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 thing I have noticed about British horror movies from the 1970s is that they don`t hold up to repeated viewing THEATRE OF BLOOD is a case in point as are all those Amicus anthology movies . Add THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR to the list
Much of the drama of this movie revolves around the build up of a plot revelation at the end . Once you know what the revelation is this becomes a rather flat film . It does open with a fairly good hook but after that we`re treated to long boring sequences of two old ladies making small talk . Correct me if I`m wrong but how many people watch a horror movie expecting a couple of old ladies making small talk ? The only sort of interest to be found in THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR is the anti-smoking stance . Some people have mentioned that this is an anti-war or anti-military film but watch carefully and you`ll see that everytime a squaddie lights up for a fly puff he gets killed . Rather strange considering attitudes to smoking weren`t nearly so hysterical as they are nowadays


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


user
The bad news: the Canadian version of Beast In The Cellar released by Maple Pictures that I saw was of poor quality. Dark and washed out, it appeared to be dubbed haphazardly from a VHS tape. It even skips at one point due to some missing frames.
The good news: this movie is so bad that the poor quality of the DVD detracted little from my viewing enjoyment. This horror movie fails to build tension and lacks scares. It is a horrorless horror film. While most frightening films have limited dialog, Beast In The Cellar is a gabfest, so much so that a character will repeat something we have just heard said by two other characters. Presumably, all the chit chat acts as filler for a very low budget, unimaginative movie. Unfortunately, the dialog isn't campy enough to make it worth a watch.


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 has the language, the style and the attitude down ... plus greats rides from Occy (a world champ) and the great Jerry Lopez. John Philbin as Turtle has the surf pidgin down, and the surfing scenes are still the best ever. A true classic that can be seen many times. Nia Peeples is a babe, and Laird Hamilton shows the early stuff that has made him the world's number one extreme surfer.


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 grow up surfing in San Diego (not the biggest waves in the world but it was a hell of childhood, I'll tell you that) and I have seen A LOT of so-called surfer flicks in my life. After watching NORTH SHORE for the first time just now, all I can say is THANK GOD I never saw this as a kid. If I had seen this and mistakenly thought that this was a realistic portrayal of the surf scene, I would sold my board and totally gotten into, I don't know, accounting or something.
Seriously, this movie has a as much in common with real surfing as TOP GUN has was real military life. The acting is terrible, the music is worse, the cinematography is iffy at best and OH MY GOD what was Laird Hanilton thinking?! WOW!!! DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! IT SUCKS!!! If you want a REAL surf flick, see RIDING GIANTS. Hell, watch SURF'S UP instead of this. Seriously. Sucks. Sucks bad. Sucks REAL bad. Brah. ;)
PS: Had to change my summery from "WTF?!" to wtf because, apparently, we are supposed to whisper on this site. NO YELLING!!! (shhhhhh!) ;D


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


user
One of the worse surfing movies I've ever seen. This movie is so bad I don't know where to begin-- Okay, let's start with the premise - some dude from the mainland who barely knows how to surf travels to Hawaii and enters a big wave contest which he more or less expects to win. A good analogy for those who don't surf would be a that of a grossly overweight chain smoker slapping on a pairs of running shoes and entering the LA Marathon with expectations of winning. No way! And, the contest is held on The North Shore which conjures up images of 15+ foot waves, but contest day the waves are maybe 6 foot. The acting? What acting? If you must see this woof see it on TV, don't waste your money renting it. If you want to see a pretty good surfing movie - granted it is flawed, but that's another story - rent Big Wednesday.


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 big stereotype. The acting (except Philbin & Harrison) is awful and the horrid script only make things worse. I must agree with another review that the "local" characters sound ridiculous as a matter of fact so do the "caucasian" characters. 3 stars out of 10 for 1)Philbin 2)Harrison 3)surf scenes. (1/2* out of ****) Watch "Aloha Summer" (**) and/or "Beyond Paradise"(***) for Hawaii done right, especially BP which I found to be entertaining and brilliant.


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 astonished at the major comments here for this OK surf film. It really stems from the "California Dreamin" school of barnyard to beach antics and isn't really plausible. The idea that the lead kid learn to ride a board SO well in a concrete wave pool that he beats the real surfers at their game in the real ocean, is just plain silly. In Australia where most urban teens do surf, this film was laughed at audiences took it all with a grain of sea salt. Made in the 80s but with its heart in the 60s, it is fun to watch and looks and sounds good, but it is not a in a classic class at all. Even the actors didn't outlast this. We're seriously in LIQUID BRIDGE or RIDE THE WILD SURF or BEACH BLANKET BINGO land here. Oz stars like Occy and BIG Wednesday hero Gerry Lopez are drafted in to add head nodding recognition to our farm boy's wave prowess, but it only made the crowd in the cinema guffaw. It is for 10 years olds who do not question much. It's not even IN GODS HANDS and that was silly too.


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 highly improbable. Read the other reviews to see why.
I would say that most of the characters were plastic, but they didn't even afford themselves that little luxury; they just act like cardboard cutouts. Of course, they had to get real surfers for the surfing contest roles, so that's a crap shoot whether they can act. At least Occy didn't give a crap and just went with it. But "Lance"??? Fuhgeddaboutit.
The one character who rang true was portrayed by Gerry Lopez who didn't really act, he was himself pretty much. He's quite accustomed to stomping people. :-) The only reason I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 was because I was laying out a newsletter on my laptop when it came on some cable channel late one night. That saved me from having to pay full attention to this silly little time waster. No way I would go out of my way to watch it.


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


user
Being a fan of bad movies, I was thrilled to find a 3 pack of cr@ppy horror at Best Buy today. The set was cheap and included a terrible film called "the Dark" that I actually remember seeing in the theater.
The remaining 2 were equally as bad. "Creatures from the Abyss" being probably the worst of the bunch. Since they were all bad that isn't saying much. But its stupidity, bad acting, terrible effects and retarded storyline actually made this one a lot of fun to watch. I was rolling on the floor with each new plot development. The discovery of the abandon ship, the missing crew, the realization that there was something terribly wrong!!! It was great!!! Of course, everyone's favorite scene seems to be the sex scene. OMG!! I almost lost it!!! Between that an the "monster cam", I have to say I enjoyed this film a lot.
I am a fan of bad movies so I enjoyed it but in all fairness, I did have to give the movie a 1. IT WAS AWFUL... But if rubbish is your bag, at least rent this one... (YES the BAD pun was intentional)


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


user
Boasting some pretty good Rick Baker-esque special effects and Deran Serafian in a small role, this pretty lame Italian movie deserves some recognition. Cerchi gets some credit for still making gore flicks while most of the other Italian directors (Ruggero Deodato, Sergio Martino, Lamberto Bava, and Enzo G. Castellari) have moved on to lower-key TV movies. As for plankton, it's half Piranha - half The Thing, with people turninging into monsters, raping women, and causing general mayhem. The ultra-grimy, sleazy, and over-sexed feel of the film makes it hard to enjoy. Only available in Italian language work-prints floating around.


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


user
This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, "We're joking around here! See???"
In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.
Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the 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 just attended a preview screening of this film. A masterpiece of documentary film-making it was not. Totally absorbed with its subject, the film becomes incapable of leveling any sort of critical commentary with regard to Ms. Faye. Cloying and sappy, the only redeeming quality of the film was its use of puppets in an attempt (albeit a failed one) to structure some kind of narrative. But the creepiest experience occurred as the closing credits rolled. The audience rose and applauded. Like moths to flame, Americans in the 21st Century are still drawn to freakshows. The narrative of the misunderstood monster is getting rather tired.


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


user
"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.


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


user
For a good take on the Roman Empire watch the excellent BBC produced miniseries "I, Claudius". This just sucked. The acting was pathetic and you could almost see the actors looking at the camera. Hans Matheson was irritating. Cheese factor was so high that it promotes constipation with repeated viewings. Even Caligula was tame. I think this film was silently supported by "religious" groups who shall remain nameless ;). The overt tones of Christian favoritism and persecution were blatant if that gives any hint. Stay away what ever you do - the running time is so long that I was able to read Harry Potter's first book faster than the time it took to view this tripe.
Italy has done better - don't let Hans cute face fool you. He is not a great actor...he is a great bore.


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


user
"Imperium Nero" is the second movie of the series of six productions named "Imperium". I have already unfavorably commented the first one: "Imperium Augustus". This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: "Nero, Nero". At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. "Imperium" series will continue with four more movies : "Titus", "Marcus Aurelius","Costantinus" and"The Fall of the Roman Empire". Finally!


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


user
Sorry if I disappoint anyone about what I am about to say to this made for TV movie. But, I paid money for the movie and turned out this movie is disaster. The directing is really awfully bad. But, after I looked up its information here, I realized there might be reasons for the low quality of directing and producing. Maybe they don't have budget, but anyway, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility had little money too but it turned out a hit. The director in this movie did really bad job in telling the story and the movie couldn't even keep up a rational continuity in itself. It keeps pulling me outta scenes. Maybe someone need to work hard on story line/ board. The dubbed sound is also awfully bad. My god.... Normally, I would appreciate every movie because behind it lie ideas and imaginations of an individual. but, this time I am just mad , "I really wanna hit something HARD." ...Just don't do the job if someone can't fulfill it to its best. Bad arts (its' not even art, what is it? )really hurt people.


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


user
I cannot comprehend how this picture was allowed to be made. It is mostly, if not completely, inaccurate so much so that the main character does not even resemble how history has him look physically. This movie made me go on the internet and go through my books to make sure I remember Nero's personality correctly. For God's sake, I have a book that lists Nero as one of the most evil person's of the world and the movie made me feel bad for him. I must say Aggrapina's character seemed close to my understanding of her, both physically and psychologically. Although, the actors all did a good job, the movie was terrible and I'm sure I will not watch any others made by this sorry team.


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


user
'Leatherheads' tries so hard. Tries to be light hearted. Tries to be a comedy. Tries to be a love affair. Let's see, it tries to be a 'His Girl Friday' by way of 'The Sting' by way of 'It Happened One Night' by way of a dozen sports movies. Alas, trying isn't doing and the movie is as soggy as the last game's field.
A fan of movies would watch the big fight scene in the speakeasy between the Duluth Bulldogs and some soldiers and realize that the fights that John Ford staged with such style and verve and humor in movies like 'The Quiet Man' or 'Donovan's Reef', or 'The Searchers' may have seemed easy to do but obviously aren't. I would bet George Clooney thought channeling John Ford would be easy as well. How hard could it be: masculinity run amok, punches, bottles broken over heads, an imperturbable piano player...just put it up there on the screen with some happening music. Sorry. It takes a master to make fight scenes flow.
Movies aren't wished into existence. Humor is hard. Romance is hard. Slapstick a lost art.
I once read that you never wanted to sit too close to a ballet performance. Something about not wanting to prick the fantastic bubble of the performance by hearing the thuds of the dancers' feet or the grunts of the lifts. This movie is like that...all strain and good intentions, handsome actors, nice sets, but it thuds through its paces rather than gallops like the original Galloping Ghost, Red Grange, who the movie is loosely based on.


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


user
A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true "old west". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.
The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and "improved" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.
I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.
If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the "tough broad in a man's world" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.
Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.
Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back.


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


user
I thought this movie was going to be good. It absolutely wasn't, despite the Oscar-winning lead actors. I may have laughed once, and I never heard anybody else in the theater laughing. Renee Zellweger's pancake make-up was very unbecoming. Everybody seems to be trying so hard in this movie, running around in imitation of slapstick but not pulling it off. I think perhaps the movie must've sounded good in development, but something got lost in translation. Were the roaring 20's really like this? I think not. Everything seems a tad artificial. Randy Newman's score was annoying. The film is in sepia tones, just like every other movie that takes place in the 20's or 30's. There's just not that much originality here.


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


user
How many times must I write the words boring and not funny on this page until I get to ten lines. George is about original an actor as Alfalfa from the little Rascals. Although that is probably a slight to Alfalfa. How many times do I have sneak into these overpaid actors crappy films before I will learn that there is but one law in the movie industry. Take the money and make a movie - even if it is crap. They spend millions making this movie but can't take a few moments to watch the end result. And Renee GoAwayZigger should stop taking the illegal drugs she is on and seek medical help for the facial problems she is sporting. At least I hope its drugs as she is quite unattractive whilst talking out the side of her mouth. This movie was neither funny nor dramatic and these hacks should just stop making crap like this. George and Renee, you should be ashamed of yourselves and stop being stop stinking greedy.


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


user
Check out the two octogenarians who review Leatherheads. These guys are old-school Hollywood and a hit on YouTube. They always give an insightful and fun review. They have movie comparisons that are really interesting and they have a banter back and forth that is endlessly entertaining. They know movies, collectively they have been in the biz for practically a century. Lorenzo is a well-known screenwriter and Marcia is a famous producer. All of their insight on movies always leaves you with something to think about. See what they think about Clooney's latest...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-W7evBEArs


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


user
Leatherheads is an apt title, however a leather strap would be more useful to self-flagellate oneself after purchasing a ticket to watch this noxious attempt at entertainment. Clooney's attempt at self deprecating humor comes across with a quiet thud as his demeanor implies that he is anything but. Perhaps with another actor playing the Clooney role, the movie might be marginally palatable. Sorry George, I doubt there will be any Oscar nods this time. George Clooney is definitely a fish out of water when it comes to comedy (unless you are referencing to his politics). Anyway, only the most ardent of Clooney fans will enjoy watching Leatherheads, everyone else will long for the days of the silent picture.


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


user
OK where do I start? I saw a screening a couple weeks ago and I was shocked how bad this movie is. Sure if you just LOVE Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres (bad acting) and you think they are the best TV shows on air then you will definitely love this movie. Me, personally, I really like George's work and he is very talented, but comedy is not his forte. Some people are natural in comedy and I am sure he is great & funny to work with personally but comedy he can not pull it off on the big screen. It was a cute movie but would I pay $12.00 to see it? H&LL no !!!! Now that I have seen it I would not recommend it to anyone to spend their money. George, buddy, I love you but please don't do any more comedies? This script is lacking a lot, great concept but just didn't do 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 is defiantly a DVD rental movie. I'm a big fan of the cast members but the storyline never really grabbed me. Don't expect "Oh brother where art thou" in any way shape or form. Funniest part in my opinion is when the war hero explains what happens over in the Argon. Seems like they were trying to copy some of Clooney's funny facial expressions from "Oh brother where art thou" but you could kind of tell they were trying for that. John Krasinski was the bright spot and was solid throughout. Renee Zellweger plays the part of a zealous reporter willing to do whatever for the story. Overall it's a movie worth watching at home.


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


user
Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.
This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.
Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.
The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.


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


user
I also made the mistake of thinking that I was going to see the 2003 Swimming Upstream with Geoffry Rush. This was worse then a lot of student films that I have seen. The script was forced, the acting was subpar and the editing annoying. It was so slow that I just managed to force myself into staying. But I always give a movie a chance, so I suffered until the very end. Apparently there was a memo out about this movie, because my friend and I were the only ones in the theater. Why didn't somebody send me this memo?!?! That is why I'm posting, as a warning to others thinking of shelling out good money to see this. I just hope that you actually got to this page, and didn't get trapped like I did by looking at the wrong "Swimming Upstream." P.S. Sorry to the cast and crew if you are reading this. I know that you worked hard to make this. I know what goes into making a movie... keep trying!


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


user
CRAP! I accidentally watched this film-thinking that it was the Swimming Upstream that was released in 2003. I seriously regret wasting an hour of my life sitting through it. Shame on whoever gave this junk an award. I thoroughly loathed this film-in fact I didn't see it through to the end. After an hour I could no longer stand it. I am disgusted that people are amused by such a lousy script-which tries and fails to rip off a dozen other human interest stories and such BA-AD acting. PAINFUL. I rate it 1 star out of 10. An amateur could make a much, much greater 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 depiction of Ichabod Crane's character was so terrifically unlikable, my wife and I were hoping that the horseman (or some other character) would not only cut off Crane's head, but do it slowly and painfully.
I mean, this Brent Carver guy played it over the top---like he was on Broadway. And he was such a relentless jackass that we had no sympathy for him whatsoever.
I could go on with specific critiques of how this movie failed, but I prefer to not devote the energy.
Just skip it and go for the Johnny Depp version. Either that, or rent the Haunted Pumpkin of Sleepy Hollow (animated). It is quite good--entertaining for kids and adults.
Better yet, read Washington Irving's original story.


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


user
Its incredible to me that the best rendition of this amazing story remains a cartoon made by Walt Disney in the 1940s, but its true. Here another clumsy attempt sputters confuses and alienates would be viewers with admirable effectiveness while successfully antagonizing those of us who have actually read the story. Irving's original work is short by any measure and making a feature length film is bound to be a challenge. One can either completely rewrite the story a la Tim Burton which is a discussion for another time, or pad the bust-line of the old girl with unintended detail. The latter is what is attempted here, and if I may say, pitifully so. Unimaginative and thoroughly modern new facets to character personalities such as religious zealotry in Crane or wanderlust in good old Bram Bones ruin the story's intent and betray a severe lack of talent by the filmmakers. By the time the tale's famous climax approached, I had completely lost interest. Its the kind of film where you expect to see a stagehand smoking in the background.


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


user
It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can.
The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.
Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.
The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.
I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.


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


user
An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a "Aliens (James Cameron 1986)" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.
Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead "Jack Scalia" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.
But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine "thriller". It included such lines as "I got a bad feeling about this" and "Kill me" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the "alien hop" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic "get some!" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie "Aliens". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.
The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).
If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently.


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


user
ZERO stars out of ****
Endless Descent has absolutely no redeeming values, whether it's the ridiculously bad acting, the laughably awful special effects, the incompetent direction, the stupid script, or the gratingly annoying musical score. It's the kind of pitiful production that makes me wonder how a movie like this could even have the slightest consideration for being greenlighted by a studio in the first place.
I don't think I'm going to delve into the plot other than to say it's about a bunch of people who are trapped under the water and have to kill a lot of fake-looking creatures.
Let me go more into detail as to what is so awful about this flick. First of all, the acting is simply horrendous. Jack Scalia is ten times worse than Sylvester Stallone, a feat that is hard enough to accomplish as it is. The supporting performances aren't really any better. And what is with actor Luis Lorenzo, the guy who plays the cook, Francisco. He has a high-pitched voice and an accent that sounds appropriate for a comedy, not a sci-fi horror film.
The special effects are even worse. The creatures range from weird-looking eels to giant starfish and "mostquitoes." The effects look like something you would see in a muppet movie, and I don't believe I need to delve further in this issue.
Director J.P. Simon has slight cult status because of all the terrible films he's made. I'm sure some will enjoy Endless Descent in an Ed Wood type of way, but I don't even think it's that good. Everything he does is shoddy, especially the camerawork. The man cannot direct a movie, that's all there is to it.
This was the last of four films that took place underwater, and it sure does make Leviathan and Deep Star Six (Both bad films in their own right) start to look masterful in comparison. Either way, just stick with The Abyss.


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


user
Its a sin how these things are made, but then again we wouldn't get to see the best "Dummy scene" ever filmed. Ahhh the beauty of low budget Bigfoot flicks, you lean to see the beauty the more you watch them, thats if your brain doesn't melt first. As I said before, this has the best dummy scene ever! Words cant express it, you have to see it for yourself. Wonderful lines such as "Smells like decain flesh", "Thems human..."(You will know this one when you see it) The creature makes a Blah, Blah! sound and the scene where the baby gets shot will make you cry(with laughter) you will be rewinding it. Has a car chase, snowmobile chase, a Bigfoot folk song as well as a Disco song. It dosn't end there, while watching the credits a friend noticed "Wardrobe provided by K-Mart". You ask, how could you even get as far as the credits and then watch them? I could only explain this as a sort of shock to the brain, you are so mentally exhausted you cant move and also I guess you have to know who was behind the mess. All that being said, this is a must see especially if you want to punish yourself mentally. Its a keeper!


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


user
Bill Rebane's "The Capture of Bigfoot" is one of the most awful horror movies ever made.A greedy sawmill owner Harvey Olsen(Richard Kennedy)decides that he wants Bigfoot captured at all costs.However local game ranger Dave Garrett(Stafford Morgan)learns that the Bigfoot used to live in peace upset by a geological expedition,and sets out to protect the creature.There is nothing even remotely interesting in this piece of crap.The film is extremely dull and filled with horrible songs and cheap special effects.No gore,no suspense-just gigantic boredom.Avoid this horrible junk like the plague.


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


user
The Capture Of Bigfoot is one of the silliest and worst movies of all time. I love Sasquatch and Bigfoot movies but this one is just a sheer waste of one's time.Terrible, terrible, terrible!I watched this movie last night, and it was all I could do to finish watching.I understood that this weird crazy man wanted to capture Bigfoot,but that was the only thing that made sense in this movie.It did have some amusing parts though.There was this very cheesy and corny disco club with very bad disco dancing that seemed to go on for far too long in the movie.I think the director was trying to fill time.The worst thing was the way the Bigfoot looked.The obvious man in a suit looked like a pink faux fur Bigfoot.It was laughable.If you want to see a very bad Bigfoot movie, then I suggest that you purchase this movie.Personally, I wasted my time and my money on this one!


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


user
This movie is, in all likelihood, the worst film ever made. It is certainly the worst that I've ever seen, and I have seen A LOT of bad movies.
In this, nothing at all interesting happens throughout the movie. One could, literally, start the movie, take a short nap, and then wake up secure in the knowledge that nothing interesting has happened while you are sleeping. And I have seen this movie three times, staying awake throughout. I feel I should be congratulated.
The movie goes as one might expect, according to a formula, with no variation. Hunters capture baby bigfoot, get killed by parent, and the nearby town goes into a bigfoot killing frenzy. This is surprisingly boring for a Troma release.
So please do yourself a favor, and skip this movie. If you have to see it you will understand why.


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 the very worst that I have ever seen. You might think that you have seen some bad movies in your time, but if you haven't seen this one you don't know how terrible a movie can be. But wait, there's worse news! The studio will soon rerelease this masterpiece (I'm being ironic) for all to see! The only things worse than the plot of this movie are the effects, the acting, the direction, and the production. Bill Rebane, the poor man's Ed Wood (not that there is a rich man's Ed Wood) (I like Ed Wood's movies, though) manages to keep things moving at a snail's pace throughout this film. It opens with the capture of a baby bigfoot (a Littlefoot? --sorry, couldn't help it) by a pair of unlikable hunters, who are killed by the parent. This causes the entire town where the hunters lived to go on a Bigfoot hunting jihad. This is pretty much it for the plot. Nothing even remotely interesting happens, and we the viewers are never able to care about any of the characters. If one is interested in the films of Rebane I would recommend almost any other over this. However, as I said, it will soon be rereleased by Troma in order to bore a new generation of filmgoers.


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


user
If it weren't for the editing out of curse words and a superimposed blur when one character give another the finger, it would be easy to mistake this low-budget snoozer for a Sci-Fi channel pilot. The plot about the government's attempts to destroy a group of telekinetics it originally trained as military weapons ends ambiguously enough with the hero, himself gifted, in pursuit of a telekinetic survivor bent on revenge. Alas, the movie is talky, boring, predictable and even devoid of interesting special effects. Top-billed Louis Gossett, Jr. has a minor role as the evil government bureaucrat who originated the program and now wants to eliminate all traces. He walks through the part and it is hard to understand why he bothered. Other members of the cast do a decent job with a script that demands little.


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


user
The films of the Science Fiction Channel ( Sci-Fi Channel ) have become boringly predictable. The seem low on budget, originality, and plot.
In this creation the government is out to get a bunch of telekinetics and recruits a poor soul by devious means to help. There is plenty of over worked recycled twists on evil government organization theme. black coats, shadows, short meaningless lines make these one dimensional cartoons.
Daniel Dae Kim stands out as a good actor in a small role. He brings a bit of the style of his "Angel" character to the role. It is hard to miss the link that his "Crusade" character was a telepath and this is a film on telekinetics. Was this a Sci-Fi casting move to try and draw fans from the other show? Who knows. Thankfully he is a decent actor and a pleasure to watch.
The movie is definitely low budget. It reflects The Sci-Fi Channels current model of Canadian location, few well known characters, few effects, and woefully terrible plot and character development. One would think they believe science fiction fans will view anything labeled "scifi."
If you want a good telekinesis movie, check out "the Fury" ( 1978).


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


user
I know a lot of people like this show and i apologise to people who think this show is awesome but it is the worst show ever created. Sure i'm sure I would be a big fan of this show if Jeremy Clarkson wasn't on it. I mean I think that testing out cars and doing things like seeing whether a car can beat a aeroplane is awesome! But Jeremy Clarkson is just pathetic. Here are the reasons I hate this man: . He thinks it's cool to trick speed cameras that measure your average speed by taking measuring your distance and time by driving 200mph down the road and then resting for two hours. . He clearly thinks that he is better than Richard Hammond and James May. . He's got my best friend saying pathetic things. . He screams at kids just for taking a picture of him. I'm sorry top gear but Jeremy Clarkson is a freak.


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


user
"Haaaarrrryyy!"
The amplified, dispassionate female voice could have been Leona Helmseley in heat but, no, it belongs to Allison Hayes as Nancy Archer, the 50-Foot Woman of the title. In the most infamous role of her film career, Allison's performance literally rips off the roof. In fact, make that a couple of roofs.
Jaw-droppingly tacky, "Aot50FW" is the tale of Nancy, a neurotic, boozy heiress and her loveless Lothario husband, Harry (William Hudson, who also co-starred opposite The Amazing Colossal Man). Nancy has a close encounter of the third kind, in the desert, with a bald giant from outer space who wears a mini-skirt and gladiator sandals, and who has a thing for Nancy's jewelry. What he does to her once he's carried her off is probably best left a mystery, but soon Nancy starts to grow.
Treading into the center of town on tranquilizers, tightly wrapped in nothing but the bed sheets, the buxom giantess heads toward the low-rent saloon where Harry is having a few laughs with a floozy named Honey (Yvette Vickers). The confrontation turns ugly.
The Poverty Row f/x make the alien giant and Nancy appear to be transparent due to incompetently transposed images. You'll understand why director Nathan Juran changed his name to Nathan Hertz on the credits. Juran was no stranger to directing giant creatures, human and non, having also directed "The Deadly Mantis," "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad," "Jack, the Giant Killer" plus several episodes of TV's "World of Giants" and "Land of the Giants."
A lot of laughs for all the wrong reasons.


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 fair movie, good for one-off viewing. The plot itself is fairly well worked for a picture of this kind which is a pleasent surprise as is the acting, which although a little hammy, is better than normal for these types of flick.
The 'special effects' are hilarious - a translucent giant and a blatantly polystyrene/papier mache hand wobbling unconvincingly on a bit of wire.
Definitely to watch once for kitsch entertainment value.
5/10.


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


user
This is the kind of movie that BEGS to be shown on TV at 3 or 4 in the morning, if at all.
No doubt the film-makers responsible for "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman" thought they were making a pertinent statement about women and philandering and the dangers of the demon rum, all wrapped up in a sci-fi allegory.
Or maybe it was a tax write-off.
Either way, "Attack" proves best for the viewer under the following circumstances: a) extreme intoxication, b) seen on a double-bill with any of those Jacqueline Suzanne movies (maybe "Once is Not Enough"?) or c) just a night when you feel insecure and the world around you is a little too perfect. Pop in "Attack" and you'll feel great, guaranteed!
It's good for a laugh at the expense of the hokey script, the rubbery special FX and that four-eyed sheriff. And I think the last line should be engraved in a monument somewhere in Washington D.C. - it's just that memorable.
Four stars for "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"; buy a copy, mail it to Gloria Steinem - she'll love you for it.


assistant
0