empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This adaptation, like 1949's *The Heiress*, is based on the Henry James novel. *The Heiress*, starring Olivia de Havilland, remains as a well-respected piece of work, though less true to James' original story than this new remake, which retains James' original title. It is the story of a awkward, yet loving daughter (Leigh), devoted to her father (Finney) after her mother dies during childbirth. The arrogant father holds his daughter in no esteem whatsoever, and considers her, as well as all women, simpleminded. When a young man (Chaplin) of good family and little fortune comes courting, the Father is naturally suspicious, but feeling so sure that his daughter could hold no interest for any man, is convinced that the young man is a fortune hunter and forbids her to see him. Leigh is a controversial actress  most either love her or hate her  and she always has a particular edginess and tenseness to her style, like she's acting through gritted teeth. She's not bad in this, and she handles her role relatively deftly  it's just an awkward role for any actress, making the audience want to grab the character by her shoulders and shake her until she comes to her senses. While the character garners a lot of sympathy, she's not particularly likable. The very handsome and immensely appealing Ben Chaplin (previously seen in *The Truth About Cats and Dogs*) plays his role with the exact amount of mystery required to keep the audience guessing whether he is after her fortune, or is really in love with her. Maggie Smith is one of the finest actresses alive and raises the level of the movie considerably with her portrayal of the well-meaning aunt. Finney is marvelous, of course, as the father who threatens to disinherit his daughter for her disobedience, but the daughter is willing to risk that for the man she loves. But does her ardent suitor still want her without her fortune? This is only one instance where *Washington Square* differs from *The Heiress*. Another instance is the ability to stick with it. It is a handsome movie that is as tedious as a dripping faucet, offering too little story in too long of a movie.


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


user
It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.
The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.
Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.
I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just 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
The potential movie extravaganza, set during the 19th century, failed to produce. With big-name actors like Maggie Smith, Albert Finney, and many others, there was no reason for the movie to fail. However, the movie lacked an ending, had a sorry excuse for a plot line, and fell to pieces with its continuity. A typical story of a rich girl and a poor boy, brought together by love and destroyed by beauty (or lack thereof) and disapproval, has a touching side of a mother's early death and an absentee father. The father, played by Finney, is a disturbed man, tormenting his daughter in life as well as death. He believes his daughter's lack of good looks would ruin his fortune by marrying beneath their social status. The actors vainly attempted to salvage what was left of the storyline. Washington Square is a black hole of ruin and destruction, wasting precious time of those who sorrowfully watch. I give this movie a 1 instead of a 0, purely for the actors' attempts. Save yourself, stay clear of Washington Square.


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


user
Visually cluttered, plot less, incredibly mind-numbing rubbish. Not even close to Greenaway's better work. Avoid at all costs!
The overlapping 'split screen' effects do nothing more than confuse, the film is very dark for a lot of the time and the 'artistic' composing of images is pretentious in the extreme.
There is absolutely nothing to recommend about this film; even the nudity is incredibly unerotic, which seeing it fills a large part of the film soon gets very boring.
Plus, how anyone can say that the acting of Ewen MacGregor is brilliant is beyond me. He showed more ability in the Star Wars series, and that's saying something.
I've not been so unimpressed with a film since I saw 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'!


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 about a Japanese woman who has an obsession with calligraphy on skin.
The plot is absolutely bizarre. I fail to see any "sensual" or "erotic" undertones. The plot turns an ancient art form into a fetishistic pornography. In addition, the scenes that are filmed in Hong Kong are certainly portraying bad parts of Hong Kong, such as the airport in the middle of the city, poor living conditions and noise pollution. Throughout the whole film, I keep thinking that "The Pillow Book" is insulting the Japanese culture and the Hong Kong environment.
"The Pillow Book" is a perverted, yet boring film. Seriously stay away from it.


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


user
I really wanted to like The Pillow Book. Intriguing story, interesting character outlines, Ewan Macgregor in the utterly glorious altogether. Unfortunately, I hated every minute of it. Greenaway got so enamoured with presenting the movie uniquely, and not to the film's benefit. I won't even get into Vivian Wu's abysmal acting.
You get distracted from the story with 4 billion teeny windows and calligraphy that rolls on the bottom of the screen displaying the lyrics of the music that's playing. It seems he lost sight of presenting the actual story and developing the plot, and got entangled with foo-foo embellishments that have nothing to do with anything. It's a bit like presenting a John Singer Sargeant portrait in a chintzy Hallmark frame that says "GRANDMA LOVES ME!" in big sparkly letters.
This movie seems to be a casualty of the director auteur's ego instead of what it could have been - disturbingly and horrifyingly beautiful. In another director's hands (Jeunet? Coppola?), it could have been a masterpiece. In Greenaway's hands, it's best relegated to fine arts classes that also take themselves too seriously.


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


user
I voted 3 for this movie because it looks great as does all of Greenaways output. However it was his usual mix of "art" sex and pretentious crap.I know lots of people like this film but I grew tired of it VERY quickly. It is definitely not for everyone. The ubiquitous McGregor obviously took the part for crediblity's sake I guess but he really should not have wasted his time. I hate to consign anyone to pseud's corner but please.....!!! On the plus side it IS visually very attractive and I enjoyed the music but could not see it through to the end and I cannot say that for many movies. I usually watch the whole thing but this is unbearable!!


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


user
This movie was just down right bad. I love war movies and can normally come away from most movies and find something that I liked,but this was not one of them. This movie lacked substance and intensity.OK I get it, the Finns put up one hell of a fight and thats great, but the story is poorly told. You don't have any real connection with any of the characters and there's no real story line to follow. You just go from one random scene to another, nothing flows to form the story that is trying to be conveyed. If you want a war movie that will keep you riveted, and amazingly enough without battles scenes, then I would suggest "Downfall" (WWII German film). Or if you prefer a great story line and a lot of action then I would suggest "Brotherhood of War" (Korean war/Korean film). These two movies will not let you down as Winter War will.


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


user
The writers probably had no experience in the army, and probably never glanced at a history book, but I still give this cheaply produced war film some credit for taking a long-needed look at the role of black soldiers in the second world war.
The action is confused and unbelievable--any episode of Combat! has better production values, but the cast is interesting. Seeing New York Giant Rosie Greer was worth the buck I paid for this. The art direction is fifth rate--the men wear Korean War uniforms, and it was pretty lousy weather by the time the U.S. Army reached Germany in 1944, not sunny as they show here, and I don't think the terrain resembled Northern California. The script never does make clear why the black support troops are used as combat soldiers. There is a nice touch that shows some of the men carrying Springfield rifles instead of M-1s, which second rate troops probably would have been issued with.
This basic story idea(racist southern officer commanding black troops) should have been expanded into a big budget production back then, and its not too late to try it now. You have to take this for what it is, and I admire the creators of this film for making the effort.
I remember seeing this a while ago and thinking it was set in Italy, which would have made more sense because there were black combat troops operating there in 1944.


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 has Richard Pryor, Rosey Grier and others. It's a curious WW2 movie, and serves as a statement about racism. It is worth watching to understand the fact that Movies reflect how we feel about the issues when they are produced and not about the period of time they portray. Meaning this is a 70's movie not a 40's movie (WW2). Still, there is some good action scenes of 7 seven black men led by a white captain trying to capture a Dam. The story centers on the Captain learning that these men are soldiers and not just a service company. There is a scene that could be from a Civil War movie and not a WW2 movie that reflects what the movie is all about. The Black Lt. gives a German women a innocent peck on the cheek, and the white Capt becomes upset. I enjoyed the movie from a curiosity stand point since the stars and the Genre were interesting to me.


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


user
At first glance this gives the impression that it is going to be a laughable blaxploitation flick, and it does contain moments where it veers in that direction. However, the basic story idea is much stronger than might be expected, and is a respectable effort at portraying racial issues in the World War II era Army. The recognizable cast is hit and miss, with Glynn Turman, Richard Pryor and the underused Billy Dee Williams faring best. Stephen Boyd, however, stops just short of twirling his bushy mustache in an overindulgent star turn.
The obviously low budget leads to inconsistency in the production values. The locations are great, the effects and action are weak. Imagine if "Saving Private Ryan" had consisted of half the platoon getting killed exactly the same way Vin Diesel's Caparzo had (except we do get to see the shot because they effects can't handle it), then Hanks, Damon and Burns drove around in a jeep and shot five Germans for the climax. Yet, the denouement, with the heroic soldiers receiving no respect for their accomplishment because they are black, and Boyd's racist Captain being effected by this, is compelling, as are the sequences of of Turman's character writing in a journal of his imagined exploits if the soldiers were allowed to fight instead of digging latrines.
In short, "Black Brigade/Carter's Army" doesn't quite succeed. But it's a respectable failure, not a bad joke. It could be remade as a very good film, and, as it stands, is an interesting effort.


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


user
This movie is a waste of film stock. Do you believe that the map of a plan of a military mission would be placed on an easel on a patio in broad daylight for anyone with binoculars or a camera with a zoom lens to see? It happened in this film. Do you believe that a DEAF person would actually be enlisted in the active duty army in Europe during WWII to serve in a "Negro" unit...cooking, supply services, burial detail, etc.? It happened in this film. Do you believe that a black (and supposedly intelligent) officer would select this same DEAF K.P. to be part of an active combat mission to protect a dam from being destroyed by the Germans before the allies arrived? It happened in this film. Would you be surprised that the DEAF soldier didn't realize that a German plane was approaching from behind and would strafe and kill him? It happened in this film. Would you be surprised that a group of American soldiers hold-up in a barn at a farmhouse that the Germans happened upon would SHOUT out their emotions at the sight of the German soldiers who were just 50' away? They did it in this film, and left any possible entrances to the barn the Germans might check totally unprotected. Would you believe that, over the airwaves and in clear English, the Captain mentioned the General's rank, if not his name, as the person he was speaking with and that the general, in plain English over open airwaves, said that the dam had to be protected the next day? Maybe they should have just sent in an emissary to tell which direction the American attack would be coming from just to make it a little easier on the Germans. This so-called movie should be placed on a list of the top 50 worst films. If it were, I'm sure it would do well. Watch it at your own risk.


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


user
BRIEF ENCOUNTER is a ghastly and pointless remake of the 1945 David Lean classic, which was based on Noel Coward's play "Still Life". A doctor removes a particle of grit from a woman's eye at a railway station, he is in a miserable relationship, she is happily married social worker of Italian ancestry. They meet by accident on another occasion, form an instant attraction and arrange to meet each other every Wednesday. The pair fall in love, but after spending a few afternoons together they realise that they have no realistic chance of happiness and agree to part. Coward's original one-act play concerned two ordinary people who fall in love. Sophia Loren and Richard Burton, two Super Stars and veterans of Hollywood Epics, are nobody's idea of 'ordinary people'. Loren in particular is miscast - Sophia Loren in full make-up, looking like a million dollars, working as a part-time voluntary social worker at a Citizen Advice Bureau just doesn't ring true. Burton, looking haggard, with dyed hair, too much make-up and wearing platform shoes, doesn't come across as your average General Practitioner. That said, you can't really blame them for having an affair after seeing their spouses. Burton is married to a literary critic who spends her evenings penning poisonous reviews and who treats her husband with total contempt. Loren's husband, Jack Hedley, potters around the house all day and is terminally boring: the most exciting thing he has ever done is nearly have an affair six years previous. Their final scene together will induce nausea, ("You've been a long, long way away", etc.). That great British jobbing actor, John LeMesurier, has a three minute cameo as Burton's friend, and appears to be slightly inebriated, speaking his lines in a barely audible voice. It's a sad and forgettable performance in a dismal, awful rehash of a cinema classic. 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
Remakes (and sequels) have been a staple of Cinema from the beginning of the media. It is pretty much a hit or miss venture though. If you take what's good of the original and build upon it and update key features too current standards, you can have a success. Note, such films like THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924/1940) or KING KONG (1933/2005) succeeded in their attempts. Others like KING KONG (1976) fail, miserably.
BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945) is the template for this film. It is as perfect as could be made on such a subject and we rate it IMDb**********Ten. The story is simple, Love, innocently found by accident and tragically lost. Why, it just happened for the two (2) principals involved at the wrong time. These are portrayed in a convincing and sensitive manner by TREVOR HOWARD and CECILIA JOHNSON. Neither are conventionally leading Star material, but quality Character Actors. For the details watch the film.
Now what went wrong? A T.V. Movie, remade practically scene for scene with name actors RICHARD BURTON and SOPHIA LOREN should have at least scored IMDb******Six. Both actors though appear disinterested, just showing up to punch their time-clocks and pick up their checks. Neither are involved with their characters or with each other. You do not believe they are in Love or when they finally separate it is any great loss to either of them. That should not be and that's why it fails in its intent. Sometimes it is just better to leave things alone.


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


user
Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**)


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


user
I wanted to give Drawing Blood the benefit of the initial doubt. The opening moments, with a naked woman sprawled out and an painter, Diana, about to paint her and then sucking her blood to drain out so she can use it for her art, give the impression that this could be a kick-ass artsy-vampire flick. Turns out this initial impression turns out false. Oh, Troma, the mark of some kind of lack of quality: sometimes they'll offer up something that is trash but funny and with at least some competence to the junk-food craft (or, sometimes not). This is a case where it's not even a whole lot of fun to watch since its attempts at humor (i.e. the protagonist's father is an old vaudevillian who does Jimmy Durante impressions?) are weak at best, and any unintentional laughs are undercut by Sergio Lapel's bargain basement direction.
And it's not without him trying, oh Lord no. He does try a lot, which is a big part of the problem. He and his producers had money for lights, sure, but the way they're used in the movie made I, a former student filmmaker and aspiring director, sulking in my seat: if I saw this in a theater I would have to blind my eyes in many instances, and would wonder whether or not his DP understood really the basic 3-point lighting set-up. While this, along with a very lackluster sound design (or just lots of random loud humming like in the art gallery scene), shouldn't be something that comes to attention during a Troma release, it should be something *basic* that a filmmaker can tackle even if the script isn't very funny or scary (and it isn't) or if Lapel does a weird mixture of songs placed at bizarre moments.
It's not a good movie by any stretch, and perhaps if you're a vampire die-hard (or just a vampire period) it might have some appeal as a low-rent bargain basement alternative to Near Dark, or as a slight improvement over, say, 1972's Blood Freak. You have better ways to waste your time, overall.


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


user
A female vampire kills young women and paints with their blood. She has an assistant who doesn't want to be a vampire, so he has to do what she orders or be turned into a blood sucker. After a few kills, the assistant gets remorse and falls in love with a homeless girl.
What can I say about this movie ? That its pacing is over-slow, that it has some strange sound effects (never a bite sounded so strange) and ambiance (new jazz here I come) and that lights don't seem to be included on the set. It looks like an "auteur" horror movie with all the self-sufficiency inside.
The plot is completely stupid and as you can guess, it's the female vampire who explains how to kill her even if she doesn't have to do it; of course, crosses, light, garlic and sticks don't work.
It's not even a funny lousy movie. Perhaps with some friends and a lot of beers, it can't have its funny sides (to be honest, it's funny during 10 - 15 minutes near the end of the movie). Don't be fooled by the Troma sticker, it's one the bad movie they present.


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


user
A vampire's's henchman wants to call her after falling in love with a five-dollar hooker in this extremely low-budget horror-comedy. I can't explain all the positive comments on this movie. I'll chalk it up to mass hallucination, but it's disconcerting none the less. The one redeeming factor (and this is me being extremely generous here) might be the Grandfather who's the only semi-likable character in this whole mess. Don't waste your money, or time. In fact here's a word of advice, If Troma puts it out on DVD, but does NOT make it themselves, in all likelihood it's crap.
Troma DVD Extras:Commentary with Omar and Kirk; second commentary with cast and crew deleted scenes; bloopers; troma interactivity; radiation march; Clip from "Terror Firmer"; Theatrical trailer ;Trailers for "the Rowdy Girls", "Teenage Catgirls in Heat", "Cannible: The Musical", and "Toxic Avenger 4"
My Grade: D


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


user
This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.
Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.
There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show.
Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional.


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


user
Of course, "Flatley" is already not exactly the ideal name for a dancer, but I think Michael is really pushing the irony envelope with this new title: "Feet of Flames"
One really can't resist recommending Desenex Foot Spray to the retiring (and clearly, ailing) Flatley.
I might add that, much like that cheering London crowd (per review below), I too am enthusiastic about this being his last live performance.
"Hinting that it may be his last live performance, Flatley is cheered on by an enthusiastic London crowd." ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide


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


user
With a cast of stalwart British character actors and pleasing photography of 1950s Britain, I had hoped and expected to be more entertained by this film. Unfortunately I found myself glued to it for the wrong reasons - I couldn't quite believe how awful it was. I must have watched thousands of old films and am always ready to make allowances for them being products of their time, but this was really hard going.
As others have noted, a major problem is that it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: a gentle romantic comedy, a slapstick comedy or a musical. I was a bit gobsmacked when Jeannie Carson suddenly broke into song about 15 minutes in! It's not believable on any level, either the storyline itself or the fact that Daisy never appears to have an ounce of menace in her at any time. Other aspects which defied credibility included the casting of suave Donald Sinden as a songwriter (a songwriter for God's sake!), the fact he has Diana Dors for a fiancée and doesn't appear to have the slightest interest in her (I mean, Diana Dors! Come on!) and a ludicrous scene in a song publisher's office. The whole thing's silly in the worst possible way.
If I had to pick a favourite scene it would be the one at the very beginning with that wonderful actor Wilfred Lawson - after that everything went downhill in a big way.


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


user
A 1957 (yes, that's the correct date) J. Arthur Rank production with James Robertson Justice, Margaret Rutherford, Wilfred Hyde White; it has to be a smash comedy, right? Oh, it's just awful. It's a one gag film: watching people be shocked at the sight of a little alligator. Music is thrown in, most inappropriately and forgettably. Jeannie Carson is a lively dancer and competent singer. But what was she doing in this film? Diana Dors is here too, providing oh-so-daring shots for use in the previews. Her acting level is not bad, but she's in the film to provide someone to leer at. Well, one must do something beside groan during this film. The movie is being sold on VHS now by people on e-Bay. Spare yourself the expense and the waste of time. A comedy without a laugh. A musical without a memorable song or dance.


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


user
This is a bad B movie masquerading as a mockumentary. The porn documentary filmmaker in the movie has almost as much screen time and dialog as any other character. That completely destroyed any "documentary feel" that they may have wanted to create.
The fact that the film is not actually a mockumentary is the least of it's problems. The film is not funny. The film is not sexy. The film doesn't have anything insightful to say about the porn business. It's not even particularly salacious. While there's simulated sex, the amount of nudity is mild for an R rated film.
Someday, someone will make a good mockumentary about the porn industry. This is not it.


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


user
Half the reviews were good so i took a chance for $10. Sure Priscilla Barnes had some sex talk but it wasn't much. The whole plot later that she may be the other actress mother & the documentary maker falling for the young woman is stretching it. Its not funny its not that raunchy its not much of anything but a waste of time. Boogie Nights was based on real people that were in the adult industry this is based on nothing that ever happened in the industry. It could have shocked with whats popular today in adult films mocking todays gonzo videos and that big orgy that they had 5 minutes to shoot what a joke a bigger orgy has been done bigger & better decades ago in the early 1970s.


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


user
Spinal Tap was funny because if you knew a little about heavy metal, you saw in-jokes all over the place. If you know anything about porn, this mock documentary will leave you cold. Everything in it rings false.
Spinal Tap was funny because it took a familiar world and pushed it over the top. This film is decidedly not funny because it paints a picture of how porn is made that bears no relationship to the real world.
The acting here is uniformly awful, but that would not matter much if the core idea of the movie were good. But it's not.


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


user
Belmondo is a tough cop. He goes after a big-time drug dealer (played by Henry Silva, normally a great villain - see "Sharky's Machine"; but here he is clearly dubbed, and because of that he lacks his usual charisma). He goes to the scuzziest places of Paris and Marseilles, asks for some names, beats up some people, gets the names, goes to more scuzzy places, asks for more names, beats up more people, etc. The whole movie is punch after punch after punch. It seems that the people who made it had no other ambition than to create the French equivalent of "Dirty Harry". Belmondo, who was 50 here, does perform some good stunts at the beginning; apart from those, "Le Marginal" is a violent, episodic, trite, shallow and forgettable cop movie. (*1/2)


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 terrible. The story concerns a woman trying to find out what has happened to her sister. The film struggles with its identity, lurching from Noir/thriller to erotic, with elements of horror thrown in for good measure. The film has a very confused structure, for example with frequent use of flashbacks without tying these into the story. The plot is poorly developed, and the characterisation made it difficult to distinguish between who was who and the part they were playing. Some implausibilities exist in many films, but the scene where the main protagonist willingly accompanies a virtual stranger to his home, then agrees to go upstairs alone (to where he says she will find a phone), minus the gun she had brought with her, to call the Police, was too hard to believe. Some of the cinematography is very poor: we were watching on a 42" TV so how anyone with a smaller set could work out what was happening in the scenes taken in almost complete darkness is beyond me. Overall, a chaotic mess.


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


user
I rented this movie on DVD. I knew that the movie wouldn't live up to what it promised me on the back of the case, but once I saw that Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) was in it, I had to rent it. It starts off pretty good, with the premise being that snuff films are being aired over cable. However, the main character has nothing about her to make you feel sorry for her whatsoever, and the end of the movie really leaves you hanging. There are way too many unanswered questions. There was a great scene at the end that totally took me by surprise, but overall this is a very sub par movie, but I guess it was worth the $ 3.99 rental fee.


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 "Rachel's Attic," thinking that I would be in for an enjoyably visceral, ride. However, it was not to be the case. Visceral, yes, but enjoyable? That would be a big, fat, no! In fact, the only reason that I gave it a "3," is due to the fact that Gunnar Hansen appears (ever so briefly) as one of the film's reprehensible characters. How they ever lured Mr. Hansen into this piece of...work, I'll never know. The story idea is interesting but poorly executed. The direction is pedestrian and the acting is mediocre. The only thing that is worse than that, are the special effects. YIKES!!! I've seen better effects in a grade school play. Give it up, Mr. W, it's time for a career change...I hear they're hiring at Mel's Diner! There are very few, well made, Inde movies coming out of Michigan...and "Rachel's Attic" isn't one of them.


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


user
I sometimes enjoy really lousy movies....those that occasionally result when people (even talented people) get together with good intentions to produce a movie and for whatever reason it turns out to be a disaster. Movies like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Manos-Hands of Fate", and "Heavens Gate", etc.
So, when I heard that this movie, "Rachel's Attic", was considered by many people to be the single worst film of the decade, naturally I just HAD to see it.
Boy, do I regret that decision. This movie is beyond bad....it is SO bad that it is not even as enjoyable as the usual bad movie. The acting, filming, script, etc. are even worse than a low budget porno film: the sound is utterly horrible, the "plot" is completely incomprehensible, the "acting" is laughable....it is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. At least the porno film has porno to break up the monotony, while this ridiculous nightmare has a guy squeezing a rotten apple, and a "mad hatter's" tea party.
The lighting is non-existent...many "scenes" take place in semi or complete darkness, which is probably just as well. The "writer-director" (I use the terms loosely), David Tybor, tries to get kinky with bondage scenes...but the results would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic. There is some nudity, but it is of such abysmal quality that it actually acts as a sexual suppressant. I could go on forever and not do justice to all the flaws and shortcomings of this truly awful waste of film.
For the love of god, avoid this train wreck. I know that despite (or perhaps because of) my negative comments, you may still be tempted to see if this piece of trash is really as bad as I claim it to be....but trust me on this....it's even worse than I have said, and you will absolutely, positively regret the experience (and expense, if you waste your money on a purchase or rental).


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


user
Hunters chase what they think is a man through the forest, though the audience sees he is a werewolf. The hunters never seem to realize this, because after they shoot him, he looks normal when they decapitate him.
A doctor transplants the werewolf's eyes into a man who lost his own in a laboratory experiment. The man, Rich, gets to have sex with his nurse (Stephanie Beaton) before he even gets his bandages removed.
After he leaves the hospital, he finds his wife has been cheating on him too. When a smoke machine sends clouds past an amateur painting of a moon (with a fake tree branch on the foreground), he turns into a werewolf! His torso grows larger, splitting his shirt, and he grows a giant werewolf mask on his head that has red lights in the eyes. His pants stay intact. The mouth chews unconvincingly, though some sort of robotics (or hidden hands) in the eyebrows give him a baleful look at times.
Despite the poor werewolf costume, there is a fair amount of blood and gore, and those are fairly well done. There's even a pretty good decapitation later in the movie. However, when a man falls from a height, a rather bad dummy does the job.
Rich has a friend named Siodmak who is some sort of occult expert, and he also accidentally stumbles across a small man with crutches named Androse who is also such an expert. They try to help him a little.
Rich kills people who have done him wrong. A policewoman investigates the murders and tries to hit on Beaton, who doesn't much care for lesbian scenes so nothing comes of it.
Quite cheap, but between the nudity and blood and gore, and a not-terrible story combining (sort of) The Most Dangerous Game with The Hands of Orlac and The Wolf Man, it's somewhat entertaining. Available on its own, or in the box set Scream Queens Vol. 1.


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


user
Eyes of the Werewolf (1999) is a really bad movie. The premise was real good but the overall execution was just terrible. I wished the filmmakers would have taken their time with this project instead of rushing it into production. Some blind dude gets some new eyes, bad thing is that they belong to a mean old werewolf. Nasty things begins to happen to the dude as he turns into a cheesy looking creature. Can he find a cure before his hot girlfriend finds out? Who is that weird little troll who helps him out and what's up with that female cop? If you really want to find out, check out Eyes of the Werewolf!
Not a bad idea for a movie. I just wished the filmmakers would have spent a lot for time in pre-production before they decided to shoot 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
Bangville Police supposedly marked the debut of the Keystone Kops, named after the studio they worked for. In this one, however, they don't dress in the silly cop costumes or drive the fast-paced car that's their trademark. Anyway, Mabel Normand is a farm girl here who's begged her dad for a calf. She later sees some strange men in the barn and quickly calls the police. One answers and the chase is on. Next, Mabel slams her door just as someone is coming in. Turns out it's her mother who jumps to the conclusion robbers are in there! So while Mabel blocks her door with furniture, the mother and father try to fight their way in! This was perhaps the most amusing part of the short along with some explosions of the cop car. This was a short 7 minutes that went by so fast it's over before it's begun. The only real characterization that's developed is Mabel's who exudes charm with just her face and big eyes and seems so optimistically cheery here except, of course, when she's frightened. It's easy to see why she became a star. It's largely because of her that I'd recommended seeing this at least once and why I'm giving this a 4.


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


user
The "Confidential" part was meant to piggy-back on the popular appeal of the lurid magazine of the same name, while the labor racketeering theme tied in with headline Congressional investigations of the day. However, despite the A-grade B-movie cast and some good script ideas, the movie plods along for some 73 minutes. It's a cheap-jack production all the way. What's needed to off-set the poor production values is some imagination, especially from uninspired director Sidney Salkow. A few daylight location shots, for example, would have helped relieve the succession of dreary studio sets. A stylish helmsman like Anthony Mann might have done something with the thick-ear material, but Salkow treats it as just another pay-day exercise. Too bad that Brian Keith's typical low-key style doesn't work here, coming across as merely wooden and lethargic, at the same time cult figure Elisha Cook Jr. goes over the top as a wild-eyed drunk. Clearly, Salkow is no actor's director. But, you've got to hand it to that saucy little number Beverly Garland who treats her role with characteristic verve and dedication. Too bad, she wasn't in charge. My advice-- skip it, unless you're into ridiculous bar-girls who do nothing else but knock back whiskeys in typical strait-jacketed 50's fashion.


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


user
There's nothing particularly original about this story of corrupt unions on one side and the "chief attorney" on the other. The stark but unimaginative lighting and photography stems from the fagged out noir cycle. The story could easily have been out of a Warner Brothers drawer with George Raft in the lead. The performances are routine, the direction flat, and even the set dressing perfunctory. (An alley is shown by a single plaster wall of simulated brick. It has one poster on it. The poster says, "Post No Bills.") We are introduced to the story and some of the characters by a portentous narrator who informs us that, while most unions work hard and honestly to advance the causes of their members, a few are corrupt. But we don't really get to know much about the unions or how they operate, although I suppose they were fair game after the success of "On the Waterfront" a few years earlier. Here they're just a peg to hang the tale on. The real ring leader is a disbarred lawyer who runs things through three or four thugs. The District Attorney (or whatever he is) finds out, like Dana Andrews did in "Boomerang," that the wrong man (Dick Foran) is charged with a murder and he spends the rest of the film almost alone, digging up evidence of Foran's innocence. He gets into fist fights and shoot outs like any inexpensive movie private eye.
Brian Keith is the D.A. He's shown some insinuating displays of talent elsewhere, but here he spends most of the time speaking quietly and staring at the floor. Elisha Cook, Jr., is a likable rummy but can't do a good drunk. Beverley Garland is okay but is undermined by the direction, which has her gawking in a night club when she should be furtive. The remainder of the cast would be suitable for a TV series.
And nobody is helped by the writing. When a "B girl" is about to be shipped by the union mob to the Filippines, someone advises her that she only has to learn a few words of Spanish. "I only know one word," she says, "Si. Yes." The writers have not trusted the audience to know that "si" in Spanish means "yes." The plot is clumsy and has holes in it. Keith visits a witness in her flat over a night club. He enters the door and has a gun shoved in his back by a yegg, but he outwits the heavy and knocks him out. Then the orders someone to call the police. The rest of the scene, played out at some length in the night club downstairs, forgets all about the police and they never show up, nor are they expected by anyone.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, and some people might enjoy it, but there is similar stuff, better done, elsewhere.


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


user
obviously has some talent attached, Maria Bello is always great. but this is just a dreary wast of time, portraying every character as someone to be loathed and exploited so someone could make a movie out of an 'interesting' story. well, i hope they got it out of their systems. unfortunately for the audience, there is no insight, no sensitivity, no context, and really no humanity. which would all be fine, except it has no humor, no horror, no context, and nothing constructive to say about the story it's trying to tell. bad things happen, you sit and watch it, you don't care, so what? 99% of the time, the words 'based on a true story' constitute an unintentional warning to the audience. it means the director and screenwriter are lazy and fascinated by some events they heard about somewhere, so they just throw them up on the screen and expect the 'true' nature of the story to make the audience feel something without the filmmakers having to do any of the work. i hope they had a great time making this movie. it stinks on ice.


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


user
Maria Bello doesn't seem to care what people think of her choices in movie roles. Again she chooses a very difficult and not popular movie to star in. Maybe she needs those movies, to get off the sugar coated (aka "Hollywood") ones she does here and then (Coyote Ugly and of course Mummy 3).
While I think fails to achieve what it sets out to do (I won't spoil that), Maria Bello is as great as in her other independent/small movies she stars in. It's her performance that elevates this movie. This combined with the strange subject matter almost did the trick for me. But in the end (and even if I try to overlook some flaws, like bad pacing and dramaturgy), the movie is still too long


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


user
Although Misty Ayers (burlesque stripper) is certainly attractive as the blonde lead, this flick is just an excuse to let her strip down to her underwear a few times (no nudity in 1954 when this film was made; not 1965).
The guy who hires her to work in a whorehouse resembles Bud Abbott of Abbott & Costello. Most of the other woman are unattractive, and the drunken woman is semi-amusing in a creepy way.
A 2 out of 10. Ms. Ayers has a curvacious physique, but you can't judge any acting talent because the ENTIRE film is post-dubbed. Some of these "exploitation films", usually made later than this one, are interesting in some way, but this is really a bore fest. Sid Melton (MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY) directed. There are some Samurai-like facial expressions and interesting apartments, but there's really NOTHING here.


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


user
Released in 1965, but clearly shot years earlier, this is an inept little crime melodrama with some inept sexploitation up front. As usual for grindhouse flicks of era, there's a fair amount of undressing and dressing for no reason complemented by lousy music, annoying narration, and awkward editing. The coffee shop scene lays the excruciating groundwork, as we chop back and forth between characters to avoid actually seeing them speak their lines. All we get are reaction shots to the off-screen character's voice! 50s-pretty Misty Ayers strips to her French-cut panties a couple of times before the action gets started. She's accompanied continuously by what is apparently stock music from romantic to western to mother-does-the-dishes, mixed randomly to produce, among other things, the most thrilling cigarette lighting ever captured on film. Watch as he taps it! Watch as he strikes the match! Will he inhale or will he be captured by Apaches? Only time will tell!! The film tells the sordid tale of how Sally gets tricked into working in a whorehouse, falls for a dope, and can't escape. For some reason, we're treated to some of the most bored and boring hookers ever committed to film, literally doing their nails or knitting rather than entertaining the clientèle. Some stupendously lame comedy (boozy dame accidentally drinks milk! Har dee har!) and silent film acting doesn't help. This is one of the worst feature films I've ever seen, even on the Something Weird Video marquee. It's really more of a film curiosity for those interested in the history of cinema--very bad cinema.


assistant
0