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
One would think that with all the lavish care and expense that went into this made-for-TV movie, it would reflect something of the taste and manners of the upper class couple--Wallis Simpson and the Prince of Wales--instead of being a mawkish, unappetizing historical romance.
Nor is it helped by the fact that JANE SEYMOUR and ANTHONY ANDREWS give stiff, rather uncomfortable to watch performances in which the events move much too slowly to hold attention.
It's hard to understand why a star of OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND's caliber would wish to play the supporting role of Aunt Bessie since the role is so colorless she just about fades out of sight. At this stage in her career, Olivia was appearing in so many "nobility" roles requiring a regal presence but nothing more.
A trivial movie best left forgotten among all the made-for-TV movies of that era.


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


user
Don't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to "Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys" sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, "Head Of The Family" is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....
And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!


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, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the "Good" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.



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


user
I saw this film for one reason: the tagline is "Upset the head and you're dead!" Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head.


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


user
Ahh, nuthin' like cheesy, explopitative, semi-porn, masquerading as horror...This one stars Jaqueline Lovell(sometimes Sara St. James), the nubile starlet also seen in "Femalien", "The Erotic House of Wax", and that family favorite "Nude Bowling Party". She is now a fixture in Surrender Cinema's line-up of talentless cuties starring in pointless, soft-porn exploitation flicks. "Head of the Family" actually tries to be a real moovie. A con-man and a tramp try to get said-tramp's husband off-ed. They turn to a large-brained evil genius in a wheelchair, and his family of moronic misfits, who uses mind control to send out zombies to do his nefarious bidding. Said-genius has a giant head, hence the clever title of the film: that's about the extent of the film's humor. But basically, it's an excuse to show off the ample talents of Lovell and Dianne Colazzo (Ernestina). Laced with some of the wierdest dialogue can be herd (what the heck is "plowing oats", anycow??), and just plain stupid, this titular thriller will moost likey appeal to the breast-cownters of Drive-In Theater, but no one else. The MooCow says avoid the devoid, unless yer looking for a rent on cheesy T&A/horror night. :=8P


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 not only disappointing to the horror/suspense film lover, it was disappointing to anyone who sees it. WoW. I thought that this film might be funny because the guy with the huge head. However, it was filled with long and drawn out conversation that wasn't needed. There was so much sex that I hate women and men now. This film was not only boring, but there was no substance. Wow. Wow. On to of all this, each scene looks like it was light from a single light bulb, and I think they used the same set for two different lawyers, a restaurant, and an airport. This movie is not for the movie lover who loves bad movies because in the end, it feels likes wasted time. See the movie!
-party


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


user
No gore, no blood, no gratifying death scenes...dumb dumb dumb dumb. Dear God sitting through this movie made me sick. Sick sick sick. Very boring...extremely boring...
Theres not even a humorous aspect to this film! i cant find a good thing to say about it, other than the lead guy had a nice body...I guess. Definitely not worth the fifty cents I paid to rent 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 gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this movie.


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


user
Upon completing this infernal piece of trash, a friend and I swore a solemn vow never to again speak of how we had just trashed away the last 90 minutes of our lives. This film is completely pointless, a two dimensional hero and heroin who we can't give a hoot whether or not they survive and some of the lamest villains to ever darken the screen of horror (or any other) genre. To further prove just how absolutely pointless this film was, I would have liked to add a plot synopsis, but I can't write fiction. All and all, the only reason I can think of that anyone would ever want to view this film is if they had just murdered their entire community and is looking for some self afflicted punishment that will haunt you for all following years to come!


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


user
This has to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.
With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.
The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 10.


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


user
A couple of friends and myself visited the video shop a few years back and we were in one of those moods to rent some cheesy non seen flicks. My friend grabbed Head of the Family and we were greeted by a head sitting in a wheelchair. Well that set us off laughing and we decided to have a bet to see who would be the one who had to go to the desk and pay for the movie. Well you guessed it, it was me!!!!!!!! I have never been so embarrised in all my life. We got home and put it on and we rolled about the floor laughing for about 45mins because this was the funniest film in the world. I cant remember much about it but one thing i do remember was the blonde girl getting it on with some guy in the back of a shop every 5 mins. That head made me laugh and when i look at other peoples comments aboout this movie it makes me laugh even more. Head of the family is so good and the head is funny and im still laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


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 on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1/10


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


user
I saw this movie on a show that was showing bad B-movies and trying to get you to buy them. It basically was just a long trailer but gave you a really good idea of what the movie was about. After viewing the trailer, I thought I would rent this movie because it looked stupid and generic, but could still be entertaining in a perverse sense. IT'S NOT ENTERTAINING in any sense of the word. The film has two (or should I say four) things going for it and it's not the number of deaths, it's the women. They are hot and naked a lot and Ms. Lovell could be a legit actress, but not in a movie where the emphasis is on T&A and corny dialogs. This isn't even a horror movie or scary, unless you are talking about watching the actors try to act. The production value is pathetic, the acting is worse and the writing is the worst. What was the point in making this movie? To scare people? To rip off "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? To try and be funny? To show off the women's breasts? To put some guy's head into a retarded outfit, with fake hands and legs? To have a character just say the word "Snow" over and over? To not have any real violence but have enough nudity in an attempt to cover up the fact there is no real plot? To be able to make a sequel to a movie no one has seen or will ever watch? I made a mistake in picking up this movie, don't make this mistake too.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


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


user
I am not a fan of the original book but was expecting to see a better adaptation than the Natalie Portman movie, which I found awful. This version is even worse.
First, there is very little of Ms. Gregory's book in this script. The whole subplot of George Boleyn's sexuality is completely eliminated and in this version George is merely a flunky shuttling between his duty to the Boleyn family and his duty to the King. I thought the title of the book referred to Mary as the lesser-known of the Boleyn sisters, but here it is used to refer to Anne.
Second, the script has the characters periodically address the audience as if in confession. Apparently this is intended to give a bit of back story and explain their motives, but it is amateurish in execution.
On top of the bad script, the direction is stunningly bad. There are too many shots done with a circling camera which is none-too-steady at best and downright shaky at worst. Several of the speeches are delivered tentatively, as if in a first rehearsal. The production values for Henry's flamboyant court are minimal. The costumes vary: some are copies of historical portraits and others are from some costume designer's fevered imagination. And the King, the source of all power and favors, is often shown ALONE. No fawning courtiers, no servants in the background - where are all the people?? I am accustomed to Hollywood turning history into fantasy, but I expected better from a BBC production. Even based on a flawed book this production is BAD.


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


user
i was lucky enough to read the book beforehand and i do know a little about Tudor england.
the writing directing and editing of this TV movie for the most part was truly awful. i felt as if i was watching a really bad drama doc about the period rater then a movie.
first there were too many cut's between important parts. And leaving out important events which happened at the time, one is henry's fall out with Rome over his desire to divorce Katherine of aragon which led to england's breaking away from Rome and establishing her own church. they barely stuck to the book at all. i'm all for creative freedom but to a limit, especially when your dealing with a well written book as your starter point. in the book Mary give's birth to young Catherine first and then she has young Henry is born. Both their father is Henry's the eight. in the movie they show harry's first then Catherine. And suggest that Catherine father is William Carey.
there are too many bad moment's in the movie to write them all.
i will however say that Jodhi May and Natascha McElhone portrayal as the Boleyn sisters was probably the best part of the movie.
if you haven't read the book and know nothing about Hennry's the 8 court i will recommend to stay away from this movie. And for those who read the book the movie will annoy you for it's lack of details and important plot's.


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 twists the facts of Anne and Mary's lives into something unrecognizable. To make Mary Boleyn, who in fact was a rather dim and foolish creature, and make her the "good" sister is just silly. It is Anne who was in fact the far more interesting character, and that is why it is her life, and not Mary's, that has been told so often.
In response to an earlier review, I fail to see how Anne's life was so "criminal"... to me it's Henry who was the real criminal. Whatever Anne's motives for winning the king and withholding her affections in order to gain a crown and husband has to be taken into context of the time in which these real-life events took place. Anne, in comparison to the majority of most of the courtiers in her time, was a relatively innocent figure. Most modern historians discount or have disproven most of the myths and slanders that this movie perpetuate about her, and I have never heard of anyone who actually believes the rumour than she slept with her brother. This movie is so sensational and false that it is maddening to think that someone, without knowing anything about this period in history, could walk away believing anything this movie has presented as "fact".
I won't even get into the weird filming of the movie... but I'm pretty sure that cameras weren't invented in the 16th century, so I don't understand why Anne and Mary are talking to one throughout the movie... it's a really bad plot devise and is jarring and annoying, to put it mildly.
Anne of the Thousand Days is not accurate either, but is infinitely more entertaining and at least comes closer to telling the story of one of the most intriguing women of history. Don't even think about renting this.. it's two hours you'll never get back!


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 included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book.
Above all this movie just leaves me asking "WHY?" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, "The Real World: Tudor England"? Why are the camera angles so bad in general?
Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along.
Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says "Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick..." It's just bad.
Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just bad.


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


user
I realize a period piece is expensive to make, and that this style of shooting (close framed shots to camera, moving camera, wide aperture shots, washed-out) allows such films to be made for a price. As a style, it has advantages and disadvantages like any other, it allows more period pieces to be made. Like any style it has its detractors and supporters - there are probably even those that believe that this manner of shooting has an artistic basis.
If only some of the money saved, could have been spent on the script for whatever style is used, a film needs good writing and good acting.
The acting in this film is mostly very good. The writing less so. It is composed of a collection of bits taken from the book and much which is relevant to the plot is left out making for a disjointed collection of scenes with little or no continuity.
If you have read the book, do not under any circumstances watch it. If you have not read the book, are easily pleased and have nothing better to do there is no harm in watching it, but be prepared to be disappointed.
It could have been so much better.


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 express enough just how bad this film was. First of all what a waste of some legendary stars although they are quite old and pretty unconvincing. Fred Astaire, well I guess he must have owed some one a big favor as this was his last film role. The script is a mess and the film seems terribly draggy. I imagine maybe if I saw this back when it came out (1981) I might have thought it was decent. However seeing so many actual good horror films, this was one of the worst. The only real convincing anything in this mess was the very young and lovely sort/of creepy Alice Krige. The main young character was trying to act the best he could but was utterly terrible. I wasn't sure how much of it was from his lack of skill or the lack of a comprehend-able script, but either way he was just plain bad. Don't watch unless you want to see a bunch of old guys be somewhat scared.


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 not have seen the same movie as the one the comments refer to here. First, I think they should have serialized Ghost Story if they were going to film it at all. The truncated version they come up with was awful. I felt the performances were mannered and so much was left out of the story that the performances of such masters as Astaire, Douglas, Houseman, and Fairbanks seemed hammy. Alice Krige was superb as Eva, though. Craig Wasson is a good actor but he was only adequate as the protagonist. The decision to cast Patricia Neal and to truncate her role was not a good one. Imagine what Anne Bancroft would have done with that character! I blame the script, which was poor. The production values were dark and the pacing was slow. A disappointing, pedestrian effort.
The book is one of the five greatest suspense/horror novels of the 20th century, IMHO. But the movie was disappointing, although a great introduction for Krige.


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


user
All that talent.....but when ya have poor direction, and a WEAK screenplay, it doesnt matter WHO is in a movie. Very tired attempt at telling a tale..which was actually interesting in the beginning, but then QUICKLY fell apart toward the end....to bad.


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


user
Ghost Story has an interesting feminist revenge tale premise, A-list veteran actors, colorful flashbacks with nifty look-a-like youthful counterparts of the old men. scary staccato music heralding the approaching horrors, atmospheric New England winter weather, and an excellent charismatic actress in the title role. Ghost Story could have been much more effective in black and white and in eliminating some of the more lurid special effects, and to presenting a more cogent screenplay (we should not have to be wondering about why the two trailer-parkish acolytes are in the script) The biggest detriment of the film is Craig Wassan (definitely separated at birth from Bill Maher) who from perhaps editing or just bad acting, is totally ineffective. He seems to "specialize" in wide-eyed, wide-mouthed reaction shots; not a lot of personality here. The revelation however is Alice Krige, pale-faced, enigmatic, terrifying underneath the placid exterior. However, her Eva Galli is creepy even before she meets her fate; I mean, a young woman who says things like "I'd like to take a bite out of you" or "Dance with me, you little toad!" is already not in the land of the living. Ghost Story would have been much better in a low-key, Val Lewton mode. The overdone special effects completely undercut the chill factor.


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


user
This is another film I missed out on Italian TV as a kid: notable for its quintet of ageing stars, most of whom had never made a horror film in their life (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., John Houseman and Patricia Neal), it deals with the men’s long-concealed past crime coming back to haunt them. It takes the form of a ghostly dead-ringer for the girl they all loved (Alice Krige) but whom they were forced to dispose of after an unfortunate incident when she humiliated their egos! Fairbanks, who was the one responsible for the deed, has twin sons (Craig Wasson) and so Krige directs her revenge upon them as well. Soon one of the latter, Fairbanks himself and even Douglas and Houseman all wind up dead. Therefore, the remaining Wasson and Astaire decide to confront the ghost at the scene of the crime where they also have to contend with a couple of sinister tramps who somehow do Krige’s bidding! I was looking forward to seeing these veterans on their last legs (Douglas died before the film had even premiered though, by that time, he had already completed another role, while it proved Astaire’s own inauspicious swan-song) but GHOST STORY went through too many changes of mood – while maintaining a sluggish pace throughout and emerging overlong into the bargain – to be anything but a failed curio. Having dollops of sex (including full-frontal nudity from Wasson!) and gruesome make-up effects muddled the waters all the more and marred the old-fashioned elegance inherent in Jack Cardiff’s (another notable of long-standing) cinematography.


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 gives new meaning to the term "uneven", giving us a few intriguing characterizations offset by an awkwardly realized plot that relies on a few well-placed stingers to deliver the majority of the thrills.
The plot concerns a group of men who harbor a secret that has caused a curse to be visited on them in the form of a ghostly female apparation that causes death. She also may be seducing their sons.
It is quite a spectacle to have all the notable veteran actors together in one film, but unfortunately they're not very convincing, particularly the scene where Melvyn Douglas goes off the deep end begging the others to listen to him. It's no shock then that the actors who play these same characters in their youth are terrible, especially the giggling Ricky. They deliver the worst "gee-aren't-we-all-drunk" scene I've ever watched.
The movie has a few saving graces, namely Dick Smith's great ghost makeups (however misplaced they are in this film), and Alice Krige's fascinating performance as Alma/Eva. I've never read the novel that this film was taken from, but I intend to after reading some of the other reviews on this page. You don't have to have read the book, however, to realize that this is only a shadow of the original tale. There is a good story here, but it seems lost somewhere, amid exposition that shows the men having nightmares over and over again and making unsubtle references to the secret they all share.
As it stands, it appears as if there was about half an hour of footage removed from this print, particularly near the climax. After all...how is it that Fred Astaire manages to mount an excavation of the pond so quickly? What did Gregory Bate and the kid have to do with Eva? And while we're at it...what the hell was she, anyway? Why did letting her out of the car cause the apparition to disappear? If it was an apparition, how could it have sex with two men and have them not know?
These and other questions will never be answered, at least not by this film. Unless some restored footage is discovered somewhere, it will probably forever remain a curiosity with some oozing makeup, bizarre sex scenes and nudity, and a few attractive performances.


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


user
This story had a good plot to it about four elderly men that share a deadly secret concerning a young woman that they met 50 years ago. After all this time, the young woman returns to seek revenge on the men. This story occasionally made me nod off during the movie in the middle of tiring elevator music and the ever so consistent thunder storms. But it is well worth the wait in the end when we find out just who the mystery woman is that keeps plaguing the old men in their dreams and interfering in a young man's life. The most of what I liked in this film was the suspense in which the young woman appears to the men just before their deaths. The special effects were something. Every time I heard her call out to them I would think "Not that face again." But it was a good movie, I just wish that the pace was not as slow or the acting not as tiresome. And what I also liked about the movie was the flashback of the 20's, very authentic as well as the costumes being original.


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


user
Maybe it's because I read Peter Straub's wonderful book before seeing the film, but I was terribly disappointed by this movie. In my opinion, the filmmakers removed everything that made the story interesting and unique, and replaced it with more common Hollywood-style elements.
It's too bad, too, since this movie has a terrific cast, particularly Fred Astaire, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Melvyn Douglas, John Houseman, and the then-largely-unknown Alice Krige. They're just not given very much worthwhile to do.
In fact, I was all for leaving halfway through, but a friend convinced me to stay to the end, as he was sure it had to get better. He apologised to me during the closing credits.


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 strayed too far from Straub's novel for me to enjoy. Barely made it to the middle of the film. Besides changing Don Wanderly from Edwards nephew into his son, the removed most of the major scenes and a number of characters that gave the novel so much life. What was left was trash. Straub's version was far superior to this poorly executed film. I don't think casting did all that great a job on picking the Chowder Society members either. Hopefully someone will come along and actually remake this film correctly in my lifetime. I just hate when Hollywood butchers the works of talented authors because they think their version so much better. Makes me sick.


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


user
No serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.
"Acacia", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.
And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates "Acacia" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.
The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.
Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the "film renaissance" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more.


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


user
Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking "surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far.
The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!
Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't.
Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.
There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie.


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


user
As far as Asian horror goes, I have seen my share of disappointments along with some of the creepiest sh*t imaginable... "Acacia" doesn't really qualify for either of those categories. It had a few moments of tension and was interesting to watch, yet I couldn't help think that there should have been a tad more to this story. The film deals with a childless couple who decide to adopt a kid who appears to have a fascination with trees. He develops a bond with the Acacia tree in their yard and seems to communicate with it. Then, during a fight with his mother involving their new birth child, he storms off after threatening to find his dead mother who is now a tree. When he doesn't come back, the parents send file a report and wait, while the neighbor girl believes he somehow inhabits the Acacia tree. The pacing is rather slow and the ending gets a bit weird, but I have to recommend this as a slightly enjoyable effort, though the story feels a little flat. Hell, I can't really make up my mind on this...


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


user
From the acclaim it got I was expecting more from a Korean horror if it's going to be viewed in the same caliber as A Tale of Two Sisters, as some other reviews have stated. This movie isn't in the same caliber except in budget spent on special effects. Think Amytiville horror. With a tree and sparse dialogue.
If you're going to have a movie with limited dialogue, the plot line and characters have to carry the film. This film could have been told quite well in a 30 minute short film concept, 2 hours with a lot of staring at trees and terror scenes that make you not only not scared, but detract in a "What the..." sort of way does not a good horror movie make.
Those people who are stating that this film gave them lasting impressions must literally have heart attacks when decent horror films lay it in.


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 a fan of the horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.
The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.
And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.
The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.
And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.'


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


user
Oh how awfully this movie is! I don't know if it is a horror film or a drama, cause the story and the both genres are not established very well! The story is not moving, it is slow, boring, and sleepy from the beginning to end. This movie really bores me! But I really liked the camera work, it is authentic, fresh and clear, the acting is great too, the little boy was the great performer in this movie, but it hasn't made me to jump from my seat. But this movie makes me grab a pillow, lay on the bed and sleep until the credits roll...
Boring! Not worth watching! I tell you, this movie sucked!
1/10


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


user
A moderately interesting start, some pretty scenes in sixteenth-century Japan, and a promising idea. But the execution? The comparison that springs to mind after about fifteen minutes is "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death." Really. A specialist in "Oriental history" who doesn't speak any Japanese, walks on tatami without removing her shoes, and is generally dumb as celery? Please. This looks like a student film: the sets are risible, the acting (except, perhaps, for the title character) close to wooden, the plot utterly arbitrary. At least "Cannibal Women" was funny! This is best watched with someone who knows something about Japan, just to watch disbelief repeatedly crawl across their face.


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


user
Remember those terrible war movies your grandmother forced you to watch 25 or so years ago on your old VHS recorder? "The Fallen" is just a bad executed remake of those movies! The story is terrible, the direction is terrible, the editing is terrible, the music is terrible, and all together make an unbearable nightmare.
It is also terribly slow! Very slow! I tried to sleep while watching it but I couldn't do it because I had nightmares of it.
Please don't watch this movie! It is THAT bad! Ten lines is a lot so I don't know what else to say.
Press the eject button NOW and you wont regret it!


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


user
For starters, I once met the director when he was going to WW2 re-enactments with a period movie camera and making videos of the events which looked DARNED good. I really wish he'd kept that up. Because as much as I applaud what he accomplished on a clearly "next to nothing" budget, when I popped out the DVD, I just wondered why I sat through almost two hours of nothing. There's no real plot to speak of, you don't really care what happens to the characters (maybe the Italian troops and some of the Germans), and the ending is yet another "art film" commentary on the futility of war. I could have told someone how it would end once I got through the first ten minutes. I KNEW the Germans would have a few heroically volunteer to fight to the death, I knew most of the Quartmaster GIs would be killed, it was just too darned obvious! And while I'm on the subject, I was shocked to see so much of the Axis side done well, yet the GI side done comically. All the character development was clearly for non-English-speaking roles. The GIs simply got shafted hard in this film. And I can't help but wonder if they even had someone on the set who understood how the US Army works? The phrases, terminology, actions, were clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the American military at all. Had I now known who had directed this film, I'd have sworn it was directed and written by a German...


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


user
What on earth was that? My family and I just waisted 2 hours of our life for this piece of rubbish !!! There was no plot, no tension, only a lot of boredom !!! My kids could do better movies with our video-camera.
But maybe we just did not get the point of the movie...oh wait, my mum did. She was the only one who liked it for the following reason: "At least a film with no cars screeching..." If you are looking for a war-film with no fighting in it, is still interesting and gripping and has a strong anti-war-message, then you should watch "The Trench".
I give this film 3 out of 10 because it is good enough for an afternoon-nap and because I am too nice...


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


user
I've rent the movie because i'm very fond on war movies and on the cover picture i've read " better than save private ryan"....mmmmm ...i thought cool! guys....is just a ridiculous movie. Almost fun. Nothing to do with a proper war movie. I want my money back! Why the f...k the peoples lies??????????? F NO SUBTITLES They tried to make everything cooler with the light....but they didn't make it. Sorry about this.....but the movie is awful. The italians are shown as "Mafia e mandolino"
The American as stupid farmer The Germans as even more stupid farmer.
The actor are ridiculous and unprofessional.
Please....please......


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


user
I've never written a comment on IMDb before, but this movie was so bad it left me little choice but to warn you not to waste the two hours of your life. As an avid WWII historian, I don't even know where to begin on how historically inaccurate this movie was. Carbines with Korean War bayonet lugs, K98k's missing cleaning rodes and sight hoods, German uniforms that didn't exist, the list could go on forever. Added that it's loaded with flaws, has literally no plot or climax, and acting on par with your local high school theater. The epitome of cheesy.
PLEASE...there are too many good WWII movies out there to waste your time on this junk.


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


user
First there are some plot holes in this movie. We see in the very beginning a kid dies from playing the game. But who was tied up in the mail truck delivering the package which contains the game? How did the driver place the package into the mailbox when he was lashed to the steering wheel? It is not like he was Mr. Fantastic. Wow that in just the first 15 minutes... The actors are second rate, take the "Bad Guy" played by Patrick Kilpatrick (who?) exactly he has appeared in one episode of everything on TV and some secondary roles in poor movies (like this one). So most of the acting is like TV dramas, I can live with that, but the graphics or special effects are horrible. The disembodied "Game" voice sounds like a poor clone of Hal from "Space Oddessy 2000". What they called Zombies looked more like shadows jumping around like monkeys from "Planet of the Apes". The Aliens had transparent bodies like the shadow zombies. In most cases, the movie was just predictable as it had no hook or hidden agenda going. The story was a good idea but like most good ideas discussed over lunch was never developed beyond that good idea stage.


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


user
Well, the first thing I saw after looking at the DVD box was "Best Screenplay" and thought this would be a good rental. WOW, was I mistaken! I'm sure at one time there was a good movie in here, but after the incredibly poor acting and "video game" production values, this ends up looking like Tron's retarded half-brother. The first scene sets up the overall atmosphere of the entire movie. Five minutes into it, you'll be asking yourself, "What the Hell am i watching?", and it will just snowball from there. An awful soundtrack that makes every song sound like Rob Zombie's "Dragula" rounds out this miserable piece of crap into a laughably bad movie. On a side note, #3 most romantic quote in a movie - "I think you're the final destination."


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


user
OK, this movie wasn't good at all. Video games aren't what I would brag on if I was over the age of 15. Cool to play games, but writing a comment about video game players may like this movie for that it is, that is strange. Just play a video game, don't make up a sorry story about getting trapped in one. I use my cell phone, I hope I don't loose my girlfriend in that. Grease being the worst ever? OK, Grease has a very well thought out story along with being a musical. Even if you don't like musicals, anyone would say Grease is good. My brother plays video games all the time and he watched 30 minutes and left because it was so awful. I feel asleep.


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


user
Hmmm, not a patch on the original from Shaw Brothers. The fighting is average and looks very clunky. The story line is as to be expected from a 70's Kung Fu film, confusing and daft. Stupid voices for women,dubbed in posh English accents for men. i turned this off early and i love martial arts flicks. Get the original, its so much better than this average movie, don't be fooled, i bought the wrong flick what i wanted was the Shaw brothers movie. i have just started commenting, I'm only doing foreign and martial arts films this is just the beginning of my movie collection, i personally own most modern martial arts flicks. Hope you don't waste time watching this one, its for die hard fans of 70's Kung Fu only.


assistant
0