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
Lina McLaidlaw is a bright, solitary young women who falls unexpectedly in love with Johnnie Aysgarth, a highly eligible bachelor with a penchant for losing money. They get married, but almost at once Lina is subjected to Johnnie's addiction to lying, gambling and getting into debt. Despite his flaws, she is unable to resist his charming manner, until she starts to suspect he may be harbouring murderous thoughts toward her ...
This is a good movie, well-made, with an attractive cast, a good script and possibly the single lousiest ending in movie history. Okay, that's maybe going too far, but not by much. Lots of films change the ending of a book (Great Expectations, The Shining, etc) but the last two scenes of this one not only manage to be horribly lame, but also render the entire preceding plot completely meaningless. The story is about a woman whose husband is driven by his greed and moral lacking - and what she knows about him - to kill her. It should end (as it does in Francis Iles / Anthony Berkeley's book Before The Fact) with him attempting to murder her. The reason it doesn't is that the studio forced Hitch to reshoot the ending, one of the first examples of the godawful process of preview audience testing. Hitch was canny and did what he was told (this was only his third film in Hollywood) knowing that if he played the game, sooner or later he would gain creative control of his films, evinced by his masterpieces of the fifties. But that still leaves us with a turkey of an ending. This is a great shame because it really is a very good movie with an intriguing theme - does anyone really know their husband or wife that well ? The script is excellent, with many off-guard moments (such as when Lina's father dies and Johnnie assumes she's crying about it), a finely-judged performance by Grant (who never played a villain again) and fine photography throughout, culminating in the famous glass-of-milk shot. Fontaine won an Oscar for this performance, although personally I prefer her confusion and vulnerability in her earlier victimised wife role in Rebecca. I would like to rate this movie higher, but I really can't forgive that ending; this is what happens when movies are made for money, not love, which I guess is curiously the theme of the film itself. Look fast for Hitchcock's cameo as a man posting a letter.


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 unique in films of Hitchcock's that I've seen, in that I didn't really enjoy it.
In fact, I actually found this quite predictable and annoying.
Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine are a newly married couple. He's the kind of "lovable rogue" character that you've seen in many films, without ever being lovable as far as I am concerned!
In fact, it was a barely believable relationship at best, and at times seemed particularly false and implausible.
Unable to hold down a job and trying to live an opulent lifestyle, Grant is led to borrow money that he cannot pay back.
Fontaine is convinced that he is trying to kill her in order to get the money she is insured for; and presumably what her late father was worth.
Average and rather uninteresting all round actually, but as usual you can see the influence on films that have come at a later date.


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


user
There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.
However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.
After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.
The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.
"Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie.


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


user
Joan Fontaine is swept off her feet by the suave Cary Grant. After their marriage, she realizes that her husband is very irresponsible and owes a major gambling debt. It appears that Grant tries to scheme his best friend, Nigel Bruce, out of part of his life savings. Bruce ends up murdered and Fontaine suspects that her husband will try to kill her for the insurance money. This drama drags on to an abrupt and flat finale.


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 dislike Cary Grant but I've found his performances annoying in enough films to notice; this, Arsenic & Old Lace and Bringing up Baby. I don't dislike him in North by Northwest but I really find that movie unbearably silly. On top of that I find the endless raving about Grant's class tiresome. I don't have a clue what his class does for the viewers who herald it. It doesn't do a thing for me.
In the behind-the-scenes feature included with this DVD Patrcia Hitchcock says that Grant was her fathers favorite leading man; I think he was wrong. Jimmy Stewart was a better leading man in a string of better Hitchcock movies.
With it's ruined ending this is really half a movie and doesn't bear discussion, and can't support the high ratings it's getting. Even if the movie had it's ending intact there's not much to it. Fontaine is a completely unsympathetic sucker. She has to remain numb, inactive, and unwilling to contact anyone but Johnny for the whole movie, in either ending, for his ploys to work. That's not much to work with. Cary Grant begins every line with "Monkeyface..." until I wanted to strangle him. He says it about sixty times. It's positively grating. Hitch's technique here is shockingly shallow. An endless succession of rooms/sets have a phony skylight projected on the rear wall as a spiderweb effect. And a light-bulb in a glass of milk may make fans excited, but it can't save a movie this poorly made.
Peter Bogdanovich should retire if he does one more Hitchcock/Cary Grant imitation on a DVD. I think that's his whole career now. As soon as I saw him, I thought, oh crap, here comes an imitation that only he's impressed with. Instead there were two! oh joy!


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


user
Spoiler warning!!!
This is probably my least favourite Cary Grant film. I spent most of the time thinking: ignore him, leave him etc. Is he trying to kill her? Should we assume that after the end, when he persuades her to return home with him, that he will kill her after all? I see from checking in a couple of books that this is a reading that some viewers/critics have taken. Finishing early is after all a more reasonable way to film a book, than to change the ending - and this is a more unreasonable change of ending than, for example, in Altman's The Long Goodbye. Unlike Hitchcock's earlier example of making the murderer not the murderer because a star has been cast (when Gosford Park refers to The Lodger, Ivor Novello's murderous habits are not mentioned) the book's ending is not definitely ruled out.
In Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films Revisited, he writes: "As one mentally 'swiches' from ending to ending , the significance of every scene changes, the apparent solidity of the narrative dissolves, the illusion of the fiction's 'reality' disintegrates, the film becomes a 'modernist' text in which the process of narrative is foregrounded." I enjoy playing intellectual interpretation games as much as anyone else, but unless the film stands on a straightforward reading, then it fails. This one fails. Even after considering the fatal glasses of milk that recur in a few Hitchcock films.
An annoying quibble. The year is 1941. Nothing in the film says that it is set in the past. Beaky (Nigel Bruce) keeps his money in a Paris Bank, and goes there to do financial business? Does he not know that there is a war on? Indeed, were there still any flights from Croydon airport? Is he on good terms with the Nazis? How come it is never suggested that the Germans shot him as a spy or something.
A curiosity. When Johnnie and Lina have dinner with Isobel, the mystery writer, and her brother, the pathologist, there is a fifth person present, who is never explained nor introduced - a woman in a tuxedo. The credits say that she is Nondas Metcalf playing Phyllis Swinghurst. Is this not an example of how lesbians were coded in '40s films? Are we to take her as Isobel's lover? The books that discuss overt and hidden gays/lesbians in Hitchcock (e.g. Robin Wood again) do not include Phyllis Swinghurst.


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 spends a lot of time preaching against marijuana. However, the plot and visuals are so insane that it seems more like the poster-child for LSD.
Plot: The heroic struggle of Michael as he battles his drug addiction while being subjected to the humiliation brought on by the likes of Winnie the Pooh and Papa Smurf.
Yea, yea, there's a good message, but it's obscured by the fact that the writers have taken a rather stale PSA idea and tried stretching it into 30 minutes. This includes a song sequence, where you're told that there's a million, rational ways to say "No!" such as "I can't smoke pot, I have homework!"
The writers can't make up their minds what to do with the characters they've brought in royalty-free. At first we see they all have to hide from the human characters, but within five minutes we see them all running around in plain sight without anyone noticing. Soon they begin interacting with the human cast, and the only one who's even slightly disturbed by this fact is not the drug-abusers, it's the little sister who talks to her teddy bear (Pooh, by the way.) Further, there's the little drug demon floating around. Because you know, pushers don't give kids drugs. He too is ambiguous - while he might be symbolic of Michael's addiction and hence is not supposed to be seen by other people, he laters goes and haunts little Corey to get HER into drugs. So I guess he's...uhhh.....moving on!
The whole plot finally culminates in some insane sequence in which Michael is in what would appear to be the Saturday Morning Carnival of Souls, aka a theme park from hell where the various cartoon characters beat him up and ignore him and stuff. For example, Miss Piggy eats him in a sandwich and spits him out. If the writers were not high when writing this, I must recommend they try getting high because they can't get crazier than this. Of course, the film ignores the fact that Michael's been having highs for two years by this point, so why this tripping sequence would frighten him is beyond me.
I realize I'm completely whaling on this film, but I actually just saw it again because I went through the trouble of tracking it down on eBay because of it's sheer infamy of being a BAD cartoon. The level of unintentional humor is is brilliant. Take this scene for example - Michael's dad is rooting through the fridge for a beer. He notices many of them missing and mentions it to his wife. The ever-observant Mom tells him "Don't worry, you probably just drank them last night watching football." While we're obviously supposed to be learning that Michael is drinking beer (in addition to the pot and crack), we instead read further in and realize - Hey kids, it's okay to have chemical dependencies as long as you're a grown-up! Scenes like this are worth the tiny price tag of this film. Oh yea, and the fact you get to hear Simon the Chipmunk say "Marijuana."


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


user
If there's one thing I want to distinguish myself from all the other great reviewers here, it's that I am the Queen of Finding Strange Movies in Thrift and Dollar Stores. That said, you can't possibly imagine how happy I was when I found this one.
I can even remember that Saturday morning when *every* station simulcast it, so you were stuck if you wanted to watch something else (then again, I guess that was the idea). As a kid, I didn't know if I liked the way all the different characters were stuck together (there are some crossovers that just do *not* work). But I guess the special had it's intended effect. Don't do drugs because you will have nightmares about the Muppets.
Now, if you watch this as an adult, on the other hand, you will be treated to the *strangest* anti-drug movie this side of "Reefer Madness". I think I'll just leave it at that before I get into trouble.


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


user
Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me.
India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'.
a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.
A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large).
I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly.


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


user
I am a big fan of Deepa Mehta's work, especially Fire and Earth 1947. Unfortunately, this movie of hers lacks _all_ that is needed for a good film.
The movie attempts to showcase the plight of the widows in India in the early 20th century and the new wave of ideas of their rehabilitation around the same time. Shown with a child widow as a central character, although the plot too banal from an Indian standpoint, it could still have been a very powerful movie. Alas! the movie lacked both the sensitivity of Fire and the intensity of emotion in Earth 1947.
Even if one assumes that the story is a given, although there are hundreds of things I would have liked different in that as well, the movie making is especially unfortunate. Everything is said. Everything is shown straight. Absence of sensitive implied sentences. Absence of things left unsaid. I just couldn't believe that this was a Deepa Mehta film.
There were some very standard Hindi movie characters - like an old widow with her own vested interests, or a father who has double standards of the highest quality. Can one not write a script without having these old-style standard Indian movie characters?
Many people acclaimed Deepa for making a movie and proving a point against hindu fundamentalists. Well, I agree that she took a bold step, but should one not worry about the quality of movie, or is it being a controversial one an end in itself? Its obvious, that if you start with a story as in Water, you will end up feeling the pain of the widows in consideration --- It doesn't take an accomplished director to achieve that. And the movie had nothing more than that!! So where is Deepa's contribution to the film?
And talk about acting etc. - pathetic!!! Lisa Ray has a pretty face, an extremely pretty face - but thats where it ends. She can't speak Hindi; she can't emote. John Abraham is no better. Most widows seem unnatural. The saving grace are Seema Biswas and the young girl. They are fabulous.
And this was a period film - but the Hindi dialogues suck big time. Even there utterance is also as unnatural as it gets. No rustic accents!!! No local slangs. No nothing. The only thing right was probably the shooting locales. I thought that the set of the vidhwa-ashram was reasonably real. The overall blue tinge in the whole movie is also apt.
But all and all, don't watch this movie. You _won't_ get anything. There is nothing in the story, or direction. If you have to watch it watch it for the little girl's acting.


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


user
Deepa has again tried to bravely bring out a subject that no one wants to talk about. The story line is OK, cinematography is outstanding, screenplay and acting are way below average. I guess the blame is to the citizens of Uttar Pradesh in India from where her original set was destroyed in 2000. This resulted in a totally different cast, I just wonder what a spectacular movie it would have been if it had the original Shabana Azmi, Nandita Das and Aamir Khan. The current actors Lisa Ray (who's just good for squirming in Bombay Dyeing bedsheets) and John Abraham are pathetic, need basic lessons in acting. Seema Biswas, Raghubir Yadav and Kulbushan Kharbabda have saved the movie as much as they can. The kid had done an outstanding job. The editing and the flow of the movie is also not something you would have expected from Deepa. Great subject, sends out a strong message about a practice which is still pretty rampant in rural India but falls short of the standards Deepa set for herself in Fire and Earth. Watch it once...when its on DVD, don't bother paying $10 to see it....well its out beats the average Hindi movie any day


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


user
Copy cats have copied this movie from a 1974 Hindi movie called "Call Girl"! "Call Girl" had an identical story line. The way in which the protagonists fall in love, then rebel and the climax all same in both these films! "Call Girl" is better than Water, at least from the story telling point of view. It was not as agonizingly slow as Water! Water on the contrary does not progresses at all. The aim is perhaps to make the audience sympathize with Kalyani for ever! Are Indian film makers any better than just being great copiers these days? Well they call it "being inspired". In their language it is: "getting inspired (without any citation that is!)"! :)


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


user
Deepa Mehta, Arundhati Roy and a host of other so called intellectuals get the title of intellectuals because of the fact that they love portraying India and hinduism in a bad light...and Deepa Mehta makes her money from it anyway. Anyway Hindus are too gentle or scared to protest the way muslims protest so anybody can take any liberties with Hinduism. And it is a fact that during the 1930's women in the west were also illtreated when they were widowed...just that nobody likes to point out anything bad about the west or anything other than India and Hindus. She paints an inncorrect portrayal of India and the situation of widows there. Nowhere is it mentioned that child marriage is illegal. She ended the movie saying there are 34 million widows in India. Of course among a billion people, there will be that many widows. But how many are living life she has depicted in the movie?? Deepa Mehta finally is selling India and poverty to make dollars. How pathetic....


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


user
Pathetic NRI Crap.....Appeal to all who are not Indian's....This is the WORST of Indian cinema,made by the worst piece of NRI trash.....The story is boring and clichéd (the way NRIs and westerners view India).....Go for it if u want to be bored to death.
The movie deals with the plight of widows in India before independence.A lot of it is true even now in remote rural areas but not to the extent as depicted (maybe because its a period movie).....
There are plenty of other Indian movies directed by extremely talented directors that are worth savoring...This one is a definite miss...Watch a documentary instead or look up information on the net if you are genuinely interested in the plight of the downtrodden in India.
I wasted my time.


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


user
What about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for "zero gore". It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, "If it doesn't fit, I throw it out". 2/10


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


user
Maybe you have to be a former hippie to fully appreciate this, because aside from some dated fashions, music and dialogue, it doesn't really have a thing going for it nowadays.
Four fun-loving college art students enjoy carefree days of painting nude models and riding on motorcycles. They take acid in one scene and go to a zoo. A sign flashes on the screen that says "Do Not Feed The Animals," and suddenly they're in a cage laughing and hanging from a chain tire swing (?!) An evil artist (Larry Swanson) tells (in flashback) how his art career was almost ruined because of a crippling hand disease. He sends out zombie henchmen dressed in black to kidnap people, then injects them with a serum that distorts their faces. He's trying to create some new form of abstract act (I'm guessing here, the details given are a bit fuzzy, to put it mildly). Meanwhile, Jason (Ross Harris) sets out to save the day after his friend Scotty (Chris Martell) is killed and his girlfriend Janet (Eugenie Wingate) is kidnapped. I thought the zombie make-up in ZOMBIE LAKE was awful, but wait until you see it here! It's by Douglas Hobart, the star of DEATH CURSE OF TARTU. A small role is played by Brad Grinter, the director of the Z-classic BLOOD FREAK, which is much, much more enjoyable than this deadly dull turkey (aka NIGHTMARE HOUSE).
Useless trivia note: The 1984 Regal video release features the wrong cast (for THE BRIDES WORE BLOOD) printed directly on the video label!
Score: 1 out of 10


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


user
...Or is this another way below the bottom-of-the-barrel masterpiece? Preferably both! Somewhere between 1969 and 1972 came a host of several horrible horror movies that are all but lost again. Nothing more needs to be explained, asked, or screamed out loud. If you followed closely at my writings about CARNIVAL OF BLOOD or GURU THE MAD MONK, then you know what's in store with SCREAM BABY SCREAM. The title sounds cool; it's just the weak script that should have gone someplace else! Even so, this is hands down, the most dreadfully written piece of cinematic mastery ever worked on film!
If you thought this is an early slasher (which benefits the average IMDb user to write up another comment), better luck next time! The real truth behind the script has NOTHING to do with the movie, which supposedly tells of a blue-faced psychopath out to "kill" and make some ugly facial sculptures on his victims. It feels like you're watching another early "SCOOBY-DOO" episode. My favorite scene is the monkey cage where the four young hippie teenagers play in. And hooray for an actress under the name "Eugenie Wingate" for giving us the worst facial makeover, ever! 1969 has never been this bad, but it is!
Try finding this 30-year old rarity at a bargain basement for five bucks; it makes the perfect novelty item for going back to those psychedelic days of flower power, bad fashions, and trashy music! Interesting note: SCREAM BABY SCREAM is also listed in Troma's film archives on the company's website. Only time will tell when this reaches the top of the Bottom 100 List along with a few more early 70s cheapies; gosh knows they NEED to!!! PLAN 9 is history!!!


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


user
Have you ever watched a film, when after it's conclusion, your left pondering what in the world it was all about? Well, say hello to "Scream, Baby, Scream". It's not that the story's complex or anything like that, it's just that it plays out in three completely different modes...1. A fun 60s drug movie...2. A much overplayed soap opera...and 3. a horror flick (with very little to "Scream" about). Much to my surprise, I've found out that it was written by one of my all-time favorites, Larry Cohen. Well, I guess even the best have to learn through trial and error.
Playing out much like something from H.G. Lewis(only with lesser fx), this "bad" film does have it's perks. For most of it's short running time there's a pretty cool jazz score to be heard, and there are a couple of memorable scenes...one of those being where a group of kids decide to experiment with acid and take a nice long motor bike ride to the zoo. The camera tricks the director uses to indicate their hallucinatory state is just plain retarded, but amusing. Trust me when I tell you, there's no need to run out of the house to catch this one!


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


user
I found this movie at a XXX store for $1 on VHS. The interesting thing about it is that Camp Video bought up the rights to it and slapped on a 1986 copywrite date in the credits. Anyways, enough of odd facts.
This film is absolutely not scary. To even call this horror or a "thriller" is laughable. There were only maybe 5 minutes at most of what you would call horror in this 80+ minute film, and that consisted of the acting, because it was HORRORible! All puns aside, the writing for this film was absolute garbage as well, just as the special effects and makeup was laughable. No wonder this is such an obscure film, probably the director has spent the last 35 years scouring the country for all existing copies of it and burning them in one big pile so no one else could be subjected to it.


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


user
Why remake the original "Assault"? To my mind "Assault" was Carpenter's true masterpiece. It had all the elements good Carpenter movies contain. External threat on a small group of individuals. People taking the challenge because they are forced to do so. Isolation! Just remember, the guns in Carpenter's original made no sound, being thus a lot more threatening than conventional devices. And now this remake. Concentrating on "main character I"s psychology and on his relation to main character II (the evil but honorable). The anonymous threat in the Carpenter movie replaced by a rather conventional conspiracy/corruption background. The "remakers" just didn't understand the main plot of the original. And thus produced something pretty ordinary.


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


user
Assault on Precinct 13: 3/10: Let us forget for a moment that Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of a classic action movie. Taken completely on its own merits Assault is a debacle.
Lets start with the Rio Bravo style scenario. About a dozen people are trapped in a decaying police station in Detroit (If the Detroit location is giving you Robocop warm and fuzzies stop right now. It could have easily said Topeka in the opening credits and nothing would have changed. In fact the last bit in the forest would have made more sense.) Surrounding them are our bad guys; corrupt cops.
Now I know what your thinking. Corrupt cops? Were the Nazis and drug cartels busy that weekend? Of course these are no ordinary cops. These guys are right of the cover of the latest Tom Clancy video game. Yup we have body armor; helicopters; laser sights; night vision goggles the works. So we have thirty S.W.A.T. members/Special Forces armed to the teeth verses 4 cops (drunk mind you it's new years eve), 2 girls in party dresses and half a dozen criminals.
So how do our heroes defend themselves? Truth is they can't. They all should be dead within ten minutes tops. (Not to mention the characters inside have an annoying habit of walking past the windows.) Now an illogical scenario is no reason to completely pan a movie esp. a B style action film. However with the exception of Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke all the other characters seemed to be comic relief. (At least I hope they were)
While Ja-Rules and Leguizamo's characters are bad enough. It's Aisha Hind's minstrel show that takes the cake. Rarely has a more stereotypical African American character appeared on the modern screen. Her performance resembles a frat boy in blackface and drag acting ghetto.
In the original Assault a gang member takes over an Ice-Cream truck and drives around the neighborhood shooting little girls in the head. I have had an irrational fear of ice-cream trucks ever since. After this Assault I have a perfectly rational fear of remakes.


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 sure a lot of guys will love this movie. The only woman who shows any "balls" (unfortunate pun regretted) is made to look, talk, and seem like a guy, the other 2 women are portrayed either as sexual objects with one thing on their mind- sex / being sexy, with sex as their only attribute and skill (Iris) - or as freaked out pretty little princesses who's neurosis negates any strength and professional authority they had before all hell broke lose (Doc). The only strength Iris has in the end is the result of some advice from a big strong man. Besides my negative gut reaction as a feminist, I have to give the camera work props- and Ethan Hawke is great in the very first scene. After that his performance loses steam. Empty entertainment for a brain that wants to take it easy. At least the film skims the subject of the duality of good/bad in the criminal mind.


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


user
It's New Year's eve, a cop-killer (in the form of, Laurence Fishburne) end up at a precinct that's closing down due till snow. When the people are layed siege on, cops have to team up with cons to survive. This re-make of the John Carpenter classic just had to add a few beyond stupid plot twists, take out all the tension, and add a horrid John Lequizamo to the cast, didn't it? The first film was thrilling, gritty, and a joy to watch. This one is more Hollywood, clichéd, and painful to behold. The only thing I took from this movie was OCD can be very annoying...VERY. The ending song is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: Commentary by Richet, Demonaco and Jeffrey Silver; Delet scenes with optional commentary; 5 minute "Armed and Dangerous" featurette on the weapons expert; 7 and a half minute "behind Precinct Walls"; "Plan of Attack"; "The Assault Team"; 12 and a half minute behind the scenes featurette;, Trailers for "Unleashed", "White Noise", :Seed of Chucky"
Miscelanious: I got this at Best Buy and it came with a bonus disc including the first 2 minutes of "Cry Wolf"; a 10 minute first look at "Unleashed"; the trailer for that film; and a Fuzion interview with John Leguizamo


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 think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame me.


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 definitely made me laugh but that doesn't mean it was exactly funny. Well, then again, me and my friends had a lot of fun watching it.
I doubt there is anything about this movie that hasn't been done at least twice before, just like the plot itself. All of the characters are overused movie cliché cardboard-box roles that don't even require acting skills; accordingly, such skills are not delivered. We have the corrupt cop, a ruthless killer who claims to care about his men and their families whilst caring nothing about people he shoots in the forehead at so close a range as to have blood spat on his face. We have the "worn-out cop on the edge" so nicely pointed at in the discussion boards of this movie; we have the old one-day-away-from-retirement-cop who just about everyone must have immediately identified as the most likely man on the inside, since he had most to gain and he didn't utter a trustworthy word throughout the movie. About as see-through as a glass house on a sunny day. The big black gangster king was a copy of all previous big black gangster kings in movie history (they could've just called him Marcellus Wallace), but just slightly tougher and more ruthless, because something has to emphasize that we also know Laurence Fishburne from actually good movies. Then we finally have the HIGHLY EDUCATED doctor who can't think of anything reasonable to do as soon as the situation differs from her ordinary life and who spends the majority of the movie sitting in a corner helplessly trying to figure out how to hold on to the weapon she was given. NOT USING IT.
The whole siege story is not interesting, not original (having been used twice before), and this movie manages to add absolutely nothing interesting to it. There is the initial probe, then the laying of the siege, then the assault, then the escape attempts. Meanwhile a bunch of strained, stressed, freaked out cops and thugs manage to hold off a Police assault team with high-tech equipment and the quite important advantage of VISION. Then again, in deep night, with the power cut and with a snow storm raging overhead, there is definitely a lot of light coming in, so who really cares about night vision.
But the best part comes right at the end. In the first scenes showing Precinct 13, we see it is situated in an outskirt of an industrial city; factories and office buildings surround it on all sides. From this point, the besieged walk maybe a hundred meters in a sewer and where do they end up? Some alley ending right in the middle of a forest! A FOREST! Where did that forest come from? Who decided to lay a pine forest in the middle of an industrial area? How is this forest, in the last scene, suddenly on a hill over the city in question, while in the scenes inside the forest it looked deceptively FLAT??
From here I leave the judgment to you, and to your common sense. Go and see this movie if you're looking for an unintended good laugh, I can really recommend it.


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


user
The opening scene keeps me from rating at absolute zero. I wish the entire movie was as gritty and real as the intro.
In order to enjoy some movies, a lot can be forgiven,(hand guns with 60 shots, hero's with super human powers, all women are gorgeous AND half naked) but Puuuuleeese this "Assault On My Intelligence 13" is so far fetched that I'm surprised the cast showed up for a second day of filming.
Firstly, how did these guys get to be cops? Based on stupidity I guess. How do the main female characters justify being half naked in the middle of winter in Detroit or wherever the heck they are. As a matter of fact no character reacts to the elements whatsoever in this movie. No windows, no electricity(which miraculously returns unexplained)during the storm of the century and they are all comfy as bugs in a rug. What technology exists which disables all cell phones, radios, and brain function. This must be the same power which causes Maria Bella to walk from her disabled car knee deep in snow with no coat and hardly any dress.


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


user
The original "Assault on Precinct 13" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this "Assault" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.
I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply 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 was perhaps the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time. Forget that it's clear no research was done regarding Detroit (forest in downtown Detroit! Bwahaha!!). The writing was horrible, the premise completely implausible, and quite frankly, the characters were embarrassing. I cannot for the life of me understand why seasoned actors would stoop to such a low and participate in something this god awful. Now, I have never seen the original and don't know if this movie pays tribute to it's original form. It's my understanding that the original was not set in Detroit. Why they would deviate from that without researching details about the setting only tells me that it was more than the cast that was looking to pay the rent.
Don't waste your time on this junk, unless you're from Detroit and wish for some comic relief.


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


user
I am a huge fan of the original Assault On Precinct 13. The ice cream scene haunts me to this day. I'm 33 now and I still remember being horrified by it as a child. When I heard they were remaking it, I thought it might be good but when I saw the film, it's 100% not the same film. It's not a remake. It's a bad stolen idea. It was completely ruined. The cast, Maria Bello, Laurence Fishburne, Ethan Hawke, Gabriel Burne, John Leguizamo and Drea De Matteo are all great actors but even they couldn't save this film. It was just wrong. Even the setting was completely opposite. And how in the hell did no one in that city notice that there was a war going on next door? Why didn't help show up sooner? Stupid. No sense.


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


user
Is it just me, or is this an AWFUL film? I'm going with it's an AWFUL film...
Knowing full well that it's a guy flick (usually defined as full of car chases, crashes, gunfights, explosions, etc.), I still expect some small degree of credibility. If I can't somehow believe in the premise, the film WILL NOT WORK. Thus, we come to the problem with "Assault on Precinct 13."
Not one for spoilers, I never report details of the plot. However, I will make an exception here, because the plot is SO inane. Bad guy is jailed in Precinct 13. Bad guy's buddies want to bust him out. Surprise. The bad guys' buddies are actually corrupt cops. Brooding, troubled, but heroic young cop saves the day while romancing the girl. UGH. Yes, it really is THAT simple, and that dumb.
"Assault on Precinct 13" takes place in Detroit. Not a bad setting for crime and corruption (I spent 3 months there in late 2004, so I know what I'm talking about). Even so, it's outrageously violent and insulting to the police and the citizens of Detroit. I have spent a lot of time in downtown Detroit, but I cannot imagine how the final chase wound up in the downtown Detroit forest. I must have missed it...
There are NO refunds for watching bad movies. Save your money. There were too many good films in 2005 to waste even $3.00 at Blockbuster on this one.
FINAL RATING: 1
(Only because I have seen worse films.)


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


user
You expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, "This is not what I wanted to see." This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for 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
I accidentally happened upon this movie when I was looking for something to watch while eating lunch. I actually turned to the WE Network because it said it had the last 20 minutes of some movie about the importance of "sticking it" for some gymnastics team -- I figured cheesy goodness. Well, I got cheesy alright.
First, I missed a good 20-40 minutes at the start of the movie. Luckily, most of it was recapped fairly quickly, especially in the bedroom scene where Crystal admits that she felt responsible for the death of her rapist.
I love Jenny Garth and will watch her in just about anything. She's just so pretty, and I want my lipstick to look as perfect as hers always does. She looks great throughout this movie, and doesn't really age over what seems to be more than a decade.
Overall, I felt bad for the actors as I watched this movie. All of them tried to sell their parts, but all were so poorly written that it was a constant struggle. Frankly, I was surprised to see Terry Farrell and Mitch Ryan (Greg's dad from Dharma & Greg) in this.
But the writing was not the worst part of this movie. About a half-hour before the end, her mother dies, and when they show the headstone the death date is 1979. Having missed the beginning, I had gotten the impression from the wardrobe that this was taking place in the 80s. Not one leisure suit or bell bottom in sight. Shame on the person who did wardrobe for this film! Don't get me wrong -- all the outfits in this movie were beautiful, but they were completely wrong for the time period. It almost makes me wonder if they told the wardrobe person that it was a period piece.
Bottom line -- good for a laugh or to feed a Jennie Garth fix. :)


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


user
I haven't seen many movies worse than this one. The story line, the dialogues, the acting: it's horror! The story just jumps from a to b to c without any logical steps in between. Every time you think you've missed something, but no: that was the way it was intended to be. And why on earth is the character that Jenny Garth portrays so in love with that no-no loser guy (who actually now plays in the movie Cinderella Man with Russel Crow!)? O well, it's no Spielberg, of course... I have to write ten lines to get posted. This movie really isn't inspiring enough to write 10 lines! It's a romantic feel good movie with a lousy story, so if you're up for that: you'll have a ball.


assistant
0