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
I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.
I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?
on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of "dialogue", with the suggested substitute of "dialogue". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.


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


user
I always say, "there's nothing like a good movie". And I must say, this was nothing like a good movie! Drab, dull and tedious. It was like one of those bad dreams that never seem to end, no matter how hard you try to wake up. I don't mind the concept of a film without words, (ie: entering a fantasy or dream world), but there has to be something there to capture your imagination, not just empty images, which is what this film is. There seemed to be no character development and it jumped so fast from scene to scene that it was hard to discern any story. (Was there even a story?) You could tell the actors were trying their best, but unfortunately, poor direction sabotaged all the actors' work. It really seemed like a type of cinematic masturbation...only existing to pleasure the director and nobody else. Big waste of time.


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


user
I will commend it in only one respect.. it was innovative. Innovative doesn't mean it's a good film, it means that it can give you an idea of what you can take and implement in your own films.
The simple plot is.. well.. simple. I got to the point where I didn't care if they destroy the building or not. If I had to hear that girl's annoying giggle one more time, I swear I would hurl the DVD out the window. And there's also the protagonist. They try to make him lovable, but he's a freakin pervert! Sniffing the girls bra, sneaking peeks at her when she's naked, putting her bra over his eyes when he sleeps, putting her bra on a blow up sex doll (which she takes her panties off while hes asleep and slips them on his doll.. umm)
What irritates me even moreso is that crappy tinting. In the photo gallery on the DVD, you can see what the film looked liek before they greyscaled it and put in a color tint (digitally too).. The film looked a LOT better without the effect.. so they sacrificed it being a good film just to be artsy... bah. I could understand using gimmicks like that if the film quality was crap..
I think most people who liked this film just liked it because the chick was naked for a good 5 - 10 minutes. This doesn't compare to Delicatessen ( like so many are tryign to do). Delicatessen has characters you can get into and like.. these people here just grunt and giggle.
Lastly, I would also liek to point out that this was also tryign to be like a German Impressionistic film liek the old silents. One of the problems with most foreign, especially artsy, films is that thety focus on making an artsy composition and forget about the 'space' of the scene. It results in the audience not really understanding what;s going on because they don't get a sense of the space of the surroundings.
Anyway, it's rubbish. The short film on the DVD, Surprise, was a heckuva lot 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 hated it. I hate self-aware pretentious inanity that masquerades as art. This film is either stupidly inane or inanely stupid. After the first half hour, I fastfowarded through the DVD version, and saw the same juvenile shennanigans over and over and over. I became angered that I had spent hard-earned money for sophomoric clap-trap. Tinting drivel in sepia or blue does not make something a movie, let alone art.


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


user
This is the worst film I've seen in a looooong time. It reminded me of a Cirque du Soleil show I saw in Vegas six years ago -- without the athleticisme. By that I mean a few striking, artsy, images appear randomly, without any sustaining framework. The fake sepia tinted film is really tacky. This device is almost never justified and certainly is not in _Tuvalu_. With apologies to Abe Lincoln: you can fool some of the people some of the time.


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


user
A few years ago I saw The Scent of Green Papayas by the same director. My feelings about both films are in fact the same: beautifully shot, but terribly slow and boring. I saw this film in a Sneak Preview, and left after half an Hour. Couldn't stand it anymore. How can one make an interesting film about people who are constantly telling each other how happy they are, and how perfect their lives are.........? I had a fantasy about a forgotten American G.I., still wandering around in the Vietnamese jungle, who was not aware the war had ended. How he would suddenly pop up in the film, and would start emptying his M16 at the characters in the movie. The red of their blood would make a beautiful contrast with all the green plants in the film........... So I was not very much gripped by this film! Time to leave!


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


user
There's some nice scenery to look at here,if you can keep your eyes open long enough to see any of it.I'm a big fan of slice-of-life movies,but these people are just plain bland.Although there's nothing political here,the entire film can be looked at as a political statement,in that it shows how Communism destroys the individual,making everyone the same bland animal that just spends its life sleeping,eating,and occasionally making love.


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


user
This woman is a terrible comedian. She can't crack a joke. She has no real character. This is another example of typical American rubbish, that people laugh at, because they have no idea how to react, so they say to themselves, "well, it's a comedy show," so I'll laugh, I guess.
I cannot stand this miserable woman, and her pi$$ poor excuse for comedy. She does not deserve anything but booing.
Why can't America dump this kind of turdish delight, and go for something that actually contains humour.
She is not funny. Not at all. Why oh why does even ONE person like this idiot?


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 awful.
Pretty succinct review I know, but it has been a long time since a film has left me in such a bewildered state - wondering how the hell a film like that gets made.
The last time it happened was last years turkey 'Mission to Mars'.
Salvatore Coco is an ex-con - trying to better himself through self help videos, endless seminars and betterment courses. He lives by the catchphrases these courses expound.
He stumbles across a washed up nightclub singer, played by Nikki Bennett, and has an epiphany; his new career is going to be that of a talent agent - with the singer as his one and only client.
Financed by his gospel singing, paraplegic girlfriend, played by Sasha Horler - he sets up shop and tries to relaunch Nikki's career, with disastarous results.
'Walk the Talk' is the reason why Australians are so contemptuous of Australian cinema. It is poorly constructed, lame and way wayyy too long (111 minutes for a comedy that should barely have scraped the 80 minute mark).
Every scene is too long, and are very repetitive. The audience is not given a character to empathise with; a vital ingredient in a film like this supposedly about an 'underdog' giving it a go.
The downbeat and frankly poor ending comes at the end of 30 minutes of the most mind numbing dialogue and scenes that have you crying out for a power failure.
This film is a failure on all levels - made worse for Queensland audiences by its liberal and innacurate use of various Gold Coast/Palm Beach location; and its laughable use of Brisbane suburb names like Norman Park and Caboolture.


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


user
Time line of the film: * Laugh * Laugh * Laugh * Smirk * Smirk * Yawn * Look at watch * walk out * remember funny parts at the beginning * smirk
Unfortunately, this movie has a good concept that it grinds to the ground.


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


user
One wonders how FLYNN could have failed so badly as a cinema release in 1997 with Guy Pearce aptly in the lead role. It is not often that the casting of someone so famous is so exactly right. FLYNN was a stumbler at the box office and did not end up on cinema screens in Australia...even after LA CONFIDENTIAL...! From a dazzling nude scene in the first few minutes (presumably by Guy Pearce) FLYNN gets off to a fairly robust and interesting start. Sadly, FLYNN runs out of steam after about the first 35 minutes and with the entrance of hammy Steven Berkoff in a detour to New Guinea, (looking and acting like he wanted the Klaus Kinski role in FITZCARRALDO) the film starts to resemble a tele movie rather than a major cinema biography. Believe it or not, by about the 70 minute make, it is boring and you are glad to see it over. But such promise! Pearce IS Flynn! But the movie caused a mutiny at the box office and unlike The Bounty, sank without trace.


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


user
Guy Pearce almost looks like Flynn, and this resemblance is the only one this film can claim. Nowhere in Flynn's autobiography is the Klaus Reicher character mention, the homosexual encounter is speculative fiction, and the movie's claims that Flynn treated native labor badly are groundless. Director Frank Howson hasn't made any memorable films, and I find it lame for him to groundlessly slander Flynn to further his unremarkable career.



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 only think of one reason this movie was released. To capitalize off the upcoming fame of Guy Pearce. This movie has no merit at all and needlessly trashes Errol Flynn's memory. The homosexual encounter was pure speculation. The disdain shown for Flynn in this movie is palpable. An easy way to slander an actor who died years ago. Horrible and embarrassing. Very disappointing. Don't waste your time on this utter trash. Watch My Wicked wicked ways if you want to learn about this fine actor or read his autobiography. This movie is NOT the way.


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 takes a lot of liberties with the known historical facts.Even little things like Flynn licking one stamp after another, when he almost certainly would have used a moistened sponge, is one of the annoying things. Flynn was never tried of manslaughter or murder. He is not known to have caught his mother making love to another man, and is not known to have had an homosexual relationship with anybody, and he did not end up on skid row in Sydney. He did not get his twopenny-halfpenny role in In the Wake of the Bounty by imposture and this role did not turn him into a well-dressed film star.
This is just a mediocre film where the name of Errol Flynn has been tacked on just to sell more tickets and more videos.


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


user
Even though he only made his debut film in Australia and left for Great Britain and then America to continue his career, Australians will tell you that the greatest film star they ever produced was Errol Flynn. I'm not sure he ever even went back to Australia after his breakout success in Captain Blood. Still I attribute this film to the well known Aussie irreverence for trashing the reputation of one of their own.
Part of the problem in telling Errol Flynn's life story was that he told enough tall tales in his life right up to the very end in his memoir, My Wicked Wicked Ways. I could see that a lot of the film was based on that and upon reading between the lines of that book.
His mother's infidelity to his father was not written, but could have been inferred in reading My Wicked Wicked Ways. He didn't particularly like the woman, that is clear from a few sources.
I wish the film had dealt more with his New Guinea adventures, that to me was the most interesting part of My Wicked Wicked Ways. As for his street fighting in the Depression, I tend to disbelieve that. Even if he had been successful at it, I guarantee that enough of that would have ruined his looks and he would never have had a career as a leading man.
Still the folks down under seem to think the atmosphere of Sydney during the Depression was captured well and Guy Pearce is a charismatic Errol Flynn. American audiences know him best as the uptight, but honest Lieutenant Exley in LA Confidential which came out the same year as Flynn.
But LA Confidential was a far better film.


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


user
I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of Flynn appears in this film but even as a work of fiction it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.
The script is all over the place and leaves you wondering how he got from one scene to the next - you are just not given the minimum information needed to keep some continuity and understand his present situation, and it is difficult to understand Flynn's and other characters' motives behind some of their behaviour.
Add to that a series of silly and implausible situations and you have film that comes across as one of your dreams that seems to make sense while you are asleep, but when you wake up and you try to remember it, it is just strange, disjointed and totally unrealistic.
There are many long, boring musical sections of the film that to me are either bad direction or a bad director trying and failing to be artistic.
None of the characters are even likable and the Flynn character comes across as a self serving liar, thug, thief, robber, murderer, bear fist fighter, gigolo and impostor who will do anything and step on anyone to further his own dreams, and somehow, despite all that, great opportunities just seem to miraculously fall into his lap.
This film is not entertaining nor satisfying in any way and by all accounts not even historically accurate, so why even watch it? To rub salt into the wound, the DVD had one of the worst transfers I have ever seen, it wasn't even in wide-screen or Dolby 5.1, it had terrible telecine wobble and many, many artifacts from what looked like a film reel that had been gathering dust and scratches somewhere.


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


user
Looking at the ratings you would assume this is a classic, but yet again its just another example of poor independent film makers trying to drum up interest in their movie. They aren't even being smart about it 10/10 in the votes? I guess that to buck the curve and offset all the 1/10's it will get. Is this better than any decent zombie movie? No.
Acting, corny and rubbish.
Sound effects, cheap and nasty, if it wasn't for where the actors looked you wouldn't know where it was coming from.
Cinematography. These people act like they have borrowed their dads camera right after watching the matrix. Less is more, but more from this team is absolutely pap.
Zombies are rubbish as well. I don't doubt most of these people will never be heard from again, and it will be for good reason. I hope zombies eat their eyes as this was 90 minutes of pap that I wont get back.
And falsifying ratings just makes it a million times worse.
One reviewer said it was one of the best horror movies he has seen in the last 30 years? I can only assume that his recent cornea transplant was a success then.
Watch the trailer as thats a warning as to how bad this film is.


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


user
One look at the rating ought to tell you this movie was voted on by shills, in an attempt to artificially boost this film's ratings.
This film brings nothing new to the zombie genre. In fact, it is laughably bad (in acting and cinematography) and derivative in its plot. The make-up looks horrible and the zombies look even worse when shot. Lines are stiffly delivered and badly timed, with the exception of the female bounty hunter, who is the only good actor in this mess of a film. The worst offenders are the Italian guy (Hans), Ryn the protagonist, and the lead bad guy. I've seen better delivery from pizza truck with a flat tire.
This is a self-proclaimed "zombie western", but about the only thing that makes this a "zombie western" is the fact that people wear cowboy hats and the lead actor's real name is Clint. The protagonist isn't cool and mysterious like a traditional Eastwood hero, and as an anti-hero, he doesn't have the wise-cracking attitude to pull it off either.
Don't be fooled by the fake glowing reviews. This is just another B-grade zombie movie that's competently made for the budget it had (it does have some decent lighting), but it reeks of low-budget, first-time directing and bad acting. There are a LOT OF REALLY stupid scenes that make this look really amateurish.


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


user
The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.
So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.
I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.


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


user
Produced by Nott Entertainment, this movie is "nott" very good at all. I sat through the first 15 minutes of the film before judging that the acting is bad, the casting is bad and camera work is bad. As I hear that there is a download of this film floating around on the internet, it is "nott" even worth the bandwidth.
Up until the time I wrote this review, the average vote for this movie was an 8.5, which prompted me to view it and there was an average high majority of 10's for it, obviously voted on by liars and shills. This movie is "nott" for everyone. Or parents, if you want to punish your kids with this awful film, have them sit through this one for Halloween.


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


user
The plot of the movie is pretty simple : a viral outbreak turned the population into flesh-eating zombies. Those who left became "hunters".
Well, first of all, this IS NOT the worst zombie movie there is. Among the worst are "Zombiez" and the infamous "Zombie Lake".
In fact i think, the idea for "Quick and the Undead" was very good, just executed poorly. Considering the budget they had to work with, this movie looks very good. I wasn't bored at all while watching it. Special Effects were solid, although they did use CGI once (fat zombie getting shot in the head), but everything else (gore, guts) was rather good. Acting is awful however. Our main guy looks like young Clint Eastwood, other "actors" are not even worth mentioning. As far as the plot goes, they didn't work enough on the development of the story.
Bad : acting, low-budget. Good : special effects, idea for the movie.
Overall, this flick deserves 4/10 from me. It's not as bad as people say. Imagine a ZOMBIE WESTERN, then watch 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
The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.
Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.
What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.
Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!"
Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.


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 awful, especially considering the work that must have gone into its production. Though it's not as bad as Ax 'Em, it is quite awful. Take into account the obvious rip-offs from Gladiator and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what do you get? This smorgasbord of awful make-up and wooden acting.
The movie starts as most zombie movies nowadays do. A montage of interesting jump-cuts and a radio broadcast of the outbreak at hand. We see our hero (Ryn, quite possibly the worst 'zombie hunter' in modern era; counted about four or five times where he either scratched his head with the barrel of his pistol or looked down the barrel while blowing) cutting off fingers of zombies. We later learn that these fingers are collected for bounties.
Well, Ryn seems to be a rebel in his ways of dispensing of zombies; going so far as to purchase chum *gasp* from his French buddy Hans (who isn't really French, speaks with an odd Middle-Eastern accent). As Ryn uses the chum to collect a plentiful bounty from Lost Hills, all hell breaks loose.
And cue the awfulness of the movie. The zombies are put together quite poorly. I've seen comments praising their make-up, but it was quite amateur in my opinion. Obvious Halloween adhesives were used to make the zombies' faces and there were points at which one girl looked as if she were donning a clown mask instead of a freshly peeled face. Oy Vey.
To sum the next sixty minutes up in a few lines: Ryn is back stabbed by Hans (who made a deal with some other zombie hunters, Blythe being the ringleader), gives him a second chance, gets back stabbed again by Hans, then shoots Hans and gets to Union City where he finds Blythe is poisoning the cities for profit.
That's it really in regards to plot. When Ryn reaches Union City all the baddies are gathered around in a house that evidently is so massive it takes Ryn hours to reach the top floor. People die, Ryn lives, and the movie ends with one of those cynical "is he going to kill himself?" scenes.
*END SPOILERS* I'm going to have to blame most of this mess on Nott. The direction was awful. EVERY character featured a scowl other than Hans, who was easily the best 'actor' in this group of MacBeth rejects. When they reach Union City, a hoard of zombies attacks the crew and the zombies were obviously given no tips or ideas about how to walk as if your appendages were rotten. One woman is swaying as if she's swimming in mid-air on a Sunday stroll.
Some movies are awful. This movie is one of them simply on the grounds of how logic seemed to be abandoned in order to keep a story flowing. Works occasionally, but in this regard (where the story was already in shambles), it doesn't.
Avoid it unless you want a decent laugh.


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


user
Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.
Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.
Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.
Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.
For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.
Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.
4/10


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


user
I'm no director or writer or anything related to a movie. But watching more than 1 movie everyday has given me the idea of what is a good movie or not. So here it is: The quick and the undead is a rip-off of the Quick and the Dead. I was thinking that it could be a little bit of a parody of a cool movie with lots of starts in it. But oh no, I was really in for an very big disappointment.
To put it simply the movie sucks. I'm a big fan of gore movies but this one just gives you gore here and there but they are not that consistent.
But I have to give them credit in creating gruesome characters which has given me a little bit of squirm.
If you're a big fan of zombies, watch this. If you're not...better look for other rob zombie films.


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 movie a couple months ago when it first showed up on the shelves of Blockbuster. It is officially the only movie that I've wanted to undo watching. Let me start off by saying that I like "B" Movies. I consider "Ice Pirates" One of the best comedies EVER. I'll also note that I'm a writer and that I've met the director/writer of this cinematic marvel.
Evaluating the acting: If I was going to pick a bright spot I'd have to point out that Dion Day had an admirable acting debut with his role in this. For those who don't know, Dion is a boxer not an actor so we'll forgive him his lame death sequence. Why doesn't he fire the shotgun he's holding once? Budget? To highlight the bad acting would take pages so I'll stick to The egotistical lead, Ryn Baskin. Ryn (Which seems like a name chosen from a comic book because it sounded cool) has maximum face time in this movie, probably because he was a producer. His looks are completely fine, but his delivery evokes memories of SNL ripping on soap-operas. I suppose he could only do so much with what was written for him, but part of the blame is definitely his.
Special Effects: Not my specialty, but for a low-budget flick I suppose the makeup and gun play was acceptable. It didn't bother me, but it also didn't impress.
Writing/Directing: Oscar for best screenplay is not something I can foresee Gerald Nott ever winning. Not only is the plot rudimentary, but the dialog is flat and stilted. I understand stylized hokee-ness, but this was just bad writing. The thing that bothered me most was the theft. Nott stole scenes, shots, and Viggo's facial hair from a slew of other movies. The scene where Russel Crow is walking through the wheat field in Gladiator, Entire sequences from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, that sort of thing just doesn't cut it with me. I'll choose not to comment on the shooting because I don't know what it takes to establish a good shot etc...
Conclusion: Don't rent this movie, don't even pirate it. It's far too bad to waste any time on. The good reviews may be entirely bogus, after meeting Gerry It seems more then likely that he is posting them himself.


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


user
New rule. Nobody is allowed to make any more Zombie movies unless they actually come up with an original idea.
Sadly, this movie doesn't. They have the premise that Bounty hunters go out and kill Zombies and prove it by cutting off their fingers. Well, problems with that. Most people have ten fingers, why not just collect ten bounties for one Zombie? Why not just kill a regular person and pass that off as a Zombie finger?
Not to mention the utter silliness of hunting zombies with a bolt action rifle.
I sometimes think films like this are resume fillers for makeup and FX guys. "Hey, this is what I did with ten dollars and some recylced bottles deposit. Imagine what I could do if you gave me a BUDGET!" Do you think anyone goes to drama school or cinema school to star in a Zombie movie? "I went to the School of the Arts. Check me out as the "Tunnel Zombie" in "Quick and the Undead"." His mother must be so proud.
These had to be the wimpiest Zombies ever, as a whole crowed of them apparently couldn't push down a wooden door or even break a glass window. No, they had to wait for the bounty hunter to open the door for them...


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


user
Unreal !!!!!!!!. After reading the initial reviews posted by alleged reviewers ,I was shocked to find that almost all of the initial reviews, 38 , all rated this film a 10. Upon comparison with other great films, these reviewers felt that the Quick and the Undead is a better film than,The 6th Sense(8.2), Saving Private Ryan(8.4), Lord of the Rings( 8.7),Godfather(9.5), Gladiator(8.1) and Dawn of the Dead ( 7.8) to name a few. Hopefully these shills utilize their next discounted lasik procedure, that they hear of, because it is completely obvious that these reviews have been falsified.
I was led to believe that this film featured a unique concept in the genre of Zombie film making. Sadly upon watching the Quick and the Undead , It is obvious that these reviews were generated by people who either were involved in the production, or have a vested interest in the films marketability / financial success. Nothing cements this in my mind more than hearing that a portion of this film was shot in Texas, were, coincidentally allot of the early posting praising the film are from. The Zombie film / Horror B movie culture on a whole is a forgiving group, but this film is sadly beyond any redemption. The characters are recycled,and the plot poor.The film quality was not bad enough to be labeled camcorder,and at least they used a film quality camera . The acting is horrible, the star trying unsuccessfully to come off as a Clint Eastwood wanna be clone. Christ on a Bike !!!!!! Even the lead actor's name is Clint. He was just terrible. The only resemblance to Clint Eastwood, is that the lead is using the "wood" from Eastwood's name in his style of acting. The Zombie makeup was above Halloween party quality , but not applied completely to the full undead cast members. Allot of zombies were not made up on their hands. The plot was so hokey that it had me hoping for a power outage, a blemish on the DVD disk, or that the zombies would turn their attention on the director. Maybe the film has worth to some viewers, but not for my hard earned dollar. Luckily I used my free rental coupon to check out this DVD. Maybe this film will be rescued by Nott entertainment ( aptly named) releasing a special collectors DVD, which will tie up loose flaws, and deliver the promised goods??? Some how , I think NOTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets just hope that their next release , The Flesh Keeper is truly a "keeper" of a film ..and not a 5th generation recycled version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Fingers crossed here folks...but only if you care.


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 a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.
The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.
It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this.


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


user
The production company for this film calls itself 'Nott Entertainment', and that is a surprisingly apt name. This very is very 'Nott' entertaining from start to finish, which is a shame because a mix of zombie movie and western could have been interesting. Every time a low budget zombie movie is released, it will tend to be "for the fans by the fans". I do actually consider myself a fan of zombie movies, but too many more like this one and I'll be re-evaluating my opinion! The film seems to be a rip-off of the half-decent Aussie zombie flick 'Undead', expect instead of just having the lead in a cowboy hat; everyone is wearing one; but this doesn't make a lot of sense because the film is apparently set in modern times. The credits sequence at the start of the movie fools us into believing that we're going to be in for an atmospheric film, but when the movie starts properly; it soon becomes apparent what we're actually in for. Naturally, there's a fair amount of gore and it is actually fairly well done, though the good things I have to say about the film pretty much end there. There's a twist half way through which might have been interesting if the rest of the film was. Overall, this is just another zombie movie in a world with far too many zombie movies. I don't recommend it.


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


user
This movie baffled me. I could not get a grip on it. Thought I might be missing something. Glad to see that most of you agree with me. This isn't always the case (see my recent review of RE: Extinction).
To expound upon the faults of this film any further would be a glorious waste of time...so I will...
They're dressed like cowboys, but it's modern times, right? No? I don't get it??? When I picked up the box, I thought: ZOMBIE WESTERN! COOL! That's how it was presented. Haven't seen that yet. Hope they did a good job.
They DIDN'T! They tried to create an iconic character that would spawn a series. They didn't.
They tried to make an Aussie indie zombie flick on the caliber (and perhaps riding on the coat tails) of the very well done "UNDEAD". They didn't.
Okay, maybe they just wanted to make a confusing, disjointed, mess of film salad that might ultimately be edited into something watchable. They DIDN'T! This is the new number 2 on my list of Worst Zombie Movies Ever. There are really just the two so far, "DAY OF THE DEAD: CONTAGIUM" being the first (not to be confused with "DAY OF THE DEAD", which is one of my favorite zombie movies of all time). If you're gonna make a zombie movie (and I'm not a zombie movie maker, I'm just a connoisseur) make a good one. Flight of the Living Dead is a good example of decent recent zombie filmaking. FYI.
If you're really forgiving, you might think, well, didn't they at least throw in something to make us feel like we didn't want our money back? Guess what...THEY DIDN'T!


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


user
Down at the Movie Gallery, I saw a flick I just had to see. It looked like a fun low-budget horror/action/western that I could get into. Yeah, I knew it would suck, but I rented it anyway hoping for laughs. Only a few laughs were to be found. This was an extremely stupid movie. It begins with a bounty hunter, our protagonist, who is possibly the weakest main character in the history of film. He looks/acts like he could take on Chuck Norris, but he can't. His dialogue sucks too. Anyway, he goes into a village, shoots some zombies. You could tell they tried to make this longer by putting in these boring scenes where he takes 3-5 minutes to reload or watch some zombies. At least the zombies look cool. So anyway, some people get shot, some zombies die, and in the end, everyone is dead except our main character, who should have died at the beginning when he was shot down by four people.


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


user
Wow, I was told this would be a B movie worth watching. I feel that I was misled after seeing this preview event. The plot is a twisted make of several films at best. Even the title is a take on another film if you can give the movie that much credit. I am sorry to say that I was taken to the cleaners. I wouldn't waste your time on this one. This movie appears to be a bunch of wannabes who got together and made a poor idea of a movie on a weekend with a borrowed camera. Being in the entertainment business, I can judge a decent film and this one deserves to be shelved or discarded. My advice, stick to a classic like the 1979 Dawn of the Dead. On a scale of 1 to 10 even a 1 is being nice to producers because this movie BLOWS. (Below Limit Of What Sucks) The producers need to stay with their daytime jobs. If you do view the movie please be honest in your posting, this one seems to have been hyped up and inflated by a few. There are a few who have seen this for what it is and posted correctly. Sorry, but, I have to say this is one to be skipped.


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


user
Firstly, I am a huge fan of crap films. B grade is always good for a laugh. Unfortunately this film is just plain bad. I dressed up as a Zombie for a party and my make up looked better than the ones in this film. Especially the big guy at the beginning, it just looked like a kid had drawn on his face with crayons.
The acting is so bad I need not comment on why. The effect are also extremely amateurish, with obvious blood tubes firing a straight jet of blood out the back of zombies heads when they get shot.
It also seems many people commenting on this movie are trying to boost the rating. Nobody without their finger in the pie would rate this film above a 5/10. Frankly it is disgraceful that people who worked on this film are boosting their own ratings.
I suggest everyone avoid this movie, it isn't worth wasting the 90 minutes of your life.
Absolutely awful.


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


user
After watching this movie on a boring Saturday afternoon, I couldn't quite figure out why so many people liked it. It wasn't "heartwarming" or "clever"; it was merely an amalgam of every other "mismatched people coming together during a holiday and despite their ideological differences learning something about each other" movie ever made.
The characters are a stereotype bouillabaisse -- We have the Blacks, the Hispanics, The Jews, The Asians, and the Homosexuals -- and they never do anything except what everyone expects characters in a movie like this to do. The black mother declares that it's "all right, then" when it's mentioned that another black character is at church instead of helping prepare dinner (because all blacks love church), the Hispanics seem only capable of speaking Spanish when the greet each other or make exclamations, the lesbians do nothing but cuddle and kiss (and one of them wears a bandanna. Because all lesbians dress like Ani DiFranco), and the Vietnamese family owns a video store. In L.A. Imagine that.
Oh, and the movie is called "What's Cooking" because each ethnic family cooks a different version of what they think Thanksgiving dinner should be! The Black mother wants cornbread and macaroni and cheese, the Hispanics are shown rolling tortillas, the Vietnamese family is deep frying spring rolls; I'm surprised there wasn't a bottle of Manischewitz on the Jewish table. This is all shown via the time-honored tradition of the "musical-montage", where they play the Surfari's "Wipeout", rapidly switching the instruments used in the melody to reflect the respective cultures. Isn't that cute? Anyway, once the director is finished establishing how different everyone is, he attempts to show the inner humanity that we, as all people of every race, religion and culture share, by inventing implausible and overly dramatic conflicts for each of the families to deal with. It would be a plot-killer to mention what each of these conflicts are, but rest assured that they are indeed surprises, that is if you have been sleeping for the first half of the movie. The theme of "disgracing the family" runs pretty strong throughout.
All in all, if you're the type of person who enjoys those new-fangled movies that revolve around the stories of unlikely characters intertwining, well, you still won't like this movie. If you like extended montages of food being passed around a table, then you need to put this in your Netflix queue. But if stereotypes and clichés are endearing to you, then make sure you ask for this for Christmas. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanzaa.


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


user
The concept: show 4 families of diverse ethnicities in the Fairfax District of L.A. preparing for the family get-together at Thanksgiving. I loved Soul Food and How to Make an American Quilt {I think there's a law that Alfre Woodard has to be in all these movies) which similarly offered a pastiche of family traditions, and was prepared for a treat. Instead, I felt tricked. They trot out about 40+ characters, and all but two are one-note cliches with no finesse whatsoever. The writers and director should spend a few more years learning about life and learn how loving people of different generations actually do relate. Instead, you have a bunch of a**holes getting together on Turkey Day to act like extra-obnoxious a**holes. Now, to an extent, this is what Thanksgiving is all about. But, not this misguidedly. And why bother having Julianne Marguiles, then giving her absolutely nothing to do. This was a chore to get through, and Mercedes Ruehl is a standout, but I give it a 4/10.


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


user
Great premise, poor execution. Cast of great actors is watered down into a poorly written, poorly directed, poorly edited, waste of film. Only redeeming quality is the numerous shots of the food.
Joan Chen, Mercedes Ruehl, Kyra Sedgwick, and Alfre Woodard should fire their agents.


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


user
The film was half over before I managed to figure out what was going on. It's a dog's breakfast of a movie about four family Thanksgiving dinners. The cliches and stereotypes tumble over each other. When it's all over ten hours later --- well, it seems like ten hours --- you're puzzling over what it was all about. I don't want to see a movie about dinner table squabbling. There is enough of it in my own family. The turkeys looked pretty good. The rest gave me indigestion.


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 one of the worst movie i have ever seen in my life! i waste my time on this. I watched this movie completely as i took it a punishment for me. I wonder how Suneel Darshan could make such a movie? it doesn't have any continutity. It feels he just shoot scenes and then joined them in some editing software!!! Music is of course good but the film doesn't need so many unwanted songs. Kangana Ranaut looks fake and I wonder what role does Celina Jaietly has in the movie? Bobby deol is good. at least he can act! Upen Patel needs to take some acting lessons rather than taking off his shirts in almost all the scenes! The end was the most pathetic!
I watched Shakalaka Boom Boom after watching "300" (the movie), you guys can really imagine what i felt about this bollywood movie.
I really respect bollywood but please directors and producers, get real, not everything is fantasy!


assistant
0