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
You just got to love opening sequences like the one in "Seven Women for Satan"  During the intro there's a naked girl running through the woods, chased by a hunting dog and a malignant looking dude on a horse, until she falls off a cliff and splits her head open on a rock. Then the camera zooms out on the face of the guy and we notice how he's simply sitting behind a desk whilst his secretary waiting for him to sign some papers. "Oh I'm sorry, I was lost in my thoughts" he then says! Sweet, I have stumbled upon yet another completely bonkers movie. Even if you only understand a minimum of French and have a look at the original title, you immediately know that "Seven Women for Satan" hasn't got anything to do with Satan or ritual sacrifices, but simply revolves on the flamboyant escapades of a perverted and mentally unstable count during his weekend in the countryside. This is, in fact, another sleazy variation on the classic milestone "The Most Dangerous Game" about a lunatic's disturbing hobby of hunting people  preferably hot naked chicks - in the forest for sports. Well actually, this is more than just a variation on the 1932 classic, as writer/director/actor Michel Lemoine had the pretension to directly link his protagonist to Leslie Banks' legendary villain in "The Most Dangerous Game". Count Zaroff supposedly is the original Count Zaroff's son but he exchanged his private island for the remote French countryside. He also can't afford to be unemployed anymore, so he's an office clerk from Monday to Friday and a maniacal killer during the weekend. Zaroff is a genuine weirdo who hallucinates about dancing with deceased woman but actually runs his car over the live ones. His butler once pledged to prevent the Zaroffs from killing, but he's obviously doing a lousy job. There isn't any depth in the screenplay and the build-up certainly doesn't pay attention to suspense or sinister atmosphere. Really, the only useful thing to do during this film is count the girls that are lured for Zaroff's deceptive trap and hope they'll reach seven rapidly. Half of the film is pointless and tedious padding footage, like the overlong erotic dance act in which a statue inexplicably transforms into a muscular black guy (???), and the other half exists of psychedelic sleaze that eventually grows tiresome as well even though all the girls look ravishing. I have the impression that it was Michel Lemoine's intention to imitate his pal Jean Rollin and make a deliriously kinky sex-thriller. "Seven Women for Satan" is a French production, so inevitably it also stars Jess Franco regular Howard Vernon ("The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Zombie Lake"). Lemoine himself surely has the looks of a crazy killer, but not the talent to depict one.


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


user
Summer Holiday is the forgotten musical version of Eugene O'Neill's Ah Wilderness and deservedly so with the Broadway musical adaptation of Take Me Along. With the exception of the Stanley Steamer song, none of the other Harry Warren-Ralph Blane songs are worth remembering and even that one is questionable.
It was right after the release of this film that MGM let Mickey Rooney go and I don't think it was a coincidence. The film was made in 1946 and released in 1948, so Mickey was 26 playing an Andy Hardy like teenager. He was just way too old for the part of the 17 year old who was affecting radical ideas in a spirit of youthful rebellion.
Rooney made four films for MGM from 1946 to 1948, this one, Killer McCoy a remake of Robert Taylor's A Crowd Roars, Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and Words and Music. In all of them Rooney was playing an adult part. Even in the Andy Hardy film, Mickey played an adult Andy Hardy returned from World War II. Why he was in this Louis B. Mayer only knows.
Rooney's bad casting makes Summer Holiday all the worse because in the original Ah Wilderness the emphasis is on the father's character played here by Walter Huston. And in the Broadway show Take Me Along which won a Tony Award for Jackie Gleason, the Great One played the inebriated brother-in-law Uncle Sid here played by Frank Morgan and that's the central character.
Gloria DeHaven steps in for Judy Garland as Rooney's sweet and adorable girl friend and Marilyn Maxwell plays the show girl who gives Rooney an adult education. In the original play O'Neill has her as a prostitute, but this was the Hollywood of the Code so all Marilyn does is get young Rooney soused.
A lot of really talented people had a hand in this one and they do their best, but Summer Holiday fades rather quickly into a chilly autumn.


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 watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey?
Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.
Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!).


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


user
I recently saw the Broadway revival of "Blithe Spirit" starring Angela Lansbury, Rupert Everett, Christine Ebersole, and Jayne Atkinson. It's a terrific production, and shows what good actors can do with a play that is less than perfect. Angela Lansbury is extremely funny as Madame Arcati.
It was probably a mistake, then, to check out the film version of the play starring Rex Harrison. The movie does not have the energy or the laughs of a good stage production.
"Blithe Spirit" is probably one of those plays that works better with a live cast, in an audience full of people who have come to laugh. The actors can improvise, give touches and nuances to their performance and delivery of the lines, and involve the audience on a personal level that you can't get in a movie house, or with a DVD showing, where the audience is separated from the story by the "Fourth Wall." The story: Charles Condomine (Rex Harrison), a successful writer, lives with his wife Ruth (Constance Cummings) in a house in the English countryside. Seeking information for his next book, a book dealing with the supernatural, Charles invites Madame Arcati (Margaret Rutherford, reprising her role from the original 1941 London production), a local spiritual medium, over to his house to conduct a séance. Charles believes that spiritism is a sham, but hopes to pick up "the tricks of the trade." But then Madame Arcati brings back the ghost of Elvira (Kaye Hammond), Charles's first wife, who died of pneumonia seven years ago. Elvira refuses to leave, and develops a spitting rivalry with Ruth over Charles (complicated by the fact that only Charles can see or hear Elvira).
On stage, the actors can give performances that invite laughs in this situation. But on the screen, the actors in "Blithe Spirit" tear through the lines as if they don't know that anyone is listening to them. They mumble lines that were designed to get laughs on the stage. The performances by Harrison, Cummings, and even Kaye Hammond are flat and lifeless. Only Margaret Rutherford seems to have retained her spark and humor as Madame Arcati.
The Oscar-winning visual effects in the film are unimpressive -- not just by today's standards, but by the standards of 1946! They consist mostly of Kaye Hammond walking around in fluorescent green outfits and makeup, being photographed in special lighting to make her look like a glowing ghost.
The cinematographer deserves some credit for creative lighting. But compare the dull visual effects of "Blithe Spirit" to the truly groundbreaking effects in Disney's "Song of the South" -- which was eligible for awards the same year. In "South," humans and animated characters share the screen seamlessly for minutes at a time. Compared to "South," the Oscar that "Blithe Spirit" received for special effects was completely undeserved.
At any rate, I can only encourage you to catch the Broadway revival of this play with Angela Lansbury before it closes. As for the movie with Rex Harrison, skip it.


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


user
David Lean's worst film. Even 'In Which We Serve' was'nt as bad as this. Usually a film with a really good reputation like this one, has at least some redeeming qualities, which makes one understand why it might be considered a classic. But after watching this I just could not get why this piece of crap was liked so much even back in 1945! I disliked the acting, stiff upper lip British mannerisms, story, script (which may be quite witty at times but totally unfunny) and soundtrack. The elvira character is meant to be alluring and attractive, but was in actual fact ugly and had a weird and annoying voice. Just another film that has convinced me not to trust a films reputation. Another very overrated 'british classic'.


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


user
High heels are tricksy things. They can elevate women (or cross-dressing men) to newfound heights, put forward a sharp statement of style and bring a touch of fragile elegance. Alternatively, they can be a perilous foot pain that will inevitably lead to trips, falls and ultimate tragedy. Tacones lejanos is more of a disappointment trip than a stylish high riser.
Almodóvar's mother-daughter drama is stylish for sure, but in terms of plot it's a tongue-tied and tedious affair full of confusing, complex characters that never fully engage or make sense. A few moments of comedy aside, Tacones lejanos just isn't interesting. The best bit comes at the beginning in a marvellously macabre case of manslaughter orchestrated by a child. From this brilliant bit of black comedy things are looking up, but then the film comes to a heel.
There's solid enough acting performances and there's some stylish, arty direction that you'd expect from Almodóvar, but otherwise Tacones lejanos isn't an impressive piece of Spanish cinema. With a story of murder, showbiz, femininity, fractured mother-daughter relationship and a character who is alternately a judge, a transvestite and a police informer this could have been a melodramatic powerhouse. Instead it's poor. High Heels stumbles for sure.


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


user
I saw this movie the other day in a film school class, and I hadn't seen an Almodovar movie before but went in expecting it to be good. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pointless film with only a couple of laughs mixed in with two hours of sheer boredom. High Heels is just a collection of random scenes that might have worked in their own separate movies but together don't add up to any kind of meaningful whole at all.
Or so I thought. Then, the next day, my film professor spent the entire class period explaining all of the movie's hidden little details, like how the mural depicting stereotypical flamenco dancers in the background of the drag queen scene is some kind of commentary on the lack of identity that Spain as a nation has developed under fascist rule. Apparently, the whole movie is chock full of clever little visual tricks and references like this.
Great, but you know what? It's still a bad movie. It takes more than depth and complexity to make a good film--you still need to give the audience a reason to keep paying attention, something to interest the viewer enough to actually care about all the subtle tricks. High Heels gives us strange, off-beat characters but keeps them in mostly mundane situations recycled from other movies, and Almodovar doesn't seem to be using them to make any kind of point. What is the significance, for example, of the Hitchcockian surprise character revelation that occurs towards the end of the film? Why is that even in there? Just to surprise us?
There is one funny scene that has to do with a news broadcast. And that's it, that's the only entertaining moment. The rest of the movie is just nonsensical filmic references and visual cues that apparently exist only for the sake of showing us how smart Pedro Almodovar is. But no matter what my film professor says, it takes more than self-indulgent trickery for a movie to be good.


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


user
This was an awful movie. Basically Jane March was a half-Korean North Korean spy sent by Kim Jong Il to do something horrible to the American forces in South Korea. She becomes a maid for an American military family, they all regard her as being Korean even though she looks more white (I believe the actress is either 1/4 or 1/8 Southeast Asian, not at all Korean), and the teenage boy of the household starts out hating her and ends up sleeping with her. The way Korea and the U.S. military in Korea is depicted is completely insane. Of course, the screenwriter and the director were obviously white men who've never spent a day in Korea prior to this movie and had no intention of showing any real insight into life in Korea for either Koreans or American GIs and instead just tried to fulfill their pathetic Asiaphile fantasies without any regard to how completely unbelievable it made the movie. Anyone who's ever been to Korea will know this is utter garbage. In the end the North Korean honhyol spy-girl gets killed, in an obvious "paying for her sins" way. Very bad film with a made-for-TV feel to it.


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


user
The name "cult movie" is often given to films which continue to be screened, or to sell in home movie format, more than a generation after they were first released. Superchick, which was first released in 1973, now comes into this category. Its cult status is largely due to ongoing interest in it by those women who regard it as an early and effective feminist film.
Despite the "Superwoman" connotation, "Superchick" is not a cartoon character but a very competent young lady working as an air stewardess - a career option which in the 1970's was commonly regarded as one of the most glamorous open to any girl, and which also enables her to emulate the traditional matelot who reputedly has a wife in every port. Since she holds black belt status in karate, she is in a position to make it quite clear that she is very happy with her bachelor existence, and is in no way beholden to any of her extensive suite of male admirers. This film is a situation comedy which avoids the generally much shorter lived appeal of outright farce. Its appeal to feminists is also heightened by a climax in which our heroine uses her karate abilities to avert a hijacking and save all the other passengers on her plane from a potentially unpleasant fate. To ensure that this film will appeal to men as well as to their partners, the Director has wisely ensured that is liberally sprinkled with eye candy.
Superchick can be enjoyed by those who are not too critical and want a very light easy to watch comedy which they will forget soon after viewing. It is so forgettable that they will probably find it equally enjoyable if watched again in a year's time; despite its age it may therefore retain its status as a cult movie for some time to come. However the dialogue and acting would make it hard to give this film a rating of more than 4/10.


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


user
Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!


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 only somewhat attractive for fans of "bad movie" entertainment. It is more worthwhile for students of 1970's pop culture: the fashions, the furniture, the attitudes, and that great "women's lib" moment of the early 1970's, when it was still fresh and novel for a self-employed, independent woman to exist.
"Superchick" (Joyce Jillson) had a monetarily rewarding if stultifying career (after all, what is a flight attendant but a waitress at 30,000 feet -- that goes for the male ones too), she slept around with multiple men, could protect herself and others (with karate) and wasn't tied down to anything. This is the kind of emancipated woman that scared the juices out of anti-feminists, those retrograde idiots who believe that no woman is complete without a husband.
The "sexy stewardess" was a potent archetype of the late 1960's to 1970's, (geez, even on "The Partridge Family," I remember swinging bachelor Ruben Kincaid constantly hooking up with stewardesses) and from that point of view, this silly film is an important pop culture time capsule of the pre-AIDS, free-love, women's lib, swinging Seventies. The plot is quite awful though. And for those cavemen in the audience, there are few bare breasts to look at.


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


user
This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.
The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed.


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


user
A retired diplomat, played nicely by Michael York, goes to Russia to get revenge on the Russian gangster that murdered the diplomat's policeman son. There the diplomat meets an exceptionally strong and decent Russian cop who helps him bring the Russian gangster to justice.
I remembered the old action flicks of the 1980s that always portray the Russians as evil bad guys out to undermine the righteous U.S. government. It's interesting to see this time the Russian guy as a hero.
Not a great flick, it's really typically a "B" action flick. Michael York lends some class to this mediocre movie. Alexander Nevsky, who plays the Russian cop is kind of "blah" but surprisingly has some chemistry with Michael York. Face it, Michael York is such a good actor that he'd have chemistry with anyone he's doing a scene with. Disappointingly, the handsome Adrian Paul gets killed within the first 15 minutes into the movie. Now, if Adrian Paul was in this movie longer, it would've been an above average "B" action flick. All I can say about Adrian Paul is that he is real nice to look at for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The villain, played by Richard Tyson, is your typical bad guy. He's very blonde and very villainous in this movie.
Rent this flick if there is nothing else on TV to watch. It's okay. It doesn't suck too bad. The action scenes are decent. The acting could be better, the plot could've moved much faster, but hey, you get to see what Russia looks like today!


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


user
But it does have some good action and a plot that is somewhat interesting. Nevsky acts like a body builder and he isn't all that attractive, in fact, IMO, he is UGLY. ( his acting skills lack everything! ) Sascha is played very well by Joanna Pacula, but she needed more lines than she was given, her character needed to be developed. There are way too many men in this story, there is zero romance, too much action, and way too dumb of an ending. It is very violent. I did however love the scenery, this movie takes you all over the world, and that is a bonus. I also liked how it had some stuff about the mafia in it, not too much or too little, but enough that it got my attention. The actors needed to be more handsome...The biggest problem I had was that Nevsky was just too normal, not sexy enough. I think for most guys, Sascha will be hot enough, but for us ladies that are fans of action, Nevsky just doesn't cut it. Overall, this movie was fine, I didn't love it nor did I hate it, just found it to be another normal action flick.


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 a vehicle for Schwarzenegger-clone Alexander Nevsky. His charisma however is insufficient to lift this movie above the level of its poor script. He has little to add to his Arnie-act.
Michael York is quite pathetic as the begging diplomat. Watching him revisit his D'Artagnan-act from the time that he was a better actor made me feel uneasy. Come on, you can do better than that!
The story is full of holes and unexplained relations; top of this bill is the informer of Vlad, who sounds like an American woman, but from the context appears to be working for a Russian government-department.
Although the story takes place well after the end of the Communist-regime, all the Russian characters are still very communist-like. In contradiction to that, Vlad is allowed to drive a pimped up all utility vehicle as police-car. The action scenes are poorly shot and therefore lack dynamics.
Not a must see movie...


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


user
It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like "The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D


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


user
Woman (Miriam Hopkins as Virginia) chases Man (Joel McCrea as Kenneth) for father (Charles Winninger as B.J.). Woman wants to get Man to invest some of deceased mother's money in father's business venture; but, father is notorious for losing money on hair-brained schemes. Little does anyone know, but real evil schemers are posing as Man's best friends in order to steal his fortune...
The production looks engaging, but the story fails to engage. The players don't play drunk well. Notable as Broderick Crawford's first appearance - as gopher "Hunk"; other than running errands, Mr. Crawford gets pinned to the floor by Mr. McCrea.
*** Woman Chases Man (4/28/37) John G. Blystone ~ Miriam Hopkins, Joel McCrea, Charles Winninger, Broderick Crawford


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


user
You don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This "epic" about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny "wisecracks" and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.
"A Yank in Libya" isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC "extravaganza" just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget it.


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


user
It definitely fits the time period as the Axis & Allies were playing espionage games throughout most of North Africa & the rest of the world. It's not the best of films, but certainly not the worst of the budget films as described previously from the compilation War Classics.
Duncan"Cisco Kid" Renaldo was actually very good in one of his first feature films. I really enjoyed the performance of Harry Parke (credited as Parkyarkarkus). Why he never got any bigger roles is beyond me. He played the perfect buddy/partner role and saved the movie...imho.
As said, this film was part of a budget package from Superbox-Mart entitled War Classics. Eight movies for eight bucks, which included other never-heard-from-films that has some decent stars trying to pay the bills.
This script is...well, not so hot. The editing & cinematography is...worse. If you can by-pass all of that and want to see the future Cisco Kid & a great sidekick that sadly never fulfilled his true potential, definitely pick it up! Otherwise, there's other WW2 films to watch.
-Thunderossa.


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


user
Chan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.
I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.
SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10


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


user
The story: Young-goon is a girl whose family has a history of mental illness. She ends up in a mental institution after she starts believing that she is in fact a cyborg. In the institution she meets Park Il-sun, a young man who develops a bond with her.
If you're reading this you probably already know how talented Chan-wook Park is. But 'I'm A Cyborg...' is a big departure from familiar, and (sadly) stronger territory. I'm a big fan of any film or story which is attempting to do something different. God knows, we all get subjected to enough crap at our local cinemas. The main point about the movie I need to say is, that it fails to say anything about mental illness, or create a characters that you care about.
This story has to be one of the weirdest things I've seen in years...but weird isn't enough. There's no heart to the movie...just surrealism and confusion. Confusion does seem to be the main theme of the movie. The characters all try to make sense of their own problems, but it's Chan-wook Park himself who proves to be the most confused of them all.


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


user
This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.
From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.
"Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.
I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.


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


user
The Wicker Man. I am so angry that I cannot write a proper comment about this movie.
The plot was ridiculous, thinly tied together, and altogether-just lame. Nicolas Cage...shame on you! I assumed that since you were in it, that it would be at least decent. It was not.
I felt like huge parts of the movie had been left on the cutting room floor, and even if it's complete-the movie was just outlandish and silly.
At the end you're left mouth agape, mind befuddled and good taste offended. I have never heard so many people leave a theater on opening day with so much hatred. People were complaining about it in small groups in the mall, four floors down from the theater near the entrance. It's that bad.
I heard it compared to : Glitter, American Werewolf in Paris and Gigli. My boyfriend was so mad he wouldn't even talk about it.
Grrrr!


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


user
Unfortunately, this movie does no credit whatsoever to the original. Nicholas Cage, fairly wooden as far as actors go, imbues the screen with a range of skill from, non-plussed to over the top. The supporting cast is no better.
The plot stays much the same as the original in terms of scene progression but is far worse. Not enough detail is given to allow the audience to by into what is being sold. It turns out it's just a bill of poor goods. Disbelief cannot be suspended, nor can a befit of a doubt be given. The only saving aspect of this film is that it is highly visual, as the medium requires, and whomever scouted the location should be commended.
There was much laughter in the audience and multiple boos, literally, at the end.
Disappointed! Wait for the original to come on television, pour a whiskey and enjoy.


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


user
I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.
I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me.
Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.
Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.


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


user
Anyone not aware of the 1973 original British Lion movie ' The Wicker Man' would,no doubt, have left the cinema with the impression 'Poor' and 'Peurile'.
As a devotee of the original I left with the impression Purely Poor.
From the grim reality of haggle toothed inbreds drawing the force of law and order into a web of paganistic barbaric ritual on a remote Scottish island, named Summerisle(the original) to a near Amazon-ic colony off the Maine coast of the US, named Summersisle, the remake hardly hits the spot.
This is, quite sadly, a case of what 'could' have been a classic remake of a classic being tampered with to cater for a simple minded public. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.
Gentlemen (or given the reworked context of the film) Ladies involved ... hang your heads in shame.


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


user
How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely "plastered on" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.


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


user
This has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.
There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career.


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


user
what ever you do do not waste your time on this pointless. movie. A remake that did not need to be retold. Everyone coming out of the theater had the same comments. Worst movie I ever saw. Save your time and money!!!
Nicgolas Cage was biking down hills, swimming in murky water and rolling down hills while being attacked by bees but yet his suit was still perfectly pressed and shirt crisp white until the very last scene.
Although a good cast with Ellen Bernstein and Cage the acting was just as unbelievable as the movie itself. It is amazing how good actors can do such bad movies. Don't they get a copy of the script first. If you still have any interest at all in seeing the movie at the very least wait for it to come out on DVD.


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 was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.
The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out "Rowan!?" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.
I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).


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 let the premise fool you--this was one funny movie. The problem--it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. The story sets you up nicely for an ending that never comes. Even worse, the set-up is NEVER explained. You will leave the theater asking "Is that it?" I rate it a 2 simply because there were a few brief moments of promise, but the finish leaves you completely flat. Nicholas Cage did as good a job as can be expected in the role, but he had very little to work with. There are odd quirks, and interesting turns everywhere, which had absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Let this one come out on video before wasting your money.


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 never seen the 1973, older highly rated version. I am a Nicholas Cage fan (by the way, fine acting as usual). This movie probably took all of five minutes to hammer out the whole plot (I can see it being done on a cocktail napkin at a dinner party), if you can't figure out the ending of this drool in the first thirty minutes you will probably find this movie entertaining. This is, of late, the terrible rut that Hollywood seems to have dug for itself with the horror/mystery/thriller genre, unable to give the audience enough credit and write a fresh, smart, and tantalizing screenplay, they dish out some creepy music and throw in a couple of things to make you jump a little and then send the final print off to your local theater. At least, it didn't have the jiggling hand-held camera syndrome.


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


user
A phenomenal achievement in awfulness. It's actually hilariously awful.
First off...Nicholas Cage must now have made it to the finals in the Over-Emoting Category in his acting class. Wearing new hair plugs and with a face that has been lifted so many times his pinned back ears seem to be straining to touch in the back he oozes not only a sick smarmiess but creates a "hero" character that you have no vested interest in.
I don't know what it is with Neil Labute and female characters. He makes females out to be totally deviant and evil...and pays them back by having Cage punch several of them directly in the face and call them all "b****es" a few times too. I've enjoyed LaBute's early films and a few of his plays...but it's a strange fascination he has.
I'd give this film a 2 out of 10 solely based on Ellen Burstyn's performance. By the time she finally makes her appearance (bravely soldiering through her scenes with her wig line clearly visible on her forehead) it seems like all hope may be lost. She deserves an Oscar right here and now for saying her lines with a straight face and when she appears wearing a white mumu and blue, white, and gold face paint booming about The Wicker Man you know that working with Scorcese and Friedkin really prepped her for this role dang well.
This movie is so wrong-headed and cuckoo that is has to be seen to be believed.
Highlights include: Nicholas Cage running away from a swarm of bees and then falling down a hill.
Nicholas Cage stealing a bicycle and looking like Ms. Gulch from The Wizard of Oz riding around on it.
Nicholas Cage running around the island kicking down doors looking for the missing girl.
Leelee Sobieski PLUMMETING from a once-promising acting career in a "brawl" with Cage.
Ellen Burstyn dancing around in a said while mumu.
Nicholas Cage screaming "Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?" for no reason.
Nicholas Cage in a bear costume (I'm not kidding) running through the woods, taking off the costume (but leaving the bear feet on) and then doing some karate moves to some villains.
And you haven't lived until you have seen the final 15 minutes of the movie and its dreadful epilogue that looked like it was shot yesterday in your cousin's basement.
Needless to say, if you can make it through this film without laughing out loud then you deserve a medal. There was actually a point in the movie where I stopped snickering to wonder if maybe this wasn't an elaborate send-up of "hysteria" films...only to be reminded when Cage would scream/shout/whisper his dialogue that he really was taking himself quite seriously.
I think this one is destined to be a cult film all over again...just because it's so dreadful.


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


user
I picked this DVD up at the Dollar Store. The DVD was on the 2 for $1 rack, but since it had Michael Madsen in it, I thought that since I had never seen the movie, I bought it anyway.
I must say that I didn't like the movie. The movie played more like a documentary or an advertisement for religion than anything else. I found that the director's use of flashbacks did not add to the story line for me. I would have preferred to view the story line in chronological order.
I won't throw it away like one of the other commentators, but It may be quite awhile before I would consider watching this movie again.
Who knows, since it was Michael Madsen's film debut, maybe it might have some archival value at some future date.


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


user
Poor Michael Madsen; he must be kicking himself to know folks have found out about this horrible flick. I really can't think of anything worse I have ever seen, except amateur porn. It's that bad, and all here; wooden acting, bad script, crappy moral ending, you hate it and it is in this movie.
My question is: "Who the Hell put $$$ into this piece of doggy doo? At least we could have seen Michael's sister Virginia nude in a scene, but I don't think even that would save this stinker...
For a cool guy that has made some exception movies, I want to know what wacky church sponsored this piece of crapola.


assistant
0