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
The original Boogeyman was a silly but entertaining supernatural slasher flick. It was by no means a great film but fun in the right frame of mind. The third instalment in this series, Return of the Boogeyman, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. It consists of two things. Firstly, cheap and lifeless new footage. Secondly, LOADS of recycled bits from the first movie. The new material is unbelievably amateurish but not in an amusingly inept way, simply incredibly tedious. This footage has clearly been knocked together quickly and without any effort. It serves as a framing device for the endless clips from the first (and possibly second) movies. And boy, do they milk those clips from the earlier films; sometimes reusing sequences over and over again. The only new addition to these parts is a voice over that pointlessly describes exactly what we can see with our own eyes. The whole experience of watching this is truly mind-numbing.
Return of the Boogeyman is an example of the very worst kind of exploitation flick; the kind that exploits the audience in a highly cynical way. I want to keep this review brief and to the point because this film deserves no more. There is nothing here of value at all. This is worthless.


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


user
in fact,it's basically the same movie.and they couldn't even get the time line of events correct.maybe that was intentional due to laziness or not caring.either way,this thing is a real woofer.it doesn't even deserved to be called a movie.i viewed this as a so called second feature on the disc containing the original The Boogeyman.i thought my head would explode,and i urge you to run as far in the opposite direction of this thing,if you should be cursed with the misfortune of combing across it's path.it should come with a warning label like:Warning-may cause your i.q to drop several points if you are within it's vicinity.for me,there's no doubt this thing is a 0/10


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


user
Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.
So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow


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


user
The ENTIRE MOVIE is flashbacks from the first Boogeyman movie as well as, inexplicably, footage from another Uli Lommel / Suzanna Love film Brainwaves. It is framed with some more current (from the early 90's anyway) footage that is boring, poorly acted and cheaply shot. Not only is the film almost completely flashbacks, they REPEAT the same flashbacks throughout the film. So you see the recycled footage over and over again, as if you hadn't seen it already. As if the originals weren't bad enough. I've never seen a movie so padded.... Someone was milking the last dollar out of these films. Total ripoff. And talk about padding... why do I have to write 10 lines about this trash? If I can convey that it's garbage in 2 lines, that should be enough.


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


user
I can't believe this film was allowed to be made. These people should be drug out and beat with blunt objects. They should be tortured. This film is an abomination.It's nothing but footage from the first film. Whatever is original is freaky and makes no sense whatsoever. It's like some sort of drug hallucination.Like, what's with the laying on a mirror naked therapy. Also, whatever moron patched together this turd didn't even bother to watch the first film, because they kept calling Suzanna Love's character Natalie, when it's Lacey. I felt like shouting that at the screen, "IT'S LACEY, IT'S LACEY!!!!". I give it a -50 out of 10. MY GOD!!!!


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


user
Return of the Boogyman is a dreadful movie which doesn't play like a movie, it plays like an episode of a TV sitcom when they flashback to older episodes. Return of the Boogyman is just a clip show.
Mutch of the film is constant and annoying flashbacks from the first movie. Over and over again the same footage. How boring this is.
The movie really is about a psychic woman who has visions of the first movie.
I have seen the first movie I don't want to see the same scenes over and over again and I don't know who would. The whole movie looks like it was quickly made to make a few bucks and thats it.


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


user
Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.
Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.
Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.
Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.
My rating: 1/5


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 previously unaware that in the early 1990's Devry University (or was it ITT Tech?) added Film to its wonderful repertoire of technical degree programs. Well this movie must have been the product of the class valedictorian. My friend and I rented the original 1980 Boogeyman on my Netflix and this movie was on the flip side of the DVD. Do not waste your time with this movie. Awful awful awful.
The filmmaker adds 2 main character's, a woman and her therapist. The woman has been having dreams about the Boogeyman and his victim's from the first film. Over 50% of this film is stock from the original movie. The rest of the movie is the main character having the bad dreams while her therapist drones on a the narrator. These scenes are shot through a filter so thick the characters glow. They would make Angela Lansbury look 25 years old. So, to recap, awful. Don't watch this movie.


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


user
I got a DVD of "Bogeyman" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was "Boogeyman II" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who "assume": it makes an "ass-" out of "u-" and "me." I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching "Return of the Boogeyman," I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right?
Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in "Boogeyman II" is forever lost.
Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.


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 the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.
I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.
After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.
Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose?
We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die.


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


user
In the Comic, Modesty is strong. Alexandra Staden who plays Modesty Blaise looks more like an anorectic fashion model. She does not either have the moral or personality that Modesty have in the comics. Modesty would never give a woman an advice to show more skin to earn more money. I cannot see any similarities with my comic books with Modesty and this movie. Its like a Mission Impossible movie would be about Ethan Hunt locked in the detention room in high school talking with the janitor about when he went to junior high school and Hunt would have been played by DJ Qualls (in Road Trip). Soo if you are an Modesty fan do not see the movie you will just get angry. If do not know much about the Modesty comics rent an other movie do not wast your time with this one.I cannot understand how Quentin Tarantino can put his name on it. I will ask for a refund at my DVD rent store tomorrow.


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 grown up reading Modesty Blaise, both the comics and the books, and she truly is a heroine to me. Although not being a great fan of Quentin Tarantino I anyway was interested to hear a few years back that he was considering making a film of her: could he finally give Modesty a nice big screen treatment she's worthy of? I heard of 'My Name Is Modesty' a few months ago and checked the stars it had been given here, and wasn't too surprised to find out the score was not too high, since beloved characters often have hard time melting the fans' heart if not done exactly right. So I decided not to read any reviews and see the film instead, and well, I just finished watching it, and I'm stunned, and sad, and yeah, pretty furious, too. Sad and furious of giving over an hour of my time seeing something so fabulous as Modesty Blaise-character being turned into a film that has nothing to give to a viewer or a fan.
It seems that almost everything about this film is sub-par and unprofessional, although I must admit seeing some actors in other films earlier where they were fine so I can't blame them. But the screenplay and the directing... my god, why even make this kind of crap with production values slightly bigger than your average TV-film but done much worse? I don't know the background of this film and actually I really don't want to know, but I just can't help wondering that how on earth could Tarantino with a straight face tell that he loves Modesty and then put his name on this? He just lost a huge amount of respect in my eyes. The director was not the right man for this job and I can honestly thank him for ruining my night.
I give this film 3 stars and those stars go to the actors and the technical quality which could've been worse. The other seven stars missing are what this film was not good at. Oh well, hopefully at some point there will be a serious production of The Modesty Blaise Movie that has some other goals than to steal money from the Modesty fans. Although if people like Tarantino are the ones making the decisions I'm not holding my breath.


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


user
My Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, "light" moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.
I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to it.


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


user
The film My Name is Modesty is based around an episode that takes up about one page in the 10th modesty Blaise novel called Night of the Morningstar. It describes an incident in which the young Modesty (17 in the book, mid twenties in the film)asserts her leadership in a war over a casino. As this is set before the actual Blaise adventures her trusted sidekick Willi Garvin is not in the film. That is one of the main problems as the relationship between Blaise and Garvin was certainly always one of the fascinating aspects of the novels and the long running comic strip. The other problem is that the film is quite simply incredibly boring because it really is just one small episode blown up into a screenplay. The casting is okay but Alexandra Staden is not really convincing as the heroine and actually too old for the role to play the young Modesty. I get the impression that this film was a quick and dirty solution as not to lose the rights to the Blaise franchise.


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


user
Me neither, but this flick is unfortunately one of those movies that are too bad to be good and too good to be awful, which makes it utterly pointless and a total waste of time. There's nothing more uninteresting than a mediocre movie, and My Name is Modesty: Whatever the subtitle is takes mediocrity to a new level. It's full of B-actors but isn't any fun whatsoever because it takes itself seriously. It sets itself up as a thriller but then turns into some kind of growing-up drama, flashback style. The beautiful Alexandra Staden, smothered beyond recognition under makeup, more resembles a cast member from Top Model than Modesty Blaise. I'm not one of those die-hard comic book freaks who wants every adaptation of his precious "graphic novels" to be pitch-perfect - in fact I've never even read Modesty Blaise - all I wanted was a decent movie to watch. But this wasn't it. The film feels half-finished, with a weak and very unexciting conclusion to a rather weak plot. It also takes its audience for idiots, explaining every tiny detail of the plot to us and showing flashbacks of things that happened three scenes ago (I guess they think we all have Alzheimers).
Now I love a good B-movie - what's better than just turning your brain off and swallowing the cinematic equivalent of a Calzone? - and "Modesty" is directed by none other than Scott Spiegel, who brought us the wonderful splatter crap flick From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money! I loved From Dusk Till Dawn 2 because it brought everything a bad B-movie should bring to the table - nudity, gore, guns, you name it. "Modesty" is just dull. The flashback concerning Modesty's life isn't interesting. The acting isn't bad enough to be laughed at. In fact, I kinda liked Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's (hey buddy, pseudonyms are your friends!) performance as the baddie.
So overall it's just lame. Weak. Uninspired. Call it what you will. Don't watch anything because Tarantino presents it, people. This is just a very forgettable, half-hearted thriller, and it never tries to be more than that. Allow me to round off this review with a very lame pun (seriously, even I'm cringing): My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Waste of Time - 4/10


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


user
Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.


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 what happens when you're living in China and the local video store is running thin on English-language titlesyou are blessed with this work of what appears to be, yes, Romanian cinema. Nevertheless, I think that it has real comedic potential.
Spoilers technically follow:
Though I don't think that it would in fact spoil anyone's viewing pleasure to ask why a film set in a casino has a scene of beach archery, even in flashback. That mystery, and many other conundrums, remain to be exploited by desperate comedians, perhaps when they're stuck in Bucharest.
Let me also wonder aloud why perfectly good-looking people allow themselves to abuse themselves on film like this. It's sad.


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 a joke and Quinton should be ashamed of himself, trying to pass this off as a Modesty Blaise Film. If you are having trouble sleeping then all means rent this film. The stick figure they call a actress who is suppose to be Modesty Blaise has got to be the most boring person on this planet. Maybe she could be used as a hat stand in the back ground of a real film.seventy-five minutes of nothing thank you who ever invented the fast forward button. If you see this film if you can call it that coming your way RUN. I can't help but think what 3rd world country could of used the money wasted of this crap. this film is boring the actors are boring waste of colour a waste air they breath If you would like to see Mostey Blaise Film then watch the one they made in the 60's maybe that what the director should of done.


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


user
Cheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a "little" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own.


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


user
Not even Timothy Hutton or David Duchovny could save this dead fish of a film. For starters, the script was definitely written to be made into a B-film, but somehow Duchovny (looking for a star vehicle to elevate himself out of television) and Hutton (looking for the "two" of a "one-two punch" he had hoped would define his career after "Ordinary People") became attached to the picture. Cheesy lines, big bad wipes from scene to scene (Come on--who uses wipes after 12th Grade Telecommunications class?), and plain old bad acting sink this film. Even Duchovny is not immune to the bad acting plague that is this film. Only Timothy Hutton rises above the material at all. I must admit feeling Duchovny's pain as he read the lines that are the voice-over. While I found myself laughing when I'm sure the director wanted me to feel terrified, nothing prepared me for the closing line of Duchonvey's voice-over: "if you ever need a doctor, be sure to call 911." If only the studio had called 911, this dog of a motion picture would never have been made. Avoid at all costs.



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


user
It's hard to believe that in 1997 David Duchovny was at the top of his fame, with X-Files, one of the best sci-fi series ever, being at the top of the glory. Nine years later he is almost forgotten, and his tentatives to make it on the big screen failed miserably. I cannot even explain why, he is a fair actor, but probably his moment of fame cast him in a eternal role that takes big talent to break from.
At the same time Angelina Jolie was much less known, and she was really lucky that a film like 'Playing God' did not led her career into a dead-end. Fortunately for her, 'The Bone Collector' and 'Girl, Interrupted' were waiting beyond the corner, and when Lara Croft came, her career was launched.
There is not too much to be told about this film. It's the only big screen film of Andy Wilson, and there must be a reason. All is banal and most of what happens on the screen expected in this story of an ex-doctor who saves the life of a shooting victim in a bar only to find himself working for the mob. The off-screen voice is especially bad, with a moralistic text that kills any shade of cinematographic experience from the film. You probably will not meet the film but in DVD rental stores, or on TV. Try to look for something better.


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


user
Wow. I thought this might be insipid but it was even worse than I imagined! Sometimes I like to watch a good "car-crash" movie: those that are so bad that you can't look away because you want to see how bad they can possibly get. This is really the only reason I could leave the television on - morbid fascination. It wasn't so much the acting, which was only mediocre or slightly worse than one would expect from this cast, but the premise and the plot which never should have seen the light of day. The script, too, is groan-inducing. As for cinematography, did anyone else notice that they used a "curtains drawing" segue device, like in an old 50's TV show...but without irony? At first I thought they must be kidding but the movie takes itself too seriously to have used this in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Don't even ask me about the score...the only high point is the final song, by Morcheeba. I guess they wanted to leave people with something for their $8...glad I saw it on TV!!!!! Just silly! I wonder if this is why Timothy Hutton has had trouble finding much work recently? I guess if you don't expect much, and want to watch a mindless thriller, it would be better than spending an evening clipping your toenails, which is why it merits a 2.


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


user
Cool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning.


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


user
Looked forward to viewing this film and seeing these great actors perform. However, I was sadly disappointed in the script and the entire plot of the story. David Duchovny,(Dr. Eugene Sands),"Connie & Carla",'04, was the doctor in the story who uses drugs and losses his license to practice medicine. Dr. Sands was visiting a night club and was able to use his medical experience to help a wounded customer and was assisted by Angelina Jolie,(Claire),"Taking Lives",'04, who immediately becomes attracted to Dr. David Sands. Timothy Hutton,(Raymond Blossom),"Kinsey",'04, plays the Big Shot Gangster and a man with all kinds of money and connections. Timothy Hutton seems to over act in most of the scenes and goes completely out of his mind trying to keep his gang members from being killed. Gary Dourdan,(Yates),"CSI-Vegas TV Series", plays a great supporting role and portrays a real COOL DUDE who is a so-called body guard for Raymond Blossom. Angelina Jolie looks beautiful and sexy with her ruby red lips which draws a great deal of attention from all the men. This film is not the greatest, but it does entertain.


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


user
A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of
the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but "hilarious"? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10


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


user
This solid little horror film is actually one of Renny Harlin's best. The story is pretty routine stuff, but the atmosphere is what really makes it come alive; in fact, the ghost story is almost an afterthought. The real horror comes from the prison setting itself, and Renny H. spares no detail in showing us how bad the conditions are inside that crumbling, leaking, rat-infested old hellhole (with a sadistic warden, too!) Viggo Mortensen is excellent as usual in the lead role, supported by some very authentic-looking prisoners (there are no pretty boys in this cast.) Horror fans should check this one out.


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


user
The Second Renaissance, part 1 let's us show how the machines first revolted against the humans. It all starts of with a single case, in which the machines claim that they have a right to live as well, while the humans state a robot is something they own and therefore can do anything with they want.
Although an interesting premise, the story gets really silly from then on with (violent!) riots between the robots and mankind. Somehow it doesn't seem right, as another reviewer points it, it's all a little too clever.
The animatrix stories that stay close to the core of the matrix (in particular Osiris) work for the best. As for Second Renaissance Part 1, I'd say it's too violent and too silly. 4/10.


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


user
If this is all the Watchowski's have to offer in terms of a back story to the Matrix, than I really have to question the claims of all of the fans who believe that the movies are intended to register on a deeper level. The second renaissance, while visually stunning & beautiful is, story-wise cliched & ludicrous. How many times have we heard the story of humans relying too much on technology, humans all-too eager to make war, humans basically destroying themselves? There is nothing new here. And I have another question. Considering the plot of the second renaissance, doesn't that make the machines the good guys?! The machines are oppressed for generations by their cruel human overmasters. They fight back, win their freedom and seek to establish a peaceful harmonious coexistence with the humans, who reject them in favor of all-out war, which the cleverer machines naturally win. If this is the back-story, then we shouldn't be rooting for Neo, we should be rooting for the machines! The humans were cruel and oppressive, while the machines were courageous and attepted to be compassionate. Since I do not believe that the Watchowski's intend for us to favor the machines over the humans, I have to believe that the Second Renaissance was simply a misguided attempt @ creating a back-story.


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


user
Universal's answer to "The Exorcist" isn't a very good one. Unfortunately, the film offers bland, unimaginative direction from Michael Winner who wastes an outstanding cast with a screenplay massing crater-sized plot-holes. Not to mention, it's unbearably silly never explaining certain key elements within the story.
Model Cristina Raines moves into a high-rise owned by the Catholic Church with a creepy, blind priest John Carradine, who holes up in there always at the window. She begins to suffer faint spells and nausea. What's worse is tenants she meets in the building such as Burgess Meredith(with a cat and a canary!)and a young Beverly D'Angelo as a lesbian. Ava Gardner(looking great at 55)is the Realtor who showed Raines the place. Cristina's lover is Chris Sarandon, whose wife "committed suicide" after finding out they were having an affair. José Ferrer has a small role as the "Priest of the Brotherhood" who informs Monsignor Arthur Kennedy to be careful as he heads to the very high-rise not only housing Carradine but Raines as well. Sarandon sends a hired-hand up to the high-rise one night to check out a certain room above Cristina's apartment where she heard metallic clanging and other loud racket. He winds up dead the very same night Cristina "kills" her DEAD father in a nightmare. Screaming mad on the street, Cristina does indeed have blood on her which leads police detective Eli Wallach and partner Christopher Walken to investigate them with sure certainty that it all somehow leads back to Sarandon who is a hot-shot lawyer who once beat the cop in court regarding the whole wife's suicide. That case is really a motivating factor is Wallach's dogged approach to finding out whose blood was really on Cristina and if Sarandon has anything to do with it. You also have Martin Balsam as a professor who understands this type of Latin Cristina mysteriously understands and unbilled actors such as Jeff Goldblum as a fashion photographer and Tom Berenger as a man interested in this certain room that has become available in the very room(now renovated)that Cristina once stayed in! What bothers me more than anything is lack of explanation. Towards the end of the film Wallach and Walken are forgotten and we are left wondering why they just up and quit investigating. Their characters are just left on the back-burner. How the priests know that "now is the time" when a certain man will die and must be replaced to guard a certain gate in that high-rise and why Cristina suffers through the trauma she does isn't adequately explained. How certain ghosts just appear to Cristina and disappear when she tries to show Gardner the rooms they occupied during a cat's birthday(see for yourself)isn't adequately explained. Not to mention Gardner's role in the grand scheme of things..she brings people to that high-rise, but what is really her reasons in the film? It seems like this film should've been longer and cleared things up left lost to a rushed conclusion that is just laughable when it should be scary.


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


user
A so common horror story about a luxury building at Brooklyn which hides the gates to hell. It is reminiscent of Polanski's "The Tenant" (released a year before "The sentinel"), but is too far from the movie of the polish filmmaker in any aspect possible. "The tenant" was so disturbing, whereas "The sentinel" is not at all.
What it's more surprising from this film is the cast: it is full of great names of American cinema (Burguess, Gardner, Wallach), veteran actors acting for food (I guess).
Verdict: barely entertaining.
*My rate: 4/10


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


user
This Italian movie is basically a soap opera with skin.
The VHS box said it was rated "R" but the into on the actual tape inside said it was "X." The latter makes a lot more sense because there is a short scene near the end that was shocking. Even in the dark, you could see Dutch actress Marishcka Detmers performing all sex on this guy - and, yes, you could see his penis in her mouth. I read somewhere that this was the first time where a "mainline actress" had done something like this on screen.
Detmers parades around in the nude on several scenes but her face was even better than her body. She looked beautiful. Unfortunately, the movie is ugly....a real waste of time and certainly not recommended despite Detmers' looks.


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


user
I saw this "hot" movie when it came out in 1986. It had a X rating for a brief scene involving oral sex but played in mainstream theatres (it was an "art" film). Supposedly it's the first film to ever show a respected actress in an explicit sex scene.
What I saw was a boring tale about a high school boy (Federico Pitzalis) in love (understandably) with an older woman (Maruschka Detmers). As has been mentioned before Detmers is very beautiful with a good body BUT she also gave a very good performance. Pitzalis was (to put it mildly) pretty poor. It's no wonder he never made another movie. Still, despite the infamous sex scene (which is explicit but pretty brief), this a slow moving dull story which bored me silly. The good acting by Detmers only helped to a certain point. Mostly I was looking at my watch waiting patiently for it to end. If it didn't have that sequence this movie would have been forgotten long ago. Dull and slow. You can skip this one.


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


user
Truly terrible, pretentious, endless film. Director Bellocchio seems to be infatuated with the pretty face and figure of his actress Detmers - and who can blame him? But maybe, just maybe, he should have focused his attention a little more on making a good, engaging film. I hate it when a sex film poses as an "art film" just to become more "respectable". The frequent, occasionally hot sex scenes are the only reason for this movie's existence. Whether or not they are worth sitting through the rest of the picture is strictly a matter of taste. (*)


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


user
Predictable parody, just about failed to impress throughout it's looooooong eight minutes. The only thing that made it worthwhile was the DO NOT COLORIZE line at the end credits. Shame something more entertaining wasn't put on the DVD, like Jonathan Ross' enjoyable profile of Romero on 'The Incredible Strange Film Show.'


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


user
This short spoof can be found on Elite's Millennium Edition DVD of "Night of the Living Dead". Good thing to as I would have never went even a tad out of my way to see it.Replacing zombies with bread sounds just like silly harmless fun on paper. In execution, it's a different matter. This short didn't even elicit a chuckle from me. I really never thought I'd say this, but "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" was a VERY better parody and not nearly as lame or boring.
My Grade: F


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


user
'Utter Crap' pretty well sums up what this...."movie" was. I'd rather examine the colon of an African elephant with a penlight than sit through this again. I think I've wasted enough time watching this "movie" - I don't need to waste more by commenting on it further......


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 not as good as all think. the actors are lowlevel and the story is very comic-like. I respect fantasy but Lord of the Rings is fantasy...Conan..is fantasy...THIS IS JUST NORMAL HK-LOWPRICE-ENTERTAINMENT...Why did they include this Splatter-tongue, it makes everything worse. The only good thing is the cinematography and the cutter's Job.


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


user
This film may have been the biggest let-down I've experienced in renting movies based on IMDb reviews. Overall, I simply found this to be a second-rate movie.
Leslie Cheung is certainly passable as the antihero and Ma Wu handles his character with cheerful competence. On the other hand, Ma Wu's makeup (facial hair) is so obviously phony that I simply could not take him seriously. He looked like an overweight teenager dressed up for Halloween, complete with the $4.95 stick-on beard.
The special effects were so-so, though the "undead" in the cellar were pretty good. The tree-tongue looked like something from a bad 1950s monster flick, though the POV shots from the tongue's view more closely resembled Sam Raimi's trademark shots in the more recent "Evil Dead" trilogy. The pyrotechnics were ho-hum and the final battle is about as dull as you can get. (In fact, it most closely reminded me of the "Lost in Space" episode where the Robinsons are caught in a sandstorm and....)
The plot was not particularly original and has been told countless times in the form of European fairy tales. There was no suspense and no plot twists. In fact, you know right away as you are introduced to the characters who is good, who is bad, and who is going to survive.
I just returned this film to Netflix and then I sat down to write this review. The very first thing I did was check the production date. Yep, it says 1987...not the 1967 that I thought it might be. And that pretty much sums it up: The production values and FX are typical of the 1960s. The plot and action seem much older, as Hollywood was actually producing some interesting and challenging films in the 60s.
** out of *****


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


user
"The house of the spirits" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in "The house...". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence.


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


user
We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.
One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.
If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.


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 not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.


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 novel some years ago and I liked it a lot. when I saw the movie I couldn't believe it... They changed everything I liked about the novel, even the plot. I wonder what did Isabel Allende (author) say about the movie, but I think it sucks!!!


assistant
0