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


user
I thought that this movie might be a good spoof, or at least a good independent comedy like Friday. Instead it was more like something someone in high school would make with their parents' camcorder. It wasn't just the low budget that makes this film bad (many great films have been made on a low budget), it is simply a bad movie and it wasn't even bad enough to be good camp. Case in point: for the first ten minutes of the movie nothing happens except the 3 main characters sit in their room smoking dope, put on their makeup, and then answer a phone call. You keep waiting for something to get story moving, but it never comes. The sound was so bad I had to turn the TV up all the way just to almost make out what they were saying (which wasn't interesting anyways). If I pay to rent a movie I will usually suffer through it even when it's bad, but it was all I could do to sit through 20 minutes. It looks like the person before me felt the same way because they didn't rewind the tape and left off about the same place I did. The only reason I gave this a score of 1 is because the rating system doesn't have negative numbers.


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


user
"Carlito's Angels" is a spoof of "Charlie's Angels" that is not afraid to spoof even itself at times, however that does not mean that the film is above criticism by the viewers as well - it is amateurish and juvenile (I think "fast-motion" stopped being funny around 1914). The assaulting rap music often drowns out the dialogue, and the film feels longer than it is, even though it runs barely over an hour! The girls themselves are hot & adorable, with wonderful lean bodies, and even though they never get naked, their outfits leave little to the imagination. By checking out their IMDb pages, I found out that one of them (Alessandra Ramos) is actually going through with a film career; I wish her luck, because although this film is bad, she (as well as the other girls) gave it whatever energy it has and I wouldn't mind at all seeing her again on the screen. (*)


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


user
The opening scene really got me into watching the movie. However, not more than 5 minutes later, I was already gouging my eyes out. Not only could I not understand a word that was said, the acting could have been better by a group of mentally handicapped. The one highlight of this movie was that there was a punk white midget. However, I didn't quite get the connection on how a white midget was the child of two African Americans. But I guess anything is possible. Also, why the hell was Robin in the movie? I'm not sure that it added anything artistically. Overall, I would strongly recommend you jump off a cliff before you rent this movie.


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


user
They prove that the cops, when they can't find the REAL perpetrators, always blame the parents and accuse them of sexual abuse of their kids. These movies always depict the press as a bunch of animals and have the parents coming out of court to feed the press' hunger to humiliate the grief-stricken. Hasn't anybody ever heard of a courthouse back door in these movies? Here, you have a psychic who tells them exactly what happened and WHERE the body can be found, but the police are not told and nobody heeds his findings.
The police are portrayed as blockheads who don't know what they are doing and there's always an outside detective, like Ed Asner, who comes in late on the case, believes in the parents and solves the mystery.
Also, after the parents are cleared, they don't spit in the faces of the dumb cops who put them in jail, took their kid away and accused them of killing their own child.
It looked as if I've see this film MANY times before.


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


user
Some movies you watch and you say, "Well, that made no sense." And you don't really mean it. You're just saying things were overly complicated or slightly nonsensical.
"Bread And Circus" makes no sense at all. And I mean it. And that's not because it's surreal. From the start, it's pretty clear it's a feeble excuse to do splatter special effects. There's no script. There's no plot. There's no story of any kind. One event does not lead to the next -- that's how fundamental the bad writing is here.
So what? I mean, there are TONS of movies out there that fall into that category. They want to show you gore, they give you gore. Why even talk about it?
Because, in this case, "Bread and Circus" gave me hope. Okay, there are some surreal elements. Vaginas, in the ground -- people crawling out of them. The earth, in space, two legs on either side. These sorts of images are wonderful, fun, odd, crazy. But the movie doesn't do anything with them.
Stuff happens, the movie ends, and it's all very unsatisfying. I suspect the script was made up on the fly. Too bad. If there had been a story of ANY kind at all, it would have made for a much more entertaining film.
The film is very much like the beautiful car you would love to own. Then you lift up the hood and there's no engine. Just a small man peddling a bicycle.
GRR!


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


user
MARY, MARY, BLOODY MARY is an OK time killer. It has a uniformly attractive cast, the action is rarely dull. There are a lot of killings. And the production values are not bad. But in the end, it plays like a standard TV episode from the 1970s with some nudity thrown in. The film is the end product of an "author" trying to make a purely commercial film. There's very little depth here and the film spends too much time with chases and action scenes. Except for the scene on the beach with the old man, MMBM is almost devoid of any scares or suspense or dread. The director has very little understanding of the horror genre.
It's watchable even though it doesn't leave a lasting impression.


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 made me so angry!! Here I am thinking that here's a new horror movie, one w/a sense of intelligence & then the movie starts. The scenery, the delivery of lines, the costumes, the fake gore, must I go on? There are porno movies out with better dialog than this. I understand the concept behind indie movies, but my goodness, this wasn't just indie this was a high school book report shot w/a camcorder & the cast are all friends & relatives. This is 1 movie that was doomed from its beginning. Maybe if it was 1982 instead of the new millennium this movie could fly. But it seems to me that someone hung a rock around this albatross's neck & it was sinking at a constant rate of speed.


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 so glad he wasn't alive to see this. This movie is a debauchery of his work. I agree with the other commenter-- this movie was a terrible disappointment. I'd give it a zero, but am forced to give it a 1.
The story was weak, and it reminded me of the days when I was a young teenager trying to write a movie, then looking back on it and realizing how horrible it was. Bad actors, family and friends, and someone stupid enough to fund it was how it was made. It's really amazing how strings can be pulled to get anything done. If this movie was able to make it out to the general public it puts high hopes on other indie film makers who have talent worth a damn who're struggling! This movie made me laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. By all accounts this was seriously not meant to be a comedy. Scary movie is a better play on a horror genre-- this movie just sucks.


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


user
First, let me start off by saying this film SOUNDED very interesting: A serial killer copycatting the works of Edgar Allan Poe (who is one of my writers of all time). Sounds cool, right? Yeah, definitely not. Probably the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. And that's not an exaggeration. I've seen a lot of very, very bad movies. This one takes the cake. And I was even prepared for a bad movie before going into it.
Perhaps the writer should've studied some law enforcement procedure: If you have the name of the killer, his entire life's history, a criminal record, and HIS ADDRESS, where is the first place you should look? Hmm. . . possibly. . . his house? What?! NO! That's a preposterous idea, Anthony! How could you suggest something so obvious and level-headed rather than going to a bowling alley? *spoilers end* Honestly, sometimes I can forgive a movie if the writing is good but the acting is bad, or vice versa. . . but this just had everything wrong with it you could possibly find.
I think my biggest pet peeve was how the police/FBI acted.
For example: Black FBI Agent: "Okay, endangered female, just sit here in this car in an empty parking lot while I go inside and look around the potential crime scene where a serial killer is supposed to be. Sound good to you?" Moronic Female FBI Agent: "Yeah, sounds a-okay to me. Go right ahead. I'll be sure to not focus on my surroundings or at least check the perimeter." Black FBI Agent: "Excellent, that's what I would do!" Honestly, if you want to be in law enforcement, rent this movie so you can learn how not to act. . . or if you're a human and want to learn the same.
0.5/10: A half-point just for getting a film produced and in stores. Congrats.
-AP3-


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


user
A low budget may be an excuse for poor acting talent and pathetic looking fake gore. However, it is not an excuse for poor writing. It is a talent to be able to write dialog without making it sound forced and mechanical. The dialog in this movie was on par with most instructional videos shown to fast food staff in training.
I also understand that one must make a few exceptions when it comes to acting talent when you only have 20 bucks to spend on it. With that being said, no serious director would have looked at these scenes and said to himself, "that was perfect". I see better character acting on Canadian television.
This movie had a paper thin plot, bad acting, poor dialog and holds no intelligent ideas at all. This simply proves to me that some independent films are that way for a reason. If your looking for a quick scare, rent anything else. Even the "Cable Guy" was a scarier film. After watching this film, I think i would have been better off watching a re-run on the X-files.


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


user
This may be all you need to know in order to decide whether you want to see this.
The movie is bad. Really, really bad. And sometimes it seems to be aware of that and make fun of how bad it is. It aligns cliche after cliche and even manages to grow worse as it goes along with some moments that are bad enough to be hilariously funny.
If you can laugh about really poor quality in script writing and production values, you might enjoy it. Otherwise prepare for some serious brain damage.
3/10


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


user
Adventures in Dinosaur City, though a creative idea, was a nauseatingly atrocious attempt at filmmaking. Being sucked into a TV and into a new world is interesting. Three teens obsessively enthralled with half-animated dinosaurs is not. Don't waste the time or the brain power to see this sure loser. I wouldn't even let my kids 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
1st watched 8/7/2004 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Brett Thompson): Silly, juvenile-focused movie about three kids being zapped into their favorite cartoon with their parents experiment. The script left much to be desired in this Hanna-Barbara like rip-off of some Saturday morning 'live-action with people in dinosaur costumes kids show' with some goofy cavemen hanging around. Nothing really to admire about this and nothing much to be said either. I'm just amazed I found this at a Blockbuster video store as bad as it was and the way the stores are ridding themselves of old VHS movies. I guess they couldn't even sell it, so back on the rental rack it went.


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 in one word. Terrible. First of all the people who invented that thingie that puts you in the TV, are slightly insane! Secondly, the three teens are so obsessed with the show, it's scary! The movie was stupid, and no effort or thought was put into it!


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


user
One of the worst movies I've seen this year. Everything about the film screams "AMATEUR". For a movie set in the 1800's, everybody speaks like it's the 1990's. The acting, particularly the people playing the white slave masters, is horrible. After about an hour into this movie, I walked out. What a waste of time and effort. For a much better film on this subject, see Steven Spielberg's far superior "Amistad."


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


user
One of the worst movies I've ever seen!!! Absolutely awful. Poor acting, poor story, there isn't one redeeming quality about this movie to recommend. Amistad is much better. Avoid this movie like the plague!


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


user
I had to write a review for this movie based on the ones that are saying gory, non stop action, great movie..
These people were obviously watching a different movie. Killpoint honestly sucked from the word go!! I kept waiting and waiting for this film to get better and it was to no avail. Some said this movie was brutal and others said gory but I can't find either of those adjectives actually showing up in this, I mean hell there are so many scenes with people getting shot and there being no blood at all it's not even funny!! I guess the best way to sum this up is it probably should've been rated PG by 1984 standards and now in the year 2010 there is no doubt this would be PG!! Bad, BAD not in the fun cheesy "B" variety movie!!


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


user
Essentially plotless action film has two good guys (Fong and Roundtree) pitted against two bad guys (Mitchell and Pierce). Fong is perhaps the most uncharismatic action lead of the 80s, Roundtree's small part is a far cry from his "Shaft" days, and Cameron Mitchell adds another shameful role to his career, one to sit right next to his laughable turn in "The Toolbox Murders" (this man was a respected actor once, now he has come down to wearing flowers in his hair and complaining about people bleeding on his carpet). Only Stack Pierce acts with some dignity. As for the violence, don't worry: most of it is too badly done to offend anyone. (*1/2)


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


user
This movie is very violent, yet exciting with original dialog and cool characters. It has one of the most moving stories and is very true to life. The movie start off with action star Leo Fong as a down and out cop who is approaching the end of his career, when he stumbles on to a big case that involves corruption, black mail and murder. This is where the killings start. From start finish Fong delivers in this must see action caper. This movie also co-stars Richard Roundtree.
I really enjoyed this film as a child but as I got older I realized that this film is pretty cheesy and not very good. I would not recommend this film and the action is very, very bad.


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


user
Tony Curtis and Skip Homier both are wearing black with white trim canvas shoes in the scenes just before and after the swimming pond and the tank being blown up. Must have been too hard on the young stars feet.If the real Marines had been on the mission they would have been wearing boots. IN the first scenes they took off their leggin's just before starting out on their little trip to find the Farmer. When they went to the area where they dug the fox holes Tony and Skip are wearing combat boots, then later when Lovejoy and Curtis run into the Framer and his daughter Tony is wearing the "Tennis Shoes " but hey have been blacken. The movie in about a true story but did they really need the love interest??


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


user
A CBS radio program entitled "We the People" assists in finding an American home for Vienna refugee Charles Coburn (as Karl Braun), a skilled surgeon and pool hustler. He arrives with beautiful daughter Sigrid Gurie (as Leni), who is "studying" to become a nurse. Relocated to a small, dusty Midwestern village, they are welcomed at the station by burly John Wayne (as John Phillips) and his uncle Spencer Charters (as 'Nunk' Atterbury), a veterinarian. Ms. Gurie is unhappy in the dustbowl, and wants to leave. Immediately. But, the prospect of romance with Mr. Wayne might change her mind...
God answers the citizens' many prayers for rain, but it may not be enough to save the farming town. The entire town is advised to relocate to Oregon. Wayne wants to stay and tough it out. Coburn receives an invitation to work at a top clinic. And, Gurie learns her fiancé, presumed dead, will be arriving to claim her as his wife. She feels duty-bound to accept; but, he has a dark secret... This film does not flatter Wayne, who seems way out of his element. Being paired with Gurie, promoted as another Garbo, doesn't help. They do have a cute scene in Wayne's car ("Jalopy, an Italian car").
**** Three Faces West (7/3/40) Bernard Vorhaus ~ John Wayne, Sigrid Gurie, Charles Coburn, Spencer Charters


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


user
Mild spoilers below.
The prospect of war was clearly on the horizon when TFW was filmed. From the opening scene of European refugees to the final prediction that Naziism will be the death of millions of Germans, this movie is as much a propaganda film as the films made after Pearl Harbor. There isn't a lot of entertainment value here though the footage of the dust bowl is interesting to those of us who aren't old enough to remember it. The rest of the plot is pretty forgettable with the Herr Docktor Coburn - with a pretty bad accent - and daughter assimilating into America with Wayne's help. Other than the dust bowl scenes, the only memorable aspect of the movie is one best viewed with hindsight. Coburn's speech comparing Naziism to a malignancy worse than cancer and describing the (then current) successes as a momentary outburst of energy from a patient right before death were eerily accurate and Varno's Dr. Scherer played accurately to post war newsreel footage of unrepentant Nazis justifying their actions.
When viewed from a historical perspective, some aspects of TFW are interesting. If you look at it for entertainment outside of the WWII perspective, you'd have to say this is one of Wayne's less successful efforts.


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


user
Shame to see an interesting story diluted into standard "Vietnam made for TV" fare. Usually HBO movies are a substantial cut above TV. Bill Paxton was a pretty good choice for the lead role, but wasn't given much to work with.


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 expecting a lot more of this film than what I actually got. The acting was just awful from everyone and the story was far from impressive. It took a lot of something I don't to even follow what was going because it was so jumpy. An example of the acting is when Paxton's character, Vann, is upset the South Vietnamese colonel for so he throws some of the sand from the "sand map". It was impossible to get any idea of what he was feeling and his actions were robotic. To make things worse, I have no idea how I'm supposed to feel about Vann. He's obviously presented as the protagonist but as soon as he gets to Vietnam he starts an affair with an Vietnamese English teacher. The only thing the movie had going for it was that it wasn't particularly boring. I give it 4 stars 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
It looked cool from the movie sleeve, but after five minutes we weren't sure if it was a homosexual documentary of west side story without any female interest. The film quality was poor, and there was hardly enough gang fighting action to sustain even the drunkest person's interest for long enough to watch the entire film. May god have mercy on the souls of both the actors and the filmmakers responsible for what I can only describe as my new one and only reason why I never will want to see (or trust) an Australian made film again. I have to write more so I will again say that the actors were so bad that I'm positive I could make a better movie with fifteen dollars and a box of Trojans. Please don't see this movie for your own sake.


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 face it, a truly awful movie, no...I mean a "truly" awful movie, is a rare, strange, and beautiful thing to behold. I admite that there is a special place in my heart for films like Plan 9 From Outer Space, Half Caste, Species, etc. And although I'm giving this film a 1, I highly urge anyone who enjoys a bad film for what it truly is (a bad film) to find a friend, snacks, something to drink, and make the special occasion it deserves out of: Aussie Park Boyz.
From the very first moments of the lead actor's side to side eye-rolling performance as he attempts to inject intensity directly into the film without ever looking at a camera (a slice of ham straight out of silent pictures--eat your heart out Rudolph Valentino) to the sudden hey-we're-out-of-film conclusion, you...will...not...stop...laughing.
To sum the film up, its a poor man's Warriors down under, complete--and that description alone should be enough, but then comes the wonders of "the spaghetti eating scene", "the 'We've got their tickets; they won't be leaving town now' scene", "It's the Asians! Run!!" and more. The only truly objectionable part is a gratuitously filmed rape. Outside of this, I dare you to watch this film. And I dare you to find evidence of acting, or lines, or direction, or any of those other boring and superfluous elements that so-called critics say a film needs to be judged as good.
If this movie doesn't cause fits of uncontrollable laughter before it ends, all I can do is roll my eyes menacingly from side to side at you and shout, "You dog! You dog! You dog!"


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


user
For those of you who don't remember movies -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080120/ -- this came out in '79 ( I guess enough time has gone by so naturally Nunzio figured he could just redo this and say he wrote it - yea, right! ).
The acting in this is way overboard - the "tough guys" walk around with their shoulders hunched forward to give the impression they are bigger than they really are, also the "hero' seems to have a passion for snorting, and rolling his eyes in a bug-eyed kind of way to express angst/anger to the celluloid eye.
There is a sort of racial message here, from the Sicilian perspective (mind you this is about 3rd generation down the line... the original "wogs" arrived in OZ after the war and during my childhood - yep I'm an Aussie. So the "wogg-iness" has been diluted a lot - they even sound like true-blue Aussies - not a flicker of the "dago accent" anywhere ( there, there's another slang for ya, Nun! )
Maori's with sunnies (sunglasses) at 4am - must be cool to be sun-blinded in the middle of the night and it looks like Redfern... this is at this movie's tedious end. Nunzio tried to copy the flavor of the Warriors but, left too many holes in the story. How about coincidences ?
The warriors had a gang of baseball guys wielding bats, with white face makeup chase the heroes to a train station and fight them - Nunzios gang get chased on a railway station by a gang of stick wielding guys wearing whitish face masks. The warriors were mistakenly accused of shooting/murdering another gang-member -- Nunzios gang are mistakenly accused of raping the sister of the big Maori gang boss. The warriors are lured into a room by a gang of girls who attack them - Nunzios crowd want to crash at a friends house, which is populated by, yep, a gang of girls -- there are almost too many copies from the Warriors to keep on about here.
I am saddened that people don't want to see other moves from OZ because of this tripe - how about Mad Max - Commander and Master of the World? Not all movies are made by actors who are so bad, they have to fund their own movies.
As far as the other actors in this show are concerned, they seem to have taken their cue from "the Nun" as they all are as bad as each other - don't bother with this movie! I can't get my money back - so save yours!


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


user
Although i watched this film by myself(thankfully), i still felt embarrassed while watching it. I was tricked into renting it by the reviews on the front cover, and the bloody/gritty camera stills on the back-which led me to believe it was some sort of documentary. These actors are laughable throughout the entire film, not convincing at all. The story involves an Italian Australian(?) gang, just fighting other gangs, and then running,fighting,repeat. Supposedly they train extremely hard, which makes them way better than other gangs. For some reason I don't believe that they could actually beat up some of these other guys that are twice their size. I could be wrong... no I'm not wrong, this movie is not enjoyable on any level.The jail montage looked like it was a summer camp, just instead of kids, it was a sausage fest of horrible actors, just hanging out and laughing and trying to look hard. This movie is not worth your time, save your money, or throw it in the garbage, just don't waste it on this movie.


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


user
I love watching Australian movies but this steaming pile of crap was just plain embarrassing. The DVD cover looked promising but you know what they say, don't judge a DVD by it's cover.
I also noticed that it won Best Actor for an award but the competition must have been really bad because the acting in this film is pathetic. It just seemed that the director thought he had enough talent to direct and act when he should really focus on one part of film-making and get it right before spreading himself too thin. The music was pretty ordinary. The story really didn't go anywhere. It was just a sequence of fights strung together with poor script and cheesy dialogue.
I will say this to all aspiring filmmakers though. Watch this film. It will give you hope that your film will win something at some festival.
However, good on them for getting in there and having a go. Hope they learned some lessons and their next venture is a little better.


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 one that belongs on the cutting room floor. For one, the opening sequence does not put forth the element of 'gang' related subject. If it wasn't supposed to then at least they got that part right. Secondly...whats with all the glancing to the left and then to the right??? they even do it in synchronous style. Nowhere have i witnessed a member from a rival crew walk up to a bar, look for someone, from the outside lookin like he is all that and a bag o chips at a barbie and walk away without even being confronted let alone get 'what for'. I wasted money on the rental price and am glad i did not purchase the DVD itself.
If this was made by college( T.A.F.E ) students then at least they gave it the old Aussie try. Better luck next time.


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


user
Everything about this movie is awful.
You can tell in the first five minutes that this movie is going to be terrible. You can't however, gauge how bad it's going to be.
We start the movie with a seemingly endless intro scene aided with gay music and no dialogue. Having the camera move up and down big guys who are trying too hard to look like mentals doesn't provoke the slightest emotion.
What then starts seems to be one of two separate stories. The first half of the movie consists of the wogs going around competing in paid, midnight fights with other ethnic groups. The wogs always win of course, because they apparently lift weights and have "respect". It is in these scenes that we first get to see the degree of bad acting, editing, scripting and hatred for the people who funded this film.
Eventually the main character and his mate get sent to prison. The entire prison part of the movie is unrelated to what I assume is the plot, and consists of a bunch of fights.
Once out of prison(3 years for murder?) The main character and his mate reunite with the wogs. They then go to the "other side of town" and try to lay low, because apparently everyone wants to kill them.
soon the wogs get set up for the rape of another gang members girl , and run around town fighting off hordes of different gangs. This point of the movie can be compared to an arcade game, as the wogs simply run around and fight off enemies who seemingly get worse and worse as the movie goes on.
Anyway the movie ends with some massive climatic fight scene in which the remaining wogs (the two main characters) take on every gang they've fought so far. Apparently the other gangs don't have a problem uniting to take on the remaining wogs(the skinheads don't mind Asians). After about a million more people get beaten up by the invincible wog brothers the movie ends with the main characters heading home. They don't make it home however, because they are burned to death by the the thousands of angry film critics who storm the set and leave angry letters everywhere.
This movie may be more like a computer game then a movie, because that would explain how two guys can take about a million punches to the face from a million different people who the majority of the time are twice their size.
There are also tonnes more stupid unexplainable events in this movie, such as an Asian fighting off his own gang and taking a katana to the head just to let the wogs get away.
Like someone else mentioned, this movie isn't so bad its funny, it's just so bad.


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


user
within about 5 minutes in to the film the first fight scene i was watching i just could help but pointout the lack of tension in the scene the cameras crossing back and forth really shows he had no idea what he was doing, well actually the soundtrack shows that the best. i no its a low budget film and your not going to get top 40 songs but at least get music that goes with the scene that isn't actually that hard acting, well if i saw any i would gladly let you know. the script was so badly written would now surprise me one bit of the guy directing wrote this piece of beep, i will give the person one 10/10 and that was for the DVD cover because if i actually saw "before watching this" in a shop and it was like 10 15 bucks i would have bought it, why well if you look at the front cover this actually well done you flip over to the back and you see that it has actually won awards. now that is a very misleading thing because even in a small film festival i wouldn't ever believe in my life that this would win anything all i can say is "wow if this was the best i wouldn't want to know what the crap in the film festival was like"
films that are this bad only have one good use and that is for a aspiring film maker to use as inspiration films like this are better tools then good films, because with good film you almost know off the bat there is a good chance you wont make a film that good, but if you use a film like this you can look at all the things they director or writer did wrong so you wont make the same mistakes, and you have the added plus of looking at this film and saying if a piece of beep like this can get made then there is hope of anyone out there


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 proves a theory I have had for quite some time - in Australia, as long as a film deals with the right topic, it will be a success regardless of how terrible it is. Aussie Park Boyz could not possibly be any worse - the acting is beyond terrible, the plot is basically a poor Warriors knock-off, and the filmmakers clearly have no idea about ethnic gangs in Australia (an Irish gang in twenty-first century Sydney! The last time any Irish gangs were in Australia was about a hundred years ago in the time of the tinkers!) But because it's about ethnic rivalry, one of four topics guaranteed to be a success in Australian cinema (along with struggling families, minority groups, and the biography of a famous Australian) it won multiple academy awards. I've always suspected that Australian critics will lap up any rubbish that deals with these issues, but part of me thought, or at least hoped, that they had their limits. This film proves otherwise. So to all you Australian aspiring film-makers out there, don't bother putting thought into your film or choosing people who can actually act, or even getting your facts right - just write a script about some poor family trying to make ends meet, or someone of a foreign race coming to Australia and having to deal with racial prejudice and stereotypes, or, if you want to take a leaf out of these people's book, some ethnic gang fighting some other ethnic gang that isn't actually plausible in the period the film is set, and your film will win five academy awards regardless of how pathetic it is!


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 follows a very similar storyboard to The Warriors, only with less intensity and rather poor acting which is nothing to write home about.
The story in general is not that bad, based around a small Aussie gang who are trying to get out of the city when one of their members is framed for the rape of another gang's girl. They then have to fight their way through the streets whilst they are been hunted down by a number of rival gangs. On could assume that the writers have taken a page out of The Warriors book and re-written it, but as mentioned above - with not nearly as much intensity.
The acting as a whole is not very good in my opinion, and it's clearly obvious on many occasions that they are indeed acting... the fight scenes make up for this however but then the poor sound effects that go with them bring it back down.
This film has nothing on Once Were Warriors.
Low budget, alright story, poor acting, nothing to write home about.


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 not prone to ranting and my expectations were low to start with, but how did this seem like a good idea? Just because you have a camera, some big ugly friends for actors, and delusions of talent, does not mean that you should go out and make a film. This should have been the cinematic equivalent of singing in the shower, i.e. it should never have seen the light of day. However, somehow this rubbish found a distributor to help it escape the confines of a 3 by 4 foot cubicle. It goes from bad to worse. Talk about low budget, one torture scene consists of a guy getting a mug of coffee thrown over him while he's tied to a chair. Evidently this is very painful because the big baby proceeds to scream in agony....maybe he ordered decaf!! The acting is worse than wooden (I could possibly watch a tree for 30 seconds before becoming completely bored, if you can look at this rubbish for that long you're a better man than I!) and the fight scenes would be at home on a kindergarten play yard. Do not touch this movie, unless you enjoy pain (in which case you should try spilling lukewarm coffee over yourself). I'd like to say it's so bad it's good, but really this is just awful.


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 could have been great- but wasn't. Amongst the cesspool of talentless no-hopers and friends of the film makers who wanted to help out there are some mild inklings of talent. The main star of the film plays a good lead role. He is convincing and has those scary Italian eyes. However, he is teamed up with the worst rejects of actors anyone has ever come across. The opening scenes of the film are among the worst and most embarrassing. It looks like Gay Porno. Fortunately no one stripped off. The rape scene that keeps being mentioned is rubbish. The prison sequence was the best part of the film- although irrelevant. The movies soundtrack (if you can call it that) sounds like a teenage boys first attempt at using cooledit and some sample cds. It is boring, repetitive and extremely lame. In fact the whole film is lame. Get out while you still can!


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


user
the reason why i gave this movie a 4 was for a couple reasons, but this movie was not that bad. first off, the editing i found too be pretty poor at times, the script(or what they had of one) was not very good, and if not for Nunzio La Bianca, the acting would have been crap. but all that aside(ha ha i know its like the whole movie) its not that bad for an extremely low ind. , low budget film. If they would have gotten more money, a little better actors(but these ones were intimidating so it was good) and a little more detailed script this movie would be terrific. Somebody has to tell me this guy was influenced A lot by the warriors by Walter hill. i mean this movie is exactly like it. anyone who has seen both those films will agree with me.


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


user
I don't understand why this movie was released, it looked like something that you show your mates after you borrowed your mums handycam she bought in 1987. I am Australian and work for a video store in the UK and thought that if an Aussie film made it into our store it can't be all bad... boy was I wrong!
If anyone writes a good comment about this movie they are either lying or the makers of the film.
The picture was BAD, the sound was HORRIBLE and the acting, oh the acting, it was the WORST acting in the HISTORY OF FILM.
It makes me embarrassed and offended that they used the word 'Aussie' in the title because I am proud to be Australian and this movie is seen in other countries and may give people the wrong idea.
Please anyone who reads this and has seen this movie, take the time to find other Aussie movies to watch because you could choose any one of them and it would be better than that one.
I could have made a better film if I took a camera, filmed my but for an hour, ate the film waited for it to pass through my body then threw what came out at the television... no offence.
DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!!!!!!


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


user
Being a fan of ZaSu Pitts comedies, I thought this one looked like it was worth a try. I was quite disappointed.
(The version I saw was on TCM, but consisted only of the Niagara Falls movie; the Miss Polly movie was absent.) The talents of the actors, who give fine performances, is wasted on one of the stupidest stories I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through.
Tom Brown (Tom Wilson) surprised me by being the strongest actor in the show, but the spotlight is hogged by Slim Summerville (Sam Sawyer), who, if he has any talent, didn't demonstrate it here.
ZaSu Pitts (Elly Sawyer) is great, but doesn't have near big enough a part. The biggest laugh in the movie is when she ends up under Sam under a table.
The only one in the movie who has any sense at all is Tom Wilson. Margie (Marjorie Woodworth) is unreasonable in general. While she is physically quite attractive, her personality and attitudes make her completely undesirable. Elly, Sam, and the hotel desk clerk are just complete fools.
Sam and Elly give up their honeymoon suite in the crowded hotel for Tom and Margie. But then they take it back. Sam ends up imprisoning Tom and Margie in their room. Most of the movie is them trying to break out, but Sam, using a rifle, always puts them back again.
Towards the end comes the worst part. Tom, who is finally about to make good his escape, runs into a minister on a lower floor of the hotel. Now the guy, who, as I said, is the only one in the whole movie who has a head on his shoulders, suddenly, for absolutely no reason at all, decides he has to marry Margie!
He drags the minister up to the room he has just escaped from, but Margie doesn't want to marry him. He gives her a kiss, and now, after one kiss, she feels compelled to marry him.
Finally, Sam has the nerve to say to Tom, "You deceived me," when practically the only line Tom had to Sam earlier was, "We're not married," to which Sam replied, "You think I'd believe that?"
Idiotic.


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


user
This appears to be two movies spliced into one. In the first, ZaSu Pitts is a renegade in a small town. She wants to help the romantic life of Marjorie Woodworth. OK: I'd never heard of her before either. But she and Pitts are in both parts of this concoction.
Before we know it, Pitts is no longer Miss {Polly. She is Emmie. I had to rewind to see if I'd fallen asleep somewhere. I hadn't. She no longer in a small town but on her way to the title Honeymoon destination.
The movie has some cute moments. The first part is better, with roles for what seems to be every third-rate character actress working in Hollywood at the time.
And what of Ms. Woolworth? She sounds a little like Betty Hutton. She sounds a little like Marie Wilson. She's pretty, certainly. But she's no comedienne.
Pitts often was used in very small roles. Here she has the largest role. She's always fun, though this movie made me wonder if a little of her doesn't go quite a long way. (As a comic. When she was a tragic actress in Von Stroheim silents -- "The Wedding March" and Greed" are the two I have seen -- she was brilliant.)


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


user
A genuinely odd, surreal jumble of visual ideas which probably looked extremely puzzling on the printed page; just what drew Robert Redford to the project, one may never know. Sidney J. Furie directs this knockabout journey of an egotistical motorcycle racer taking a milquetoast juvenile under his wing; the kid looks up to this anti-hero, and eventually begins to ape his amorality. Disjointed and off-putting--though for some, the sight of Redford disrobing, about to disrobe, or having been disrobed might be enough to warrant attention. Lauren Hutton gets naked too, however all the sexy flashes are just teasers for the prurient-minded; there simply is no story. Perhaps Furie was making an esoteric comment about feckless wheelers and their flock circa 1970. If true, then this pre-Blank Generation approach backfired, as the film was not a success. *1/2 from ****


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


user
PREY
Aspect ratio: 1.37:1
Sound format: Mono
A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...
Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.
In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.


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


user
OK, this simply is the worst movie ever made. Period. Horrible acting, sets and music. Ok, everything sucks in this movie. I almost forgot! The special effects are "great" also. So if you like bad movies, watch this, it can surely make you laugh!!


assistant
0