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
This is easily the worst movie i have EVER seen. I'm not exaggerating, I told the guy at Blockbuster that they should take it off the shelves. The only thing interesting about this movie is the box. On the box it says "from the director of the boogeyman" so I figured...eh whatever, if this was made recently I'm sure the directing at least won't be TOO bad :-\, but after I saw the movie and looked at what "boogeyman" they were talking about, it's some nonsense from the early 1980's that he made. Great way to rope in unsuspecting viewers.
ANYWAY, I think that they just liked the name "Zodiac Killer", and didn't bother to research any of the actual Zodiac's crimes or his MO, or even the years that he was active. All of the crimes they talk about have nothing to do with the Zodiac and the "stories" about the original Zodiac take place several years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did. They also compare the Zodiac to "Vampire of Dusseldorf" Fritz Haarman throughout the movie and talk to Fritz's "son" quite often. The Zodiac and Haarman were nothing alike, and it makes more sense to compare him to BTK who also shot people, not a man who killed people by chewing through their necks. None of the Haarman facts are correct either, just a bunch of jumbled nonsense. His son even says "Don't forget, his name was Fritz Haarman with 2 t's"...His actual name just has one! I think that the writer/director simply typed in a google search for serial killers and the quickest ones that came up were the Zodiac Killer and Fritz Haarman. "Ooh those sound like cool names, let's make a movie about them without doing any outside research! great idea!"
Perhaps my favorite inconsistency in this movie is the way that the experts as well as the young killer describe suffering from DSM-IV and getting cured of it. "I was also diagnosed with DSM-IV and have since recovered", etc. For those of you who don't know, DSM-IV is the psychological manual for mental disorders. If anybody suffers from the book itself then they must have some SERIOUS problems! Haha.
Anyway, my point is that this goes on the bottom of my top 5 worst movies of all time list, and it's rare that a movie ever reaches that point. But, if you are interested in watching a totally non-fact based story about serial killers that happens to be nothing more than boring, full of inexperienced actors, and not completely rational, I'd say check out this movie.
...Oh, and I liked how the killer "tear gassed" a few of his victims with dry ice. Nice touch...


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


user
This movie was almost intolerable to sit through. I can get beyond the fact that it looks like it was shot with a home video camera and that this movie is supposed to span over weeks in time yet the characters do not once change outfits, but the acting broke the 4th wall to pieces for me. I've seen better acting in a 4th grade play. Aside from that the plot is unrealistic. If the man suspected the guy he would have turned him in. I was also heavily disappointed that all the killings were done with a gun what kind of gore is that. That is not a copycat the Zodiac did not kill using just a gun the authorities would have known it wasn't him. Another thing that really bothered me was that they called Disassociative Identity Disorder DSM 4 when that is the name of the book used to diagnose people with mental disorders not the name of the disorder. Overall I think this movie is not the kind of movie that could be done with a low budget at least not as low as they had or they could have made sure they had better actors or more gore. Plenty of people have went the low budget route with out having to use horrible actors look at Easy Rider that had Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson and a low budget.


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


user
Why would anyone want to see this?! If this was a film posted on YouTube by a teenager, I might have applauded the teen in doing so much with his mommy's video camera. I might have also congratulated his family and friends for doing a good job acting. Sadly, it was made by a very experienced film maker and these were, apparently, professional actors--making this a very, very sad film. Sad...and very pathetic, actually. As I said, it has a definite made directly to video look about it. It also has narration and acting that just scream "unprofessionals"--how could this be?! The film is filled with lots of corpses and blood. Normally this would turn me off completely, as I hate ultra-violent films and don't like seeing all that gore. However, given that none of it is that realistic, it's bearable. However, I should warn you that there are a few scenes that are still pretty disturbing. For example, the scene with the kid throwing a radio into a lady's tub and watching her naked and frying is pretty bad. There are also scenes where you can hear the thought of psychos as they fantasize about killing women. With a level of misogyny that is pretty awful. the people who wrote this are pretty sick--like killing women is meant to be for our entertainment.
After a bunch of senseless murders, the film goes to a dining room table--around which are a bunch of goof-balls wearing black hoods WITHOUT eye holes! They are talking, with pride, about all the murders they have committed and chant. It's all very funny, though I am not sure that was the scene's purpose.
Then, the film talks about various sex crimes and killings and even vampirism and cannibalism. Why, I don't know--perhaps because they people made this got off on this sort of crap. And, once again, you see and hear the thoughts and actions of a creepy German-looking man as he tracks down people and kills them.
By the way, considering the film used what I must assume are professional actors, I wondered why so many people were chosen who were clearly Germans. While they tried to act like Americans and the film was supposed to be in California, the accents are STRONG. Perhaps German audiences watched this and marveled at how "realistic" the acting was, but to any American it's obvious these folks ain't their fellow Americans! Considering that there really WAS a zodiac killer (who was never captured), I do wonder why anyone would want to make a "fan film" of sorts for the sick menace?! I mean...was this film meant as a snuff film for pervs? I just can't see anyone else wanting to see this or enjoying it. In fact, I wonder what would motivate anyone to make such a stupid AND offensive film?! Worthless and deserving to be in IMDb's Bottom 100 list.


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


user
If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' 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 film is about a young man, Michael, who cares for the elderly. One day he decides to kill some of the relatives of his clients. Around the same time he decides to model his killing after the Zodiac Killer of the 60's. He gets in touch with the author of a book about the Zodiac Killer and they form a friendship. Michael has a gun (aparently the only gun, as it seems to be in the hands of some of the other actors, only not portrayed as the same gun.) and he goes out a-killin'. Original.
This is a great film if you like B movies. I thought the idea of the movie was good, but the editing and the acting really drowned the plot. I thought the 'blood' was just too fake, the lighting was horrible in some places, and the dialog was just too standard. The movie was shot on video, which is okay, but the editing of the film just made for some weird 'Plan 9' scenes. Not a bad movie for fans of the B-movie genre, but if you want something with a bit more polish, move on to 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
I have been learning about the Zodiac for four years now. And I'm not saying I know much more than anyone else...in fact out of most of the people who know and read and learn about Z, I am prolly the one with the least knowledge...But I do know or at least I think I know that most of the stuff in this wouldn't happen...From how he signed his name...to how he killed people...I thought that Godfather was the worst film ever...
The cinematography was that of a five year old...not saying that my films are any better but I am not someone who is making movies for the mass population...
The acting I thought for the most part was pretty good really I did...the lead didn't talk that much on camera or at all I forget and don't know because I stopped watching...his voice overs where good...
But really spend the four dollars and 70 cents on something else...like a large pizza or something...
Until I learn how to write a review, Psycho Phil


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


user
Really, really bad. How does a film this bad get made? I kept waiting for some redeeming plot point, interesting camera work, or at least some gratuitous nudity but I got nothing. I had just watched Cabin Fever and I thought it was an train wreck (except for the nudity and Pancakes) but it looks like genius compared to this dreck. The best script doctor in the world couldn't have saved this putrid pile of of stinking poo.
The only thing going for this "film" is that it ended.
I've got a headache just thinking about this movie and trying to write something. Ugh! I'm glad I only paid $5 for it and it will soon end up in a landfill.


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


user
If I could give it less that 1 I would. Do not bother to rent; if someone gives you the DVD burn it.
This is horrible movie making. A total waste of even digital "film". I have seen better on Youtube made by 12 year old boys. Lommel claims to have written this, if that is the case he is a classic case of someone who is illiterate in two languages. The story line is none existent, the dialog is mainly screaming, the camera work is some sort of attempted arty flairs with nonsensical cutting of totally unrelated jumps to either industrial transportation scenes or some sort of odd angry young woman rift.
I can usually follow a less than obvious plot or see the purpose in a "creative" film - I like David Lynch.
This one is either so far beyond my limited powers of comprehension I missed it or it is totally pointless. I think this is a "lets see if we can grab a title that will be coming out soon and do a weird rift on it and see if we can grab some of the bucks" con job.
I cannot see why Lionsgate even bothered with this. Totally worthless, it is so bad I will not rent any other by this same director.


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


user
I gave this two stars for the awesome DV shot clarity, which lends to the cold and dark sterility of its character. That was being generous, I know.
This film fails on all accounts. I can not recommend this, for it is neither poetic, nor blunt. Neither dramatic, nor suspenseful. Neither controversial, nor ordinary. It is just a wretched piece of trash that no horror or exploit fan can recommend in good faith.
Do not watch this, whoever you are. . .please, just stay away from this awful product.
Thank you.


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


user
While William Shater can always make me smile in anything he appears in, (and I especially love him as Denny Crane in Boston Legal), well, this show is all about glitz and dancing girls and screaming and jumping up and down.
It has none of the intelligence of Millionaire, none of the flair of Deal or No Deal.
This show is all about dancing and stupid things to fill in the time.
I watched it of course just to check it out. I did watch it for over 45 minutes, then I had to turn it off.
The best part of it was William Shatner dancing on the stage. He is a hoot!!! unfortunately, this show WILL NOT MAKE IT.
That's a given


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


user
The comment by "eliz7212-1" hits the proverbial "nail on the head" for this turkey of a program. But it is a hoot to watch William Shatner "cavort" and "dance" (yes, the " " marks on the word dance are necessary for what Bill does). This show would be a great skit on SNL or MAD TV - and it does rate a few stars for one viewing, or so, to see Shatner, who seems to have taken "camp" to new heights - whether in a role or as himself. But the guy is funny.
The girls who are in the cubicle areas with the game data scrolls, will be pretty much out-of-luck when this turkey is canceled - unless there is a revival of the whiskey-a-go-go genre, with a resurrected demand for shapely young women to dance in elevated cages once more.
I watched the first contestant, who was annoying, and literally "dumber than a :post," yet through sheer luck, walked away with a quarter mil or so. The second contestant, somewhat more intelligent, but who'd be lucky to gain $1,000 on Jeopardy!, got zonked by the card which requires answering a special question - which he didn't know, and thereby left with zilch.
This plethora of game shows, which dangle, and sometimes award, large sums to everyday individuals, are admittedly a cheap effort, overall, to attempt to woo viewers. Even if the host is well-compensated, and they give away six figures in an average episode, I suppose that the revenue versus costs can be favorable - since you don't have a sitcom cast where several stars are getting six or seven figures, per episode, with some big residual deals as well.
But I suspect even the better ones will wear thin before long. This one has already pretty much reached this point. I think his offerings, especially with James Spader, and the others on "Boston Legal" should give us a satisfying quantity of Bill Shatner's offerings.
Again, the above rating is simply appropriate to view Bill hoot and prance, perhaps one time; that should be sufficient.


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


user
I don't see enough TV game shows to understand the attraction of SHOW ME THE MONEY, but I suppose it holds some appeal for undemanding audiences. Ostensibly a quiz show, it offers contestants huge sums of money for answering a few simple questions. However, its quiz elements play only a small part in the proceedings, which I find tortuously complicated. For example, before answering a question, a contestant selects which question is to be asked by choosing from among random "A," "B," or "C" choices. Does this serve any purpose other than to slow the game down? It would be a lot quicker simply to start with "A." Contestants can pass on questions, but must answer one of the three questions in each category.
After responding to a question, the contestant is then asked to "lock in" the answer--another delaying tactic. The contestant's next task is to name which woman from about a dozen go-go dancers in cages is to unveil a card that indicates how much the question is worth. A correct answer adds the card's dollar figure to the contestant's running total; a wrong answer subtracts the same sum. This time-consuming step actually has some entertainment value, as it allows the audience to get a close look at the scantily clad and uniformly gorgeous dancers. Meanwhile, the contestant is reminded that an unlucky selection of the "killer card" will end the game instantly. This naturally makes the contestant sweat and causes further delays as the nervous contestant contemplates the sudden loss of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My suspicion is that the possibility of sudden disaster is the show's chief audience appeal.
Meanwhile, the whole process is slowed down even more by a lot of empty banter between host William Shatner and the contestant, along with occasional routines by the caged dancers. All these delays burn up so much time that it might be possible for audiences to forget what the original question is by the time the correct answer is revealed.
A typical 30-minute episode of JEOPARDY often gets through as many as 60 questions. The first 30 minutes of SMTM that I watched got through only six questions (many of which pertained to other TV shows). No one in his right mind would watch this show because it's fun to play along by answering the questions at home. That leaves three possible reasons to watch the show.
A. To see how a contestant responds to being on the verge of winning as much as one million dollars, only to lose everything in one stroke.
B. To look at gorgeous young women performing sexually suggestive dance routines.
C. To enjoy William Shatner's scintillating banter.
My choice is "B," but the women aren't on camera long enough to justify suffering through an hour of this show.


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


user
Unlike endemol USA's two other current game shows (Deal Or No Deal and 1 vs. 100), the pacing in this show is way too slow for what is happening on the screen.
DOND and 1 vs. 100 can get away with slow pacing because the games can change pace--or end--at any moment. There is risk involved in every action the player takes, the rewards are wildly variable, and it is difficult for the players to leave with a significant amount of money. Suspense is usually put to good use.
Show Me The Money, on the other hand, is just too slow-paced. When a question is revealed and it is obvious that the player knows the correct answer, you can rest assured that absolutely nothing exciting will happen in the next few minutes. It would greatly help the pace of this show to reveal the correct answer FIRST, and THEN have the player select a dancer, instead of Shat wasting time talking about what will happen if the player gets an answer wrong when we all know they're right. The random dancing is filler that actually feels like filler. Too much time is wasted while not enough is happening... and the fact that players cannot choose to quit the game early guarantees that there WILL be a lot of time wasted.
Oh, and I have NO interest in watching Shat shake his groove thang, especially right after I've eaten dinner.
I am a lifelong game show fan, but even I had a lot of trouble sitting through an hour of this. It either needs major changes or early retirement.


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


user
There was such a hype about a game show with Bill Shatner...and especially right in the wake of Deal or No Deal and 1 vs 100. So, of course everyone had to tune in to see what all the fuss was about on the new game show. What a disappointment! As Ben Stein so stoically and nasally says, "wooww".
The only thing likable about this show was the fact that you knew it would eventually be over. Sitting through a full hour of it was like going to the dentist...you find yourself looking at the clock in what you think are 10 minute intervals, only to find out that only a minute has passed (but seemed like an eternity) since you last glanced at the clock. So, why didn't I just switch the channel? Well, probably for the same reason most other people didn't...out of sheer optimism. I mean, no one really *wants* to think that a show with Bill Shatner could actually be SO BAD.
Personally, from the first 15 minutes, I never thought this was the kind of vehicle that would showcase the talents of William Shatner. My chief complaint was that the set was so dark. Watching it left me feeling depressed. You kept on wanting to get ahold of a little excitement, but there was just none to be had. There was not even enough light on the set to get a feel of energy from the audience (who you couldn't even see).
Dear Network: People do not watch game shows to cure their insomnia...they watch game shows to be excited and have a good time. Please do us all a favor and lose this in the vault.


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


user
My wife and I are semi amused by Howie Mandel's show.. I also like Shatner - even when he's at his most pathetic..
But this is absolutely the worst show on television.
Please cancel this show. It sucks a**.
The only positive thing I can say is that the girls are hotter on this show and seem to wear less clothing than Deal or no Deal...
The questions are a mixture of way too easy and incredibly obscure. And watching Shatner or the contestant say "Show me the money" makes me want to vomit..
This one will not last.


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


user
Trying to cash in on the success of Deal Or No Deal and 1 Versus 100 comes this lame excuse for entertainment - Show Me The Money, in which 12 sexy 'dancers' shimmy out in shiny red hooker attire. A contestant is given the beginning of a phrase, such as "Which team lost . . ." with three choices, A, B, or C, each which completes the phrase. The contestant has three chances to give an answer to one of these 3 choices. The host - William Shatner, at his obnoxious smarmiest - asks the contestant if he wants to "lock into the answer" and when the contestant says yes, he picks a 'dancer', to whom he yells "Show me the money!" She opens a scroll that has an amount, and if his answer was right, he adds that amount to his winnings; if he was wrong, the amount is subtracted. (So theoretically, it is possible for a contestant on this dreary debacle to actually wind up owing Shatner money.) There is also a "Killer Card" and if the contestant picks the girl who has that vile scroll, but he has answered properly, nothing happens. If he's answered wrong, the game goes into Sudden Death and has to answer another question. If he gets that one wrong, he leaves with nothing.
Before going to commercials, Shatner yells, "let's dance" and Shatner, the contestant and the 12 dancers shake booty. At the end of the show, Shatner asks the ladies for "a last dance" and they all shake it some more.
I give this show 6 episodes at the very most, at which time hopefully this pathetic excuse for a game will be shown the door. (It could've been worse - they could've somehow bribed Cuba Gooding Jr to be the host, although I bet he's a better dancer than 'Shat,' as they call him these days.)
7/08: Guess what - I was wrong! It lasted for only 5 episodes. There IS hope for the world.


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


user
As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story.


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


user
Man, this gets a lot of good reviews in the review books. Frankly, I found it too slow and unappealing right from the start. I kept waiting for it to pick up a little steam but that never happened. This movie is vastly overrated.
Shakespeare, with the King James English, has never appealed to me, anyway, so it may just be me. There is a fair share of the latter in the first half of the film as they show Ronald Colman playing the role of Othello.
The good points of the film include - thanks to a restored print - some decent cinematography and a young, slim and attractive Shelly Winters.
Overall, this is simply too boring, too much repetition in some of the scenes to watch again. Besides, we all know that most actors are nut-cases, anyway, but kudos to Hollywood for demonstrating it here in this story.


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


user
Ronald Colman won a Best Actor Oscar for showy performance as a popular stage thespian who completely loses himself in his roles, particularly as Shakespeare's Othello. Critically-lauded George Cukor film has a marvelous pedigree, having been written by the estimable team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. Unfortunately, the witty banter comes off as self-conscious here, and the backstage business is overripe. Miklós Rózsa also won an Oscar for his score, and Shelley Winters has a few fine moments a tough waitress (when theatrical Colman breathlessly addresses her, she asks him, "What are ya? Some kind of nut?"). Otherwise, this scenario is awfully obvious, surprisingly draggy, and not very funny. *1/2 from ****


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


user
This seems like two films: one a dreary, pretentious lengthy saga about an ac-tor who is taken over by the parts he plays; the other a brilliant social comment about a middle aged divorce who is picked up by a waitress. Shelley Winters is wonderful as a waitress with another business on the side. She drops heavy hints about the need for connections, her certificate in massage and her desire to get into the modelling game. I love the glimpse of her seedy flat with a kitchenette behind a curtain, and her terrible seducing outfit of navel-revealing, puff-sleeved crochet top.
Do actors get Oscars for Shakespeare? We know they Oscars for impersonating disabled people, wearing a lot of prosthetics, or pretending to be mad. The Shakespearean scenes (which go ON and ON) are embarrassing and dated. And so are the 'going mad' scenes where Tony looks distracted while listening to his own voice-over.
By the way, Anthony John is not aristocratic. He makes it quite clear in an early scene that he used to be a chorus boy. When he quotes his father's advice, he slips into a Cockney accent.


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


user
Oh man, this s-u-c-k-e-d sucked.... I couldn't even get any camp value out of this......and I sat through the whole thing on Showtime.... Don't bother waiting around for the 'naked' scenes either.....it's too late and only plastic Jenna Jameson is involved.. Shows how much discretionary cash must be laying around Hollywood just to get your name on the closing credits.. I guess Showtime had to throw something in at 1am... Next time I think I'd even rather be watching ESPN loop around every 30 minutes...


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


user
Don't get me wrong, this is a terrible, clichéd film, but it is a delight for fans of Olivia Hussey - quite possibly the most intoxicating beauty ever to grace the silver screen. One poster stated that she was unpleasant to look at - I wonder what his ideal woman looks like - Paris Hil-slut? Blockbuster should really establish a sub-genre to this type of film, as the Fatal Attraction plot has become a genre unto itself. When will Blockbuster adopt the "Adultry" section? It will fit in quite nicely between the drama and action sections, right? This film revolves around Olivia Hussey, who spends a night of passion with an unstable yacht owner who may have murdered his ex-wife, who looks remarkably like Ms. Hussey. This ne'er-do-well proceeds to stalk Olivia and thus make her life a living-hell. I like Olivia Hussey, but I have no sympathy for characters in movies that cheat on their spouses, so I really wasn't rooting for Olivia to make it out o this stinker alive.
VIOLENCE: $$ (There is a smattering of violence in the film. Don Murray and Anthony John Denison get involved in a fisticuffs when Denison says that he will not stop seeing Olivia, Murray's wife, because she is just too good in bed. Olivia also gets to handle a shooter and might get to squeeze off a round - I'll let you watch).
NUDITY: $$ (Olivia is the queen of brief nudity and supplies a little here. She has a love scene with Anthony John Denison and also has a shower scene - shot at a distance).
STORY: $ (We've seen this plot before - a hundred times over, and oftentimes done much better. The true culprit, when trying to decipher why this film was a dud, is William Riead. The man's dialogue is sophomoric and moronic. The man has no story-telling abilities and fails to build believable human reactions to the plot. These people, of the upper strata of society, talk like middle school kids - with a habit of sleeping during English class. I have placed Riead on the Never-to-be-Viewed-Again list).
ACTING: $$$ (The acting wasn't "phoned-in" as the insiders say, but was hindered a great deal by Riead's juvenile script. Olivia Hussey resorts to calling Anthony Jonh Denison "weird" and "crazy" to his face when he begins to stalk her. Hussey, who is still beautiful, delivers the best performance here but Denison was equal to the task of portraying a demented, love-crazed stalker. Don Murray was basically just there - his character not fleshed out, and Edward Asner, a terrific actor when given something with substance, is ill-used in this film).


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


user
The plot is plausible but banal, i.e., beautiful and neglected wife of wealthy and powerful man has a fling with a psychotic hunk, then tries to cover it up as the psycho stalks and blackmails her. But, what develops from there is stupefyingly illogical. Despite the resources that are available to the usual couple who has money and influence, our privileged hero and heroine appear to have only one domestic, their attorney and local police (who say they can do nothing) at their disposal while they grapple with suspense and terror. They have no private security staff (only a fancy security system that they mishandle), household or grounds staff, chauffeurs, etc. Not even, apparently, the funds to hire private round-the-clock nurses to care for the hero when he suffers life-threatening injuries, leaving man and wife alone and vulnerable in their mansion. Our heroine is portrayed as having the brains of a doorknob and our hero, a tycoon, behaves in the most unlikely and irrational manner. The production is an insult to viewers who wasted their time with this drivel and a crime for having wasted the talents of veteran actors Oliva Hussey and Don Murray (what were they thinking?). And, shame on Lifetime TV for insulting the intelligence of its audience for this insipid offering.


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


user
*****Warning: May contain SPOILERS********* My HUGE problem with this movie is how totally self-centered and self consumed the adulteress wife is!! After having a one night stand with a slimy psycho she is being stalked by him. He calls her constantly and threatens her and even sends a video of their night together. He is OBVIOUSLY crazy and very dangerous. The problem is she only thinks he is dangerous to HER (and exposing her secret). Not for one second did she ever have one thought of concern for her husband! Did she even for a moment think of him possibly being in danger from this psychotic?? As soon as she realized how mental he was she should have warned her husband no matter what the consequences. Maybe there wouldn't have been a movie then but there really wasn't one anyway so what's the difference.


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


user
I really looked forward to this program for two reasons; I really liked Jan Michael Vincent and I am an aviation nut and have a serious love affair with helicopters. I don't like this program because it takes fantasy to an unbelievable level. The world speed record for helicopters was set at 249 mph by a Westland Lynx several years ago. The only chopper that was ever faster was the experimental Lockheed AH56A in the 1960's. It hit over 300 and was a compound helicopter, which means it had a pusher propeller at the end of its fuselage providing thrust.
In short, no helicopter can fly much over 275 because of the principle of rotary wing flight. And the Bell 222, the "actor" that portrayed Airwolf wasn't very fast even by helicopter standards. And it didn't stay in production very long.
There was a movie that came out during this time period called "Blue Thunder" that was much more realistic.


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


user
I remember loving this show when I was a kid. I thought the helicopter was the coolest thing I've seen. It was ultra high-tech for it's time. It could repel enemy fire, do all sorts of acrobatics in the air, and take down nearly anything in it's way. Now I go back and watch it today and am surprised how lousy this show really is. The casts members are hardly compelling, there are a lot of cheesy moments, and the fight scenes are incredibly fake looking. And nearly every ending has the same helicopter fighting crap with the obvious reuse of grainy low quality stock footage. Lot of the footages appear to date from the Vietnam War era.
Airwolf has basically the same theme as Knight Rider, except the crime-fighting vehicle of choice is a helicopter instead of a car. After watching a few episodes, I found myself utterly bored. I do, however, love the theme music.


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 is roughly what it sounds like: a futuristic version of the Cinderella legend but with songs and (fairly tame) sex scenes! The film is not sure what it wants to be and pretty much ends up a mess. It's more expensive looking than most of director Al Adamson's films but it's not at the same budget level that viewers have come to expect from sci-fi films. The actors are pretty bad and unlike most Adamson films, there are no former big namers or B actors. Some of the music is OK but it's easy to see why Cinderella 2000 has been forgotten for so many years.


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


user
Life in some future fascist or near fascist state which severely restricts personal freedoms is a recurrent theme both in modern literature and for film makers. Such works post us warnings about undesirable trends in our society to watch out for; but to be effective they must also be entertaining. Unfortunately most of the books are probably more effective in posting the warnings than in entertaining us enough to become really widely read; whilst with the films the problem is usually the other way round. The first such work to become really widely known was probably George Orwell's "1984" (first published in 1948), and this is still readily available both in the form of a book and as a film.
Watch or read it: and then, when you are feeling a little depressed by man's inhumanity to man, reach for Cinderella 2000. This is a feather light low budget film comedy based on the same theme which provides effortless but unrewarding viewing; and as with 1984 the calendar has now passed beyond its erstwhile period. Most of the comedy is laid on with a trowel although there are just a few genuinely funny moments. To exercise your mind in the long intervals between these you can focus it on the question of whether this film will gain a new extension of life by being released as a DVD or whether it will finally disappear into oblivion as existing tape copies deteriorate past redemption. There are many worse films appearing as DVD's these days, and frankly I do not care much what happens either way.
So far the best of the films of this genre has probably been "The Handmaiden's Tale", but I would very happily swap them all for a well made film of Jack London's towering novel "The Iron Heel". Ambitious as this would be, it still seems incredible that no modern film maker has yet dared to attempt it (IMDb only lists a B/W silent version made in Russia in 1919).


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 pure guano. Mom always said if you can't say anything nice... but even Mom would say I had to do my part to warn others of this movie.
I can guarantee this is the film that Geoffrey Rush wishes would just go away. I would hope that Greg Kinnear fired his agent..from a cannon for giving him the script. After this Ben Stiller is probably praying for someone to pitch "There's Still Something About Mary." I have always been a fan of Wes Studi's, thank whatever you hold holy that he wore a mask through the film so maybe people won't identify the film with him.
It starts of promisingly with a stylistic spoof of the cinematography of the Batman films and then just loses something...like a coherent plot and half decent effects.
The jokes are telegraphed an hour before the punchline comes, and even then they fall flat. If you want to see an effective spoof of the comic book world see "Chasing Amy".
RUN! DON'T WALK AWAY FROM "MYSTERY MEN"!


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


user
Oh, it's the movie - I thought I waited too long to take out the dog... I can't believe I watched the whole thing. I guess I was optimistically anticipating that it was going to get better. Horribly disjointed dialog, pathetic acting, and totally improbable events. Like Toby's mom hanging herself in the time it takes Col to walk upstairs and back down in a room with a 24' ceiling and no chairs, counters or anything around her motionlessly suspended body that she could have possibly used to climb on to do herself in. The little girl that played the daughter of the last family was the best actor in the whole movie, and the puppy of the first couple was a close second. The basic storyline has potential and with a good script and director could be a seriously creepy flick, but this version sadly is not it. I get more scared when I open my electric bill every month.


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 not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).
Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.
For some reason the director was unable to make the "haunted" house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.
Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.
Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips!


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


user
No mention if Ann Rivers Siddons adapted the material for "The House Next Door" from her 1970s novel of the same title, or someone else did it. This Lifetime-like movie was directed by Canadian director Jeff Woolnough. Having read the book a long time ago, we decided to take a chance when the film showed on a cable version of what was clearly a movie made for television. You know that when the critical moments precede the commercials, which of course, one can't find in this version we watched.
The film's star is Lara Flynn Boyle who sports a new look that threw this viewer a curve because of the cosmetic transformation this actress has gone through. From the new eyebrows to other parts of her body, Ms. Boyle is hardly recognizable as Col Kennedy, the character at the center of the mystery. This was not one of the actress better moments in front of the camera. That goes for the rest of the mainly Canadian actors that deserved better.
The film has a feeling of a cross between "Desperate Houswives" with "The Stepford Wives" and other better known features, combined with a mild dose of creepiness. The best thing about the movie was the house which serves as the setting.


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


user
The cast is OK. The script is awkward at times, and it takes a while to figure out what the point of the movie is. I found myself looking forward to doing the dishes. The Shehan bit is a cheesy statement on the war. I guess we were supposed to not notice it...we did. Its a house, you did nothing more than kill forty five minutes. The shower part...huh? What was that about? Literally, it is I have a client, "Ok you can use our shower." Yawn. The angles are trying way to hard. There was a set of woods, suddenly its gone cause you can see right through, then next it is deep and animals are dying. In the end this is a horrendous movie of boring proportions.


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


user
It would help to know why it took so long for a book as movie-ready' as "The House Next Door" to be adapted for film or television. The book was copyrighted in 1978. One reason could be problems designing 'the house'. The house in this Lifetime film is really so ugly that I can't imagine anyone buying it. In fact it's so ugly that someone would probably have come and destroyed it as soon as it was built.
I'm not crazy about horror genre books, but this one was hard to put down when I came across it around ten years ago. The main characters are not the kind of people to look for anything occult in life, and this is one of the book's strengths. They are not people who would conclude that the architect was some type of demon..(or the devil personified) without witnessing and analyzing the events described so well in the book. However, it is a downbeat book for the most part, and I don't think that appeals to the people who run Lifetime. Maybe someone will come up with another version of the book in years to come. A better house..better music..a better screenplay and darker lighting...would certainly help.


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


user
Not that I was really surprised....movies are never as good as the books that they originated from. I was looking forward to seeing this movie because this is one of my favorite books, even though I knew it would probably suck. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. However, they strayed from the book's storyline too much, and the movie version did not convey how horrible this house really was. Ending was different too. Lara Flynn Boyle looked terrible due to some really bad cosmetic surgery. The acting was unremarkable at best. Perhaps if a theatrical version was made so that they wouldn't have to stay so much in Lifetime's "made for TV movie" box, it would be a better flick. If you saw this movie I highly encourage you to track down the book and read it. I doubt you'll be disappointed and hope you enjoy it as much as I do every time I read it.


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


user
I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.
The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.
The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.
The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.
In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something... It's not as easy as it's always made to look.
It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that.


assistant
0