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
A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).
He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.
Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.
Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.
About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.
I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.


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


user
"Metamorphosis" hold a tiny bit of cult-value, simply because it was written and directed by George Eastman. This Italian bloke is more or less the personification of male sleaze and starred in pretty much every rancid Joe D'Amato production during the late 70's/early 80's. Wouldn't it be interesting for avid Euro-cult purchasers to own the only movie directed by the guy who walked around bare-butted in "Erotic Nights of the Living Dead" all the time? I thought so! Now, unlike the movies he starred in, Eastman's own "Metamorphosis" is kind of disappointing in the gore & sleaze departments. There are a handful of nasty murders, cheesy monster effects and naked female bodies (a guest appearance by sleaze-queen Laura Gemser!) on display, but it's mainly a talkative movie. The handsome & eloquent Dr. Houseman is on the verge of a scientific breakthrough with his research on human DNA codes when suddenly the university he works for threatens to cancel his funds. He developed a theory to decode genes and block the human ageing process, but if he doesn't come up with detailed reports any time soon, his research will be stopped. So Dr. Houseman does what any intelligent scientist would do and injects the untested serum into his own veins. Needless to say (and like the title implies), he slowly turns into murderous monster that actually ages much quicker! In other words, his research sucked! Like the other reviewers already mentioned, this movie "borrows" a lot of ideas from David Cronenberg's "The Fly"  the dramatic romance sub plot included - but doesn't add any originality from its own. The big difference is that you constantly feel connected with Jeff Goldblum's character in "The Fly", whereas Dr. Houseman becomes just another monster that needs to be destroyed as fast as possible. The rapid-ageing-syndrome aspect also reminded me of Ruggero Deodato's sadly underrated giallo "Phantom of Death", only the protagonist in that film inherited the disease and didn't inflict it on himself. The physical deterioration of the carriers is very similar in both films, though. Few scares or excitement to discover here, instead the movie features loads of bad acting, poor lighting, lousy editing and a completely retarded climax to boot. Feel free to skip this one.


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


user
All the elements for a bad night at the movies are in place: dialog riddled with biological techno-babble, chintzy sets, balsa-wood acting, a horrific late-'80s Casio score, and an overall look that suggests anything on the Sci-Fi Channel's programming schedule, circa 1993. Though "Metamorphosis" starts off with a lot of promise, the film unravels into bland idiocy and MST3K-style cheese as Clark Kent wannabe 'Doctor' Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock) is pressured into releasing information on his secretive projects. But when he tests his vague experiment on himself, he transforms into a vaguely-defined creature (that bears more than a passing resemblance to 'Dr. Freudstein' from "House by the Cemetery"). The FX work is fairly good for such an obviously low-budget production (though I suspect most of it is kept in shadow for a reason), but overall, "Metamorphosis" leaves a bad retro aftertaste in your guts, in spite of its hopes to sway us otherwise. I can't help but agree with one character's closing remark: "(It was) A nightmare...from the past!"


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


user
Meet Peter Houseman, rock star genetic professor at Virgina University. When he's not ballin' on the court he's blowing minds and dropping panties in his classroom lectures. Dr. Houseman is working on a serum that would allow the body to constantly regenerate cells allowing humans to become immortal. I'd want to be immortal too if I looked like Christian Bale and got the sweet female lovin that only VU can offer. An assortment of old and ugly university professors don't care for the popular Houseman and cut off funding for his project due to lack of results. This causes Peter to use himself as the guinea pig for his serum. Much to my amazement there are side effects and he, get this, metamorphoses! into something that is embedded into our genetic DNA that has been repressed for "millions of years". He also beds Dr. Mike's crush Sally after a whole day of knowing her. She has a son. His name is Tommy. He is an angry little boy.
Metamorphosis isn't a terrible movie, just not a well produced one. The whole time I watched this I couldn't get past the fact that this was filmed in 1989. The look and feel of the movie is late seventies quality at the latest. It does not help that it's packaged along with 1970's movies as Metamorphosis is part of mill creek entertainment's 50 chilling classics. There is basically no film quality difference whatsoever. The final five minutes are pure bad movie cheese that actually, for me at least, save the movie from a lower rating. Pay attention to the computer terminology such as "cromosonic anomaly". No wonder Peter's experiment failed. Your computer can't spell! This is worthy of a view followed by a trip to your local tavern.


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


user
'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.
My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.
'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.
The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird.
Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.
A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own.


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 the same old, "If I can't get the funding for my project, I'll inject myself" monster movie. There is nothing new here. It's a lot like the Jeff Goldblum "Fly" movie. The man manages to keep some semblance of sanity, but eventually succumbs to the effects of his experiments. The acting is pretty bad. There are people acting stupidly all along the way, putting their lives in danger for no apparent reason. The guy keeps going back to the lab he has been forbidden to enter. Then there's his relationship with a young woman and her son. Admittedly, he is good looking, but he seems like a lot of trouble. It's just a pretty big waste of time. Even his tyrannosaurus suit looks like it came off the rack at a Star Trek convention.


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


user
METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.
A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner!
The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous  at best.
As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone."


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


user
As others have mentioned, this movie is similar to THE FLY (both versions) and the lesser known sci-fi flick ALTERED STATES. The big difference is that those two movies were well made by people who knew what they were doing and were good at it. METAMORPHOSIS did not have these advantages. METAMORPHOSIS is a potentially interesting science fantasy story that had the wrong people in charge of it and the wrong actors playing the roles.
The story follows scientist Dr. Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock), an obsessed man working on a genetic cure to aging and death. When the university he works for threatens to cut funding, he decides to inject the anti-aging serum into himself. As a result, Dr. Houseman spends the rest of the movie slowly turning into a lizard. And oh yes, watching the good doctor go through the process of becoming that lizard is a great joy. It really is so bad that it's good. Some of the lines are classic: "What WAS it?" "A nightmare...from the past!"
Many of the reviews that I've read for this point up how stupid and ridiculous the last five minutes of this movie are. I'm just going to go ahead and spoil it: the good doctor goes from being a shuffling half-man, half-lizard thing to being what appears to be a man in a rejected Godzilla costume, when the police finally gun him down. In the final scene, some obnoxious kid is seen with a little pet lizard which he claims will never die, and the movie's heroine, Sally Donnelly (Catherine Baranov) evidently decides that the little lizard is the final incarnation of Dr. Houseman. The camera then gives us a close-up of the lizard's face; this is, I assume, the director's way of showing us that the lizard is EVIL. Yes, it is goofy, but I fell over laughing so I can't complain.
I watched this movie because it was a part of the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Megapack that I purchased. I'm sure many of those who are reading this did exactly the same thing, as the 50 pack is the only way to see this movie on DVD. If you have recently bought the boxed set and haven't watched this movie yet, it really is worth your time, even if I did just ruin the ending for you. It might also be possible to find this movie online for free.


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


user
I unknowingly had this movie on my shelf for a while in a Mill Creek Collection, and one night I just decided to watch it; though not expecting much. As the beginning credits roll around I'm surprised to discover this film was made under the Filmirage company. Filmirage brought the world such amazing stinkers as "Troll 2", "Ator the Invincible", and "Quest for the Mighty Sword", so I was compelled to watch.
As the movie started out it had potential to be pretty decent, even though it was unoriginal. The gore scenes could have been improved if they were extended and more frequent. But after a while into the film, the pace started dragging and I found myself thinking "Okay someone better get killed soon",or "Someone better mutate". At the onset of this drag, when I was having these thoughts, though someone may have gotten killed or have mutated, however as noted, the gore and effects weren't very good. What made matters worse was that the scene transitions were confusing; example: first Dr. Houseman would be at the Zoo, then he'd have a flash back about possibly killing someone, finally he'd wake up in a cold sweat in bed-- making the audience ask "Was he dreaming he was at the zoo?". Like the movie's pace, these scene transitions got progressively worse.
I could try to say the character development of Dr. Houseman was pretty good, but towards the end of the film, that is, once you've seen what the Doctor has metamorphosed into, hopefully you'll laugh-- which really, is the only reason to see this movie at least once; this movie unintentionally runs like a long-winded joke.
The costume of the um, thing that Doctor Houseman becomes can also be seen in Joe D' Amato's "Quest for the Mighty Sword", which was made in the same year. You've gotta love Filmirage movies, they're always re-using the same stuff!


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


user
Ha. without a doubt Tommy's the evil one here. i don't know why, but for some reason, little kids in horror movies tend to come across as little butt munches. and since they're kids, they won't die. because they're annoying...well..except for asylum of terror. but those are few and far between.
Anyway onto the movie. Can't find this movie on DVD? sure you can! all you have to do is buy the Chilling classics DVD pack! not only do you get Metamorphosis on DVD for $15, but you also get 49 OTHER MOVIES! what a bargain! pff. OK. i'm done advertising for these cheesy movies. let's just say, this movie ain't worth the 15 bucks on its own.
So we have a chemist scientist. yeah. cause all chemist scientists look as handsome as this guy playing Peter. He's trying to come up with a serum to stop deterioration of the body. the college he works at wants to pull the plug on his project, so he tries it on himself. but because this is a horror movie, he sucks it up and starts and incredibly long transformation sequence that takes nearly 3/4 of the movie.
To pad out the movie he gets into a relationship with some woman who has a son. and she was never married! scandalous! But of course Tommy is one of the most irritating characters....no. i take it back. HE IS the most irritating character. Far worse than the old crippled guy who wants to take over peter's work and gloats over him while he's in the hospital. that's right, even as an old cripple, you can still be the villain.
So we see Peter start to randomly kill some people in visions he has until he realizes he's the one doing it and just decides to kill everyone in his path to get back to normal. However at the end he ends up de-evolving into a lizard. yeah, i know don't ask. The ending really doesn't make any sense. And if you're hoping for any really good payoff, you're not going to get it.
This isn't a HORRIBLE movie....it's just frustrating because of the lack of a good payoff. if you already own the 50 movie pack and this is next on your list, you're not in for a snoozer, but you're also not in for a great movie. Just sit back, relax, and eat a lot of snack food. Because this movie isn't going to be making you jump out of your skin anytime soon.
Metamorphosis gets 4 plastic lizard heads, out of 10.


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


user
First let me be honest. I did not watch all this movie. I watched the first five minutes and when i realized that I had nearly fallen to sleep i decided that I may as well fast forward and see if it got any more interesting later on... It didn't. This film is just a collection of lame attempts to make a story which is already uninteresting and badly told into something that it would never become: a decent horror movie. Because I feel it is important to say that even a movie with poor special effects can still be good if it is well made. This film isn't and will only put you into a deep sleep if you attempt to watch it. Lastly I feel it is important to say that I think this movie is in the publicdomain so if you feel that you must absolutely watch it than a littlesearch on the internet will surely show you a place where you won't need to pay to watch this pile of cinematographic dung.


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


user
Ok so I was bored and I watched it all the way through.
This film is mild, inoffensive and lacklustre. The story is so sugary it rots your teeth on the opening titles. A tail of two 'traumatised' children learning about 'God' the fairy story way which frankly left me rather traumatised. It uses the Irish 'blarney' in such a stereotypical way one hopes no true Irish ever see it. Aimed at children who frankly would switch off after the first attempt at an 'OIRISH' accent. All in all why do they pump these out.


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


user
This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.


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


user
Anemic comedy-drama, an unhappy, seemingly rushed affair featuring Cher as a woebegone housewife who slowly makes friends with the hit-man who's been hired to kill her by her husband. Chazz Palminteri, as the talkative hired gun, adapted the screenplay from his own play, with stagy set-ups and back-and-forth dialogue that quickly tires the eye and ear. An air of gloom hangs over the entire project, and director Paul Mazursky can't get Cher out of her perpetual funk (she's listless). Despite all the top talent (including Robert De Niro as one of the producers), "Faithful" is fraudulent, with no substance to the story and characters who rarely come to life. *1/2 from ****


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


user
Adapting plays into cinema is often a bad idea because they're two different mediums . Do you think it's a great idea to make ZULU into a stage play ? Imagine it where two valiant redcoats sit in a tent gasping " Blimey there's thousands of them out there " Great movie and a bad stage play
In order for a stage play to make great cinema there's two essentials needed
1) A fine cast that creates on screen chemistry
2 ) Great dialogue
On paper Cher and Chazz Palminterri would be a good casting choice but not in these roles . The story revolves around a hit-man played by Palminterri breaking into a house to kill a wife played by Cher with most of the action taking place inside the house . I was unable to take these two characters seriously though perhaps it was the fault of the script which can't decide whether it was trying to be serious or funny . Since the story is very static it's of the utmost importance that the dialogue shines and once again because of the bizarre tone of the screenplay it embarrasses more than anything else with much of the conversation revolving around sex acts . if you want to see a great translation of a stage play transferred to the silver screen give FAITHFUL a miss and watch 12 ANGRY MEN instead


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


user
Minimal script, minimal character development, minimal steady camera. Maximum stretched scenes, maximum headache inducing jerky zooms, maximum characters walking around in the woods doing nothing. Up until the time flashes on the screen of 12:01pm, you can fast forward and miss nothing, since there are three hunters who we know nothing about doing nothing. To be fair, the movie does have some string music that was interesting, so perhaps a music video would have been the way to go with this. Unfortunately that was not to be, and what should have been a twenty minute short is stretched beyond belief. Forget about "Trigger Man", I know I am trying to. - MERK


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


user
"Trigger Man" is definitely the most boring and silliest movie I've ever seen in my life. My aunt's holiday videos are more fascinating.
The actors seem to be recruited at uglypeople.com. They do not have any talent to act in a convincing manner.
They walk and walk and walk through the forest. There's more walking-around than in all three parts of "The Lord of the Rings" together. After the first hour, I began to read a Porsche brochure while watching "Trigger Man" along the way. Awful.
A total waste of time and money. I'd give that movie 0 stars out of 10, since this is not possible, I have to give 1 star.


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 seen poor movies in my time, but this really takes the biscuit! Why oh why has this film been made? There just is nothing here whatsoever. Please put your trust in me, flick the off switch and destroy your copy of this film. There is a plot... that could take about 5 minutes to show on camera. This is the key problem, the story 'based on a true story' (mmm... whatever) just in no way lends itself to be padded out for 80 minutes. And so we therefore have to sit through over an hour of watching people walk around. That is it! In the whole first half an hour absolutely nothing happens, apart from watching someone walk to a shop... and then 3 guys walking through a wood. This time could perhaps have been spent on developing character... but no. And so there is absolutely no connection to the people on screen, and so when they start to get shot, we couldn't care less! In fact I was in the end vouching for the baddie so that the film would end! On top of this the camera work is truly horrific! This director/editor/writer/producer, Ti West is rubbish. I hate to hit a guy, but really, his work is pants! These dull close ups continuously, and then long single takes following people as they walk - I'm sure he thinks he's clever, but the results are so dull I just wanted to stop the film and slit my wrists! How this man has been brought on to direct the next cabin fever movie is beyond me! To finish, the acting is also woeful,... which goes for the film as a whole. Preserve your sanity, stick clear of this heap of total excrement!


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


user
Contains spoilers The movie plot can be summarized in a few sentences: Three guys go hunting in the forest. Two of them along other people get shot in the head without explanation. The last guy can stand in the clear, shout and do anything without getting shot. He gets to walk through an old factory and has the evil people walk right into his scope without a struggle. The villains are conveniently dressed in black and look like villains.
That is the whole story, not summarized but in detail. Everything is drawn out with a guy standing ringing a door bell. We wait with him. Long shot of guys being bored in the woods and sleeping. We can take a nap with them. The one drawn out shot of following a female jogger could have been redeeming, if we could see her butt or boobs bouncing.
There dialog is less then Terminator and it is not because there is so much action. The characters just don't talk. And, then they don't even have something corny to say like 'I'll be back.' If my buddy shot this on the weekend, I'd cheer for him, because it is quite a feat to figure out the camera controls. To pay money to rent this as a DVD is totally inappropriate.
The one thing that is a little funny is the extra with the director telling, how they local police didn't realize that they were shooting and treated them like a random guy walking around with a gun. If they'd have filmed that, I'd be sure it would be more fun to watch then the 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 story is seen before, but that does'n matter if you can figure out to make a proper storyboard. It is clear that the director haven't spent his work on the storyboard. Alongside this, the cameraman spent far too much time leaning angles that do not match the message of the movie. The funniest is, however, if you take a look at the movie's website, you can read that it was on purpose that the director has chosen to make the film with bad camera angles. Because it remind us about hunting. But I have never heard of hunting with poor camera angles ;-) It will have 1 stars because the story is OK. It is a pity that Ti West, has not spent more time to review his story. It is as if the movie was more important than the planning. Because you have a camera does not mean you should make a movie right away... come. Everyone can make a movie, but not all will be just as good. So a word of advice to Ti West are: stop and labeling what you want. Use your time to start planning and not filming until everything has come down on a storyboard. You certainly have the ability and desire - so don't abuse your talent.


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 very very very poor. I have seen better movies.
There was a bit of tension but not much to make you jump out of your chair. It begins slowly with the building of tension. Which is not a success. At least if you ask me. Though at some points or moments I must say it was a bit funny when people got shot and how they went down.
They should had made it something like Scary Movie, then it might be a better movie. Because I watched only pieces of the movie by skipping scenes and it got to boring through out the movie. I must say that i felt sleepy watching this movie so I sure can say it is not worth it.
Don't waste time on even thinking to do something with this movie besides leaving it where it already is. Somewhere very dusty..


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


user
In the first 20 minutes, every cliche possible was trotted out by the hack writer and director. There was the NTSB primary investigator with the tortured family life; the politically-tortured NTSB board member played by [I can kill ANY TV] Ted McGinley; the tortured father of a crash victim; and the torturing sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer.
Hollywood still has no concept of the fragility of aircraft. The crashed plane was a 737 and it was mostly sitting on the ground like a hippo who decided to take a nap. The first third of the fuselage was intact, the rear half of the plane was intact and the debris field showed no wings or engines. Most of the people should have walked away in light of how many people survived that plane that got shredded in Iowa after it lost its hydraulics. Most of this TV plane wasn't even burned.
It reminded me of the scene in "Air Force One" where the 747 hits the water and then skips along like it's made of inch-thick steel.
The show was so bad it was impossible to watch. Even my wife, who is more accepting than I, was commenting on technical flaws. What had me stunned was how this POS could ever get made. Are the producers of these things so used to clichés that they can't even recognize them? Somebody read this script and said: Yes, I want to spend a million bucks making this real. I wish I was the guy's next appointment. I have title to a wonderful bridge in New York that I'd sell cheap.


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


user
This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I really can't recall when I've seen a worse one. I thought this would be about an aircraft accident investigation. What it really was is a soap opera, and a bad one at that. They overplayed the 'conflict' card to the extreme. The first hour or so seems like a shouting match, with some implausible scenes thrown in.
*Possible spoiler*
The 40-or-so minute 'memorial' scene (with requisite black umbrellas and rain) to fictitious crash victims was lame, and I thought it would never end.
Avoid this one at all costs, unless you revel in 'conflict'.



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


user
Weaker entry in the Bulldog Drummond series, with John Howard in the role. Usual funny banter and antics, but not much plot. Barrymore gets something to do as the inspector, swapping disguises to follow Drummond, Algy, and Tenny on a wild goose chase (mostly in circles; perhaps the budget was tighter than usual) to rescue poor Phyllis, who is being held captive by people who want to lure Drummond to his doom. For those keeping score, in this one, Drummond is planning to ask Phyllis to marry him and Algy is worried about missing the baby's christening. It's fun to see Algy and Tenny dressed up as fisherman to blend in at The Angler's Rest, but little of it rises above silly.


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


user
Though a bit more polished technically than the previous film in the series, BULLDOG DRUMMOND ESCAPES, this is a weaker escapade in both a plot that's less thrilling and a leading man who simply doesn't have the charisma of Ray Milland.
That said, several actors and characters continue in their roles and manage to keep the flag flying. Also John Barrymore is present, popping up all through the film in a variety of outlandish disguises.
Anyway it's another endless night for BD as he and his cohorts chase around trying to rescue the poor girl he intends to marry. The clues are stupid but again the supporting actors often make them entertaining.


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


user
I had heard (and read) so many good things about Weeds that I was looking forward to getting hooked on another great cable Series (like Entourage, Sopranos or Mad Men) but that slowly eroded away with each episode I watched from Season One. (didn't make it past the first six episodes)
The writing was unoriginal, contrived and the portrayal of Blacks embarrassing. The dialog felt forced, like the writers are trying way too hard to be clever and hip . It was a rare moment when I actually emitted an audible laugh.
The characters never developed enough for me to care about them, they were selfish and unappealing. I absolutely HATED the addition of the Brother-in-law (who should have been hauled away on To Catch A Predator) and the removal of the Hodes' daughter Quinn from the cast by sending her to boarding school in Mexico was so unoriginal and cliché, I had to conclude the writers were testing the viewer's loyalty.
Episode after episode I liked the characters less and couldn't get past many of the technical flaws in the story line.
Add to that I heard that Season Two wasn't as good, so I lost all motivation to continue to watch this play out.
If you're a fan of good casting and writing, I suspect this show will be a challenge for you to like, unless of course you're stoned and then all bets are off.


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


user
Don't get me wrong , I want to see marijuana legalized as much as the next guy. I shall digress now. The writing, though, was unrealistic. A PTA mom dealing drugs but adamant about her drugs getting into the hands of an underage person. Give me a break. The smugness of very pretty Mary Louise Parkers character was an insult to my intelligence. The characters were not at all likable. Basically, the plot lines went nowhere. I understand its only TV land . The hypocrisy was blatant. Mary Louise Parker is supposed to be a great mom and I am supposed to believe this.... WHY ???? I just got the feeling I was being preached by a show reeking of seediness. Its like saying its OK to cheat on your wife , but with someone of legal age status. OK not exactly the same thing , but I think you people get my point. That save the children stuff is wonderful for campaign trails , I guess, but it does not hold water in a cable sitcom about a suburbanite mom , as the local pot dealer.


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


user
Another turgid action/adventure flick from the Quinn Martin Productions factory. Roy Thinnes plays undercover agent Diamond Head (Mr. Head, to you), working for his G-Man handler "Aunt Mary", looking for "Tree", who's on a mission to...well, just watch the movie.
This one deserved and got the full MST3K sendup. As the boys and various reviewers have pointed out, the movie "Fargo" had more Hawaiian locations than this film. Apparently shot on a puny budget, this movie highlights Hawaii's broken-down dive shops, gas stations, and cheapo hotels. Zulu -- later to star as Kono in Hawaii-Five-O -- appears as Thinnes' lumpy, inept sidekick, while France Nguyen models the Jenny Craig diet gone horribly wrong. Others sharing the flickering screen include a drunken Richard Harris knockoff, a George Takai imitator, a not-so-smart hit-man with sprayed-on Sansabelt slacks, and the villain "Tree", sporting a veddy British accent. You can pretty much figure out the plot halfway through the opening credits, but relax--just enjoy the giddy mediocrity of this 70's movie-of-the-week.
Whenever I think of this movie (and I think of this movie often), I catch myself humming the theme, written for flute and tuba...no one knows why.
Trivia note--Diamond Head was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, one of three contract directors at Universal who would go on to make much bigger films, in his case Jaws 2. The others were John Badham (War Games), and a young fellow named Steven Spielberg...


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


user
It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named "Tree" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me  it really doesn't matter anyway.
Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer  and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.
I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


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


user
Ahh, the dull t.v. shows and pilots that were slammed together in the 70's to make equally dull t.v. movies! Some examples would be Riding With Death(the most hysterically cheesy of the lot), Stranded in Space(confusing and uninteresting), San Francisco International(horribly dull and unbelievably confusing), and this turgid bit of Quinn Martin glamor.
Shot in Hawaii(although you wouldn't know it from the outside shots), it's apparently a failed pilot for a lame spy show. The real problem is that you don;'t like most of the characters, including the drab main character Diamond Head, who seemed half asleep for the entire movie; his boss 'Aunt Mary', who had a really weird delivery of his lines and shellacked white hair as well as the a tan that looked like it had been stuccoed on; Diamnd Head's girlfriend/fellow agent(hell, I can't even remember her name) a skinny, wooden woman with a flat way of speaking that is just not sexy or interesting; and the singing sidekick Zulu(again, i can't remember his character's name)who wasn't bad in small doses. The most interesting person in the whole production was Ian McShane, who sucked as a bad guy but still proved his acting chops. Alothugh the make-up jobs this so-called 'chameleon' used to disguise himself were just laughable. I have absolutely no idea what he was doing or what he was trying to steal from the lab that caused him to dress as a South American Dictator cum American General. Nor do I care. The plot simply wasn't interesting enough to hold your attention for even ten minutes at a time, let alone the hour and a half or so it goes on. Just call this one - Hawaii Five No!


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


user
Think of this pilot as "Hawaii Five-O Lite". It's set in Hawaii, it's an action/adventure crime drama, lots of scenes feature boats and palm trees and polyester fabrics and garish shirts...it even stars the character actor "Zulu" in a supporting role. Oh, there are some minor differences - Roy Thinnes is supposed to be some front-line undercover agent, and the supporting cast is much smaller (and less interesting), but basically the atmosphere is still the same. Problem is, "Hawaii Five-O" (another QM product) already existed at the time and had run for years. It filled the market demand for Hawaii-based crime dramas quite adequately. Code Name: Diamond Head may have been intended as the hier to H50 as the older series eventually dwindled away...but it comes across as a superfluous, 2nd rate copy. It doesn't suck, but it's completely derivative and doesn't do anything as well as the original.
There is some decent acting talent involved here. Thinnes is an old pro, and he gives the role his best shot, and he isn't bad. But Thinnes is only as good as his material and his director. Ian McShane is in here as an evil spy master named "Tree", and McShane tends to be the most interesting actor in any scene he appears in. But he's phoning his part in here. Frances Ngyuen is reasonably exotic looking, but her astounding skinniness, opaque features, thick accent and wooden delivery aren't the stuff of which dreams are made. Relying on her to supply the 'romantic interest' for Thinnes was probably the series' biggest mistake. At least for for a series aimed at white audiences brought up with Marsha Brady and Peggy Lee as our love goddesses. Give her another 30 lbs and a year with a dialog/voice coach, and she might cut it. Zulu is, well, his usual self - enjoyable in bit parts, but he isn't a person who can carry a feature by himself.
In addition, the plot and dialog are strictly by-the-numbers, with nothing to distinguish them from any other Quinn Martin production. And by this point, the American TV audience had seen a whoooole lot of QM productions....I think "CN: DH" was one too many, and it sank without a trace. It wasn't the really the actors' fault, and I hope they walked away from this with a decent paycheck and one more entry on their C.V.s.
MST3000 revived this for their treatment in their sixth season, and they had a lot of good natured fun with it. Worth seeking out in that version if you enjoy the MST approach to movie japery and lampoon, but I can't imagine anyone caring about this pilot for any other reason.


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


user
This series would have been a lot better if they had just done one simple thing: Made Ian McShane Code Name: Diamond Head instead of Code Name: Tree. Diamond Head the character needs someone who could handle the role of the lovable rogue, which McShane proved he could do with the Lovejoy series. Roy Thinnes, the actual Diamond Head, is really only so-so in the role. McShane is not really that good as the bad guy Tree. France Nuyen's character, Tso-Tsing, can't seem to make up her mind as to whether she's the hapless victim or the tough-and-ready-to-fight woman. She really earned her pay at the end when she had to play the role of Diamond Head's lover. After viewing an episode or two, I ended up not caring what happened to anyone. Tree gives us a lot to hate him, but Diamond Head gives us nothing to like him. Unfortunately, the spy genre in the 1970s was not quite as it was in the 1960's.


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


user
TV pilots, don't you love them? Quinn Martin tried this one out after being successful in a bunch of other TV detective movies, but this one goes nowhere except in the realm of MST where it belongs. Roy Thinnes is Diamond Head who takes orders from Aunt Mary to find super spy Lovejoy, I mean Tree. Zulu and Tso-Tsing are there for ethnic comic relief and not much else. Tree sucks as a bad guy despite all his disguises that makes him look exactly the same as he normally does. There's more unnatural clothing fiber here than you can ever imagine (required in the 1970's)and the show itself is so anti-climatic. Why did it not go to series? You figure it out, it's quite blatant. Again it's fun for MST, but not a lot else!!


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


user
I'm not going to approach and critique the theories of RAW. I mean, this is a site about movies and whether the movie delivers or is well-made, and not a site debating philosophy.
Having said that, this video really blows. It's one talking-head shot of RAW after another. Some of it is archival video, so you can see how he has aged over the years, and that's pretty cool. But, otherwise, the viewing experience is relentlessly monotonous.
It's a strange comparison, but I kept thinking of the Sunday afternoon when I watched some of the Barbra Streisand star vehicle *Funny Lady* (another really bad movie). After a while, I was so OD'd on Barbra, I kept wishing there would be one scene that she wouldn't appear in: you know, a "meanwhile, other characters in the movie were up to something else..." moment. But it was all about Barbra. Well this video is RAW's *Funny Lady*.
So, if your idea of a good time is to look at multiple takes and angles of the face of RAW while he prattles on with his theories, assembled in a lame structure that doesn't add any interest or insight, then be my guest. For me, I couldn't take it after 20 minutes.


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


user
RKS films always have been commercial films which suited the 90's, from GHAYAL, DAMINI
His last few films KHAKEE were watchable FAMILY was crap
This film is a decent film but could be better
The problem lies in there is lot of old fashioned clichés thrown in and many scenes come out too filmy and lengthy
Ajay Devgan's character is shown very well but his character gets heroic which could be subtle
The lengthy flashback could be avoided as thigns are simply long drawn
Even the street play in the second half look too simplistic and hardly a solution though the message is well brought out
Direction by RKS is decent, though it could be better Music is okay
Ajay Devgan looks the part very well and is at ease playing his part mostly though at times he does look ill at ease in light scenes He excels in dramatics Vidya excels in the scene front of media Pankaj has a not proper defined role and too filmy yet he excels in his part Darshan Jariwala hams as the old age villain the rest are okay


assistant
0