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
If you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.
Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the "hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops" school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.
Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.
This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!
You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.
The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. "Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?" Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.
So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction.


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


user
I bought the video for £13 at HMV (we pay more in Britain) as a friend had told me it was highly rated and the reviews on this site were generally impressive.
I have to say that the opening credits were a let down...the dancing/music not very powerful.
The car ride and unexpected crash just as the lady passenger was going to be harmed was a nice touch,..something unexpected...though the way she walked away from the car with hair perfectly groomed and still carrying a handbag looked corny for most Directors ..but for Lynch was something else.
Her dazed walking around after such a shock was enhanced by a regular low noise similar to fingers scraping along a blackboard; I thought another Lynch master touch perhaps portraying the demons gnawing into her shocked and traumatised self conscious. After a while this noise became somewhat annoying and on further investigation I discovered the new video cassette squeaked.
I dont know whether this squeak took away a lot of my enjoyment but this movie became a waste of time.(and money)
The two female characters had some presence and the lesbian scenes were fair enough, though predictable. There were no male characters of any merit and apart from a few vaguely good scenes (the hoover switching on )there were far too many dreadful scenes that were plain weak and ridiculous. Eg, the coffee being spat into the napkin by the menacing loon and the silly monster face at the back of the diner. Oh and what about the paint in the wifes jewels..boring and naff.
This whole film gives you the feel of the failed genius..you know when you listen to the worst Dylan track ever and think my God that was embarrassing....was that really Bob?
The whole feel is that of a failed TV movie , badly put together with a few (not many) extra bits to give it a 15 rating.
I whizzed it on during the last 30 minutes .
Do I give it another chance and watch again. If I want to be puzzled and work hard at understanding a film I will watch Frank Woods Guide to Consolidated Accounting.
Lynch did one classic ..Blue Velvet and Straight Story was nice.
This, like Wild at Heart, was a let down ; his weirdness is now predictable and stale. Anybody want to buy a 2nd hand video?
Make way for some younger original talent, David.
Four out of Ten (and no more). Sorry.


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


user
Most of the comments on this movie are positive so I thought I would try and redress the balance. I came out of this movie wondering what was going on. I now know and still consider it to be a poor movie. I intially discounted a dream sequence as that seemed too obvious. I was glad that I had a free ticket to the movie or I would have asked for my money back. Movie reviewers and critics love this movie, which only confirms to me that most of them would rather sound intelligent than review how an audience may enjoy a film. The 8+ rating this movie has is so misleading. In 20 years time this film will not compare to true greats such as The Godfather. The film does have fine performances from both the leads but that isn't enough to save the film. (nor are the lesbian scenes!)


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


user
In need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described "problem child" David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" (you guessed it).
The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's "Spin and Marty".
** Jack and the Beanstalk (4/4/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum


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


user
I watched this last night for the first time in 40 years. It's bad. Really bad. But it has enough hilariously awful moments, that it's worth watching. First of all, was it deliberate to make the boy being babysat completely effeminate? He even says to Costello a la Mae West "you fascinate me!" as Costello does a double take. God only knows what would have have happened if the babysitter had been a hunk. THIS kid would have seduced him in a heartbeat! Then there's the principal male dancer. He is totally inept. Roar with laughter as he leaps and prances with no talent whatsoever over the giant's grave during He Never Looked Better in His Life. The two romantic leads are zeros, wastes. Abbott gets to sing one line and that was dubbed in by another singer. Geez, I guess he couldn't even carry a tune! Costello does manage to be charming in his I Fear Nothing number, and I guess very small children might like it, but there's not much to recommend it. But oh that seductive effeminate boy! THAT aspect alone blew me away! Plus the fact the family accepted anyone off the street with no references to babysit a child! Today, little femmy boy would be taken away from them!


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


user
I'm not really much of an Abbott & Costello fan (although I do enjoy "Who's On First") and, to be honest, there wasn't much in this movie that would inspire me to watch any more of their work. It wasn't really bad. It had some mildly amusing scenes, and actually a very convincing giant played by Buddy Baer, but somehow, given the fame of the duo and the esteem in which they're generally held, I have to say I was expecting more. As the story goes, the pair stumble into a babysitting job, and during the reading of Jack & The Beanstalk as a bedtime story (with the kid reading it to Costello), Costello's Jack falls asleep and dreams himself into the story. There's a "Wizard Of Oz" kind of feel to the story, in that the characters in the dream are all the equivalents of real-life acquaintances of Jack, and the movie opens in black & white and shifts to colour during the dream sequence. The fight scenes between Jack and the giant and the dance scene between Jack and Polly (Dorothy Ford) are among the amusing parts of the movie. Polly, of course, also leads to one of the questions of the movie - what happened to her? Jack and gang apparently left her behind in the giant's castle! I know - it was just a dream, so who cares. Still - I wondered. There were also a couple of cute song and dance routines. My 4 year old giggled a bit during this, so she was able to appreciate some of the humour. I found it to be an acceptable timewaster, but certainly not anything that would convince you of Abbott and Costello as comic geniuses. 4/10


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


user
Absolutely inane film starring Abbott and Costello. Even our young children would become increasingly annoyed with this complete mess of a film.
Abbott as Dinklepuss. What a look he had on his face. Sure, he had to be part of this dreadful film.
Did anyone notice that Costello's mother in the film sounded and looked like Fay Bainter? Luckily, for Ms. Bainter, that she wasn't in the film.
There is really no excitement hear for children. The jokes, if any, are quite stale. Some of the singing is nicely done but the lyrics are ridiculous.


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


user
For some reason my father-in-law gave me a copy of this tape. I think because my great uncle, Buddy Baer, was the giant in this movie and my father-in-law thought I'd like to see it. I had, years before as a child, and didn't like it then, either.
My son, then two, watched it and was hooked. Every waking moment in front of the TV, this horrid video played. I went to work with the inane songs stuck in my head. The two "leads" were worse than a junior high stage review. The dancers looked like rejects from an Ed Wood horror flick and Abbot and Costello phoned their parts in. Thankfully, I was able to distract my son long enough to lose this videotape. Frankly, I think it was the tape from "The Ring".
To correct another reviewer, Buddy Baer is the UNCLE of Jethro (Max Baer, Jr) not his father. 0 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
I'll start blasting the movie first. Remove Abbott and Costello from the cast and you've got a badly colored movie, stiff cardboard from the casting department, badly dubbed sound (especially during the singing!) and annoying dialog (ex. listen to the line "Mr. Dinklepuss" ad infinitum). Obviously some studio hack thought that they could cash in on Disney's CLASSIC presentation of "Mickey and the Beanstalk", but maybe audiences were either more gullible back then (improbable) or stuck in a double feature (more probable). Even children should feel insulted at having this movie shown to them. A total waste of celluloid. Now, about the acting of Abbott and Costello. Bud Abbott always played the straight man, and by all accounts was the nicer person off the set. On radio, his character was usually the smooth fast talker, and was especially funny when his speed caused him to flub his lines and smooth over the mistakes. In the movies, he still plays the straight man, but is more of a con artist. Not that he's bad at it, but that character has been played to perfection by Groucho Marx. The real travesty of the duo on film is Lou Costello. Again, on radio he was funny. He played a character that was a little slower than Abbott, but not too much slower! He was also glib with the lines, and got me laughing when he would ad-lib at Abbott's mistakes. On film, I don't know if it was his decision or not, but in the movies his character becomes a shoddy impersonation of Stan Laurel, which in turn was even more shoddily done by Jerry Lewis. Why the change? he was funny on radio when he was a smarta--, but here he becomes a child-like character that looks like he's mugging for the cameras in every shot. this characterization is shown in every movie they do, and only brings a stain to the reputation they had on radio. What is left to their film career is a poor (very, VERY poor) copy of Laurel and Hardy. The movies would have been much funnier if they had played their radio characters instead of retreads of stock casting.


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


user
Although I am sure the idea looked good on paper, and it appealed to me when I first heard of it, this movie often lumbers along and falls flat, and when I watch it, I just want it to end. The bookend beginning and ending of the film about Lou having to babysit a troublemaker is contrived at best, although I found the tall cop part to be humorous. However, I found little to laugh at with the bottom of the barrel script that was thrown together for these two great comedians. I thought that it was a mistake to put them in a musical, and it reeks of "Wizard of Oz" rip-off (with the songs and black and white to color format). I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone but die-hard A&C fanatics. Anyone else will be disappointed, and they have many better films.


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


user
This little cheapy is notable only because it is the worst film Abbott and Costello ever made. It is dreadful in every way: crummy music, horrid choreography (check out the awkward lead male dancer), cheesy special effects and sets, wooden actors (the leads are barely at the high school level in their profession and were unheard of later), and a script without a single laugh. Better times were ahead for the comedy duo. Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd is much preferable, as is the television series, which at times was inspired. But skip 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
"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"! If IMDb would allow one-word reviews, that's what mine would be. This film was originally intended only for kids and it would seem to be very tough going for adults or older kids to watch the film. The singing, the story, everything is dull and washed out--just like this public domain print. Like other comedy team films with roots in traditional kids stories (such as the awful SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES and the overrated BABES IN TOYLAND), this movie has limited appeal and just doesn't age well. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt that many kids nowadays would even find this film enjoyable! So my advice is DON'T watch this film. If you MUST watch an Abbott and Costello film, almost any other one of their films (except for A&C GO TO MARS) would 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
I´m only joking. This was potentially the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. How anybody in the 1950´s could have raised a laugh at this innane rubbish is beyond my comprehension. I jest not.


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


user
1 hour and 40 minutes of talking--boring talking, and more talking and then some. It is hard for me to grasp how an actress like Anne Parillaud, who shone superbly in Femme Fatale, would sign up for such a piece of crap! Unbelievable. If you need a nightcap, this movie might help, although I would prefer some nice classical music. unfortunately, i just found out that i have to write 10 lines for my comment to appear--that's almost as unbelievable! so, short and succinct one or two sentence commentaries expressing one's core take on a movie is not enough. geez, people. i made my point and don't to waste your time with more, unnecessary words--as this movie does. Wolfgang


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 recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end.


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


user
As one who loves films that appeal to intellectual sorties as well as those that simply tell stories, this film should have been appealing. But as written and directed by Catherine Breillat who seems to be playing out her own conundrums in film-making experiences, this tedious and talky film fails to arouse interest.
The main character Jeanne (Anne Parillaud) is the screen form of Breillat, a director frustrated in her attempts to film a convincing sex scene with two difficult actors (Grégoire Colin is The Actor and Roxane Mesquida is The Actress). The one 'comic' bit is Jeanne's imposing the use of a dildo strapped onto the Actor in order for her to drive the sex scene to fruition, but even this sight gag wears thin quickly and we are left with a film within a film that feels more like a 'Deleted Scenes' featurette on a DVD than a solid French comedy with class. Grady Harp, August 05


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


user
The first users comments are very detailed for a very vague movie. Not saying that I disagree, but this summary can be written in a few sentences. To get straight to the point, this is pretty much like watching the making of a really bad amateur porno flick. There are a few funny points in the movie, but with the kind of things that happen in todays youth everyday its actually kind of lame. The main actor in the movie is a pompous jackass and both guy and girl in the film are way too modest to be in a film like this. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. The only reason why I gave it a 4 and not a 1 is that they used at least a somewhat attractive girl in the movie and towards the end you got to see almost full frontal nudity from the girl, thats it, thats the only thing thats worth watching it for. the end


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


user
I'd really have to rate "Sex is Comedy" as one of the worst pieces of dreck I have ever seen. The film inadvertedly showcases those which are the worst aspects of the French, or at least how they are stereotyped, narcissism, snobbery, and pseudo-intellectualism. I myself am French-Canadian and feel slightly ashamed that the creators of this film are from the same culture as me, that should give you an idea as to how bad this movie really was! One doesn't so much watch this film as undergo torture to it, there was a total lack of humour, and it seemed to me as if the entire film was a documentary interviewing people who were neither famous, nor talented, as if to celebrate something that has never happened to begin with. Instead, why not watch Auberge Espagnole, Happenstance, or Je t'aime... a la folie, three fantastic modern French films.


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


user
To preface my remarks on the film, I know the topic is horrendous and words can't adequately express the compassion any decent person would have for people dealing with the post-horrors of an atomic bomb dropped near them.
However, this film doesn't really deal with in a horrific way except for the first 10 minutes. Some of the images there are horrifying, and should be as a reminder what devastation nuclear weapons can produce. Seeing burned people walking around aimlessly or man combing his hair and clumps of hair coming out, etc., is not a pretty sight.
But after the first dozen minutes, this Japanese film concerns people dealing with the aftermath of Hiroshima in the mid-to-late '40s. I actually found the story developing quickly into a boring soap opera.
Almost all the story occurs five years after the bomb and deals mainly with one family's problems at that point. This is why it became more of a melodrama than some shocking story of nuclear disaster. It's simply a story about how these people got on with their lives from about 1950 on, whether one of the women was permanently damaged and if so, should she marry?
This could have been a real impact film but it didn't go in that direction


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


user
I remember when "The Love Machine" was first released to theaters. I was a mere 13 years old, too young to see the much-ballyhooed motion picture release, but not too old to take my Mom's paperback copy of the Jacqueline Susann novel to school and pore over the 'naughty bits' with my schoolmates.
Though I'm not sure what my problem was at such an early age, but I was very much into the book. I bought and wore an "ankh" ring just like on the paperback cover, and I remember the ads for the perfume, "Xanadu" that was cross-promoted and featured clumsily in the film. Despite such an interest I didn't actually see the film until several years later. I should have left things as they were.
"The Love Machine" is hands down the worst of the many bad films adapted from Susann's novels...which of course makes it the most fun to watch. Its faults are many: from its hopscotching script that jumps choppily from one incident to another with nary a connecting thread; its dated, horny (brass instruments, I mean) music score of ersatz Bacharach; the flat, first-take performances; the boring sexuality -I've never seen bathrobes featured so prominently in a movie before. It's like a fetish! Whenever sex, nudity or something sleazy is called for, out pops somebody in a blue robe! Very odd, that; and most certainly, the circus train of awful 70's fashions that are on endless display. Poor Dyan Cannon's performance (which is no great shakes anyway, but heads over the rest of the cast) is consistently undermined by the jaw-dropping get ups she's called upon to wear. However, the film's chief liability is the stoic, stone-like John Philip Law as (appropriately enough) Robin Stone, the object of every girl's (and one overthe-top flaming male photographer's) affection.
Law is just awful and performs as if he were pulled off the street, handed the pages of the script in hurry and told to give a cold reading on the spot. Just lifeless! Not only that, but he appears in desperate need of a blood transfusion or something. He looks wan and sickly throughout and is several pounds smaller than most of his female costars. Robin Stone should be a hunk, not a hankie.
For anyone finding the film hard going (it's rather slow by today's standards) I beg you to stick around for the climactic "fight scene." Here Ms. Cannon (balancing 23 pounds of teased hair) finally abandons her heretofore starchy acting style and lets loose with that infectiously raucous laugh of hers, setting in motion a truly memorable free for all that should have become a cinema clip highlight by now. Trying to rival "Valley of the Dolls"'s infamous wig-down-the-toilet scene, "The Love Machine" finally does something right.
Jacqueline Susann's unique brand of trash is sorely missed. Perhaps someone out there owns the rights to Rona Barrett's "The Lovomaniacs" and will revive the genre.


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


user
Movie based on Jacqueline Susann's best-selling novel. It's about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) a ruthless TV anchorman who claws his way to the top. It details his love life concentrating on Amanda (Jodi Wexler) and Judith (Dyan Cannon). It also shows his total inability to commit to anyone and instead sleeps with any woman he can get.
The novel is no work of art (it's not even good literature) but it's a quick, silly, trashy read. But this movie makes it seem like "Gone With the Wind"! This is a textbook example of how NOT to do a movie adaptation. First they condense the novel terribly. In the book Stone's inability to commit is dealt with and it's revealed why. Here it's brought up...and ignored. Also there's a truly revolting scene in which a woman is brutally beaten. It's in the book--but there IS a reason totally left out of the movie. And the book dealt with three women--not two. Don't even get me started on the homophobia.
Adaptation aside the acting is pretty terrible. Law is just horrendous as Stone--VERY wooden and boring--you seriously wonder why all these women are after him. To be fair to Law--another actor was cast but had a very bad accident before shooting began and Law stepped in at the last minute. Wexler is terrible as Amanda; Maureen Arthur is truly astoundingly bad as Ethel Evans; Shecky Greene is unbearable as Christie Lane. Only three performances stand out: David Hemmings (having a GREAT time) camps it up as a gay photographer; Cannon is actually very good and Robert Ryan is just great. Also Dionne Warwick sings the catchy opening song ("He's Moving On").
It IS bad but I watched the whole thing and it is (in a silly sort of way) a lot of fun. I'm giving it a 3.
Also Jacqueline Susann has a cameo as a newscaster.


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


user
Even though this film was nothing special as such, I am drawn to comment on at least one factor that ruled in its favour - that of the lead female performer in the film, Dyan Cannon. In spite of the film's ridiculous storyline and what she goes through here, hers was the best acting job in the film, making the unbelievable seem more plausible. Her raucous scene with the gay photographer David Hemmings has to be seen to be believed. Good work, Dyan.


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


user
Jacqueline Susann wrote several novels all involving sex and melodrama and a few of them actually were made into films including this effort and they all have the distinction of being some of the worst films ever made. Story here is about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) and his rise to the top of television by being ruthless and calculating to everyone around him. He's a playboy of the worst sort using and then throwing away every woman he beds including the wife of the IBC network president.
*****SPOILER ALERT***** Greg Austin (Robert Ryan) is in charge of the television network IBC and when his younger wife Judith takes one look at Robin she wastes no time getting into bed with him. Greg falls ill and has to take some time off and this is where Robin steps in and starts trying to run the network but during all this a model named Amanda (Jodi Wexler) who is in love with him kills herself. When Greg returns to his job he tries to get rid of Robin by using the morals clause in his contract when rumors start flying about his relationship with Jerry Nelson (David Hemmings) who's a gay fashion photographer.
This was directed by Jack Haley Jr. who went on to be a very successful producer in both television and movies but this was only his second film as a director and the material he was forced to deal with seems way over his head! The script comes from Susann's novel and that would probably be why this resembles a cross between "Alfie" and "The Valley of the Dolls" and I think the reason why her books never could translate well onto film is because the filmmakers made the terrible mistake of taking her stories seriously instead of tongue in cheek. With that, the laughs that come from this are unintentional especially during that totally ridiculous fight towards the end of the film which starts when Cannon refuses to give back the slave bracelet to the gay characters! Hemmings was a very good actor but his role here is completely over the top and it has him wearing one of the worst beards in history and using the term "chic" in every other sentence. Law was not the original choice for the lead but another actor that was cast had a serious accident and Law stepped in and delivers one of the more wooden performances this side of Miles O'Keeffe. The film's script suffers in two different areas in that it's both completely silly and horribly dull and it will test a viewers patience if they choose to watch this. One has to wonder what would be the outcome if a director decided to film one of Susann's novels and not take it seriously because the attempt here is ponderous and ridiculous.


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


user
Cute idea to have Dionne Warwick do the song vocals for this movie-adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's bestselling book (a la "Valley Of The Dolls")...although it's really too bad this sudser doesn't have Patty Duke's Neely O'Hara to spike the story. "The Love Machine" is unrelievedly dull. Even the final brawl (with an Academy Award as a fight prop!) can't save it. Dyan Cannon seems embalmed in her heavy pancake make-up and cumbersome fall (although her tiny, suntanned figure is a beauty to behold), John Phillip Law is a block of wood in the lead, David Hemmings embarrassing in gay-mode as a flamboyant photographer. And where is Robin Stone walking to at the end? Is he trekking out to the waterfront to pick up some sailors? After Cannon has deflated his masculinity, it would be a safe bet. In that case, "Love Machine--The Final Episode" might've been a more interesting flick. Certainly better than this yawn-inducing snooze-opera. *1/2 from ****


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


user
Contains spoilers.
The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum.
Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.
The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10


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


user
This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.
It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.
The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.
The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.
The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences.
More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.
Really not worth your time.
4/10


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


user
I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.
The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.


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


user
Like the previous commentator on this film, I too found myself in tears at times during this movie. Sometimes one wonders how a film of such awe-inspiring awfulness comes into existence. From the first moment when our protagonist wakes up in his New York apartment from a dream of subway trains intercut with galloping horses (what Irish emigrant hasn't had that one), its clear we are in trouble. And it doesn't get much better.
Whisked back to 1950s Ireland, we enter a world where everybody speaks without intonation, and exclusively on the topic of the Irish Civil War. Schoolchildren go to school to learn about the Civil War. The drinkers in the pub divide themselves according to their Civil War allegiances. Remembrances are carried out for those who died in the Civil War. The town is divided between those who believe we should remember and those who want to forget...the Civil War. Every glance and conversation is dripping with meaning that traces back to the Civil War.
The blurb on the videocover of Broken Harvest suggests that the film is a parable of the troubles in modern Ireland. The only parallel which strikes me is that in present day Dublin conversation is indeed dominated by one topic: house prices. If its intention is to offer some sort of insight into Ireland's obsession with its past, it fails miserably. It is striking how few Irish films have dealt with the Irish civil war and its legacies. However it will take a film of a great deal more subtlety and intelligence than this one to tell us anything about the lasting effects of such a traumatic event on the nation's psyche.
For those American viewers who have suggested the film evokes the atmosphere of 1950s Ireland: it doesn't. 1950s Ireland was a horrible, poverty stricken pit of sexual repression and misery from which young people fled in their droves. However there was more than one topic of conversation.


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


user
I could not stand the woman who played the mother. I wanted her to shut up. She had a bizarre manner of speaking and the lines she was given to read didn't make it any better. I had no idea why the men of the town were so taken with her to cause all these problems except that in a town populated by men she seemed to be the only woman over ten and under sixty. Even after a terrible tragedy her voice was devoid of human emotion, she seemed to have no ability to grasp the events of her life. She delivered her lines with the same emotion whether she was saying "i love you", "i hate you", "the bank is foreclosing", "my dress is on fire". Was this actually filmed in Ireland? The sun blazed throughout the movie and the characters seemed surprised by a rain shower during the harvest. I lived in Ireland during the summer of 2002, the wettest summer in a century. Most everything was still harvested. If the farmers in Ireland could only harvest during long dry stretches then the country would have starved hundreds of years ago. It seems as if there wasn't a lot of money to make the movie. The black and white flashbacks looked as if they were filmed with the security cameras one can get at Sam's Club.


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


user
If it had not been for Christopher Guest's hilarious role, I would have stopped watching this movie after 20 minutes. The jokes were flat, the movie choppy and slow paced, certain characters were obnoxious and painful to watch, but Guest's character kept me laughing so I stuck with it.
I do feel there are much better choices out there!


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


user
I must say I was disappointed with this film. Although it is well acted and directed, the underlying story simply plods along too slowly.
Granted, in another mood I would have liked it better. I did chuckle a lot, but rarely laughed out loud; and there was actually a sense of suspense to discover who won. But in contrast to another movie that my wife picked up the same day (one neither of us had heard of before) this one paled in comparison.
If you see lots of movies, then by all means see this -- it's distinctly better than your average fare. But if you (like me) have limited time and want to watch only the best and most entertaining, save this for later.
[Rate: 7/10]


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


user
First of all "Mexican werewolf in Texas" is not a werewolf movie. This title is bullcrap. The story is actually about a Chupacabra that kills all the local villagers in the little town of Furlough in Texas. I suppose the distributors renamed the original title so that it would make some extra bucks or something. And I guess it actually works because that's the reason why I bought this piece of crap, it sounded so stupid. Anyway the movie isn't any good. Actually it's bloody awful. But I didn't expect anything else when I bought it. It's a low budget horror movie with a Chupacabra monster. If you enjoy low budget horror with bad dialog, actors and some gore then you should check into this movie. But I must warn you, this movie is really baaaaaaad.
This movie has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The actors try to hard and t it gets completely ridiculous. They almost never say a line in a normal way. They always have this completely wrong tone about just everything they say. It's so stupid it almost looks like a freakin parody. It's like they shot each scene only one single time and were happy about it. The worst of them all is the blond girl which is supposed to play a bimbo. She's the worst of them all. I have never seen an actor as bad as her (And I've seen Pteradactyl). Even when her boyfriend dies she can't stop being a bimbo about it. I hate her.
Some of the shots in this movie were actually quite good. The ones that where shot in the daytime are all pretty decent for a low budget project. But most of the movie is shot in the night when the Chupacabra strikes and the lighting is way too dark. The gore scenes are few and short, but really grizzly and violent. The effects are pretty hilarious really, but that's the way I like it. The Chupacabra looks pretty messed up, and it's easy to see that it's a guy in suit.
Overall this movie should only be watched by extreme fans of low budget flicks and it's very important to not watch this alone because you will probably be bored to death. I recommend watching this flick with your friends and some beer.


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


user
In the dusty little town of Furlough in Texas, an animal is slaughtering the cattle and the locals. When the teenager Tommy (Michael Carreo) is killed, their friends Anna Furlough (Erika Fay), her Mexican-American boyfriend Miguel Gonzalez (Gabriel Gutierrez), Jill Gillespie (Sara Erikson) and Rosie (Martine Hughes) finds that a Mexican werewolf Chupacabra is the killer and they plot a plan to kill the beast.
"Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is an amateurish crap and among the worse movies I have ever seen, if not the worst. Nothing works in this movie: the screenplay is laughable, with some of the most terrible lines I have ever heard. The direction does not exist and the camera follows the "style" of "The Blair Witch Project". The amateurish acting seems to be a prank of high-school students or a high school play. The "special effects" are gruesome and extremely poor and the "werewolf" is the cheapest I have ever seen. Ed Wood movies are cult, but this "Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is pure garbage. In the end, Jill says that no man can resist her teats (actually the most beautiful thing in this flick). But I believe the correct quote should be "no man (or woman) can resist to watch this movie to the end". I was driven by my curiosity to see how bad a movie can be and I lost 88 minutes of my life, but I believe most of the viewers will stop seeing with less than 20 minutes running time. My vote is one (awful).
Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomen Mexicano no Texas" ("A Mexican Werewolf in Texas")


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


user
First off, Mexican Werewolf in Texas' title is misleading as many others have pointed out. It is actually about El Chupacabra, which is a similar creature to a werewolf, but by no means the same.
The production and editing just plain suck. When it was over, I probably wouldn't be able to give a very accurate description of what exactly the Chupacabra looked like, for whenever it was in a scene(despite one or two exceptions) the camera turned all shaky and you could only see the monster's face clearly. The special effects were laughably bad, but that has to be expected from a low budget horror movie.
Along with the terrible production comes the bad actors. Now a couple give fairly plausible performances(Erika Fay and Martine Hughes), but then there were the bad actors(everybody else), who seemed to have no emotions whatsoever when people died. Then there's the absolutely terrible actor(Sara Erikson), who gives one of the 2 worst performances I've ever seen in a movie. I mean my god, she was indescribably bad.
The plot was very simple. Basically, a Chupacabra is in a small Texan town killing off local residents and a group of teens look to stop it. However, even with the plot being this simple, a few plot holes managed to leak through.
Anyways, horrible movie. However, if you are looking for a movie to make fun of and laugh at with your friends one night, this would be a pretty good one. My friends and I had a good time watching this. Probably the 2nd worst movie I've ever seen, 1/10. Awful.


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


user
I rented The Matrix Revisited with a friend of mine. We both loved The Matrix and we both love filmmaking so we wanted to see what was going on behind the scenes of The Matrix. It turns out that The Matrix Revisited tells you hardly anything about the art of filmmaking or even how The Matrix was made. It is basically a huge commercial for The Matrix, a movie that the target audience of The Matrix Revisited has already seen!
If you really want to know about the process and the troubles and the stress and the detail that went into making of The Matrix, look no further than the bonus features on the original DVD of The Matrix. There are things they show in those documentaries that I had not even realized had to be done or was done. The Matrix was such a difficult and challenging film to make that it deserves more credit than a "documentary" that's about as informative and interesting as an MTV special.


assistant
0