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
Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.
By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.
This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.
While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.
The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?
In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.
In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?
The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out.


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


user
If I heard the male lead say "This is madness!" one more time I would have barfed. The film is one big cliche, with fake "grind him under your heel" attitudes. Not one male in this movie has one redeeming quality; reminds me of Soviet-era films with strongly politically-oriented messages. I couldn't even understand WHY there was attraction between the leads, nor could I wait for the ending.


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


user
Not good. Mostly because you don't give a damn about what happens to all these people. Some comments : 1. I am tired of seeing governesses who never talk to their pupils, never teach them anything and take a tired and annoyed look whenever the said pupil, who of course has been won over in the space of 4 seconds, says something 2. Fine, so Rosina has a father complex and therefore is attracted to her employer. But Charles is completely different in all aspects from her father - if anything Henry is much closer as a sensual, exalted person 3. How could you ever believe that she would be more attracted to Tom Wilkinson than to Rhys Meyer. 4. Hard to believe, if she had been in fact raised as a deeply religious girl, that she would be so careless about sleeping with a gentile after knowing him for 5 minutes.
Some good things about the film : At least she didn't end up pregnant, not knowing who the father was... The whole description of life in the Jewish community in London is good


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 had potential. If it had been handled differently. What it needed was a different director. That's certain. And perhaps a different leading lady. I just can't understand the Minnie Driver character - or at least how she played it. She was completely unbelievable. I cannot believe she would have liked her performance in this movie either. She was probably abandoned by the director or incapable of delivering what the director was trying to get her to do. I am writing this as I am still watching it. I'm thinking I would have hated to be in her shoes trying to 'act' something I didn't understand. Well, we've just proceeded to the affair she begins with the son (I'm still watching). I'm now beginning to be profoundly embarrassed for everyone involved in this enterprise. If you enjoy watching movies that miss their mark in a big way, then watch 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
Jane Eyre with full frontal nudity! I was not surprised to see that a woman had had a hand in this awful "woman's picture" and I mean that in the worst possible way. The trouble is, it could have been so good if they had only left out the Jane Eyre stuff and stuck with the vastly more interesting scenes involving the Spanish/Portuguese Jews in early 19th century London. When the sound track music is better than the film, you know you are in trouble. When you fast forward the video because you can't stand the film, just to make sure you don't miss anything, you are in even worse trouble. This film will end up on the romance TV channel where it rightly belongs.


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


user
"Hardbodies 2" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add "brainless" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in "The Big Doll House"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in "Hardbodies". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the "hotness" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. "Hardbodies 2" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*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 film was produced and released as a successor to a ghastly - although fairly popular - slapstick Californian beach comedy called Hardbodies, but it has little or no connection with the earlier film and is better assessed completely in its own right. It is certainly better than Hardbodies I, and is more closely related to films such as Venus and Summer Lovers which were also filmed during summer in the Greek Islands. The combination of blissful beaches on blue bays with beautiful bare bosoms makes for seductive viewing, but (except for travelogues just designed to help plan your next holiday) even such films require an adequate story line if they are to hold a viewers attention for more than a very few minutes. Venus was underpinned by the legend of the re-incarnation of the goddess, and Summer Lovers had the viability of a "menage a trois" as its theme. In my view both these films were much more successful than Hardbodies II which has a very tenuous story line and depends too much on simplistic semi-slapstick comedy. The use of slapstick quickly becomes tedious, it usually leads to a series of very short self contained cameo sequences that are hard to integrate into an ongoing story line. Mel Brooks achieved this brilliantly with Silent Movie, but few other films have succeeded in the same way, and Hardbodies II unfortunately does not. There is also the problem that the slapstick sequences do not co-habit happily with the idyllic and peaceful scenario in which the film is set. The final airport sequences were no doubt intended to provide a hilarious ending for this film but in my opinion they are an example of the worst type of overplayed slapstick pseudo-comedy. They are also grossly overlong, so I left the cinema with a bad taste left in my mouth. This is a film which could have been much more successful with a stronger story line and with most of its slapstick sequences very heavily pruned. As it was released it certainly does not warrant a viewers rating higher than 3.
There is little memorable in the acting, but the cast does its best within the limitations imposed by a meagre story line and poor direction - it is in these latter areas that the failure arises.



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 just when a band tours, and only has one original member. It's not the same as the classic line up. All new actors playing the main roles of Rag, Scotty, etc, with Ashby as virtually the only returning face from the first movie. And he was of only minor note of the first flick, serving as the only redeemable group of the three guys that Scotty was trying to assist in meeting females. The film is poorly written, featuring the dumbest dialog this side of Armageddon. Even for a T&A movie, this one is a turkey. Not even die hard low budget 80's films fans would want to sit through this movie, which has no plot, and plenty of bad acting. This film would have been better off never being released. Just plain bad.


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


user
The '80's were the best of times and worst of times for James Karin, he starred in one of the best cult horror-comedies with "Return of the Living Dead" and a year later he acts in this piece of.... this bad movie. A sequel to Hardbodies (but not really), has a group of fairly unlikeable characters attempting to make a movie in Greece. Through design or sheer laziness the line between the film and the 'film within a film' is not only blurred, but throughly non-existent from scene to scene (which would be confusing if I were just interested in anything happening in the movie in the first place. Unfunny would be too generous a term.
Eye Candy: Nana, Fabiana Udenio, and many numerous extras get topless; Brenda Bakke shows some T&A
My Grade: F
DVD Extras: Just trailers for "Hardbodies", "American High School", "Strike", "Virgin Territory" (comes in a double-feature DVD with the first film, for the masochistic)


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


user
Pointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.
It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though.


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


user
Believe it or not, this was at one time the worst movie I had ever seen. Since that time, I have seen many more movies that are worse (how is it possible??) Therefore, to be fair, I had to give this movie a 2 out of 10. But it was a tough call.


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


user
Wow, did this episode start on a STOOOOOPID premise! The Enterprise is chugging along when all of the sudden, Abraham Lincoln is floating around in space and welcomes the Enterprise!!!!!!! Is it just me, or is this a really lame-brained idea?! Lincoln comes aboard and they welcome them. Abe suggests they beam down to some barren planet, where they meet other famous dead folks--both good and evil. It seems that a really cheesy-looking rock monster has assembled a team of GOOD and EVIL people to battle it out for supremacy. The whole thing seems really daffy and inherently unfair, as the GOOD side is saddled with Surak--a Vulcan who makes Gandhi seem like Rambo!! Despite a totally AWFUL premise, the action is pretty good and it's great to see overhead shots of obvious doubles fighting it out in this grudge match. But, don't mistake this for high art or deep sci-fi. The bottom line is that the series was on its last legs as a first-run series and this really looked like they dusted off this turkey and filmed it regardless of the absurdity of the premise.


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 the life of a great guitar player, who wants to make it big but acts irresponsibly almost to the point of self destruction.
I was expecting the usual Woody Allen witty dialogs, sarcasm and humour, but "Sweet and Lowdown" failed to provide any. The main character, Emmet Ray, is an egocentric, rude, irresponsible and hurtful man. He is so unlikeable, that I do not want to now about him, or care about him. I wonder why a film about him has to be made. The pacing of the story is slow, making the film a terrible bore. Even Sean Penn's great acting fails to revive the film to a watchable level.
I like Woody Allen's films a lot, but "Sweet and Lowdown" is a major disappointment.


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 the first Woody Allen film I've found not worth watching. I think Woody has tried many different genres to interest results but this movie just left me irritated and bored. The music is lovely but don't bother watching this hopeless mock-umentary.


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


user
Well, I think I've finally seen my last Woody Allen movie! I read the review in the newspaper and went to see this movie with the expectation of having a good Woody Allen experience (as I've had many times in the past). Well, that was not the case. This movie has nothing to offer. Even with the wonderful performance by the talented Sean Penn - this movie failed. One of the features of his other movies is multiple characters - variety, witty dialogue. This movie basically consisted of only one character - very one dimensional. It had almost no laughs. It probably looked good on paper! I think the only thing special was the performance of Samantha Morton. Now I'll be looking for her movies in the future. So, in conclusion, this movie was a major disappointment. >


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


user
Woody Allen (who I have to confess at the outset I have never been a big fan of) directed this quasi-documentary about the life of Emmett Ray (Sean Penn), a 1930's jazz guitarist whose star apparently shone for a while, then quickly faded. Penn does a credible job in the role, portraying a complicated and somewhat neurotic man (not unlike Allen himself, which perhaps explains why Woody would be attracted to this project) who can't maintain relationships, and whose twin passions (aside from guitar playing) were shooting rats at the dump and watching trains.
There isn't a great deal of consistency to the story. It's narrated in a sense by a series of modern-day jazz "experts" (one of whom is Allen himself), who relate their various theories and interpretations of different events in Ray's life. The end result is a wildly inconsistent account of the life of a fictional man who seems to have been given a fairly interesting life story by his creators, who probably should have done a better job with it.
Jazz fans and fans of Woody Allen will probably enjoy this. As for me? The best I can give it is a 3/10.


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


user
Once again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.
Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well.


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


user
CAMP BLOOD
Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)
Sound format: Mono
Whilst hiking in woodland near the deserted Camp Blackwood - site of an unsolved murder ten years earlier - four young city-dwellers are targeted by a masked psychopath who kills their guide (Courtney Harris) and stalks them through the woods with murderous intent...
Low-rent time-waster, filmed on camcorder utilizing the Nu-View field sequential 3-D format. There's a plot, at least, but the script adheres closely to an established blueprint (with obvious nods to the likes of "Friday the 13th", "The Burning" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre") without adding anything even remotely new or interesting to the formula. Director Brad Sykes - also responsible for similar 3-D efforts like THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES (2001) and BLOODY TEASE (2002) - cites the early works of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi as key influences on his career, but while those filmmakers challenged the mainstream with their no-budget efforts, Sykes uses video technology merely to imitate his cinematic heroes, resulting in a home movie with delusions of grandeur. Aside from the 3-D format, there is NOTHING here to warrant anyone's attention. Followed by CAMP BLOOD 2 (2000).


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


user
Apparently the writer and director of this direct-to-DVD slasher movie is a fan of Friday 13th and other summer camp slashers. This movie has everything - a group of teenagers who want to spend the weekend with fun, alcohol and sex in an abandoned summer camp called "Camp Blood", the old man who warns them not to go there; and of course the crazy killer with the machete who keeps on slashing and hacking at the teenagers without any reason at all... The whole thing could have worked if it had been shot on 35 mm film with acceptable Special Effects. But instead the Special Effects are poorly done. The killer walks around as if he's out on a Sunday afternoon stroll, and the only good things about this movie are the acting of the talented main actress and the sex scene at the beginning. Other than that - dull and forgettable. Jasper P. Morgan


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


user
The cover case and the premise that write there is so promising. As slasher maniac I expect much from this. But, what the heck is going on. The movie is awful. The direction, the plot, the suspense and the act of the casts is so amateurish. I even thought that they are using a home video camera to shot it. Lucky that it still manage to deliver some good moments to me that make me have to like it. Thanks for the bad package of so-called "Camp Blood".
1/10


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


user
WARNING!!! SOME POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS, AS IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE!!!
Okay, if you haven't figured out the plot yet, I am going to give it to you. Two couples head out to a camping site, but a clown masked killer shows up and causes all sorts of mayhem.
Now it is time for me to give these couples some advice.
1. Never, ever go to camp dubbed Camp Blood by the locals. 2. Don't have sex or make out in front of the killer. 3. Don't go chasing after the killer if he or she runs away. 4. Don't yell profanity at the killer. 5. Make sure your cellular phone works before you go camping. 6. Everybody needs to bring a sharp or dangerous weapon and carry it on themselves at all times. 7. Wear loose and comfortable clothing and bring a good pair of running shoes. No tight and binding clothing and no high heels or sandals. 8. Wear glasses or contact lenses if you need them so you don't stab the wrong person. 9. Always carry your car keys on you. 10. Put out a camp fire when you go to bed. 11. Watch your step. If you trip on something, your going to break a bone. 12. Check the backseat for uninvited guess. 13. If the killer has you cornered, at least put up a struggle.
And guess what? At least one, but usually all four of the main characters breaks all of these common sense rules. They are the dumbest characters ever to grace a film.
Now for some brief comments. This slasher film was on a very tight budget. So low four of the 7 or 8 actors play more than one role. The acting, writing, direction, sound, lighting, camera work, plotting, editing, etc. are all bottom of the line. But like the classic film JACK O this works on a sooooooooo bad, it is very entertaining and campy fun level. So rent this and have a good time and laugh. My rating: 5 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
Its difficult to be too tough on Brad Sykes, a hard-working guy doing what he loves, there is an honesty about him that seems often lacking with other microbudget directors. Check out the minuscule crew credits on Camp Blood, there is none of the usual thanking everyone down to the pizza joint they ate in, its Brad and his buddies and thats it, no pretentious rubbish. Jennifer Ritchkoff isn't your average horror flick heroine, but does well enough for you to hardly notice, Bethany Zolt looks like a star and Joseph Haggerty is so funny it hurts. The Clown is hardly an original horror film bad guy, but the design is good, Shemp Moseley does a decent job of bringing him to life and the image clashes nicely with the rural backdrop. Camp Blood is horror as blue collar and basic as it gets, not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing.


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 fan of slasher movies, especially of Scream 1-3, but this one is just one killing after another. To my astonishment: Part II is far better and you get the whole story of part one summarized! So don't waste time on this one and move right on to part II, you won't regret it cause Part 2 actually has a PLOT and is quite self-ironical. First Part: 1 out of 10 Second Part: 4 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
Camp Blood looked great when I was buying it, but when I watched it boy was I wrong. Its tacky, the acting is outrageous and the quality of the film is shocking. Being a movie fan, I usually find humour from tragic horror, but at times I couldn't even laugh. Maybe Camp Blood 2 will be an improvement.


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


user
Idiots go camping and act like idiots before they finally die like idiots, yes Camp Blood (or if you're wanting an awful, badder than bad pun that suits a badder than bad film, "Camp Bloody awful"), is so bad it's actually quite depressing to watch. And it has all the ingredients to be a perfectly bad film...
Awful acting-check. Bad script-check. Tacky effects-check no originality whatsoever-double check.
It doesn't even attempt to be different, and is riddled with every predicted cliché imaginable. For example, the film opens to a couple having sex in the woods, so of course they end up dead.
One of the most disturbing things is that this film actually spawned two sequels, how and why only baffles the mind.
Just stay away from 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 must first mention that as a group of mates, we often find entertainment in wacthing films which are known to be terrible for comedy value, hence our rental of Camp Blood.
Camp Blood was the first film which we'd rented that had been shot on what looks to be a camcorder, and was so rubbish it wans't even funny.
The DVD was returned and a refund was demanded, with the added suggestion some sort of quality control is implemented to prevent such utter rubbish being stocked.
Don't do what I did, and let the curiosity get the better of you, it's so bad it's not even funny.


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 7/19/2003 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Ridiculously lame 3D movie which pretty much follows the plots of many 80's teen slasher flicks. Stupid kids go to a known murderous camp site, become hunted by an unknown masked man, and then we try to figure out who, if anyone, is going to live. We really don't care who's behind the mask but even that's not hard to figure out if you've seen any of these kinds of movies. What a waste of a 3D viewer despite somewhat decent 3D effects.


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


user
Camp Blood is an absolutely atrocious slasher film. We're mixing Friday The 13th with the Blair Witch Project and adding....a killer in a clown mask.
The budget for this film must have been very low, some of the actors played multiple parts and the camera used produced a picture equal to the colourised version of the original Night Of The Living Dead, which if anybody has watched that version will back me up that it is poor.
This film was just so bad. There is nothing in the film even worth watching. The very fact I watched this all the way through stunned me. Just take my advice and don't buy or rent this film. It is appalling.


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 a puzzle to me how this turd of a film ever got distribution.
Sure, it's horror and there's a fair share of nudity, but by god, the production value is the lowest I've ever seen, the equipment used is worse than standard home equipment, everything is overlit, giving everything an amateurish look, bringing your thought to America's worst home video's or whatever that show was called..
Please people, is it too much to ask that you actually do an effort when you expect to waste 90 minutes of peoples lives watching this? You really should have done some short projects first cause it's obvious you're a bunch of amateurs! 1/10


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


user
How to round up every possible cliché and stereotype existing in the genre of horror and then subsequently stuff them into one massively lousy movie? The answer: "Camp Blood". This is amateurish slasher nonsense made on a micro-budget and a little bit too obvious inspired by "Friday the 13th". Four of the most intolerable teenage characters you'll ever see  they're like a combination of ugly, stupid and annoying  go camping and quickly find themselves pursued by a homicidal maniac in a clown suit. Don't even ask me what the killer's motivations were or even who he/she was, because if it did feature in the film, I totally missed it. This is one of the worst movies ever made, with no inspiration or craftsmanship whatsoever. The production values were so pitiable that there are actors playing multiple roles without even bothering to make them unrecognizable. The only half-decent and worthwhile sequence throughout the whole of "Camp Blood" is the opening in which the impressively voluptuous Meredith O'Brien has sex in the woods with her geeky boy scout. Yes, I'm fully aware that this is a totally shallow remark to make, but then again this is a juvenile and retarded film, so who cares?


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


user
Yes sure, this is a Friday the 13th rip off but I have no problem with it. It's a good effort, the killings aren't that gory but the acting of one girl carries the movie, what a scream queen, Jennifer Ritchkoff. For a low budget movie the effects are nicely done, okay, sometimes you can guess how it is done. Some people have problems with the use of the camera, I can't see what's wrong with that. It's so strange that so many people dislike this movie, I really enjoyed it. Of course the script isn't original but give me one that is, I mean, so many slashers are made in the woods. maybe it is all predictable but it's a worth see, I have seen a lot worser, I can tell you that


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


user
But I can't say how I really feel about this pile of steaming dung. Where to begin. The film quality, there isn't any. I've seen clearer pictures on America's FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS! The acting is substandard, the gore effects is okay. The clown mask is the best part of this movie, the story is repetitive. The same thing over and over again. At least in a Friday THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN we stick with one main character for the most part. There is no main characters, just victims. Man, now we come to the worst part of all. The final survivor kills the clown and finds out it was one of her friends. Then when the police finally arrive, they don't believe her and she is locked up in a rubber room. What kind of ending do you call that, crap, that's what. In my opinion, there is no excuse for a bad ending in a horror movie, that was just sloppy writing. The excuse, "It has to ending badly, it's a horror movie." or "We need to end it badly to leave it open to a sequel" are just lame excuses and that is all. I must give the CAMP BLOOD the THANKSGIVING TURKEY.


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


user
well, what can i say. WHAT THE F**K? There really isn't much to say about this, really. The only way you would like this is if u, like me, like bad bad horror to laugh at.
ACTING- VERY UNCONVINCING! Just watch the last scene with the main actresses running! Rip-off of Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE! but in a bad way! Just awful!
Gore- Really not believable. In one scene they use one of those knives which have a chunk cut out of them which fit over a body part etc. By using this,with the addition of red ketchup, its supposed 2 look real, although it really doesn't.
Plot- predictable 'kids get lost in woods on camping weekend' movie ripped off from Friday the 13th.
Killer Quality- scary mask if you're scared of clowns, kinda unbelievable that someone would chose this as their costume however. The director obviously realised all the good costumes had been used in all the other horror-camp movies out there.
TOTAL- 3/10 */***** p.s- stay away from CAMP BLOOD II, that one made this look like LORD OF THE RINGS.


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


user
Yeah i bought camp blood and it wasted about 86 minutes of my life and 5 pounds of my money on this crap, I mean i didn't expect an amazing movie, judging by the front cover i wasn't really expecting anything great but at least not boobies in the first 3 seconds (I'm not complaining about the boobies..) I'm complaining about what the hell that has to do with anything? this film should have been kept on there hand cam at home as a joke....they suck..why was the blood more brown and turd like that real blood?...cheap i tells ya i mean everyone wasn't in colour they were just tinted yellow, And another thing that made me die laughing at this sad excuse for a film was the fact that they tried to pretend the clown was a woman all the time, although its clearly a flat chested black short haired man...did anyone else notice that the only special effect in this film was a slowed down jump..that was also poor oh and the dissolve effect that you can find on many basic p.c programs such as...powerpoint....this film blows


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


user
83 minutes? Nope, this thing is 72 minutes, tops.
If you cannot guess the killer in this movie, you had better throw your TV out the window, because you ain't learned nothing in 20+ years of cinematic slasher history.
And how come the plain star who never gets naked is always the one you want to get naked?


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


user
I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format???


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 thrilled by the fresh (pun intended) synopsis of this film and looking forward to watch it. The first few shots introduce some of the characters as well as the main location where the stories take place; the gardening allotments. The movie looks fantastic. Colorful yet simple. Magical yet genuine. Unfortunately, it only takes a few minutes to figure out where the movie will go. We quickly figure out this will be a manipulative, sappy tale illustrating a bunch of jaded people set in their ways confronted by "nice victimized" refugees and that it will have a happy ending where the jaded people realize the error of their ways and accept these people.
The characters, particularly the prejudiced ones, are very "comic-booky" in nature. The story focuses mainly on two refugee families. One of them is headed by a single mom played atrociously by Diveen Henry. I am saddened to say that any emotion that might have been felt toward her struggles were defused by what was memorably bad acting.
The other story is much more interesting and focuses on a father and his two children. All are scarred by their journey to this country by way of containers, where the wife and mother died but it is the husband who suffers the most. Benedict Wong gives a mind-blowing performance here. At first, his emotions are very subdued but as the story develops, he subtly makes us aware of the inner-struggles of his character.
Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just extremely boring. There were so many possibilities with this movie. There are several characters to keep track of, many of which might have potential but none of it is realized. Even worse, despite this movie being very much not Hollywoodian, some of the main plot threads are solved cheaply in a Hollywood b-grade way. Example:
Character A likes character B Character B rejects his advances No problem! Let's have character C declare her love for character A so we can all have a happy ending. Yawn.
I liked very much the plot thread of the Asian family. That was well done. Unfortunately, the whole allotment business, the communal aspect of it, the dynamic involving a large cast are all under exploited.
What you're left with is a movie that has very little worth.


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


user
Empty shortening of John Irving's novel strives for profundity courageously but ends up being absurd. It's a quirky, goofy and bittersweet string of sketches, attempting to explain a man's growth from birth to adulthood and how he deals with the vices of lust and fanaticism that surround him. Garp is born to a formidable unmarried mother, Jenny Fields, played by Glenn Close.(The various stages of Garp's childhood are played by three young actors before Robin Williams takes over as Garp reaches adulthood.) The story follows him through childhood at a boys' prep school, where Jenny is the school nurse, through his high school passions-wrestling,writing,and sex-to marriage with his high school sweetheart, children, marital problems and a writing career. Jenny meanwhile has become a famous feminist , espousing an unorthodox cause. The plot details an abundance of comic and tragicomic episodes and outlandish adventures. Williams gives a cherub-faced performance. This script was not fitting for his wildness and anarchy and thus his talent was wasted. He's like an injured bird sputtering out of control. John Lithgow's role as a father like transsexual, imparting wisdom, also doesn't make sense. This movie was able to attract some reasonable attention in 1982, due to the popularity of Robin Williams and his new entry into movies. Williams had recently shed his Mork and Mindy pursuits and focused more on stand-up comedy and movies. Audiences were confused by this film, especially by its arbitrary and inexplicable ending.


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


user
Who the heck is responsible for this terrible mangling of one of my favorite books? This is just terrible. terrible acting, terrible script. The story isn't even close to its old self - and what were they thinking? Robin Williams, for Gosh's sake! This really defies description. Don't see this. Seriously, don't. Not even for laughs. Especially not if you're a fan of the book. This might just be the worst movie adaptation ever - everything is disjointed and scrambled - the characters which are important in order to understand the sequence of events are seriously marginalized, and every potentially interesting location from the book has been changed (example: Vienna - New York) into something profoundly uninteresting.
For those who haven't read the book - it's basically a fictional biography about a writer growing up, exploring his writing and so on. His mother writes an autobiography which is hailed (despite her protests) as a sort of feminist manifesto. The book is well-written, engaging, and long. Its prose is simply beautiful.
This movie, on the other hand, is about Robin Williams once again telling us to seize the day.


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


user
Tediously long dreary cinematic waffle. I couldn't believe how bad this film was. I watched it merely because of the numerous people who gushed about it on this site. Was I watching the same film? The entire episode is one-dimensional. Nothing that happened in Garps' past affected his (or anyone else's) future and no-one was affected by their past. I think it was Socrates who said about plays that if a scene can be removed from a play without having any effect, then it shouldn't be there. Obviously, the director didn't know this rule and, so, stuffed his 'work' with one dire scene after another. Even the plane crashing into the house was unexpected, it wasn't a surprise, but it was unexpected!
It is worth mentioning that at the time of writing this (1st Dec 2002), even though many people say it is one of their favourite films, no one has bothered to add a memorable quote. The reason being that there simply aren't any.
Don't waste your time watching this, watch a plank warp instead.


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


user
I went to see this movie at the theater and paid money thinking it would be at least mildly entertaining. The only thing I enjoyed about it was when Robin Williams crashes into the car at the bottom of the hill, and the end, when he seems to get killed. Glenn Close was obnoxious, and she obviously did not seem old enough to be Garp's mother. A mother like Garp's would have had her kids taken away by the Department of Children and Families.
Robin Williams and his glazed donut look of benign goodness is just too sweet and smarmy for me. He has two roles he can play: Funny person or sad, tragic, good-hearted victim. See the Fisher King, Good Morning Vietnam, and all of his so-called "dramatic" roles. It is always the same performance. Put them all together into one long mini-series. Glenn Close is always a cold fish. Remember Fatal Attraction? Would you have an affair with her even on your worst day and if you were single? Did you feel any sparks between her and Michael Douglas?? Have you ever seen Glenn Close warm up any screen?? John Lithgow had the only interesting role. This was back in the day when he used to play serial killers and bad guys, so seeing him as a transsexual was at least funny. Garp is made for all those people who love to see movies about sick, abnormal, dysfunctional people and then claim it is beautiful and profound.


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


user
I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance.


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 unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.
The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.
HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.
The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.
Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.
It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.


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 really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.
Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.
It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.


assistant
0