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 review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as "Fury of the Wolfman". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as "Fury of the Wolfman". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.
Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis..."Chematodes", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to "change the direction of the human brain", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.
Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to "help them be human again" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.
Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. "Fury of the Wolfman" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused.


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


user
Despite some mildly thought-provoking oddities in the script and the film's overall curiosity value, Fury of the Wolfman emerges as a dull, uninteresting excursion into lycanthropy, saved only by the statuesque presence of villainess Perla Cristal. The rest of the players, including the hammy Naschy, are a complete write-off (though admittedly none are helped by often atrocious dubbing). Although the screenplay packs in enough variations on werewolf/Frankenstein/Dr Moreau themes to flesh out a dozen movies, the plot is so unevenly developed, the characterizations so feeble and the dialogue so verbosely ridiculous (at least in the English version), that any latent interest in the turgid proceedings is soon quashed.
Zabalza's direction seems jerky, even amateurish. His staging is clumsy and ineffective. He is not helped by Villasenor's over-bright lighting. Even promising sets are so unatmospherically photographed that the director's few attempts to give the audience a fright are signaled far in advance
Other credits fall into a similar pattern of ineptitude, though the stridently over-emphatic music score and the laughably crude, totally primitive special effects deserve special condemnation.


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


user
Whoever made this nonsense completely missed the point. Jane is a silly comic strip to titillate without being sleazy.
This giant mess tries to be funny and exciting but is just a shambles. There is not one decent performance in it..even the usually reliable Jasper Carrott is painfully unfunny.
The American bloke whose name escapes me is just as rubbiush as he was in flash gordon.
Maud Adams tries as a villianess but she is a bit long in the tooth for this type of thing. All of these things would not matter if the girl was sexy or funny or likable.She is not. Kirsten Holmes faded into obscurity after this and so much the better.
I've flushed more entertaining things than this down the toilet. Avoid


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


user
I must admit that I have been a sucker for Samurai flicks since I can remember. I used to watch rather indiscriminate, be it "elitist" works like The Seven Samurai or the bloody comic-book variation like Lone Wolf and Cub. I also liked US-/Japanese "Crossovers" like The Bushido Blade. And of course everything containing Sonny Chiba and Hiroyuki Sanada. And I've virtually watched every Samurai at least twice. But not Kabuto.
In 1993 I first watched Kabuto on video, that even Samurai films can be boring. In the beginning I was looking forward to Mayeda reaching Europe and the confrontations that would come from that but by the time he actually reached Spain, I really didn't care so much for the movie anymore.
It wouldn't do the film justice to call it "bad". Technically it's a clean entry into the genre. But there is simply never quiet enough. Sho Kosugi has limited skills as both director and actor and has only a fraction of above mentioned Japanese actors charisma. And speaking of Sho Kosugis son Kane, who appears in almost all Sho Kosugi films as Shos son: he has inherited little-to-none of his fathers limited acting skills. Adding to the minus-points is the absence of the blood and gore that until then was a trademark of all Samurai film. This was obviously intended for a younger US- / European audience.
Lets just say that it's a so-so film for the average historic-action-adventure fan but a bore for hardened fans of Samurai cinema. Fans who are into the "Samurai meets "-genre, should rather go and watch Red Sun (1971), featuring Charles Bronson as cowboy who has to team up with Samurai Toshiro Mifume to retrieve a samurai sword from bad-guy Alan Delon. It pretty much how to do it right and where Kabuto went wrong.
So, even though the film is a mere 100 minutes, it seems like a much longer film.
The reason I gave this a honourable 4/10 points instead of 3/10: First time I saw this film, I saw it in the German synchronized version. In this version, Kosugi can actually be understood. I must admit that his 'Engrish' is at times funny but gets tiresome after about 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
Oh my, I think this may be the single cheesiest movie I've ever seen. I'm serious, this is one of the ultimate b-movies. The first proof is that it isn't a $5 DVD. Oh no, that's too mainstream for this. I got this on VHS, from a bin full of ex-rental videos at my local video store.
If I may quote the blurb: "In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan." It then goes on to say "A multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents"
I must have seen a different movie. This was no epic, and it certainly wasn't a multi million dollar anything. No, 'Shogun Mayeda' is really just the crazy adventures of the Engrish-speaking Mayeda (Sho Kosugi). He isn't even a Shogun really, but thats not important. What is important, is that he does a really cool impression of John Cleese's repeated charging of the one castle in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and his ability to go from serious scenes to showing off his samurai mind powers. Awesome.
The greatest thing about this movie is Sho Kosugi's Engrish accent. The movie may lack nearly everything that makes a good movie, but makes up for it with some of the cheesiest lines ever, delivered by the coolest Engrish accent ever. And honestly, do you really want anything else? You could fast forward 'Shogun Mayeda' to the end, and replay Kosugi's final line over and over. The tape will probably wear out before you get tired of that one line. Awesome.
2/10 - So very very cheesy.


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


user
In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan. Shogun Mayeda is a multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents.
Starring cinema legends Sho Kosugi (Tenchu: Stealth Assassins), Christopher Lee (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings Trilogy), John Rhys Davies (Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Indiana Jones Trilogy) and Toshiro Milfune (The Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood), Shogun Mayeda (Kabuto) is a film masterpiece.
The Osaka winning stunt team bought to the screen by Bob Ivy bring exciting battle/action sequences such as the opening battle against the Eastern army, the attack on Mayeda's ship carrying priceless jewels and the final confrontation between Sho Kosugi and David Essex. A fine musical score by famed composer John Scott is also present. Director Sho Kusugi was not even nominated for an Oscar for this film which deals with the emotional strife such as the death of Mayedas family, the search for love and acceptance after grieving, all of which is dealt with extremely well. Highly recommended cinematic masterpiece.
Please note: All of the above is opposite for the film in question.


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


user
I cant help it but i seem to like films that are meant to be scary and are just plain bad. I have personally listed it in my own top 10 worst movies right under creatures of the abyss!. Watch this film and have a laugh just don't expect to see any academy awards for acting. More chance of understanding the film its self. In all honesty though i have seen much worse than this. Plus some maniac cruising round the desert wiping the same people out that just died is that unbelievable that its got to be original. i think its one of those love or hate movies. you can make up your own mind yes its awful but it pulls it off somehow thats why i love 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 viewed this movie in DVD format. My copy may have been affected but I was disappointed with the lack of menu screen for the DVD. I will say that my initial reason for viewing this movie was Claire Forlani. While fun to watch, I feel she didn't live up to my expectations that I have so far found from her other films. I actually was equally pleased to see Arkin turn in a humorous performance. The other two actors I wasn't very familiar with so I can't compare their performance, however they were fairly enjoyable also. The acting is the only endearing quality of this movie in my opinion. The story line, while some could say slightly compelling, lacked direction. I feel that the main problem stems from the script and not the direction of this film. If you enjoy any of these actors to a fair extent then I recommend this film, but otherwise leave it alone.


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


user
I was expecting a very funny movie. Instead, I got a movie with a few funny jokes, and many that just didn't work. I didn't like the idea of bringing in Sherlock Holmes' and Moriarty's descendants. It was confusing. It would have been more funny if they just had someone new, instead of Moriarty resurrected. Some of the things were funny. Burt Kwouk was very funny, as always. McCloud on the horse was funny. The McGarrett from Hawaii 5-0 was not even McGarrett-like. Connie Booth obviously is very good with accents. She is from Indiana, but played English and a New Yorker pretty well. Unfortunately, she was not presented much into the script. I was expecting a more funny film. Instead, I got a rather confusing movie with a poor script. Rather ironic, since both Booth and Cleese were together on this one. Maybe they were about to break up in 77.


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


user
No laughs whatsoever. Yes, I watched this entire train wreck but only so that I wouldn't later wonder if Cleese had come to his senses in the latter part. (No, he had not.)
This may be historically interesting to you youngsters out there, to see that British "humor" included black "jokes" like these, thirty years ago.
What amazes me even more though, is to read the other reviewers' comments, which acknowledge this isn't very good, yet then turn around and give it high votes. If the vast majority of the comedies that you have seen are even much worse than this one, then I certainly pity your torturous existences.
The humor level of this show appears aimed at little kids, yet the subject matter does not. So who is this for? People who enjoy repeated & drawn-out double-takes, pratfalls, drug jokes (interesting only as a short trip back to '77), and other "low" humor. The Three Stooges are still funny, and were to me as a kid, too. THEY exerted some effort in making jokes work. This however is sloughed off schlock. I fear that it IS the end of civilization, if this stuff really is accepted as worthwhile. Next you'll be telling me that tabloid TV is popular. :(


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


user
This is a fair little show about the paranormal although it feels as if Art Bell and his ilk figured out how to carve a career out of the attitude that Carl Kolchak exemplified. Of course there probably wouldn't be an X-Files if this show hadn't prepped this audience for it so well. Darren McGavin is not exactly the super-heroic type but he is a plausible(enough) guy to deliver heroic deeds. Check out his work on some of those old Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Here he is the main attraction, there doesn't seem to be a girlfriend or wife who's a distraction. In fact there isn't a whole lot of sex appeal to the show. Something I'm noticing as well is that the pacing isn't really suspenseful in a typical way. There's a lot of throwaway humor to this show. Sometimes its just pokey to get to the climax. There's a thread from this show coming all the way up to the present MAD MEN show in terms of style. Not that David Chase writes Mad Men but the people that worked under him on The Sopranos definitely have emulated and inherited his serio-comic tone.


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


user
A childless couple (Brooke Adams, Jeff Hayenga) go to a doctor (James Karen) to try to conceive. It works but Adams slowly becomes aware that there's something seriously wrong with the baby...
Pretty interesting idea is thoroughly done in by a lousy script--the basic idea is OK but becomes screamingly predictable towards the end. I saw every "twist" coming. The direction is poor--he seems to have no idea how to shoot a basic scene. The production values are--to be nice--lousy. Very shabby. And, the gore scenes are too unpleasant (I almost turned it off when a pregnant woman started stabbing herself in the stomach) with lousy special effects. The film completely derails at the end when it becomes quite clear they had no idea HOW to end this film.
Some good acting makes it somewhat bearable. Adams, Hayenga and Karen are all good at their roles and kept me watching but that was about it. This film barely got released in 1991 and still remains unknown--it's easy to see why. I give it a 4.


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


user
It's a good thing I didn't watch this while i was pregnant.I definitely would have cried my eyes out and/or vomit. It was Kind of gruesome mainly disturbing. I personally thought the baby was adorable in its own twisted little way.However as a mom I cringed when Beth stabbed herself in the stomach and when Virgina aborted the child during her 3rd trimester with rusty utensils no less.Also,as an animal lover i almost cried when she scratched the cat to a bloody pulp.However,As creepy and sinister as the baby was I was rooting for it to live.And as twisted as the movie was I am extremely intrigued to see the sequel...... ......... ....... ......... ......... ....... ...... .....


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


user
Oh... my... god... this is without a doubt the absolute cheesiest movie I have ever seen. The acting is bad, the story is weak, the characters are weaker, and the whole film just doesn't make sense. Couple this with mediocre directing, really strange scenes (such as the one where the kid reaches over the ravine and mysteriously falls in), and thoroughly abysmal dialog ("Look!" "Musta peed his pants!"), and you get one complete failure. Not to mention the fact that the only thing Mr. Atlas looks like he could defeat is a case of chocolate bars. But this is part of the movie's charm. Sit down and watch it with a few of your friends for a good laugh.
I love this movie, because it's just SO BAD!


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


user
A youth gets a bad hair day, goes out on a hill, and falls into where he can't escape. Then, he meets MR. ATLAS, a "mythological" dude from 2,000 years ago as his very best friend, and an Arnold Schwarzenegger look-and-sound-alike. His Herculean strength helps the boy out of danger, and later adjusts to modern life. So what's the big deal? This is the lousiest idea for a "family" outing! Either way, this one shouldn't have been attempted at all, really! Our fictional character of might and brawn is nothing more than a typical stranger who appears ordinary to the rest of the universe. To add to the blasphemy is the lack of anything new or appealing, and before you know it, there is some attempted violence that doesn't qualify this as "family" entertainment. The scene where Atlas complains of his undershorts is gaggling, though. Just spend a nice, quiet afternoon in the park for a change.


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 pretty poor. The acting is abysmal and completely forced. Furthermore, by shooting the film as a docudrama doesn't necessarily make it more believable, you can't get out of it that easily Mr Dir. Don't let my comments mislead you however, as i would recommend you watch this film, as it does shed some light on the psychology or non existent psychology behind the perpetrators of such crimes. However, the climax of the film is absolutely rubbish! There is no other way to put it! It pure and simply fails to capture any sense of atmosphere! What takes place does not translate to me any feelings of desperation, panic, fear or dread that one would surely experience in such terrifying circumstances. No instead it leaves you with jaw dropping "Was that it?!" spilling from your tongue, and by no means are you haunted by these boys actions. Rather you just feel embarrassed for yet another film that started with potential, but ended up falling flat on its face at the most crucial point.Zero Day indeed....zzzzzzzzzzzzz


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


user
I am fully aware there is no statistical data that readily supports the correlation between video games and real life violence. The movie is false and phony because it is in complete contradiction of itself, which is what I tried to emphasize in my original review. The movie fails, not necessarily because I really do think these kids were influenced by video games, but because the movie sets it up as "random" and doesn't follow through. Let me clarify. In Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, you can see her claims about the police and being controlled by radio waves are ridiculous, yet she is so troubled, she really believes them to be true. The viewer can make the distinction however. In Zero Day, the 2 kids keep saying how they are not influenced by anything environmental, which is obviously false since everything they do contradicts this. Neo-nazism, talking about going on CNN with Wolf Blitzer (which is laughable not only because they know his name, but its a shameless attempt by the filmmaker to get coverage of his bad movie)..etc. This movie doesn't depict 'reality', it shows nothing but phoniness to prove a point. Unfortunately you fell for the bait and didn't see this, and you didn't pick up on it from my review either. The entire movie is just taking Michael Moore's hypothesis and applying it to something "real life" in hopes of validating and it fails, not necessarily because the hypothesis is wrong, but because the movie is wrong and doesn't support it. Of course I don't think kids that play video games are more likely to kill people, but if I'm not mistaken, didn't video tape exist of the Columbine kids (or some teen killers) shooting guns in the forest claiming how much they looked or acted like the weaponry in Doom? Hmmmmmmm, the distinction is kids are most likely aware of the media, influenced, but obviously balanced or intelligent enough that its not even an issue. Zero Day is a bad movie not because I really believe a correlation exists, but because the film maker doesn't know what hes trying to say, and the movie does more to disprove his point then support it. It's almost as if the new ratings given to video games made someone upset so they came up with 'Zero Day' in retaliation. If you want to see the 'mindless' teen killer theory pulled off right, go watch Bully.


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


user
Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.
The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem "normal", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction.


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


user
I had no background knowledge of this movie before I bought it, but it sounded cool and I've been wanting to see a really kick-butt Viking movie for awhile now... alas, this film was not what I was looking for. I had hoped for the best, but instead, was delivered a boring Nordic soap-opera that seemed to drag on too long despite its 84 minute running time. The film's premise is intriguing enough: It's about a Viking warlord who defies his God and Odin is so enraged that he curses the warlord's son, named Barek, to death and rebirth as a Berserker. This Barek guy is then forced to live enraged, insane, and violent lifetime after lifetime. The movie is filmed competently enough, with some rich cinematography and quasi-good performances by the actors, but again, I found myself bored and questioning when this dribble would end. The filmmakers had a chance to make something rather entertaining and semi-unique but they dropped the ball. Perhaps it could've been improved with some cheap exploitation tactics thrown in such as gratuitous nudity and lots of gore... I mean, we are talking about "Berserkers" here, aren't we? Vikings were supposed to be BAD enough, what with all the raping and pillaging, so aren't Berserkers supposed to be even more extreme? All in all, unless you're a fan of The Young and Restless (etc...) or, are yourself, in fact, an insane Berserker who likes self torture, I'd probably steer clear of this drab piece of celluloid.


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 sucks from beginning till (especially) the end. You probably don't get 'm any worse, acting, storyline ,photography, camera work, etcetera it's all bad, very, very bad.
But that's what makes it a 'great' watch, it will give you more than enough good laughs. The worse, the better!
I really have no clue what so ever of what these people were thinking making this movie. A serious viking movie? The story is goddamn ridiculous, it's more like a comedy in disguise, kinda like Mafia, also pointless but damn funny.
And look out for the very very end of the movie... uhum.


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 portrays France's unresolved problems with its colonial legacy in Western (Francophone) Africa through the befuddled and complex psychoanalytical prism of a young woman, France (herein symbolically representing her nation). It is an often engaging and challenging portrait of a young woman's desire to come to terms with a traumatic moment in her past, in particular, and a nation's desire to reach out to the 'other' it once 'owned' and moulded. This is reflected in the way in which it centres entirely around the notion of travelling (or being in transit) from the present to the past; remembered realities to undeniable contemporary political and economic actualities.
The characters all play a symbolic, albeit a limited and unconvincing role. France, meant to be a visual as well as a totemic representation of contemporary French society, leaves one indifferent to her plight as she seems still to be imbued with the same naiveté she enjoyed as a child-in fact as a child she seems more in possession of her reality. The rest of the rag-tag ensemble is just forgettable. The black Africans are, to say the least, offencive impressionistic portraits of former colonised peoples now colonised by the director's poor handling of her material. They are no more than a dark and moribund backdrop against which the blythe-like France wonders seeking a world she never knew, and hoping for one that can never be found in Cameroon.


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


user
I am astounded at the positive reviews for this thoroughly uninspiring film.
Often with foreign films I skip over reviews that complain about slow pace and seeming "absence of action" as many of the best international films do not live up to the Western Hollywood model of cinematic storytelling.
I enjoy the frequent artfulness and lack of cliché in the foreign film arena. I enjoy that many foreign films don't tie things up in a neat palatable little bow.
That said, this particular film offered no redemptive value for the time I wasted watching it. No meaningful character development, no engaging story arc, no way to get emotionally involved with any of the characters on screen.
Synopsis: A bunch of emotionally immature uptight prejudiced colonials mistreat their slaves, and a little girl gets hurt by her only friend when the "house-boy" finally gets fed up and takes his abuse out on her.
While the above paragraph is poignant and dramatic, this movie will bore you while playing out the scenario. I was so unengaged that it took three sittings to finish it, and I wouldn't have even done that were it not for the positive ratings.
Unless you have an academic interest in the period I strongly suggest steering clear of this one.


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


user
I am very open to foreign films and like to think that I grasp what they are trying to accomplish although some things are lost in translation. But the simplicity and "intelligence" of this film were boring. I've often thought how interesting it would be to make a movie that just shows a typical day or time period that really had no point. Now that I've seen a movie like that I will no longer be thinking along those lines. There's tones about society, racism, and some desire...but South Park has that. And when I watch South Park it actually moves me to feel an emotion. The closest thing I felt to an emotion during this movie was the yawn I experienced after the first five minutes. I rate the typical movie a seven or above because I love most every film. I gave this film a one.


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


user
Some good movies keep you in front of the TV, and you are dying to see the result.
This movie does not have highs and lows. It simply describes a young girl's family life in Africa. People come and go, the weather and the background are all the same.



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


user
Boring children's fantasy that gives Joan Plowright star billing but little to do. Sappy kids pursue their dreams. Frankie wants to be a ballerina and a baseball player (yuk) while best-friend Hazel runs for mayor---she's 13! Totally pedestrian in every way, plus the added disadvantage of syrupy performances by the girls as well as the baseball boys. Certainly a lesser effort for Showtime---no limits?


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


user
Of the ten actors who portrayed Philo Vance in the series, Edmund Lowe seemed the most personable, but in this script the audience is way ahead of the famed detective. After all, when the jockey, Douglas Walton, stares blankly in space, obviously hypnotized, and says something like "I must ride and be killed," I felt it was dumb that no one picked up on it after he does get killed. The police thought it was a suicide because he said he would do it! After hated horse owner Gene Lockhart gets shot and killed, Frieda Inescort does the same thing, saying she's going out to be killed, and then fatally jumps off a bus. I laughed when Lowe finally yells "I got it," as though it were a revelation. The guilty party, however, was cleverly concealed and there was considerable suspense generated when that party starts to hypnotize Lowe to get him to jump off a roof.


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


user
Admittedly, Parsifal is not an opera that can appeal to everyone, although it is a favourite of mine, Knappertsbusch, 1951, in particular. Syberberg's entire approach is so static. Whenever the music suddenly begins to swell ... Syberberg keeps the cast moving at the same pace. The takes on Amfortas and Klingsor are endless. Whatever happened to film editing? The result is physically exhausting to watch. The viewer is never spiritually transported. Your impulse is to rush home and play a recording again to confirm that Wagner got it right, Syberberg got it wrong. And that set decoration with those "clever" reminders of Wagner's anti-Semitism -- will there ever be a viewer of this film with no prior knowledge of Wagner?


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


user
It must be assumed that those who praised this film ("the greatest filmed opera ever," didn't I read somewhere?) either don't care for opera, don't care for Wagner, or don't care about anything except their desire to appear Cultured. Either as a representation of Wagner's swan-song, or as a movie, this strikes me as an unmitigated disaster, with a leaden reading of the score matched to a tricksy, lugubrious realisation of the text.
It's questionable that people with ideas as to what an opera (or, for that matter, a play, especially one by Shakespeare) is "about" should be allowed anywhere near a theatre or film studio; Syberberg, very fashionably, but without the smallest justification from Wagner's text, decided that Parsifal is "about" bisexual integration, so that the title character, in the latter stages, transmutes into a kind of beatnik babe, though one who continues to sing high tenor -- few if any of the actors in the film are the singers, and we get a double dose of Armin Jordan, the conductor, who is seen as the face (but not heard as the voice) of Amfortas, and also appears monstrously in double exposure as a kind of Batonzilla or Conductor Who Ate Monsalvat during the playing of the Good Friday music -- in which, by the way, the transcendant loveliness of nature is represented by a scattering of shopworn and flaccid crocuses stuck in ill-laid turf, an expedient which baffles me. In the theatre we sometimes have to piece out such imperfections with our thoughts, but I can't think why Syberberg couldn't splice in, for Parsifal and Gurnemanz, mountain pasture as lush as was provided for Julie Andrews in Sound of Music...
The sound is hard to endure, the high voices and the trumpets in particular possessing an aural glare that adds another sort of fatigue to our impatience with the uninspired conducting and paralytic unfolding of the ritual. Someone in another review mentioned the 1951 Bayreuth recording, and Knappertsbusch, though his tempi are often very slow, had what Jordan altogether lacks, a sense of pulse, a feeling for the ebb and flow of the music -- and, after half a century, the orchestral sound in that set, in modern pressings, is still superior to 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
An art house maven's dream. Overrated, overpraised, overdone; a pretentious melange that not only did not deserve Best Picture of 1951 on its own merits, it was dwarfed by the competition from the start. Place in the Sun, Detective Story, Streetcar Named Desire, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man; you name it, if it came out in '51, it's better than this arthouse crapola. The closing ballet is claptrap for the intellectual crowd, out of place and in the wrong movie. Few actors in their time were less capable (at acting) or less charismatic than Kelly and Caron. My #12 Worst of '51 (I saw 201 movies), and among the 5 worst Best Picture Oscar winners.


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


user
I'm never much for classic films. Movies like Patton, Going My Way, How Green was My Valley, The Godfather, Casablanca, Annie Hall, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane bore me. However, I would much rather watch any one of those films 3,469 times while being tied up on a chair than watch An American in Paris once in the most luxurious suite ever. If I did the latter, I'd probably be sleeping the entire time.
The color art direction and the music didn't interest me, Gershwin or non-Gershwin. The dancing and the singing could help an insomniac fall to sleep. The dialogue doesn't match up to Singin' in the Rain. Basically, this movie is boring. The only other film that I fell asleep while watching was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But you can't blame me. I only slept 5 minutes the night before.
1 star/10 (Too bad we can't give zeroes.)


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 know what the Oscar voters saw in this movie, but they must of seen some pretty hard stuff to see in it to be able to award it with the best picture Oscar. All I know is that fortunately there was Gene Kelly to play in it or this would have been twice as bad as I believe it is. First of all, I don't think Leslie Caron was really fit to play such a role. She isn't that talented, she isn't a great dancer and she's not good looking at all. It's a shame that one actor or actress may ruin a movie just like by playing in it because if Leslie Caron hadn't been in this, it might have made a terrific movie. The story was intelligent, the directing wasn't bad, and, as I said, Gene Kelly was pretty good. Now I'm not saying all this stuff about Leslie Caron just to criticize her, I'm just saying it because I think that's what the worse part of the movie is. She's probably a good actress but I can't tell because I haven't seen her in anything else but I think she was pretty bad in "An American in Paris". So if you want to see it, go ahead but I'm telling you, you're way better off watching "Singin' in the rain".


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


user
This is a film that belongs firmly to the 50's. Very surprising that American Film Institute has chosen this one for one for the best 100 American movies of all-time. I have seen practically all of the movies on that list, and this one is by far the most disappointing one of those. Musical numbers (and there many, many of them) are VERY overlong and boring, and have absolute no connection with the story. The end of the movie has horribly over-long ballet sequency, which naturally has no real relation to the story of the movie. It must be admitted, that it is very well made, the music is OK, and the dancing done with the highest professional standard - but there is no real reason why the sequence is included in the movie.
The main character of the movie is extremely childlish and unlikeable and behaves in unpolite way. His mental age is about 14. If you want to see a good musical made on the "golden age" of musicals, go and see "Singing in the Rain".


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


user
(aka: BLOOD CASTLE or SCREAM OF THE DEMON)
*spoiler*
This was a drive-in feature, co-billed with THE VELVET VAMPIRE. A Spanish-Italian co-production where a series of women in a village are being murdered around the same time a local count named Yanos Dalmar is seen on horseback, riding off with his 'man-eating' dog behind him.
The townsfolk already suspect he is the one behind it all and want his castle burned down. The murders first began around the time Count Yanos' older brother, Count Igor Dalmar was horribly burned and killed in a lab accident.
Then a woman Ivanna (Erna Schuer) that Igor hired before his death to assist him in his experiments shows up. Yanos agrees to hire her in place of his brother and together they seek the formulae for the regeneration of dead cells. Yanos wants to bring Igor's charred corpse back to life.
But of course Igor is still alive (although horribly burned) and stalking and killing the women in the village. We see his char-broiled face appear at various points in the film, so we know he's still alive, making the whole thing seem a little bit too obvious.
Igor meets another fiery end when he gets into a fight with Yanos over Ivanna, with the burning candles falling on to the same bed that Igor stumbles on to, meeting yet another, final char-broiled end.
The Retromedia DVD is taken from a VHS source and looks quite grainy and bad. Other than an even scratchier trailer, no other extras are included. Although it has a nice, creepy Spanish castle and good atmospherics, I found it to be fairly boring and predictable, with no excitement or mystery, whatsoever.
3 out of 10.


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


user
I caught this a few months ago on Family Channel, and having some memories of the TV show from my youth, decided to watch it along with my 4 year old daughter. I should have got some psychedelic mushrooms to go along with it, 'cause this is just bizarre! Not only is it a musical with annoyingly forgettable tunes, the requisite cheesy effects and cameos by stars long past their collective primes, it seems to have been produced as somebody's good acid trip. Talking flutes, British children far too old for this kind of crap... in the words of Krusty the Klown "uuuuuugggghhhhh! What was I on?" If you're a huge fan of the whole Sid and Marty Krofft oeuvre, go for it; otherwise, unless you're willing to get looped before watching, stay far, far, FAR away.


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


user
I hated this show when I was a kid. That was back in the day when kids show characters actually had accents, not just the bland, generic, General American Dialect we're used to. Jack Wild had a British accent and Pufnstuf's was southern. Like one of the others mentioned, though, I never quite understood what the deal was with the witch wanting the flute. That always seemed odd to me, probably because the flute just annoyed me and I wouldn't have gone to any trouble to take it away!
Just a comment on the similarity of Pufnstuf to early 70s McDonalds commercials that others have mentioned: Pufnstuf ripped off McDonalds. At the height of McDonalds popularity, the TV show (or rather, their creators) sought to license McDonalds characters for their show, but when McDonalds declined the TV show changed the characters slightly and passed it as their own. They even hired former employees of McDonalds ad agency and the voice actors to make the TV shows. McDonalds sued and won. Search for Pufnstuf McDonaldland lawsuit and you'll find plenty of articles about 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 tried watching this abomination of the cinema when I was five years old; I have never been the same since. Filled to the brim with drug-induced images that reek of the common ravings of your average asylum resident, this "movie", despite its colorful appearance, is not for humans, ESPECIALLY not children.
It starts out innocently enough with a poor boy who ruins his classmate's drum by (wait for it) putting his head through it; yes, putting his HEAD through it. But fear not, my friends! He is quickly consoled by his chirping flute, which is weird enough, I'll grant you, but still acceptable.
THEN: The movie morphs into a combination of Wizard of Oz and Where the Wild Things Are, but loses all the "warm and fuzzy" aspects of either of these two books.
So, this seven-foot yellow relative of Barney, befriends this poor boy and plunges him even deeper into despair.
And, to add the pleasant array of horrific themes, a carnivorous boat, formerly a friend of the motley crew of hobbling grandfather clocks and doped-up "dragons", is added to the mix of mayhem.
The most comforting image in the midst of this chaos is the villain, aptly dubbed "Witchiepoo" (?). Of course, she has problems of her own: what with an obvious plastic mask constricting her facial expressions to having to deal with a broomstick whose gas level always seemed to be at its lowest at the most inopportune moments. As a result of this, one of her favorite pastimes was nose-diving into the body of water that separated the land of Pufnstuf from her degenerate, decaying abode (I don't know where I would have preferred to live).
In summary, this movie is terrifying...
If you want to watch the movie that has similar effects on its audience as The Exorcist, then this one is for you. Enjoy.


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


user
Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.
This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.
OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.
3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them.


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


user
Cliché-ridden story of an impending divorce - or is it? - through the eyes of a 6 year-old child. Corny dialogue, cardboard characters, stock situations, a red herring zombie sub-plot and, worst of all, absolutely no payoff, either emotionally or dramatically.
Does no-one teach creative writing any more? The true sign of a weak storyteller - when you cannot create any kind of satisfying denouement - just end the story. I'm compelled to ask, "what made you think this was a story worth telling in the first place!?"
Good, but wasted, debut by child actor Anthony De Marco - the rest of the cast was, at best, forgettable. And they wonder why no-one watches indie films! This is ninety minutes of my life I will never get back.


assistant
0