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
For a movie that gained so much recognition and appraise this spinoff to "Rosemarys Baby" is one big mistake. It starts off that Andrew/Adrian whatever his name is because he's so confused that he doesn't know who he is anymore runs away from a cult with his mother and soon is kidnapped by a strange lady that ends up taking care of him as if she were his mother. The acting is terrible as Andrew grows up in his twenties and looks terrible with his sunken in face, never ending grin and Dukes of Hazard clothes on looks more like a drunken has been than the son of Satan. In fact thats all he does is drink and falls sloppily all over himself as he tries to come to grips with his past and the last memory of his mother driving away on a bus screaming to him. He finds a friend that seems to be an angel but he's quickly killed off and electricuted in a hillarious scene in which he looks more like a Christmas tree. Andrew gets cought and the cult with the members of the first part test him to see if he's really the Son of Satan. His dumb self fails the test and gets up off the alter glittering with myme makeup and jumps of the stage of a night club and dances like a clown on crack!!! This scene is memorable and well worth a watch. The ending is terrible and somewhat predictable considering how stupid he is in the whole movie. Do not watch this piece of trash or you will loose respect for the first part.


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


user
I usually seek to find good in movies, even the bad ones.Unfortunately this movie is one where I fail miserably-and the fact that there's barely one positive review on this board shows many IMDb reviewers share my pain.
I don't usually watch sequels but I just had to see this since I love "Rosemary's Baby" so much. What a mistake that was. It simply reaffirms my belief in the fact that most sequels are lousy-though thankfully, very few are as bad as this. In fact in my mind this isn't even really a sequel, it's a satire on how bad a sequel can be. Movie recommended very highly for not viewing-at any time-ever.


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


user
Sam O'Steen, the film editor on the superlative suspense flick "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968, here directs a quickie TV-made sequel, one in which Rosemary Woodhouse (Patty Duke Astin, in for Mia Farrow) is shunted off early--and inexplicably--presumably to help flesh out the more ghoulish aspects of this flaccid story about Satan's son on Earth. Most interesting is the return of Ruth Gordon to her Oscar-winning role as Minnie Castevet (with Ray Milland well-cast as her husband, Roman), but she isn't given much to do--and looks terribly uncomfortable at being involved anyway. This script is strictly low-rent goods, and must have shamed original author Ira Levin (who went on to write his own sequel). Fairly dim and pallid, with poor photography and no suspense or scares whatsoever.


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


user
With its few touches of surrealism, LWHTRB works as low-grade horror, but as a major follow-up statement to the original, it flounders miserably.
Things begin somewhat promising during the telefilm's opening credits... We see and hear several interesting shots and sounds: The Baby's black crib with the overhanging, inverted cross; the kitchen knife Rosemary carried into the Castevette's apartment and dropped in shock (the utensil is shown sticking out of the hardwood floor); and the emptiness of the Bramford itself, without tenants or furniture (voice-overs can be heard here from the previous film's dialog). Interesting too is the Easter Egg hunt the titular child participates in (the eggs and baskets are also black). Once the story gets rolling, it never really 'rolls'... And what happens to Rosemary when she boards that driverless bus, and is whisked away to God-knows-where?
Patty Duke (a poor replacement for Mia Farrow), Ray Milland and Tina Louise (as the Southwestern Whore who raises the child, "Adrian/Andrew") head this almost-star cast, with Ruth Gordon reprising her "Minnie" role.
Although not a total failure, this sequel-of-sorts should have been released in book form first, then maybe we all could have been a bit better informed... and not left totally in the dark. A fairly recent sequel novel "Son of Rosemary" (1999?) is the legitimate followup by Ira Levin himself.



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


user
Pretty lousy made-for-TV sequel to the Roman Polanski classic. Rosemary's son Adrian has grown up and is embodied by creepy Stephen McHattie. After eliminating Rosemary (here played by Patty Duke) a coven of witches, again led by Minnie & Roman Castevets, preps Satan's son for world domination. It's not really scary and light years less macabre than its predecessor. Instead, writer Anthony Wilson and director Sam O'Steen opt for a Satan-worshiping thriller full of a lot of chanting, plenty of candles, and Ruth Gordon trying to act daffy and nasty at the same time. Gordon's the sole holdover from the original. George Maharis replaces John Cassavetes as Guy and a very hammy Ray Milland plays Roman Castevets, subbing for the late Sidney Blackmer. Newcomer McHattie is the film's only real saving grace. He's very off-kilter and looks really sinister without even doing anything. The music by Charles Bernstein is suitably creepy, but so over-used, it's ends up being intrusive rather than effective. O'Steen, who edited the earlier Polanski masterpiece, shows no flair or subtlety whatsoever.


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 film is somewhat good to me, I enjoyed it for the most part, but I thought it was really nothing all that special. However, when compared to this mess it looks a whole heck of a lot better. Why they felt the need to make the movie is beyond me, but they should have known it could not match the acting of the first movie when they only could get Ruth Gordon back to reprise her role. The story kind of follows Rosemary's baby around and stuff, but in reality it is kind of a mess, it does not help that the movie is a television movie and the television look shines through very well. It has more of a comedy tone to it as well which hinders it greatly, if they really felt the need to make a sequel they should have made it an R rated movie that had some nudity and gore in it. I am sure it would have still been quite bad, but at least it would have been more watchable and fun which this movie is not despite its trying to be funny. I saw this one on Monstervision and Joe Bob had nothing really good to say about it in the intro and I do not have to much to say either. I do have to say it was a sequel that should have never seen the light of day.


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


user
Um... okay, this is very poor indeed if compared to the first film, the very-much-so critically acclaimed Rosemary's Baby. In fact, it's a pretty poor film in general. Yes, there are a few redeeming qualities, but I'll get to that later.
Well, it has been quite a while since the last film took place... in fact, it's been pretty much eight years I believe. Rosemary is still trying to escape with her child and influence him in a good way, rather than let him succumb to the evil future that the coven (or "tribe", as it is referred to as here) has laid out for him. When she runs off with him and an empty bus comes and picks her up, leaving her child with a hooker, the hooker raises him until he comes of age, where Satan tries to possess him since he seems to be rejecting his evil heritage in every way.
Obviously, things don't go as planned, and then there is the ending that I would have felt seriously ashamed at had I not seen it coming since hearing that there was a sequel to "Rosemary's Baby"! Okay, when I was around 11 years old, I witnessed the masterpiece Rosemary's Baby and then read the book sequel. Thinking that this film was an adaptation of that, I tracked this film down and got it... was I right in doing so? Well, in some way, yes... I am a true fan of this "franchise" and can say that I have seen the sequel, and I have some idea as to what happens after the events in the first film (speaking of both this film AND "Son of Rosemary", Ira Levin's own book sequel, not yet adapted to film).
Ruth Gordon, who played Minnie in the first film, is shown a few times in this film, but why-oh-why is the coven so different? The knife Rosemary had dropped in the first film is shown sticking out of the ground, yet Minnie pulled it out! The coven is now called the tribe (as I said earlier). They now go around in hooded capes chanting "Hail Satan... Hail Adrian... Hail Satan... Hail Adrian..." and so on and so forth. The Gothic building is now like a two-story house on a lawn in the middle of nowhere, it looks like a little nice suburb home or something! And the child itself is pretty normal-looking, with his eyes only going all "catty" when he gets mad and kills someone or something in that vain.
As far as the acting goes, it's pretty poor on all parts, except for Stephen McHattie, whom plays a very-grown up Adrian. Pattie Duke Astin, replacing Mia Farrow as Rosemary, has to have one of the flat-out WORST performances ever to be caught on film! It is so bad it's almost not even funny... when she screams "OH MY GOD!" and cries for like the fifteenth time in the movie, you're just like "Okay, it's not funny anymore," and then by the time she is gone and the movie has been on for twenty minutes only, you're like THANK THE LORD I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR HER SAY "OH MY GOD" ANY LONGER!! SHEESH! In the end, this movie has very, very, *very* few redeeming qualities, enough to get it at least four stars. But, if you look at it as a serious sequel to the first film, it's pretty much non-existent.


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


user
I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a "B" movie - it's a made for TV "B" movie.


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


user
I think "Rosemary's Baby" is the most overrated horror film out there. Not scary, interesting or much of anything. It's reasonably well-directed and Ruth Gordon was wonderful but that's about it. But this sequel makes it look like "Gone With the Wind"!
I caught this on TV back when I was 14. Unfortunately, I still remember it. From what I remember Rosemary's baby Andrew is now grown up and the coven wants him to start taking over (the world that is). But there are forces trying to stop it...and Andrew is having doubts himself...
I'm giving this a 2 for a few reasons: Gordon is in this (and still very good); Stephen McHattie was actually pretty good as Andrew and there is one spooky moment at the beginning with Rosemary (Patty Duke) being "kidnapped" by a bus...with no driver.
Other than that it's dull, silly and needless. The original didn't NEED a sequel! Ira Levin's book followup in 1999 wasn't much better.
Tune in for the beginning with Duke...then tune out. Not worth the effort.


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


user
If you thought "ROSEMARY'S BABY" was bad, this one isn't much better. Easily one of the worst movies ever made, like it's lame predecessor, it goes nowhere fast.
Rating: 1/2* out of *****


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


user
A disturbing film, this, climaxing, as it does, with an intensely intimate reunion between a naked man and his young son, but in its confused structure it contains a poetically imagined visual exploration of the innocence of an idealised amnesiac.
The plot follows two threads, the weaker of which is the gradual revelation of Graham/Pablo's condition. Wound through this, though, is a beautiful description of his condition, and his meandering path towards a partial awakening, driven by his affair with Irene.
The affair is the strong thread, while the specifics of the plot are carried by a seemingly tacked on collection of characters: Graham's best friend, who can reveal the cause of his condition in a clunking flashback, his manipulative boss and his comic book mad scientist psychologist: all of whom have an interest in keeping him lost and dependent.
The failure of the film lies in the conflict between the two threads. One is visual, meandering and sublime, while the other is structured like an inept thriller, all expository dialogue and unresolved patterns of symbolism.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed Novo. It keeps flirting with the abyss of taboo and shying away into something beautiful, as in the quarry, with the double bassist and the two women, when a setup for a scene of cheap pornography becomes a segment of peace and rejuvenation. I still don't get the tooth, though.
Odd, clunky and a narrative failure, but with an almost redeeming beauty.


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


user
I have heard that Novo was compared to Memento for the simple fact they both rely on main characters suffering from short-term memory loss. Well, that's like comparing The Silence of the Lambs and Friday the 13th as both involved a character that killed multiple people. They couldn't be further apart in ideas.
Novo deals with a copier man at a company who does have short term memory loss. He is consistently followed by another gentleman and his boss likes to have sex with him in the office. In comes a temp who also gets involved with him and may/may not use him for sex. Needless to say, he has a lot of on-screen sex.
Wait, there's more. There's a boy who runs into the troubled amnesia male and it's obvious there's more to this boy just bumping into him. And there's a notebook the man keeps to try and remember important clues.
I admit I am not one for foreign-made films. I don't mind reading the subtitles, but I do mind that sometimes that takes away from one of my favorite aspects of a film: great dialogue. Since they have to translate, or I wouldn't be able to understand for the most part, I truly believe they simplify what the characters have to say. This movie was no exception; the dialogue was just, well, blah.
As for the story, it was interesting enough to keep me around for 98 minutes. Weird, yes, but then again I don't live in France, so I am not as familiar with their likes/dislike or lifestyles. (Such as, I guess it's acceptable for a father to lie with and frolic in the buff with his son on the beach  that must be a cultural thing.) Thankfully it wasn't two+ hours of time invested in watching this man regain his past and progressively move forward to his cure. For, when the "secret" is learned, I was like, really? Well, okay then.
I can only recommend for somewhat decent acting, good looking folks and soft-porn sexual situations (like every 2-4 minutes,) however if you're not into that sort of scene, I would wholeheartedly skip this slow moving and memory-regaining film.


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 difficult to decide who or what is the target audience for this film. Jean-Pierre Limousin presumably had the chance to explore the problems of amnesia on a serious level and opted instead to use it as an excuse to make a soft-porn movie. Having seen, loved, admired and respected Se Souvenir des belles choses which explores memory loss - albeit as the result of Alzheimer's - in a profound and heartbreaking way, not least in the luminous performance of Isabelle Carre I find that Novo is an insult to Se Souvenirs. I have no problem with soft porn per se - and even if I had I'd virtually have to give up going to movies so prevalent is it today - but I do have a problem with writers/directors who attempt to respectablise it by cloaking it as here in the guise of medical research. The sad thing is that fine actresses like Julie Gayet - so wonderful in Clara et Moi - and Anna Mouglalis - who seems to have hit into a double play after last week's Le Deluge and now this - are wasting their time on dross like this.


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


user
I really wanted to like this film, especially after all the buzz I'd heard revolving around it. But, sadly, it just didn't work for me. Paranoid Park suffers from the same delusion Lost In Translation did--If you use very little dialogue, be heavy on the slow motion close ups and concentrate on pieces of fabric in the setting, then your story will magically come across as deep and thoughtful.
Much of the plot line, if you can find a plot, of this film is contrived. I wasn't impressed with the 'write it all down' confessional being the way the protagonist deals with the accident--So what are we supposed to believe? He grew up happily ever after and wrote a book about his experiences, thus was vindicated for that horrific incident?
What is, I suspect, supposed to be a film that evokes empathy for a young man who is directionless and faced with an impossible moral quandary, instead creates a portrait of a future sociopathic personality. He has no connection to anyone around him, and by the end of the film has no real sense of what is right or wrong. He has no direction at home and feels nothing for his friends. What we have is a portrait of a non-person, a spirit that merely coasts through life as he weaves his way along on his skateboard. I don't feel for him at all, and honestly I wish he'd been caught. The entire film centres not necessarily on his feelings of guilt, but on how he is going to avoid punishment and/or accountability for a bad decision. He not only gets away with it, he finds a way to subtly rationalise it. Quite a frightening, negative message, the suggestion being that so many of our youth are so disconnected from right and twrong that they simply make up the rules as they go along, serving themselves for good or ill. I find it an insulting treatsie on today's youth, and the pretentious arrogance of the film-maker drips thick with every plodding, overthought step and shifting eye.
(He did murder the guard, but if you blink your eyes you miss it. Whether it was an act of mercy or not is hard to say--it could be he was so mortified he lashed out with his skateboard. When he runs to the security guard's car, one of the wheels of his skateboard is stained with blood. )


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


user
...now please move on because that's getting on my nerves.
Seriously, the man behind brilliant pieces like "My Own Private Idaho" and "To Die For" (and others not so brilliant movies, i.e. the unnecessary "Psycho" remake) started an experimental phase with "Gerry", which reached its peak with the thought-provoking "Elephant". "Last Days" had some interesting aspects but was very uneven, while "Paranoid Park", his new film, also has good-looking 15 year-olds walking around... and not much else. Some cool references to Fellini (the soundtrack reuses some beautiful pieces by Nino Rota) and the elegant cinematography by the legendary Christopher Doyle ("In the Mood for Love") are the highlights, but the movie is just too artsy-fartsy and meaningless for its own doom. We've had much better coming of age stories, and "Paranoid Park" brings nothing new. I don't see anything artistic about seeing excessive shots of Gabe Nevins in his underwear or showering. Or when Nevins and 13 year-old Taylor Momsen (the little girl from "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"), who plays his cheerleading girlfriend, have sex for the first time, just because she felt like they had to do it and after they're done, she calls her friend to say how amazing it was (and you can say from Nevins' face how traumatic it was). Everybody knows that they're starting earlier and earlier nowadays, movies like "Thirteen" and even "Elephant" itself (which shows how lost their minds are in general, not only when it comes to sexuality) have done a better portrayal of that. Gus tries to be minimalist and artistic, but the final result is just boring and uninteresting. His next project, "Milk", a biopic about Harvey Milk starring Sean Penn, will, hopefully, bring the good old Gus back, because, frankly, this obsession over underage kids is almost... creepy. 4.5/10.


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


user
first off, i'm amazed to see that this film has got a rating of 7 on this site. at first i thought it might be industry people logging in to IMDb and jacking up the rating. but after looking on rotten tomatoes and seeing that this film has something like a 76% approval rating, it seems that maybe folks have just been duped again into mistaking pretentious crap for profundity. i mean, this film is simply awful. the acting is simply terrible, but the rest of the film is worse. at least the acting provides some (unintentional) laughs.
the plot involves a teenage skateboarding boy who is being questioned along with his friends for a murder that happened by a park where they skate. and that's about it. the rest of the film consists of the aforementioned terrible acting, terrible dialog, slow motion shots of people walking, of people's faces, of people skating, often set to music that does not fit the scene. perhaps that was done to be "cool" or experimental or hip. or perhaps it was done in hopes that it would fool people into thinking that it is somehow profound, but it does not work. nothing in this film works. it's pretentious garbage. i can't not recommend it enough.


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


user
How any of you gave this more than 2 stars amazes me. I made an account on IMDb just to comment on this cr@p film. The acting is cr@p and the plot is cr@p. It would deserve no stars at all if it weren't for the descent soundtrack (and yet there are still some outrageously clownish tracks in there too, most notably the ones featuring the oboe and sound like black and white cartoon comedy background music and in no way fit the intended mood of the scenes that they haunt) and quality cinematography. The dialog and plot are about as complex as that of a Dr. Sues book. These actors are horrible. I am actually watching this movie right now and, with every word, am stunned you all swallowed this shitte. The only reason I didn't turn the movie off was because I have gotten wrapped up in creating an account on IMDb and posting this review. I dig mainstream films, I dig silly stupid films, I dig retro indie films, and nearly any other type/genre if carried out well. My brother convinced me to rent this because he said he heard it was good and he generally has great taste in movies; from the moment he told me the title I looked at him like he was crazy. I'm having a tough time ending this rant because there is just so much badness to talk about. The only way I can rationalize the good ratings on here is that you guys were paid to give this movie high ratings. It is so poorly done and no where close to dramatic, artsy, complex, well written, well preformed, or even bearable. If this was the final product of my hard directorial work, I would be to embarrassed to release it to the public, so I don't even feel sorry for the director if he reads this -- what the hell were you thinking guy?


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


user
I logged on here right after watching this movie, feeling that it was so awful that at least its reviews might be entertaining. But all you miscreants appear to kind of like it. And so, since I want the job done right...
From the opening shot, the movie establishes its contempt for the audience's attention span by showing an entirely unremarkable picture of an irrelevant bridge for a long, long time. Then it goes to some slow-motion skateboarding, which is at least a little bit cool, but then offsets that glimmer of excitement by overlaying the most repellent soundtrack song I've ever heard. Some girl screeching in whispery French over what sounds like sheets of plywood banging together. Whoever decided that needed to be there has never ridden a skateboard, I guarantee it. It seemed to be there to test the limits of the audience's patience.
From there, the movie is about 50 per cent slow motion. You know what's worse than a gratuitous slow-motion shot? A gratuitous slow motion shot of *nothing happening.* Here's a guy walking along a path. Here's a guy sitting. Here's a guy looking around. Here's a guy looking at another guy. After a while I started watching the movie at double speed, bringing it back down whenever people appeared on screen engaging in actual dialog, which was rare. Once, astonishingly, I slowed the movie to find out what a girl was saying, only to find that the camera was showing her talking, but the sound was another horrible, horrible song and her actual voice was not audible.
This reminds me of some great advice I heard once about writing -- if you don't have anything to say, don't use fancy tricks to pretend as though you do. Get back to work and think of something to say. All these camera tricks, like the slow motion and weird lighting and lenses and freaky music, is what the absence of content looks and sounds like. A lot of people have apparently bought it, and perceive emotional gravity and deep meaning, but I think they are projecting this onto a movie that did not do any of the work involved in creating it.


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


user
this movie is honestly the worst piece of rubbish i have ever seen. this is slow, plot less and boring. the cinematographer deserved to be shot. There were various aspects of unintentional comedy, one of which was Jared being oddly camp. Raised many laughs but also many yawns. don't watch with anyone, anytime any place. If u hate someone, recommend they buy or rent this. big waste of time and money. Thanks Gus Van Sant...not. i cant think of anything else to say except Don't ever see this movie, it will make u want to jump off a cliff. Hope Gus and his mates read this comment before it's too late and he makes a sequel or some other catastrophe with what appeared to be shot with a camera phone.


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


user
When me and my GF went to see this film, we didn't know what to expect, however she assured me that it had good reviews. So I went along with it. We got into the cinema and bought tickets and went into the screen. After a while of sitting there waiting for the film to start no one else walked through the door. I was very suspicious as you usually get at least a couple of more people in any film screening. The film began eventually and we sat there. After a while of very little dialogue and very "arty" type moody scenes I was starting to realise why we were the only people there. It was disjointed with random cuts from the main story to kids in a skate park, the story it's self made no sense. The kid was meant to have committed a crime when he didn't and If he did, writing a letter to no one is not an answer and you shouldn't feel not guilty just because you wrote that letter, he should have been punished. There was no point to this film at all. I have no idea why we didn't go and get our money back part of the way through the film. I tried to give it a chance I guess. There was little concept to this film, and the execution was disgraceful. The writer and director and just about everyone else who made this film should have realised what they were doing and stopped. It is an hour plus that I will never ever ever get back. I'm sorry to anyone who liked this film, but...it's just so so awful, i mean really really really bad. Oh well at least i never have to be subjected to it again.


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's an art and essay film, there is not enough art, not to mention essay.
If it is a thriller, there is not enough thriller.
If it is a teenage drama, there is not enough drama, and as far as teenagers are concerned, there is not enough NOFX and too much Nino Rota.
I thought it could be a trailer for Tony Hawk's forthcoming movie, but there is no Tony Hawk, so I guess I'be been cheated: it's not Tony Hawk biopic.
If it's an action movie, it lacks explosions, which would have added some interest to it, or at least would have make jump the sleeping ones into their chairs.
Most of the characters seem to be dead inside, but it's not a zombie movie. In fact, if it is a movie, there is not enough plot. If it is not a movie, it lasts too long to be a music video.
If it's a music video, well... it's an album I will not purchase


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


user
Paranoid Park is about Alex, a 16 year old skater who causes the death even if accidentally of a security guard. As the movie goes on Alex deals with little issues like his parent's divorce and the sexual heat of his girlfriend Jennifer(played by Taylor Momsen who you can currently see in Gossip Girl) while he's consumed by guilt. I had seen just one movie by Gus Van Sant so far,Elephant, and I can assure you that he kept all his mannerisms while doing this one.Once again he crosses time lines.Once again he uses weird filming techniques like the never-ending shots of people walking...maybe you like these filming techniques, I know I don't. The plot feels unsatisfactory to me...its almost to simple to be explored for such a long time. The feeling I get (same with Elephant)is that Gus Van Sant tries too hard to make an "artistic" movie which causes the movie itself to loose substance. Also Gabe Nevins was pretty bad as Alex, there's a difference between looking alienated or detached and looking like a robot. If you're a fan of Mr.Van Sant then watch this, otherwise skip it.
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
This movie is awful, I can't even be bothered to write a review on this garbage! All i will say it is one of the most boring films I've ever seen.
And the acting is very bad. The boy who plays the main character really annoys me, he's got the same expression on his face through out the movie. I just want to slap him! Basically 80% of the movie is slow motion shots of skateboarders, weird music, and utter sh*t..
Apparently I've got to write at least 10 lines of text to submit this comment, so I'll use up a few more lines by saying the lead character has got one of those faces you just want to slap!
Meh i give up..THIS MOVIE SUCKS !!!!


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


user
Unless you want to be bored half to death. I've never been a fan of Gus Van Sant and as part of what previous posters have described as the new youth generation i was very disappointed and slightly angry at the stereotypical depiction of the characters in the film especially as they were used to string along the film's ridiculous storyline which is pretty much enforcing to the viewing masses that skateboarders are social rejects and should be blamed for crimes. As a skater myself i watch a lot of skate films and the filming during the skate scenes, which is obviously a major part of the plot as the lead protagonist is a skateboarder, was awful and Bourne identity esquire shaky camera technique was used with slow motion to give a horrible effect. This film is just full of ridiculous stereotypes as shown by the 'emo' soundtrack which just adds to the media myth that all skateboarders are white rockers. Simply just a really bad film.


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 so bad it looked like a home movie. In one scene, the camera very slowly and gradually tilts down, then moves back up into place again. The sound is crackly, and occasionally fades out then in again. In another scene, the camera man is just visible in a mirror.
Then came the scene with instructions how to put down a tent... which, believe me, went on for ages and was completely irrelevant to the plot. Most scenes dragged on with conversations that were not entirely relevant either. In my opinion these were just to fill out the movie and make it longer. Even with these scenes added it was very short.
The only good thing about it was the severed head, which did look quite realistic.


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


user
To date this is still the worst piece of rubbish I've ever viewed. So annoyed I even complained to Blockbuster for stocking it. Me and some friends rented it after looking at the back cover thinking we were in for a good horror film. The plot line seem to change during the film and there was lots of irrelevant padding. The film ended quite abruptly, I'm guessing they ran out of film. Sound quality was dire and the first female character had a very thick Spanish accent although she talked utter nonsense anyway. The guy provided a brief bit of eye candy until his bizarre attempts at murder. After wasting all the time to go into in-depth discussion on the workshop and its many power tools, he opts to put a plastic bag over her head. All in all on second thoughts I think you have to watch this film to actually believe it exists.


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


user
I had the misfortune to see this film recently and have to sit through it. A friend purchased it for £1 and insisted we watch it as it sounded good from the story on the back cover.
10 minutes into the film it was apparent that the actors were amateurs and this was an extremely low budget effort.
The scenes were very poorly acted, the script was stupid and the story contained many scenes which seemed unnecessarily long, just so the movie would be of a reasonable length.
For instance when the lead character rents a warehouse, the film spends a ridiculous amount of time on this scene, with meaningless dialogue which serves no real purpose or necessity to the plot.
The lead actor is supposedly carrying out revenge on a woman who sleeps with guys to give them HIV, he never once thinks to get tested. Instead he turns into a crazed killer deciding to torture her before killing her and sawing her into pieces.
If this sounds good and you are thinking this will have lots of gore, think again. This film has no real gory sequences and is quite tame for this type of film.
It does not scare, it does not make you think, it does not offer fast paced fun. It may however put you to sleep, it is certain to bore you to tears, so please save yourself the despair and follow my heading.
AVOID THIS FILM 1/2 out of 10 (this does not deserve even 1)
The film was 78 minutes but seemed as if it was 2 1/2 hours.


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 film last night, i though i would rent a horror/scary film from blockbusters and i got this one out. The opening scenes were so long winded, the conversations between characters seemed not to lead anywhere.
The story line seemed so poor to me, she gave him HIV and then she goes to meet someone else but she is killed by the man she infected ( i think she may have been doing it for a long time to different people) Then when he dumps the body it just happened to be the man she was going to meet, was in the forest and saw him dumping the body. Then he chased them ( did he ever finish burying the body??) and they got into a car and he somehow found them from a different direction they came from and killed the bloke.
I think the severed head was the only good thing in the film as it was quite realistic. and then when the woman ran she happened to fall over in front of him so he could stab her with a spade!! AND THEN IT FINISHED!!
What a relief, It was the most pointless film i have ever watched...please steer well clear of it, it is just so poorly made, i counted only 5 different people in it, and the scene where he kills her is so unrealistic and they only swear in it and thats it!! Thats it from me...
STEER WELL CLEAR!!


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 so bad If anyone out their who starred in the movie are reading this including the director,i HATE YOU! LOL,that blonde woman, who was running away screaming through the forest.At least CRY RATHER THAN SCREAM AND KEEP DOING THE DODGY HEAVY BREATHING!! and oh dear god, if it was the director who sorted out the cameras on this one, then go back to a normal job. No one wants to be watching some scared woman's chin throughout it.Damn, don't even THINK about renting/buying or even having a copy of this within 100 metre radius of your house since it can be harmful to,people who like good movies...When i got home, i thought id rented a pron movie by the acting and style of the camera.


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


user
I can't seem to find anything that is good about this miniseries. Why the hell would you ban chocolate when u could ban something far more practical like smoking or alcohol? Also the fact that its an Australian program and its all set in england and everyone is faking british accents is stupid. Overall i think that this show is Unrealistic and cheap.


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 is a nightmare! The sensation you feel when you wake up from a nightmare is the same I got when I finished watching this movie: "UffOK, it ended, what a relief!" I felt pain watching this movie, so bad it was! It's a B-series low cost movie, that's for sure, but I think it not an excuse to be so bad! I've watched brilliant low cost movies, with nice plots, nice production, nice acting, and most of all, some substance! This one got nothing of it! The plot is hilarious, it almost seems like an "American guide about how to transform ancient Chinese mythology into a ridiculous teenage movie, with some kids playing with the occult" I don't know if the Chinese tale present in this movie is real or not, but if it is, the "damage" is even worse! The production is just horrible, a plain zero (What "special effects" are those?). There's no suspense. The supposed "tension scenes" are a complete failure. The acting is not better; and what about the dialogs? Oh my God! A movie which has for several times dialogs just like: "I will pass there later, OK? Is that alright?  OK, alright. - OK?  OK, alright, bye then" I'm sure it doesn't deserve more than a 1/10 score!
Too bad to be true!


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


user
While studying the differences between religion and cult in college, Mindy (Rachel Miner), who is the best student in the class, convinces her schoolmates Cassandra (Taryn Manning), Bailey (Glenn Dunk), Alex (Joel Michaely) and Morgan (Victoria Venegas) to research the massacre of worshipers of Kwan Yin by their leader Owen Quinlin (Robert Berson) twenty years ago in California. Quinlin had found an ancient amulet in Southern China that would give an enormous power to him after the sacrifice of human souls, but one woman resists and he is destroyed. However, after the death of Morgan, who apparently committed suicide, the students discover that Quinlin has returned and is chasing their souls with his amulet.
The storyline of 'Cult" is not totally bad. Unfortunately, the screenplay, the direction, the acting, the lines, the camera, the CGI and the edition are awful. I was completely bored and tempted to use the FF button of the DVD, but I resisted and wasted 90 minutes of my life watching this never-ending crap on a Saturday night. My vote is two.
Title (Brazil): "O Amuleto Secreto" ("The Secret Charm")


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


user
Cult starts 20 years ago on the 'Quinling Mountain Range, Southern China' as a guy called Owen Quinlin (Robert Berson) finds an ancient amulet said to have magical powers, cut to California where Quinlin has set up a cult & the members are about to sacrifice themselves when one of them (Cazzy Golomb) foils his evil scheme... Jump forward to the present day as five college students, Mindy (Rachel Miner), Cassandra (Taryn Manning), Bailey (Glenn Dunk), Alex (Joel Michaely) & Morgan (Victoria Venegas) are researching the events of twenty years ago that have become know as the 'Quinling Massacre' for a school project. Unfortunately Morgan decides to kill herself which unleashes the evil spirit of Owen Quinlin for reasons that are rather tenuous, he sets about completing what he started all those years ago by claiming souls so he can finally inherit the magical powers of the amulet for his own evil use...
Edited, co-produced & directed by Joe Knee this is not a good film & that's being kind to it. The script by Benjamin Oren which seems to take itself very seriously is a dour supernatural tale about a cult leader who comes back from the dead to finish what he started a few years prior, as you would expect the character's involved now have links to what happened all those years ago & it's as dull as it sounds. The character's are bland & forgettable, the dialogue just as much so, there's no proper horror or exploitation in it, it's slow going at times, it's predictable, it's clichéd, it goes completely off the rails at the end & doesn't make much sense when you think about it. The story never grips or engages you, it's never exciting or particularly interesting & I'd struggle to even call it average. There is very little here by which I could recommend Cult, don't bother with this one.
Director Knee does alright but the film has that bland shot-on-video made-for-TV look about it, it's utterly forgettable & flat stuff throughout. There's no scares, there's no atmosphere & it lacks any tension. There is no gore either, sure there's a fair amount of blood splatter but no proper actual special make-up effect gore scenes.
With a supposed budget of about $950,000 Cult looks cheap although it's not as badly made as some low budget horror films I've seen recently. The acting isn't even worth mentioning.
Cult is a poor film that didn't do anything for me, I'd struggle to call this average. There are much better horror films 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
Firstly, few colleges allow students to take courses from their parent's lover. Secondly, few women professors are sleeping with dorm cooks. Thirdly, few brassy coeds have a dad who cooks in their dorm. Fourthly, once a SECOND member of a college small-group project team meets a violent demise, the college PRESIDENT will disband the whole class, and NOT turn a blind eye as the professor merrily steers the rest of the group toward grisly deaths. Since the supernatural elements of CULT make absolutely no sense, it is useful to study the mundane content of this film to truly appreciate how much this flick really sucks!


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


user
The two most noteworthy things about "I Won't Play" are: It won an Academy Award as the best two-reel short film of 1944; and it was directed by silent-era leading man Crane Wilbur. The plot of this run-of-the-mill short is inconsequential, the dialogue lacks spark, while the acting is no better and no worse than that found in most war-themed Hollywood movies of the 1940s (in other words, it's awful). Admittedly, there are moments when "I Won't Play" is funny -- Janis Paige's totally artificial look and line delivery are precious -- but one laughs AT the picture, not with it.


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


user
A bad Quentin Tarantino rip off, at least I hope that's what they were going for because at least then I could respect the director for admiring Tarantino. One scene a "singing" scene with Rose McGowan is far to well done and genius for this film and could have only been stumbled on by mistake by this director. So besides his Quinton inspiration and Rose McGowan and her one good scene this film sucked. Some of the crappiest dialogue I have ever heard, I'm willing to bet why McGowan doesn't speak much is because of how crappy her dialogue would have been. Tries to be funny, never is, tries to be dark and isn't, tries to be stylish and is just bland. Who dishes out the money to make movies like this, I'm hoping it was all the directors so no one else's money was wasted. If not for McGowan the whole cast is awful and when McGowan is your best hmmm, I gotta wonder.


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 looked fun on the cover and I honestly thought 'how bad can this be?' Little did I know. Out of the gate the dialogue was UNBEARABLE. It was contrived, unrealistic and not even interesting. Dialogue on UPN syndicated television shows is more natural sounding. The story was implausible and had nearly zero play-off at the end. The end with the snake is almost confusing and seemed staged. The only remotely interesting character is Rose McGowen's, who is mute which prevents her from being ruined with cliche ridden garbage dialogue (well, at least until the end when even she has to speak). The only thing that even gives this a 3 over a 1 or 2 is Rose McGowen's nude scene. Truly awful. Save yourself the trouble and rent something more interesting like a Barney Video.


assistant
0