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
I'll be honest- the reason I rented this movie was because I am a huge fan of Kyle Chandler's (most notably from Early Edition). Since he usually plays the good guy, I wanted to see him as in a different role (out of curiosity). The plot itself also drew me in; a wanna-be hitman (Tony Greco- a.k.a. Mr. Chandler) must kill a person at random before he is trusted with the life- or, rather, the death- of a witness who will testify against someone in "the family". The movies was nothing like I expected. It was sick, I hated the end (if you saw it, you'd know why), and there were so many unnecessary parts. Basically- it was filthy, and made little sense. Yes, it was a mob movie, and yes the guns do go BOOM. But there's more to a movie than that. This film acted as if it didn't have the time to go into detail- just deal with it and understand it. The acting really made up for it- James Belushi was pretty amusing as "The Rose". Sheryl Lee made Angel seem as believable as she could get. She surprised me the most. And Kyle Chandler was equally convincing as an anxious newcomer to "the family". If only the script did justice to the actors.


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 the positive reviews of this movie - I thought it was one of the worst, most poorly executed and poorly acted movies I have ever seen. And the plot was completely ludicrous (sp?). She starts making out with him while he's tied to the chair? puh-lease. The worst part was that it wasn't even bad in a good, laughable way. Just plain terrible - I couldn't figure out why they even bothered to show it on HBO. I thought Belushi was ridiculously silly - very unbelievable as an "eccentric" hit man. idk, I could go on - again, I am shocked by the positive reviews. The only thing that kept me watching it is that it's fascinating to see how a movie can go wrong and what makes it bad. And the ending didn't disappoint in its silliness either! "live by the sword, die by the sword..." ridiculous.


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


user
Dissapointing action movie with an interesting premise: a young Mafia would-to-be killer (Chandler) must demonstrate to his boss that he is a good man for the service so he goes to California to take some lessons with a very known professional killer (Beluschi). First and most important task: to kill a young woman (Lee) that is a completely strange for all of them. But is she a easy target? The movie goes on and on based upon this principal idea but the result is just bad routine; even the weird twist at the end does not save the movie. Good performance by Chandler. I give this a 4 (four).


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


user
Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent "In the Name of the King" (a "Lord of the Rings" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire "Postal." But then came "Seed," and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guyhis films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.
Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, "Seed" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of "Halloween"). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.
Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing "The Toolbox Murders" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's "message" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.
Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on "Dexter": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.
The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: "Seed" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.
Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me.


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


user
Short Version: Seed isn't worthless. It's just derivative and inferior. And soulless.
Long Version: If you have never seen any of the films comprising the vaguely-defined "psychological horror" genre, this movie will probably melt your face off. Maybe not, but it will give you a good burn. The opening montage of real animal abuse will be sufficient to open your eyes to possibilities of brutality-on-video, and the (only) memorable gore scene later in the film will perhaps be more than you can handle. The climax will play with your emotions in a way that perhaps no other film has.
But that's if you don't have much experience with the genre. If you've seen the real thing..."August Underground's Penance," for example, you will, as I did, find it terribly difficult to stay awake until the end of the film.
Other reviewers have compared this to the video nasties of old. I understand this comparison. Like the video nasties, "Seed" is more violent than a mainstream horror film and less subtle. But the reason the video nasties are still known to us is not only for the above reasons--those that are still popular had something special. Permit me to be ambiguous, I think you will understand: those that have stuck around had "soul".
Take this quote from Gabriele Crisanti, director of "Burial Ground," on an interview on the new-ish DVD: "...we will never have more films like these, because today, technology has surpassed imagination. And technology is cold. So many things will disappear because small films like these won't be produced anymore. Today we have great, exceptional tricks that are very expensive, but they are cold. Today a horror, a terror film of this kind costs more than a million dollars. These films were not so expensive...they are real effects, made with our hands".
Perhaps it is wrong to take the comparison to old school horror so seriously. But Crisanti has hit the nail on the head. Even at their most seemingly exploitational, the best of the video nasties were pursuing a primitive "truth." And this is where Boll falls short. It's like he's seen the movies and not understood them. Everything on the checklist is there...BS about "making a statement about humanity," an obscene torture scene, etc. But it is, as Crisanti puts it, "cold." The gore is all CGI. The whole thing feels like scenes pieced together from other movies of various genres. And the pacing is sooooo slow. Man, so slow.
Another interesting note: the one gore scene really reminded me of a video game.
Anyway, enough BS. Weak movie.


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


user
While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.
Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.
The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.
Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.
Plain and simple.
Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_>


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


user
Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.
The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie.


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


user
badly directed garbage. a mediocre nihilist sadistic gorefest ... if you are the sort of person who likes that ... see a shrink. even if you are that person it doesn't make this a good film, the acting is really poor, the story full of plot holes, the director really should just give up and find a real job as he has no talent for this one. I can see why people dislike uwe boll .. we have had a few of his films on lately and this is the best of them, which is really sad! A complete absence of any sort of humanity seems to suit some people but here it just grates. Horror films can be full of desolation, they can be miniature works of art, they can be just good viewing when there is nothing else on ... SEED is just really really poor.


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


user
From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.
In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.
Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.


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 unbelievably ridiculous. I love horror movies, but this is the worst one I've ever seen. I am a huge fan of gore, but most of the deaths in this movie aren't shown. It just shows us the already dead bodies, and the only death scenes that they actually show in this movie are terrible. The graphics look so obviously fake. The actors are awful as well. There is no real emotion from any of them. Not only did I waste my time watching this piece of sh*t movie, but I had to subject myself to actual footage of animals being beaten during the beginning of it. If I could rate this a -10, I would. F*ck this movie. It's crap.
Don't watch it.


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


user
After having seen and loved Postal (yes, I actually loved Postal), I decided to try another Uwe Boll film and I picked out Seed because I happened to stumble on it in a local DVD-store and it's supposed to be one of his better films.
While the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film were very promising and seemed like the beginning of a not too mainstream psychological thriller, it soon went downhill from there and eventually degraded into one of the most generic slasher films I've seen so far, including a massive amount of plot holes, unrealistic emotional responses and sub-par acting. It seems like Boll tried his best to come up with a decent plot but after a while just gave up on it. Maybe he should stick to comedy?! The few good things about this film is that he does manage to create an overall creepy atmosphere, that the special effects are better than I expected and the soundtrack does go well with the overall atmosphere, but the unbalanced pacing of this film combined with the utter generic nature thereof makes he last half hour quite tedious to watch, which ruined my experience altogether. There are a very fairly well done shocking scenes, but they seem to be there for the shock value alone. And let's not forget the camera work that was pretty nauseating at times.
I hope Uwe Boll will one day learn what makes a good film, because between a lot of horrible films he does seem to make a decent film every now and then. Seed just isn't one of those.


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


user
If at least the cruelty and drawn out deaths had a purpose to the story to justify their inclusion but the script was just unintelligible and just plain stupid.
It went nowhere, the story had no legible continuity. It was just a bunch of drawn out pointless snuff scenes and a really stupid ending tacked on as if to say.. "the end *beep* you my haters and my few defenders for watching my garbage."
I don't get it, a masked murderer who never had his mask removed in prison, a prison rape scene that was suppose to be the guards raping a a ugly deformed serial killer and getting killed by him and nothing else? no explanation, no punishment, a really weak main cop character that was a waste of a actor like Pare, who didn't try to off the guy who killed his cops, tortured a baby, a woman and a dog and sent them to you to watch on video.
Cops who for some unknown reason all wandered off in the dark by themselves (individually) in his farm house at night like a bunch of poorly written teenage characters to be killed one at a time like a bunch of idiots, and no other cop hears them die in the darkness one after the other and just keep wandering around for no reason till each is killed in turn.
A bunch of horrible real life animal snuff scenes in the beginning for no reason or explanation, was he reminiscing, was he watching it to masturbate, was it comedy for him... what was it? nope Boll just thought to throw it in to upset animal lovers.. whatever.
then Pare believing the word of a psycho path to let his family go if he kills himself... a more gullible, stupider cop you never saw in a film.
I dunno why I try not to totally hate his works. I try to find some reason to explain a horror writers art but this stuff... pure crap.
Boll what are you doing anymore? I hope you figure it out because I know a lot of more deserving people who can't dream to get the budget you get over and over again to make their movies.
If you want to see Boll actually at his best check out "Postal" it was actually okay.


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 so disturbed by the real footage at the beginning of the film that I felt sick to my stomach and ended up shutting the movie off. How any can give this film more than a rating of 1 baffles me. I know that the intent of the movie is to shock, but showing actual footage of a dog that had been skinned alive (holding back vomit as I type) - PLEASE! I shut it off after the scene with the decomposing baby. I had had my eyes covered most of the time up to that point. No wonder this movie was found at the bargain bin in HMV. I really have no desire to see any other movie by this Uwe person. Anyone who enjoyed this needs therapy. Period.


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


user
This would have to be one of the worst, if not the worst, movie I've ever nearly seen. (I couldn't watch it all the way through). Purely and simply it's gratuitous violence just for the sake of it and the ridiculous story line only adds to the lacklustre and incompetent filming. Sick. And only suitable for those with a love for manic mutilation. After murdering several hundred men, women and children, Seed is finally caught after effortlessly killing several more police officers that finally get a tip as to his whereabouts. He's sentenced to death by electric chair and miraculously survives! Buried alive, he digs his way out and plots revenge against those that put him away and flicked the switch. Needless to say, more gruesome murders ensue...


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 shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.
This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!
This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.


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


user
Set in the 70s, "Seed" centers around convicted serial killer Max Seed (Will Sanderson), who killed 666 people in 6 years. He is sentenced to death, but in the electric chair he doesn't die, even after being shocked three times.
Detective Matt Bishop (Michael Paré) and other officers cover up this secret by burying Seed alive. Seed breaks out and goes after the people who put him in his living coffin.
Filmed by the worst director in the world (Uwe Boll), "Seed" is nothing more than a snuff film about trying to stretch the envelope of decent society and fails to deliver in any aspect of a storyline. And he said this is based on true events because if a person survives the electric chair after being shocked three times, they will be set free. This is an urban legend, and it would never happen. Much like Boll's other abominations ("Alone in the Dark" for one), "Seed" is just utterly horrendous.


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


user
I quote Oedpius Rex because it is a tragedy that this film was even made!!!
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I am in no way an Uwe Boll hater like most of the humourless people on IMDb!
Uwe Boll movies like Postal and Tunnel Rats are hilariously bad and therefore entertaining. But honestly, this movie was just horrible. I hated it so much that I'd give it a zero star rating if I could. The story is just crap! It spends four fifths of the film building the plot and then they have the middle which is just scenes of grizzly horrible tastelessly done murder! The finally end it with a "villan wins ending" which is totally acceptable but surely it could have been more tasteful than this!
I am not against Uwe Boll (like I said earlier) nor am I against violent movies! I f**king love violent movies! I loved the Saw movies, the Hostel movies, Tokyo Gore Police, The New York Ripper, the 28 movies, Dog Soldiers, My Bloody Valentine, Last House on the Left, Watchmen, Wolf Creek, every Tarantino movie, every Sam Peckinpah, even Cannibal f**king Holocaust! But this! OMFG!!!
This was just cruel, sadistic and perverted! And look at the movies I just listed! If I liked Cannibal Holocaust and not this then it must be bad! Uwe, don't go all dark again! You're funny when you are light hearted, just like Ed Wood. This was just an awful experience! I felt horrible all over after seeing this!
DO NOT WATCH!!!! AVOID AT ALL COST!!!!!


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 ashamed to have this movie in my collection. The most redeeming factor to owning the DVD is the short film in the bonus features. My vote for this movie is a big fat ZERO. Don't misunderstand, I'm a horror girl. but i want some meat behind the story, not to mention i prefer the evil to happen to humans, not to be tricked in to watching, what seemed like forever, clips of animal snuff. Acts of brutality interrupt achingly long silence and poor acting. If i was forced to make a comparison to another film, the only one that comes to mind is Cannibal Holocaust. Bad, boring, pointless and a wholly uncomfortable watch.


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


user
If you like to see animals being skinned alive, their heads smashed, dogs throats being crushed my men stomping on them, then this one is for you! But if you are somewhat normal, and don't need to see real footage of animal cruelty, pass this one up. This movie tries to shock the viewer, and it sure does.With the animal snuff at the beginning, and the killing of babies in the movie (fake at least)its was enough to make myself turn it off.I've seen movies like this before that show slaughterhouse footage (BTK movie) and this kind of footage should not be allowed in a horror movie.We watch gore and horror because we know its just make-up, and special effects, so we shouldn't sit down to watch a movie and see the real killing of animals, its not what we rented the movie for.If anything, there should be a large warning label put on these types of garbage movies so people won;t be surprised by it. As a very hardcore horror fan, this one turned my stomach. The entire movie cast and crew need their heads checked.


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


user
The only reason "The Norliss Tapes" deserves ANY stars is the presence of Angie Dickinson in the cast. Other than getting to see Angie Baby in a pre-"Police Woman" performance, there's nothing else worth seeing here.
THE SYNOPSIS:
*** MINOR SPOILERS ***
David Norliss is tapped to write a book on the supernatural. One day he mysteriously disappears after phoning his publisher and suggesting he has stumbled across something that has placed him in mortal danger. The entire series for which this miserable pilot was written was apparently intended to be a series of flashbacks via the "Norliss tapes" -- a set of audio tapes the writer recorded while investigating cases of the supernatural.
In the pilot episode, a wealthy sculptor dies -- but not before purchasing an ancient Egyptian scarab ring from a local occultist who assures him the bauble will give him immortality after death. We soon discover the ring itself doesn't grant immortality. Instead, it only reanimates the sculptor's corpse, allowing him to escape his crypt so he can run around town draining pretty girls of all their blood.
Blue-faced, yellow-eyed and growling out ARRRGHHHHHHs you haven't heard since you last watched "Scooby Doo" cartoons, the sculptor attacks his wife (Dickinson) one dark night. She escapes and, via a mutual acquaintance, contacts Norliss to get his assistance in solving the mystery behind her late husband's uncanny reappearance on her estate.
So is this guy a vampire? No. There's no vampire in this story despite what you may have read or heard. The sculptor doesn't drink his victims' blood -- he collects it. How? Don't know. We only see him attacking, never collecting. Why? To fulfill the second part of his bid for immortality. It turns out the reanimated sculptor will only be allowed to live forever if he builds a life-size statue of a demon named Sargoth out of a mixture of clay and human blood. Once it's finished, Sargoth plans to inhabit the statue, using it as his gateway into our world.
THE FINAL ANALYSIS:
"The Norliss Tapes" wasn't picked up as a series for a very good reason... it was garbage. As you can see from my synopsis, the story is a paltry, ill-conceived mess. The acting and dialogue offer no better. This isn't even a contender for a "So Bad It's Good" Award. Sometimes bad is just bad.
After years of hearing underground rumblings about the great merits of "The Norliss Tapes," I was very excited to find it airing on Fox Movie Channel on 10/15/03. I wish I hadn't set myself up for the fall.
Having screened this groaner for the first time two days ago, I can only assume any applause you've heard so far from other IMDB reviewers is coming from those who are reviewing the show based on dim memories and the nostalgia of youth. Or perhaps they are simply loyal fans of Dan Curtis. Either way, they've offered you misleading reviews of "The Norliss Tapes."
Pauly Orchid -- October 17, 2003


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


user
The director, outfitted in chains and leather, warned the audience at the SF Frameline Film Festival Friday night that we were about to see an "experiental" film. Experimental? Leave the video camera on the back seat of the car, let the tape roll and edit in all the pointless dreck within eyesight. A meandering pastiche road show manqué that starts nowhere and takes the audience no place. The gratuitous violence that opens the movie drove more than one patron from the Castro theater. I would have left, too, but my cine-buddy needed a ride home and has this thing about seeing even the worse merde through to the end. By the time the lights came up the audience had thinned considerably. Tepid applause. Pro forma questions of the director who seemed pleased with the product. Avoid 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
First off - there's absolutely no flirting going on in this film - with Anthony or anyone else. These people don't flirt - they just do it. Your first test of endurance is to wade through more than 15 minutes of intense violence and sexual perversion. This wouldn't be so bad - hell, I like violence and perversion as much as the next reviewer, but without a context to put it in, it is repellent. So you make it through the torture and mayhem. Then we meet Donna and the movie turns into something all together different - not better - just different: a road picture without heart. There are lame attempts at comedy thanks to cameos - broadly written and broadly played by broads like Judy Tenuta and Mink Stole (and a few hookers and drag queens, too). They all deserve better. The photography is purposely disorienting, so if you get motion sickness (or really ANY kind of sickness) - this flick is not for you. Come to think of it, I'm not sure just who this flick IS for -except maybe gay and bi-sexual S&M fans who like poorly scripted, poorly shot indy films about themselves.


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


user
Had I checked IMDb BEFORE renting this DVD from Netflix, I'd have a couple of hours of my life back. I'm frankly suspicious when I see that a film's director also wrote it. In this case, according to the credits, the same guy was "writter and director" - unfortunately, an indication of the overall quality of this production. There were a few interesting moments (e.g., Judy Tenuta's scene reminded of her early comedy routines touting Judy-ism) which led me to rate this two stars rather than one. Those moments, however, were few and far between ... and I almost did not get to see them because the opening sequence was nearly incomprehensible to me, not to mention reprehensible in its violence. I admit I went back to watch that part again to see if I had missed something that would help me figure it out once I'd seen the whole thing. Nope, though I at least recognized who the characters were who would turn out to be important later. The "spinning camera" technique was overused and essentially pointless. I found myself talking to the TV screen: "What?!?" or "For goodness sake, get ON with it!" Not recommended.


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


user
This wilfully bizarre adaptation of Borges short story is typical Cox. His strong visual sense is, as usual, undone by the appalling half baked acting of most of the cast. The film is definitely in the surreal tradition of Bunuel's Mexican period, and looks at times like a poor man's take on Lars Von Trier's Elements of Crime. Cox's apparent preference for single takes, jump cuts, and ambient sound recording all work against the film's effectiveness. Worth a look but ultimately disappointing.


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


user
I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake.


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 to the Zatoichi movies as the "Star Trek" movies were to "Star Trek"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all.


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


user
When I read MOST of the other comments, I felt they were way too glowing for this movie. I found it had completely lost the spark found in the earlier Zatoichi movies and just goes to prove that after a long absence from the screen, it's often best to just let things be. I completely agreed with the Star Trek analogy from another reviewer who compared the FIRST Star Trek movie to the original series---millions of excited fans were waiting and waiting and waiting for the return of the show and were forced to watch a bland and sterile approximation of the original.
The plot is at times incomprehensible, it is terribly gory (though the recent NEW Zatoichi by Beat Takeshi is much bloodier) and lacks the heart of the originals. I didn't mind the blood at all, but some may be turned off by it (particularly the scenes with the severed nose and the severed heads). In addition, time has not been good to Ichi--he seems a broken and sad man in this film (much, much more than usual)--and that's something fans of the series may not really want to see.
This was a very sorry return for Zatoichi. Unless you are like me and want to see EVERY Zatoichi film, this one is very skipable. See one of the earlier versions or the 2003 ALL-NEW version.


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


user
The premise, while not quite ludicrous, WAS definitely ridiculous. What SHOULD have occurred, by the second encounter with Tritter was that Tritter should simply be wasted. House hires some guy and de-physicalizes Tritter. In real life, Tritter would have been hauled up for harassment, the rectal thermometer episode would have been exposed in court, providing motive and opportunity and the hospitals lawyers would have made mincemeat out of Tritter and the particular department he worked for. He would be in prison as would anyone complicit in the harassment of House, Chase, Foreman, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy. The lawsuit would have won House a tasty settlement, enough to keep him supplied with Vicadin well into his old age. While Tritter would wind up somewhere driving a cab, trying to rehabilitate himself by doing good for people for two years before people tumbled to the fact that they'd seen it all before.


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 glad to read so many negative comments about the Tritter plot. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. They like House's gruff nature and his intelligence, but really dislike the vindictiveness of this continuing plot. It cuts into the real nature of the hospital story and makes everyone angry at police authority. It needs to have a more caring nature instead of the vindictiveness to everyone at the hospital. Also, there seems to be many questionable legal aspects to what Tritter is actually doing. He alone cannot freeze accounts and have the authority to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for patients. A lot of the vindictiveness he is showing also is hurting the very sick patients at the hospital and the is not a good storyline to portray. I voted the episode awful not because of the story itself, but when you insert the Trittor piece it turns me off and the rest of the plot gets hurt by it, People say they hate to watch the story lines anymore. Please change it. Get Tritter out.


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


user
A disappointing end to a season that started so well ...
Exodus part 2 and other notable episodes were amongst the best seen on TV in any series, where as this was rather bad.
Well I am not sure if it was the episode that was a disappointment, but the cheesy guitar music at that accompanied the closing sequence was laughable and would have been more at home in the original series.
Its almost as if the corporate execs didn't like the low key down note ending and wanted to jazz it up. They failed and rather spoilt everything.
Lets hope this is not a trend for the future.
Still at least we saw the return of a certain person even if somewhat bizarrely and tritely done.


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


user
"Laugh, Clown Laugh" released in 1928, stars the legendary Lon Chaney as a circus clown named Tito. Tito has raised a foundling (a young and beautiful Loretta Young) to adulthood and names her Simonetta. Tito has raised the girl in the circus life, and she has become an accomplished ballerina. While Chaney gives his usual great performance, I could not get past the fact that Tito, now well into middle age, has the hots for the young Simonetta. Although he is not her biological father, he has raised her like a daughter. That kind of "ick" factor permeates throughout the film. Tito competes for Simonetta's affections with a young and handsome 'Count' Luigi (Nils Asther). Simonetta clearly falls for the young man, but feels guilt about abandoning Tito (out of loyalty, not romantic love). The whole premise of the film is ridiculous, and I find it amazing that no one in the film tells Tito what a stupid old fool he is being (until he reveals it himself at the end). The film is noteworthy only because of Loretta Young, who would go on to have a great career. While I adore Chaney's brilliance as an actor, this whole film seems off to me and just downright creepy.


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 a great admirer of Lon Chaney, but the screen writing of this movie just did not work for me. The story jumps around oddly (I've since learned that the film is missing a section), and characters appear and disappear with irritating suddenness. Some of the intertitles are overly explanatory (e.g., "why, you're not a child anymore!"--cut back to picture for a long, slow beat--"you're a woman!" yes, we got it the first time) but there are a few talking sequences that beg for explanations that never appear. (Let's hear Luigi and his blond girlfriend's argument, please!) The plot, which involves incestuous desires (figuratively if not technically) was disturbing to the point that it was hard to watch. To the writer's credit, this issue was treated as a problem, and a May-December match is not portrayed as the right-and-good inevitability of some Mary Pickford films (e.g., "Daddy-Long-Legs"). Chaney gives a good performance, as usual, but I think he has been better-directed in the past--he overdid it a few times here, IMHO. I did enjoy the clown sequences, and was very impressed at the stunts. Loretta Young was charming, though astonishingly young. The film has its moments, but so far, it's my least-favorite Chaney picture.


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


user
Ziab la ta'kol al lahem is an awful movie.This is only a superposition of scenes without a clear link.Acting is also very bad, despite the presence of a good actor like Ezzat El allayli. But something is really astonishing in this movie, talking about sexuality, emancipation of women, nude scenes are very rare in Arab cinema,even in this days. I really congratulate the director and the actors for their courage. We want to see more of this style in Egyptian movies, but with better quality. The reasons that led me to vote this film as an awful one are not only scenario and acting, but also the lack of prfessionalism. This movie look like an amateur one.We can see a lot of errors in the screen. If you want a good arab movie Ziab la ta'kol al lahm is not the one recommended.But if you wish to encourage the uncensored movies in all the arab world watch it and make your friends and your family do 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
The Egyptian Movies has A Lot Of Filmes With High Level Of Drama Or Romance Or Comedy Or Action Even Sports... "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam" Was banned In Egypt Because It Content Nudity (Full Frontal Female Nudity) And This Kind Of Nudity Is Prohibited In The Egyptian Movies.. When I Saw this Movies I Felt Down... Fool Story.. Nude Actress.. Bad Action.. Some Horror & Awful Colors.. Dear Friend.. If You Wanna See A great Egyptian Movie...Simply: Stay Away Form "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam".. We Have Great Movies In Egypt... We Have A Great Actors Who Won A Global Wins Like: Omar El Sheriff Or Gameel Rateb.. We Have Great Directors Like "Yousef Shahin" So Believe Me Pall.. You Don't Need To See 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 never heard of this film til it played as part of a Robert Mitchum retrospective at the National Film Theatre in London. Almost 60 years on the cast list looked tasty to say the least with seven names - in addition to top-billed Mitchum - in the public domain; Charles McGraw, not long off The Killers, Barbara Bel Geddes, long before Dallas and arguably still better known as the daughter of Theatre Set Designer Norman, Walter Brennan, who needed no introduction, Frank Faylen, the sadistic male nurse in The Lost Weekend and the much nicer small-town mensch in It's A Wonderful Life, Robert Preston still a decade away from Harold Hill in The Music Man with Tom Tully and Phyllis Thaxter making up the numbers. Alas, most of them were wasting their time. I looked in vain for any 'signature' scenes given that it was Robert Wise on bullhorn. By this time he'd made around a half dozen films and had still to find a style. The story is our old friend the range war and Mitchum must have thought it was barely a cut above the Hopalong Cassidy oaters on which he'd cut his teeth. There are no new twists - if you don't count the unbelievable scene when Mitchum accuses Preston of sleeping with Thaxter to gain information about her father's plans to move his cattle. This is perfectly true but how did Mitchum KNOW? We've seen or heard nothing to indicate how he discovered it. On balance not a lot to be said for this.


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


user
Lets put it this way. I actually get this movie. I get what the writer/directer was trying to do. I understand that the dialog was meant to be dry and emotionless. I understand that the plot was supposed to be non-climactic and stale. That was what the writer/director was going for. A very very very dry humor/comedy. With all that understanding, I still think the movie sucked. It seemed like the writer/director was trying to recreate Napolean Dynamite with this movie. It had all of the same features. Even the main character behaved similar to Napolean. But Napolean Dynamite was actually funny. Its script worked. This movie is not. It has no purpose. Well, let me rephrase that. Its only purpose is to rip off Napolean Dynamite and try to capture that look and feel. Too bad it didn't work.


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


user
This isn't a bad movie... but it's the type your girlfriend makes you watch. The story isn't bad .... it just makes the hour and a half seem so long. It's hard for me to trash this movie because I really do like the idea of it but it was just to long and thin on story... too bad. The main character never really seems to change all that much from beginning to end . I mean goes through something "life changing" and he can barely break a smile. I really thought Mac was really good. His weird quirkiness kept the movie from being a complete disaster. Maybe I just don't "get" this film. If anyone can explain it to me I'd love to be informed.


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


user
In my life I have seen many great and awful movies. I am not an expert in professional reviews, but I have definitely something to say about this one. Firstly, these actors are the worst I have seen... Their acting is so unreal that you even want to throw away the DVD in the first 2 minutes. I think that these actors were not interested in the quality.
Another awful thing is about these dialogs - they are so lame. You sometimes feel uncomfortable when you hear them. It seems that your 14 year old son could act better. I feel that this movie had a budget similar to the cost of my 14 year old European car...
Please, if my message reaches you - save your time and money.


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


user
William Shatner in small doses is tolerable. Unfortunately, instead of leaving his character as a minor irritation, and in that moderately amusing, it has been seen fit to enlarge his role and overdo it. Just as occurred in the original Star Trek series. I guess I will never understand American humour, which frequently goes 'over the top' to get the message through. I vote with my feet. I no longer watch the show, which is a shame, because the rest of the cast were good. It is pity that Shatner's overdone role also, affects James Spader's performance. But the majority demonstrate the way society is going, I guess. I don't travel the same routes. Frank


assistant
0