal words of Joel and the Bots, they just didn't care.



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 horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim "They didn't even try". The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen!


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


user
A montage prologue, quite obviously manufactured by the blessed maniacs who actually chose to distribute this thing, tries to convince us that the comic impact of this staggeringly incompetent bit of nothing is entirely deliberate. Don't you believe it: this is to Lloyd Kaufman as Andy Warhol is to Herschel Gordon Lewis. It is so thoroughgoing in its project of torturing its hypothetical audience that it seems like some kind of misanthropic negationist art installation, only it can't be because it is so completely bereft of self-consciousness. As obnoxious and ugly as "Things" or "Frozen Scream", this manages to up the ante by recycling itself with a maddeningly bald insistence that has to be seen to be believed. A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long! You WANT to believe that this started life as a slightly more bearable short subject, except if you took away the repetition what's left would be far less fascinating: eg. when the 'fiend' does enter the room, he only inspires extended, highly apathetic, utterly blank stares from his imminent (offscreen) victims. Repeat this scenario about four times, in marginally varied settings; bridge these with perhaps thirty lines of dialogue total; offer up actors even more hateful and lethargic than those in the above mentioned classics; and grace us with a monster comprising gauze, ketchup and one yellow Spock ear, and you've got a movie too mind-boggling to refuse, a working definition of bad. I'm proud to own it!


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 by far the worst movie ever made. I have no doubt. I have seen such crap as Manos, Space Mutiny, and whatnot, and I can honestly tell you that they do not hold a candle to Science Crazed.
Science Crazed has no discirnable plot. Something about a guy making a woman pregnant via turkey baster, and the child born *hours* later is fully grown, and ready to kill. Of course, being a newborn, it takes him about an hour to kill people. The director loops footage constantly, and takes about fifteen minutes to set up an awkward death. There is about a page of dialogue for the whole movie, however the dialogue arrives about a minute after it is spoken.
Sample Scene: The monster is walking down a hall. We know this because there is about ten minutes of looped footage of his feet. In between loops, we are treated to two women working out. Repeat ad nauseum for about 20 minutes. When the monster does show up, no one moves, and everyone looks like deer in headlights as the monster takes another 10 minutes to get to them to kill them. By the level of the acting, you would guess that the people are already dead.
I know my description doesn't seem too bad, but trust me, I can not fully describe the pain that is Science Crazed.
Stay away, and boycott all video stores that carry it. :)



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


user
I remember catching this movie on one of the Showtime channels. What stood out for me is that this movie takes place entirely in Phoenix, Arizona. I'm from there so I spot the locales easily.
Regardless, a ninja kills a scientist, because they wear yellow sweaters and golf, who is pursued by the police. It takes about half the police force to take him down and when they do eventually kill him, there are no discernible bullet wounds. His spirit lives on however when a woman finds her and touches his katana.
From then on, she periodically gets possessed and kills the police officers who killed the original ninja. Then another ninja from Japan comes to kill the evil ninja. This might be a plot device from the previous two films, or perhaps a plot hole. All I know is that this movie is very campy, bad and entertaining. This is something to watch with a tub of popcorn, and several friends and give it the MST3K treatment.


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


user
You can only describe this with one word and that would be WOW!!! Wow, I really did not think piece of crap like this could ever be released. If you watch a movie titled ninja then you expect to see at least some cool martial artists, right? However, none of these guys know any martial arts whatsoever and it seems like they went to china and picked the first people they saw on the street and trained them for a day in martial arts, that's the level of their martial arts skills! The actors are way overacting, the special effects are ridiculous and there is not any plot that makes any sense. This is the worst martial arts movie I've ever seen and I have seen plenty!


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


user
...and boy is the collision deafening. A female telephone lineman is taken over by the spirit of a recently-deceased ninja, strips down to her undies, pours tomato juice on her body so her boyfriend can lick it off, performs a seductive dance, then goes off to kill the policemen who killed the ninja she's possessed by. Only to be hunted down by a one-eyed ninja master. Just like in real life, eh? Enlivened only by Sho Kosugi's martial arts choreography (and his declining to put his obnoxious kids in this one), you really have to see this to believe it. It's the ultimate mix of totally at-odds genres.


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 a few years ago, and man I never want to golf again. I mean ninjas apparently have no respect for the game of golf or the way it has evolved. And I'm not talking about "victimless" stuff like forging a scorecard. No no- Based on what I've seen here, they shamelessly massacre policemen and golfers alike on hallowed country club grounds. Judge Smailes would be spinning in his grave. And do they repent for said sins? No no, based on what I have seen here, the typical response by a slain ninja is to take over the body of a buxom female telephone repairwoman and seek revenge. I find this morally reprehensible, and needless to say, after viewing this nonsense, I not only stopped golfing and talking on the telephone, but also decided to stop feeding the homeless.


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


user
Wow, this movie is bad. Think "Flashdance" with ninjas. The worst part is when a sword is supposed to be floating in midair, but you can see the strings. Or maybe the worst part is the gigantic eye patch (that looks like a coaster) that the good ninja wears. Actually, there are so many bad parts, I can't make up my mind which is the worst. I can't believe anyone actually put up the money to have this thing made. The only redeeming value is that it is good to laugh at.


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


user
"Ninja III" is not quite as bad as "Enter The Ninja", the first part of this "trilogy", but it's still a very bad movie. It will hardly please the fans of martial-arts movies, because there isn't enough action, but even the action scenes themselves are often spoiled by laughable excesses and needless violence. As if the film wasn't already weak enough, the filmmakers turn parts of it into an idiotic "The Exorcist" rip-off. The only redeeming value is the winning presence of the actress who plays the "dominated" heroine; she is a beautiful and athletic woman, which the director doesn't forget to exploit in various sleazy ways - she just happens to be an aerobics teacher. I don't mind a little soft-core exploitation, but it must not pretend to be something else.


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


user
I never saw the other two "Ninja" movies and for all I know there are known, but for some reason I watched this one. This one starts out rather fast as this one ninja goes on a super killing spree. He is almost unstoppable as it takes quite a number of bullets to take him down. He is not out for the count though as he ends up possessing a woman and he then continues his killing ways by using her as his tool. Another ninja enters the fray and apparently the only way you kill a ninja is with another ninja so he volunteers. This leads up to a big battle at the end as the dead ninja goes back into his body and they have it out in an all out war. Sounds better than it actually turned out being, but at least it was not 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'm also a SF buff, among other genres, and I especially like those films from 60's and 70's with their "ideas over effects" premise that produced so many intelligent and likable stories put on screen. In a nutshell I completely agree with scott-886's review of this movie. I heard of this film, and being what I previously mentioned, a 60's and 70's SF buff, with a penchant for SF stories with touch of the "Twilight Zone", I expected a lot, and my expectations were heightened with reviews ranking the effects of this movie "second best" to Kubrick's "2001 Space Odyssey". What a fraud. "Journey to the far side of the sun", was ordinary, convoluted, half baked, silly looking film, with laughable amateur special effects (and remember I love films from that era and despise CGI), and it can be fully compared more to 60's SF disasters such as "Marooned", which "Journey" very much reminded me of. The idea behind it all is not that bad, but building the plot on a story of a twin planet to Earth, on which the same world is inverted, asked for a master like Kubrick to direct. Needles to say Robert Parish is nothing like that, so he delivered boring and silly movie, that looked and felt like a matinée TV series of those days. Not worth wasting your time on, even if you are an absolute fan of the genre.


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


user
Being the sci-fi fan that I am, I was always curious about this film. So I was excited to see Journey to the Far Side of the Sun finally get released on an affordable DVD (the previous print had been fetching $100 on eBay - I'm sure those people wish they had their money back - but more about that in a second).
Anyway, the premise of this film (just like Twilight Zone's "The Parallel") is that there is an undiscovered planet resembling Earth on the "other side of the sun". This planet is of course exactly like ours except that it's inverted. This basically means their letters are reversed and people drive on the wrong side of the road.
Sound intriguing? Well that's basically all there is to this film. The first hour or so is dedicated to the preparations for the journey to this other planet. It's just tedious scenes of switches being pressed, banal dialog, etc. There's no point to it whatsoever. Gerry Anderson managed to find the most boring British actors in the history of cinema to play most of the roles. I mean they are so dull I'm surprised the crew was able to stay awake to finish the film.
Anyway, once the crew FINALLY lands on the planet (after an interminable sequence of the astronauts sitting and literally sleeping in the cockpit), Roy Thinnes notices the copy is all backwards on a bottle of cologne and hops back on another ship to tell people about what he has discovered. Oops he never gets to do it as he crash lands and dies. The end! Oh wait, there's a bonus scene of one of the space executives hurling himself into a mirror in his wheelchair at the end. I guess he wanted out of this film too.
I'm really surprised a film like this could get made even back in the 60s. Rent if you must. DO NOT BUY.


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 very dull film with poorly developed characters, subplots that go nowhere, and barely tolerable acting. It comes across as a poorly conceived rip-off of "2001."
The only thing making it worthwhile are the sets and costumes and visual effects. But even that wasn't enough to keep me from nodding off. I would like to get the soundtrack, especially the music during the space flight sequence, for nights when I have trouble falling asleep.


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 really really bad movie. However It's good to laugh at the horrible ideas and "special" effects. The plot centers around an EU space agency that discovers a 10th planet that orbits directly opposite the Earth. They send a maned mission (they have been to Mars and have yet to discover this planet? Is anybody stupid enough to fall for this?) to the planet and can you believe it, it's the mirror image of the planet they came from. Most everything is predictable from that point. Honestly from the title of the movie you can guess just about everything. The only surprising thing here is a maned space program run by Eurpoeans :) There really can be no excuse for the plot concept or execution. So it's good for a laugh or maybe if you are in an altered state of consciousness.


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 honestly one of the greatest movies of all time...if you suffer from insomnia. It is a fool-proof way to guarantee hours of sleep at a time. As the movie slowly progresses, the audience slips into a state of unconsciousness and gradually loses sight of any sort of plot that the movie might actually contain. This effect is surely created due to the lack of sweet action/sweet babes.
Also, Mr. Eisenstein was obviously unable to master the art of montage. A prime example of this is the scene on the Odessa steps. For no apparent reason, an event that in real life would have taken a matter of seconds is transformed into a seven minute nightmare for any sane viewer. This editing flaw tarnishes any sort of realism in the entire film. Honestly, i've seen more realistic editing watching cartoons.
Some individuals who have commented on this title have hailed Battleship Potemkin as: "One of the greatest movies of all time" and, "Truly a masterpiece". Well i'm writing this comment to persuade readers to avoid watching this film at all costs. My best guess is that my fellow Potemkin critics simply wrote the wrong words in their summaries. Surely what they meant to say was: "One of the greatest snooze-fests of all time" and, "Truly an epic fail".
In conclusion, don't waste your time. If you are interested in watching a movie of far superior quality, go to www.youtube.com and watch a Halo 3 montage. If i played the movie "Battleship Potemkin" in a game of slayer on guardian, i would shoot it in the face with my sniper rifle and then teabag its dead body. PEACE!


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


user
Additionally titled BURNING MAN and FLASH FIRE for its various releases, this Australian made film, shot in New South Wales is problematic for its producers from its outset due to several personality conflicts and extended shooting time that prematurely uses up its allocated budget, and although the storyline is at times nicely detailed, below standard post-production finishing and overmuch cutting jettisons the affair. Tom Skerritt plays as Howard Anderson, an American entrepreneur with a "passion for building" who is in process of erecting a tourist hotel in the Blue Mountains region, all the while unaware that his business partner, Julian Fane (Guy Doleman) has insured the incomplete structure for ten million dollars, far more than its actual worth, and plans its destruction as corollary to normal summer brush fires in order to collect a handsome sum through fraud. In line with this illicit scheme, Fane arranges for an arsonist to perform the incendiary deed, a young man who also happens to be the boyfriend of Anderson's daughter, and due to the future resort's being in the midst of a critical fire hazard sector (one of the many unexplained elements of the screenplay) Julian has every expectation that his dastardly design will come about without serious hindrance. As the local insurance firm victimized by the crime is majority owned by Fane, the policy's naturally skeptical underwriters, Lloyd's of London, deploy senior investigator George Engels (James Mason) to probe into the nature of the felony, made more sinister because of the death, possibly a homicide, of an insurance investigator (Wendy Hughes) who, in following clues was apparently coming close to the cause of the arson. The setting for the film is the week before Christmas, capstone of summer in the Antipodes, a dramatic background, but the links within the story are not smoothly compounded, resulting in the presentation of events that are rather difficult for a viewer to follow, a problem heightened by erratic editing, the mentioned heavy cutting, and poor sound and picture quality. Skerritt's semi-comatose and droning style is fatally invalidated by this dim sound processing but Mason is very effective, as ever, and enjoys the best dialogue with Hughes impressive as the too early written-out investigator; Doleman wins acting laurels with his performance as the malevolent Julian Fane.


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


user
I've been on a bad run of films. This is a clinker about an arson plot and a psychopath. Tom Skerrit, whom I really enjoy, was pretty young here. He is a builder with a passion, but he has a partner whose profit motive includes over-insuring and burning. Into the mix comes an agent, who is drowned, his daughter, and her nut-case boyfriend. James Mason plays the insurance investigator. Any idiot, given a little warning, would know something was rotten in the nation of Australia. Still, they bumble their way. The most interesting thing to me was that the huge hotel that was going to be built, never got beyond being a bunch of sticks. Low budget, I guess. The plot could have been interesting. Maybe they should have hired a film editor (the did?). Half the time you don't know where the characters are, but I guarantee a five million dollar payoff would have probably made a close watch on the structure mandatory. It doesn't work. Although there is lots of neat fire.


assistant
0