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 of the previous reviewers wrote that there appeared to be no middle ground for opinions of Love Story; one loved it or hated it. But there seems to be a remarkable distribution of opinions throughout the scale of 1 to 10. For me, this movie rated a 4. There are some beautiful scenes and locations, and Ray Milland turns in a fabulous job as Oliver's father. But the movie did not do a particularly compelling job of telling its story, and the story was not so unique as to warrant multiple viewings, at least, not for me. I may be a bit of a snob, but I tend to avoid movies with Ryan O'Neal -- I still haven't seen Barry Lyndon -- because most of them, but not all, are ruined for me by his presence. The lone exception is What's Up, Doc?, in which his straight performance is the perfect underlining for Barbra Streisand's goofball protagonist -- and, not coincidentally, he takes a shot at Love Story for good measure! McGraw and O'Neal tend to mug their lines, rather than act them.
This movie is notable for the beginning of one fine career: it was Tommy Lee Jones's first movie.


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


user
I love a good sappy love story (and I'm a guy) but when I rented "Love Story" I prayed for the end to come as quickly and painlessly as possible and just the opposite for Ali McGraw's character.
Ali McGraw as Jenny alienated and irritated the heck out of me within the first 15 minutes. When we learn that she has been diagnosed with a life threatening illness I couldn't help but wonder if her death would be such a terrible loss for poor Oliver or if anyone watching this film would even care. If she didn't die her grating personality would probably have pushed Oliver over the edge and eventually landed them in divorce court.
People love this movie but it's one of the worst of the 70's.


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


user
Another wonderful Patterson book made into an incredibly awful movie. If the big budget movies don't work then why make a low budget made for t.v. movie that's 10 times worse! I am desperate for a good movie that will do ONE of his books justice!


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


user
Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.
Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.
Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.


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


user
First To Die 2003
I'll admit my mistake first: I didn't realize this was a made for TV movie. I was "thrown off" by the "R" certification. The plot is strong, but the movie is about 40 minutes too long. The direction and continuity were excellent. For the most part the cast was exceptional and did a good job with their characters. The down side of the movie is that it definitely falls into the "chick flick" genre. Although there are some violent scenes, none of the violence should call for an "R" rating. There is no nudity or gratuitous sex scenes. Actually, there are no sex scenes. Ona Grauer (who is absolutely beautiful), Kristina Copeland, Sonya Salomaa, and Glynis Davies were all guests on the SG-1 series, but this movie did nothing to advance their careers since they were all used as low level supporting actresses. Robert Patrick was fantastic, as he usually is and Mitch Pileggi made me think of a modern day Lee Marvin. The very talented Megan Gallagher who I came to respect as an actor during the Millennium series, was given nothing challenging to show her range of abilities. The greatest disappointment with regard to the cast was Tracy Pollan. Aside from being a below average actress and not particularly attractive, her voice is absolutely annoying. I found myself muting the TV during her dialogue. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys the Lifetime TV type of programs. I would not recommend paying any money to see this movie however. Considering I found nothing that would cause censorship, this is a movie that is worthy for only watching on TV, since nothing will be cut out. As a TV movie I would rate this as a 5 out 10. As a feature film with an "R" certification and such as strong cast, I rate it as a 2 out of ten.


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


user
The word "1st" in the title has more ominous meaning for the viewers of this film than for its crime victims. At least they don't have to stick around and watch this interminable film reach its own demise.
1st should refer to: 1st draft of a script; 1st takes used in each performance in the final film; 1st edit in post production; etcetera, etcetera.
The movie is not cast too badly, it's just that everything about the film come off as worse than third rate, from the goofy script, to the wooden performances. And while suffering through this cobbled together film, by the 2 hour mark you want to be put out of your misery. At 160 minutes long it is readily apparent that it should have been edited to under 2 hours.
Going into details concerning the lame script and acting serves little purposes. Even in the equally awful, Lake Placid, at least the performances Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda constructed out of an extremely weak script, were nuanced enough to make you laugh at the movie. In 1st to Die, one ends up grieving only for the time lost in waiting to see what happens after the opening scene of the preparation of the female lead's suicide.
The editing is so bad one is never introduced to one of the main characters, who I think (were never quite told) is a D.A. She just appears in one scene in the middle of a conversation. Obviously the scene where she is introduced to the viewer was dropped on the editor's floor. And no one realized that a character appearing out of nowhere was an unusual film ploy.
In a word, don't waste your time with this one. My wife and I wish we didn't. But at least we created our own diversions by commenting in various places in the film like it was Mystery Science Theater. "Meanwhile, in Cleveland . . . ." !!!!


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


user
That's right, you heard me. I am a huge fan of James Patterson. I own 10 of his books, and I have read the entire series about Lindsey Boxer. In my opinion, the screenwriter should be shot.
What right did any film maker have to slaughter a terrific work of fiction and make it into a mockery of the mystery genre? If I ever thought that Harry Potter was butchered, then Michael O'Hara has proved me wrong.
I can only pray that the next screenwriter who tackles this fabulous book will do it a great deal more justice. To Michael O'Hara and Russell Mulcahy: don't quit your day job.


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 supposed to be taking place in and around Seattle. The, why is Porteau Cove P-R-O-V-I-N-C-I-A-L Park shown? Provincial parks are in CANADA, and not the United States. The Inspector uses a Palm Pilot complete with stylus to 'read' that someone has hacked into the computer of the bridal shop. I did not know that this was possible using a database storage device. A woman appears in the movie without any introduction and is never introduced. We learn half-way into the movie that this woman works in the District Attorney's office. Then, in the correctional center a guard actually PRECEDES Jenks through a door and keeps his back to the offender!! This would NEVER happen in a real correctional setting. The director really messed on this one -- this doesn't happen in real life. The acting is adequate. The Plot is good. The Cinematography is good. However, the many errors found in the continuity lead to a 3 out of 10 vote.


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


user
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!
I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.
This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.
There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.
The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.
I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.


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


user
Well I don't know where to begin. Obviously this was a made for TV movie, so my expectations were low. I was pleasantly surprised by the overall direction of the second hour, but anything before or after that seemed to be a paint by the numbers sort of movie.
And talk about bad chemistry between the tow lovebird detectives. ..
I would go more in depth, but this movie doesn't really deserve it. Grade: D+ (IMDB rating 3/10)


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


user
I am usually disappointed by network movies. Even flix that attract big name actors are usually ruined by the TV people. However, this one is the worst of the worst. The screenplay is weak and the acting, especially that of Tracey Pollan is abominable. I've trudged off to see my kids'high school plays and been treated to better acting. Pollan acts as if she is reading the script as she speaks. When she tries to express fear, anger or grief, it's extremely hollow. Because of the overall quality of the production I found it difficult to take it seriously. If you decide to brave this one just be prepared for a big disappointment. Scary things won't scare you, sad things won't make you sad, romance won't make you feel warm and fuzzy and you will likely be as anxious as I was to see the end arrive. "First to die" says a lot about this movie.


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


user
Teamo Supremo are three kids, consisting of their leader- Captain Crandall, Rope Girl and Skate Lad, all with their own battlecry (buza! chika! woopa!) and outfit and moves. They work for the governor, Kevin, and were recruited after wishing to be heroes and playing at that game. They lead normal lives as well, and have family and school duties, but most of the action takes place away from school fighting villains. The villains all have rather unique and singular traits, such as Mister Vague and his men who never seem to know what their plans are but act anyway. From an evil robot to a wicked baron the three have to encounter them and stop their evil, and often strange, plans to gain power, take revenge etc.
The animation itself is quite nice and smooth, but the style appears to be simple on purpose. The backgrounds have overlapping colour and the buildings seem futuristic. The music is quite nice, and the show isn't too bad altogether, although the style isn't my favourite.
The plots are almost always nonsensical and ridiculous, but after all this is a cartoon and one can't blame them for that. However this would not be in the same rank as Fillmore! or Pepper Ann.


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 never a big fan of Taiwan movie production as opposed to Korean, Hongkong or even China. Strong acting quality is hardly found in them as clearly shown in this film. I don't consider myself as hard-to-please audience as I am, in fact, a fan of indie movies. However this movie shows weak plot and slow pace. I found myself lost in the middle as to where the plot is going. The acting certainly does not make it better. Rainie's acting is sub par as she 'over-act', trying to be perky and cute. Although I have to admit she is a pleasure to look at. Isabella Leong on the other hand plays a more suitable role as a confused, sad, regretful, extremely reserved character. Overall I find this movie is a disappointment.


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


user
SEX WISH was actually released (minus ten minutes of more, ahem, 'extreme' footage) here in the UK back in the early days of the video boom, and caused a tabloid storm in a teacup when it allegedly inspired a copycat murder case. Strangely enough, the papers brushed this ultra-disturbing flick under the carpet in their headlong rush to get the comparatively innocuous likes of FROZEN SCREAM and NIGHT OF THE DEMON canned, and the film has been all but forgotten as a result. I jumped at the chance to watch it on a DVD-RW and spent most of the film's duration with my jaw on the floor. It's not so much politically incorrect as utterly demented, a triple-X take on Michael Winner's DEATH WISH (did the title kind of give the game away as far as inspiration was concerned?) with hardcore sex and some truly nasty violence thrown into an already bubbling brew of seventies sleaze. If you don't consider yourself to be squeamish, this may force you to think again. By the time SEX WISH is over, you'll want to scrub your eyeballs clean with disinfectant and take a long hot shower to purge yourself. If any film truly deserves the "it's only a movie, only a movie, only a movie" tag-line, it's this one.
Highlights (or lowlights) - a rapist using a vibrator on a victim as he masturbates over her, Harry Reems's scene-stealing moustache, the helpless young black couple who are forced to screw in front the sword cane killer (they'd have won Oscars for their entirely credible performances if the Academy had gone mad) before the man is castrated for his troubles, and some jarringly slick direction that threatens to lift the proceedings above their obvious grind-house origins. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you thought the world was a more innocent place thirty years ago, SEX WISH will prove you very, very wrong.


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


user
After Harry Reems' teenage girlfriend is raped by Zebbedy Colt (The Night-Walker), Reems becomes despondent and consoles himself by having sex with some lesbians. Meanwhile, Colt, who carries a cane and dresses like a magician, rapes some more women. Eventually, Reems decides to track him down and end his crime spree. Despite being shot on film and marginally nasty, it looks like any other 70's porno and is ineptly executed. The rape/abuse scenes are surprisingly restrained and the attempt to cash in on "Death Wish" is laughable. R. Bolla ("Cannibal Holocaust") plays a cop. Colt, who is usually over-the-top, wigs out in a couple of scenes, but he's too well behaved for my money. This roughie could have been much rougher.


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


user
The Wayward Cloud is a frustrating film to watch. Infuriatingly enigmatic, it treats each shot like a work of art. You get the impression that the composition of each shot has been designed and prepared with a degree of exquisite care that borders on obsession; Expressing how far cinema has progressed since the very first films were cranked out in the nineteenth century and mimicking their construction, the camera here hardly ever moves  apart from during the camp and colourful musical numbers. Ambient noise is kept to a minimum and barely a word is spoken. This curious but effective device forces the audience to focus their attention on visual stimuli alone so that, even as the story progresses at a snail-like pace we feel ourselves becoming immersed. Unfortunately, for me at least, this immersion begins to unravel somewhere around the hour mark. I began to feel as if the film was challenging me to keep watching while becoming more difficult as the minutes dragged so that the mere act of watching became a battle of wills.
Had the content of this film not been as sexual as it is it would no doubt been even more obscure to Western audiences. As it is, there's an abundance of female nudity and an act of sexual abuse on an unconscious (or possibly dead) woman that is so repugnant that, while it may speak volumes about the degradation to which pornography subjects both men and women (the users and the used) it is so over-zealous in the manner in which it chooses to make its point as to effectively render it ineffective. Of course the worst and most enthusiastic participants of the explosion in available pornographic content will seek this film out for all the wrong reasons and watch it with their sticky finger on the fast-forward button of the remote.
For all its problems, the film is definitely a stayer, and the more you think about it the more sense certain aspects of it seem to make. Ironically, for a film in which so little happens, the viewer would probably be proportionately rewarded by watching a second or even third time. For me, however, once was enough


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 comes as the ultimate disappointment in Tsai Ming-Liang for me. It oozes laziness from its every frame. So I'm not going to analyse it thoroughly either. But some observations:
1. If the premise is drought, why we get to see city landscapes with blooming green trees? I wonder if that was supposed to mean something in the metaphorical context of the film (in which thirst notifies the craving for intimacy, and watermelon the trivial substitute, sex). Or it is only a matter of lousy film-making, not giving a damn about being coherent.
2. We don't get to know what had happened to the porn actress, why she is unconscious or, presumably, dead. It seems a question of no importance as long as the message of supreme alienation is successfully (=bombastically) delivered, but in retrospect, her inert body proves to be a cheap dramaturgical gimmick, a pretext  just as gratuitous and exploitative as the activity it is employed in.
3. Nothing is expressed in this movie that Antonioni hadn't expressed better 40 years ago  and without needlessly humiliating his actors.
4. The musical numbers (recycled from 'The Hole') felt like a secondary-schooler's idea of artistic counterpointing, executed on that very secondary-school level of skill. If that was the point, the point sucked.


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


user
I'll start with what I liked.
I really liked the songs, everything about them was great, the costumes, music, lyrics (as long as the translation was good :) ), choreography, everything.
I loved the crab scene and the cooking scene.
But that's about it.
I get it, arty cinema, blablabla, but too much is too much. Too much silence (it was interesting for an hour, but two hours of hearing steps and moaning from time to time, really...), too much boredom (no movie should ever be boring, no matter how deep it was to be!), too much porn-like scenes (I do get it really, I get that they were filming a porn movie there, but really, REALLY, really that is too much) I truly think, that cinema should be for watching and this one is definitely not watchable in no way.
3 stars for the songs.


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


user
the acting itself wasn't even that bad, since it did't come to mind in the movie but whatever had this director in mind? the intended climb towards some climax completely missed the mark,..
almost all scenes involve acting that stand so far from our own intentions and way of reacting on things that you don't really attach to any actor in the movie,..
Empty silences,..In this case, see through cheap method of boasting your way into potential metaphorical brilliance,..which just wasn't here at all,..
I guess I'm bitching but shit,..2 hours of my time,..


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


user
Redundant, everlasting shots, useless shots, useless scenes are what you will find in this film. In other words, it seemed technically poor to me. The musical bits are amateurishly directed (no synchronization in the would-be dancing, badly post-synchronized, bad and obvious improvisation of the actors from time to time, etc).
The film is long and boring. Eventually, it makes few point and even less sense.
There are some good ideas though. Some of the comic elements are actually efficient, especially the opening scene. However, the film gets worse and worse so that it is completely unbearable and impossible to understand by the end.
The trailer I saw was very dynamic, that is not true for the film. That is to say the discrepancy between the trailer and the actual film is something very close to a rip off.


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


user
The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.


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


user
they have sex with melons in Asia.
okay. first, i doubted that, but after seeing the wayward cloud, i changed my mind and was finally convinced that they have sex with watermelons, with people dead or alive. no safe sex of course. the (terrifyingly ugly) leading man shoots it all into the lady's mouth after he did the dead lady. never heard of HIV? guess not.
the rest of this movie is mainly boring, but also incredibly revolting. as a matter of fact, in parts it got so disgusting i couldn't take my virgin eyes off. sex with dead people! how gross is that? and what's the message behind it all? we need water, we need melons, we need to be dead to have sex? sorry, but this stinks!


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


user
I want to clarify a few things. I am not familiar with Ming-liang Tsai movies, and I am very familiar with art cinema; I grow up in the seventies times of Goddard, Fellini, Bergman, Bertolucci and many others.
Art movies then were really ART; like paints. People did it to express their inner feelings, not really worried about if other people understand anything. They were beyond commercial values; just look some old Antonioni (or early Picasso) and you will understand.
Tian bian yi duo yun (The Wayward Cloud) has nothing to do with that. It is an opportunistic movie, intended to fool festival judges and critics, playing many things without saying anything.
The story makes no sense. The lack of water makes the government to promote the use of watermelons to hydrate. A girl in desperation, steal water from the public bathrooms WC. There is also a porno start (neighbor) trying to make a movie with an actress he does not seems to feel comfortable with. There is some romantic awakening between the girl and the porno star. The mess ends with a sexual scene (not pornographic) that many people feel shocked about, but I believe it is less provocative than you can see in American Pie or History of Violence.
The two main characters never talk. Sometimes, a musical number 60 style appears and explains (through a song) what is happening in characters minds. These video clips, are really welcomed because the previous scene, without dialog or music only people looking at each other, takes sometimes 4, 5 or even more minutes which in movie times is TOO MUCH.
There is also a few bits about "the difficult to make sex without love", the "selfish mind of the porno industry".
It is obvious, this movie intended (get away with it) to fool festival juries and critics. It have a few pseudo-shocking scenes (within the limits of Taiwan censorship) and many subjects are open, but nothing is concluded or goes anywhere.
These tricks, got the movie a few (disputed) important prices in film festivals and get the movie an undeserved commercial success (I see the movie in France and the theater was packed).
However, please, do not be fooled. There is nothing new or original or even originally told or filmed in this movie. It is boring and empty; really a fraud to public. Boogie Nights (which I did not really liked), Intimacy and 9 Songs are far better movies.


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


user
A movie about Vixen (Erica Gavin) who has a Mountie husband who she loves...but she loves sex too! In the course of the movie she gets multiple men in bed--including her husband AND brother! Also there's a (tame) lesbian sequence.
This film put Russ Meyer on the map and was (I believe) the first critically acclaimed X rated film ever. It was a big hit when it came out. Unfortunately, it doesn't date well.
It is well-directed and Erica Gavin is just great (whatever happened to her), and it was VERY colorful...but by today's standards it's extremely tame. I'm surprised it has an NC-17 rating now--there's no hardcore sex and it only has topless females and no male nudity at all. Also it's (sadly) pretty dull and the addition of politics at the end was confusing (and pretty silly). It is worth catching though to see what was considered very shocking in 1968. Purportedly I saw the cut version (which has an R rating) but I've heard only a few seconds here and there are missing.
Meyer's next film "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" is much better and dates VERY well. Catch that instead.


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


user
The line is funnier in England, where, away from Vixen!'s native America, the word "fanny" has a whole new meaning. Sadly, it's the only laugh you'll get in this terrible sex comedy that is neither sexy nor funny.
Oddly unalluring with painted-on eyebrows, Erica Gavin (Acting ability: zero) is a nymphomaniac who lusts after her own brother, but rejects his black friend while making derogatory remarks about watermelons. As if in revenge, he asks her if she would go with a Shetland pony. Reference is also made to "making it with monkeys". Gavin's ability to shake and tremble with orgasmic pleasure at the slightest touch is matched only in it's lack of appeal by her seduction dance  which involves a bonfire and a haddock. Personally, I preferred the haddock.
For '68 this was pretty tame stuff, and belies the controversy it attracted at the time. A character claims to be "getting stoned", though it's only on bourbon, and for one of the original "X" certificates, there's no full frontal nudity. Just six years later we would be getting Timmy Lea and his Confessions, but here we have to make do with topless shots. Only Gavin's final seduction of her own brother really shocks. Another activity for Vixen is where she helps settle the sexual problems between a married couple by sleeping with them both. The two women clearly aren't enjoying acting out their scene together, and make a poor effort to disguise it. After Vixen irons out their disharmony, the romantic husband concludes of his wife "I guess she's got it coming to her!"
The only near-worthwhile segment involves an unusual discussion of Cuban Communism. It seems out of place with the rest of the film, though is spliced with shots of Gavin's breasts to rope it in to continuity. This then leads into a vague anti-Vietnam stance, which is commendable, though dropped in the middle of such a frivolous film it seems trite and insensitive, not to say downright tasteless. Incidentally, the part of would-be Communist Niles Brooke is taken by Harrison Page, the same Harrison Page who played Captain Trunk in amusing comedy Sledge Hammer! Page must be embarrassed by his back catalogue (Which also includes Meyer's Beyond The Valley of the Dolls), though Meyer apologists would have you believe the terrible dialogue, lousy acting, sloppy direction and dire editing are not just part of the charm, but wholly intentional. As a defence, it fails to hold water.
The irritating incidental music  a cross between the tunes they play in cinema restaurant ads and muzak used by TV stations when the transmission breaks down  is omnipresent and intrusive; while even the silly, amateurishly skewed camera angles can't generate interest. A wonderful world of jazz saxophones, where women have been "asking for it", black men  or "shines"  aren't good enough for anyone, and rape is an acceptable form of revenge. Absolutely abysmal.


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


user
Nick Millard aka Nick Phillips should have left well-enough alone when he made "Criminally Insane" 10 years before the release of this god-awful waste of time and effort. The fact that the original "Criminally Insane" was less than an hour in length should have clued him into the fact that he had probably milked this storyline for all he was going to get out of it...but instead he opts to use TONS of footage from the original in this one as well, even to the point of recycling the original opening credit sequence! Unfortunately, bringing back the rapidly aging Priscilla Alden did not save this one. What little bit of original footage there was in this flick looks as if it were filmed with a rented hand-held camcorder! If this film cost more than $100 to make I would be very surprised and I would be equally surprised if it made anything close to that amount! Avoid this one and watch the original instead!


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


user
The first movie is pretty good. This one is pretty bad.
Recycles a lot of footage (including the opening credits and end title) from Criminally Insane. The new footage, shot on video, really sticks out as poorly done. Scenes lack proper lighting, the sound is sometimes nearly inaudible, there's even video glitches like the picture rolling and so on.
Like all bad sequels, it basically just repeats the story of the first one. Ethel kills everybody who shares her living space, often for reasons having to do with them getting in the way of food she wants.
At least it is only an extra on the DVD for the first one, which also includes the same director's film Satan's Black Wedding. Too bad it doesn't include the Death Nurse movies though.


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


user
Due to budget cuts, Ethel Janowski (again played by Priscilla Alden) is released from a mental institution (even though she killed six people) and delivered to the Hope Bartholomew halfway house. Once there, she immediately relapses into her criminally insane ways and kills anyone who gets between her and her food.
HOLY MOLY! Does this movie suck! You know you are in trouble when the open credits start up and they are just the credits from the first film, apparently filmed off a TV screen. Nick Millard (under his pseudonym Nick Phillips) decided to return to the world of Crazy Fat Ethel over ten years later and with a budget that probably covered the cost of a blank tape and a video camera rental for the weekend. Let's just say that Millard's unique style doesn't translate well to video. Seriously, I have made home movies with more production value than this. And Millard tries to pull a SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 2 by padding half the running time with footage from the first film (which looks like it was taken off a worn VHS copy). Alden is again good as Ethel but the film is so inept that you start to feel sorry for her for starring in this garbage. I mean, at least the first film tried. Here we have no music, weaker effects (if that is at all possible), shaky camera work, horrible audio and editing that looks like it was done with two VCRs hooked up. Avoid this at all costs!


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


user
I should have listened. I was warned, and still, I paid money for this, after reading all the reviews, after knowing the original is "so bad it's good", and that part 2 does not fit into that category at all, still, even then, I couldn't resist. Exactly what happened here? Part one was Hilarious, it had so much politically incorrectness, and other Crazy, Fat Entertainment, and this one, there just couldn't possibly be a worse sequel on God's green earth, not Basket Case 2, hell, not even Troll 2. This is truly the worst sequel in history and that's really saying something considering the groundbreaking, bottom of the barrel qualities of the original. Criminally Insane part 2 was just a completely different brand of bad. Shot on Video, zero score, zero entertainment value, 1/3 consists of flashbacks of the original, and on top of all that, crazy, fat Ethel has lost a portion of her girth. I mean, honestly, is this some kind of sick joke?!? Thank's a lot, Nick Milliard. 1/1


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


user
Criminally Insane 2 is included on the new DVD of Satan's Black Wedding/Criminally Insane, and it's a good thing too, because when I've seen a movie and know there's a sequel (especially something that's as obscure as this) I'm always curious. I've now had my curiosity satisfied and will never watch this again. Most of CI2 is nothing but "flashbacks" to CI, and footage of Ethel asleep, recalling fond memories, I guess. Thanks to Proposition 13 she's released from Napa State (wonder if she got to see The Cramps play while she was there?) and sent to a halfway house run by a nice old lady that Ethel promptly takes to calling "granny". This is all filmed with a video camera so the picture and sound are rather pathetic, and it's even complete with a couple of "rolls". Of course Ethel does her thing, which is to dispatch anyone between her and food, especially the guy that witnesses one of her acts of mayhem and extorts her dessert. Also, you have to wonder about any halfway house for murderers having a big drawer full of sharp knives in the kitchen and rat poison under the kitchen sink. Guess that's all a matter of misguided "trust". If you liked or disliked Criminally Insane, either way there's no good reason to watch this except out of curiosity. One wonders why the makers of this even bothered. 2 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
During the cheap filmed in video beginning of Crazy Fat Ethel II, I wondered if it was the same film that was on the cover. Unfortunately, it was. The story itself is mindlessly simple. Ethel, a homicidal maniac with an eating disorder, is released into a halfway house because of hospital overcrowding. She is by far the most sane resident watching while one man puts dead flies into another's soup. Ethel is then teased by one of the halfway house employees with a chocolate bar after he hits on the cost cutting measure of feeding the residents dog food. Ethel retaliates by strangling him with a wire noose on the stairs and then....well, you get the idea. If this all sounds like fun, it isn't. This film was poorly made with cheap effects and even worse acting. The characters are so wooden when delivering their lines that they should be standing out in front of a cigar store. To make matters worse, half of the film consists of flashbacks to the first Ethel movie, Criminally Insane, which is little better. A VERY poor effort.


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


user
There are some bad movies out there. Most of them are rather fun. "Criminally Insane 1" was one of those flicks. So bad that it was enjoyable and had re-watch value to it. "Criminally Insane 2" has to be one of the worst movies ever made and coming from me, that's saying a lot because I am not the type of person to say anything is the worst. But trust me, this was just completely awful and running just 1 hour is 1 hour too long.
The movie has a rather incoherent storyline, but who cares about story when all you want to see is a big fat woman running around killing people because she isn't being fed. Well, you don't see that in this movie, except for all of the flashback sequences that are from the first one. The new storyline could have been really funny with Ethel being sent to a halfway house and murdering everyone in there, but nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the movie and at that point you are already falling asleep.
The camera work in this movie is just atrocious. This literally reminds me of something I shot with friends of mine back when I was 15. The sound quality is something else as you can't understand a word most of the characters are saying. To give an example of how bad it is, go into a New York Subway and try to understand what is being said over the loud speakers, that is what this movie sounds like. Not that it matters what they are talking about anyway because the actors are about as dry as a dead piece of wood.
Now I know that saying this is the worst movie out there is pretty harsh but words can't describe just how bad this movie is. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself. 1/10


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


user
This is the most boring worthless piece of crap I've ever wasted an hour of my life on. All I can say is thank God it was only an hour. Over half of this 'movie' is footage from the original "Criminally Insane". At the very least, I was able to see the highlights from that rare exploitation classic, since for some reality-defying reason my video store only has "Criminally Insane II" (as it had it, "Crazy Fat Ethel II"). But the rest of this movie is some of the absolute worst home-video acting and backyard filmmaking you'll ever see. Why is it my video store has this and not the original? Why does stuff like this actually end up in video stores? Why do people rent it and not immediately burn the copy once they've seen its sheer horror? Why - AAUUGGHH - Why, God, why?
Unless you enjoy seeing annoying fruits eating an entire candy bar in an excruciatingly slow scene, or said fruit getting hung from the stair railing in an even slower scene, or a character getting stabbed sideways (don't ask) multiple times in the back, or brain cell-murdering monologues about giving poisoned tea to one's wife and then complaining that all the talk has made one's own tea go cold, or the mentally-retarded eating fly soup, or just simply want to see Crazy Fat Ethel dancing with a bloody knife in a garden: Don't watch this movie. Repeat: Do NOT watch this movie. Do not rent this movie. If at all possible, do not walk past a shelf in a video store that has a copy of this movie setting on it. You can still be saved, but it is too late for me now. . .


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


user
After "Central City" loses its mob boss to murder, partner-in-crime Robert Armstrong (as "Doc" Rogers) decides to take drastic measures To preserve criminal continuity, he recruits the dead mobster's milquetoast son, Richard Cromwell (as Edward "Baby Face" Morgan), to run the family business. The naive Mr. Cromwell is taken to the city, and installed as President of his father's "Acme Protection Agency", a front for gangsters. While Cromwell sells innocently sells insurance, his "employees" run an extortion racket. Cromwell falls for pretty client Mary Carlisle (as Virginia Clark); and, the duo find themselves in great danger "Baby Face Morgan" catches star Cromwell and Ms. Carlisle nearing the end of their once "promising" film careers. It's a quick, light, and inoffensive little crime drama.
**** Baby Face Morgan (1942) Arthur Dreifuss ~ Richard Cromwell, Mary Carlisle, Robert Armstrong


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


user
Is there anything worse than a comedy film that lacks humor? The answer is Yes; one that fails to generate any interest throughout the picture. The premise is not too bad - a naive front man for an illegal business - but this is a potboiler with a poor script and screenplay and just does not work.
Was this considered a good 'B' in 1942? Hard to imagine. The only positive aspect of the picture is the cast, which contains several well-known faces from the '30's and '40's, such as Warren Hymer, Vince Barnett and Robert Armstrong (I always dismiss Richard Cromwell as the weakling who got Gary Cooper killed in "Lives of a Bengal Lancer", so I wasn't counting him).
Can't recommend this one and gave it a rating of 3 - if you have a choice, get a root canal.


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


user
If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother.


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


user
Frank Capra's creativity must have been just about spent by the time he made this film. While it has a few charming moments, and many wonderful performers, Capra's outright recycling of not just the script but considerable footage from his first version of this story, Broadway Bill (1934), is downright shoddy. It is understandable that he would re-use footage from the climactic horse race, which is thrilling. But he uses entire dialogue scenes with minor actors, then brings back those actors and apparently expects us not to notice, for example, that Ward Bond is 14 years older! Unless you want to see one of the last appearances of Oliver Hardy, skip this one and watch Broadway Bill instead.


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


user
...when he remade Broadway BILL (1934) as RIDING HIGH (1950). Recasting Bing Crosby as DAN BROOKS did not help a screenplay that was 'dated' in 34 let alone 50. This sad film has entire scenes lifted from the original with many of the supporting cast repeating their roles, unless they were dead. Though being older did not seem to matter to the Director. Nor that the Cars and Clothes in the background plates from 1934 did not seem match up too 1950s' standards. Not even 'der Bingel' singing can redeem this effort.
We rated both the original and the remake IMDb Four****Stars. Frank's touch was long gone and all that was left was CAPRA-CORN. That did not stop Mr. Capra though. After floundering around the 50's making some educational documentaries he wound up his career remaking LADY FOR A DAY (1933) as POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961). Again a fine cast was let down on that IMDb Six******Star effort compared too the originals Eight********Stars. Sometimes it is better to quit while you were still ahead, right after STATE OF THE UNION (1948).


assistant
0