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 remember watching this movie when I was young, but could not recall the title to it then going through horror movies I find it and think to myself "that is the title?" This movie is a kind of combination disaster film/insect attack film with fewer notable stars in it. It is also somewhat boring too, as it has that television vibe to it where you can see the movie fade out for commercials and such. The plot has this sort of resort being invaded by ants. I think they were a bit disturbed by construction or something going on nearby, but do not quote me on that. The most memorable ant attack for me in the whole flick was the first one involving the kid who falls into the swimming pool after being swarmed and of course Summers attack scene too. What else stands out in this one is the very goofy ending where the survivors use cardboard tubes to breath through. In the end though like most television movies this movie is very tame and not very scary in the least unless you panic at the sight of ants.


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


user
A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.
Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.
End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.


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 another one of those 'humans vs insects/eco-horror' features; a theme that was popular in the late 70's. Only you can't really call it horror. There's zero suspense and no gruesome events. In other words: this movie is pretty lame. It's not that it's really bad or something; it's just very boring. A construction site near a hotel uncovers a big nest of ants. Later on we learn that, probably due to different sorts of pesticides used in the past, their bite became poisonous. Some people get bitten and rushed to the hospital and it takes ages for the residents of the hospital to figure out what's going on. Robert Foxworth figures it out first and then you can see him go berserk with a digging machine for what seems like several hours. Then they flee in the house, waiting to get rescued. And, man, you should see all the efforts they make for rescuing them. I won't spoil too much, but at one point they even use a big helicopter. All the time when I was watching this, I sat there thinking "Come on, people, you all got shoes on. Just run out of the building. I'm sure a bunch of ants won't catch up with you." It's all pretty ridiculous.
Of course, lots of close-ups of crawling ants are shown throughout the whole movie. Ants in the garden. Ants in the garbage. Ants in the kitchen. Ants on the roof. Ants in the bedroom. Ants in the sink. And the best part: Ants crawling on people's faces while the actors are breathing through straws. But when you see groups of ants in wider shots, they indeed look like black rice the set designers glued to the wall.
One small surprise came near the end. No, it has nothing to do with a twist in the plot. It was just that Brian Dennehy made an appearance as a chief-fireman. Ehrr... What more can I say? This movie is called IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR but the box-art of my copy read ANTS and the title during the opening credits was PANIC AT LAKEWOOD MANOR. There you have it. Now, since this is a made-for-TV movie from the 70's, I'll be once again extremely mild in my final rating. Now, THE SAVAGE BEES, another 'humans vs insects' TV-movie from 1976 was much better than this one. I even feel I have to go back and add a few points to its rating after having seen ANTS. Lacking suspense, action, thrills, shocks and creepiness, the only thing you'll be left with after seeing ANTS is an annoying itch.


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


user
I remember seeing this movie a long time ago on television. I remember the premise of the movie being about a bunch of hotel occupants being attacked by man-eating ants. What I didn't remember was HOW AWFUL IT WAS!!!
I recently caught this movie on television late at night. I'm sure it must have been a mistake because movies like this usually disappear from existance and are never to be found again! Suzanne Somers (at the pinnacle of her career playing Chrissy on 'Three's Company') plays a vacationer at Lakewood Manor. Constructions workers are installing a swimming pool outside and accidentally disturb an ants' nest. Or should I say, a *MAN-EATING ANTS' NEST*!! One of the workers actually gets attacked by the ants. One minute he's picking them off his clothes one by one, the next minute he's covered in them. The next scene shows a skeleton in the dirt.
If you thought that was pretty far-fetched, you should see Myrna Loy playing a wheel-chair bound resident who gets airlifted out of the Manor via helicopter! I could almost picture her thinking in relief that she was getting airlifted out of the movie!
The final scenes depict Suzanne, Robert Foxworth and a third guy sitting on the floor of a hotel room with their backs to each other, blowing through straws and covered in ants.
That's basically the movie. There's really no "disaster" appeal or "big-star" draw to the film. It was intended to be a 'grand-scale' television event at the time. Now, it's lucky if it gets dumped in a 4:00am timeslot on your local television station.
If you want to catch Suzanne Somers at her best, then watch an episode of Three's Company. If you want to see Myrna Loy doing anything to put bread on the table and pay the bills, then watch this movie.
0/10


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


user
Paint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.
Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!)
Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable "twist") and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another "twist." It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.)


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


user
'Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison.


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


user
I had high expectations following "My Beautiful Laundrette", "Bend it like Beckham" and (less so) "East is East". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.
Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a "those were the days" soundtrack, and lots of "issues" in an attempt to be worthy.
I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.
Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual "BBC comedy" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. "Bend it like Beckham" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.
In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.



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


user
Anita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.
The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be "redeemed" at the end of the film.
By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.
There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.
But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.
This is not a "Bend it like Beckham" where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's "other" community: the English.
I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production.


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 sure this was one of those "WOAH!" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom.


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


user
"Kings and Queen" is a bloated French drama that rambles on for an interminable two hours and thirty-two minutes to no discernible point or purpose.
The film features two stories that seem unrelated at first but which eventually connect with one another about halfway through the movie. The first centers around Nora and her struggles with various men in her life, including an elderly father who discovers he has only a few days left to live. The other story involves a young man named Ismael, a violinist who finds himself placed - unfairly, he believes - in a mental institution through the machinations of an unknown third party. After traveling along on separate tracks for awhile, these two narrative strands eventually come together when we learn that Ismael is a former lover of Nora's and the man she has chosen to adopt her son from an earlier, tragic relationship.
With a bit more focus and a considerable amount of streamlining, "Kings and Queen" might have been a potent, engrossing drama about modern day relationships. It certainly has moments of tremendous insight and emotional power, and the performances are, for the most part, complex and touching. But, taken as a whole, the film meanders and maunders to such an extent that, quite frankly, it begins to wreak havoc on our patience and to wear out its welcome early on. Even more distressing is the fact that, even though we spend what seems like a mild eternity in the company of these people, we really don't know quite what to make of any of them when the show is finally over. For instance, Nora's father, on his deathbed, writes a withering diatribe against his daughter's character that simply doesn't gibe with the woman we've been looking at for well over two hours. Nora is admittedly no Mother Theresa (then, again, who is?), but she certainly doesn't deserve the invective thrown at her by her very own father. Nora could be accused of being confused, indecisive, a bit self-absorbed at times, but evil enough to have her father wishing he could give her his cancer and make her die in his place? I don't think so.
Perhaps this film is simply operating at a level of depth that I was unable to fathom. But my suspicion is that even writer Roger Bohbot and co-writer/director Arnaud Desplechin would have trouble fully explaining their purpose here. This is a well acted, pretentious bore of a film that takes the viewer on a long, rambling voyage through a sea of personal crises, a journey that leaves him no wiser or more enlightened at the end than he was at the beginning.


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


user
Too many secondary plot lines without a primary one. Too many hot buttons are pushed without any reason, they managed to stuff this boring film, that does not say anything, with every drama element that is out there: death, divorce, money issues, parenting problems, suicide, psychological problems, drug abuse, adoption, rejected love, traveling problems, sex, generations misunderstandings, robbery, legal issues, guns, medical ethics, "deep real love" You would think that it would make for an interesting movie, but hell no  all these events are secondary to something primary which is not there. Boring. Not to mention that the "super-deep" (and super-long) lecture to the child at the end of the film is a total nonsense. Pity.
Oh, forgot to mention: the actors, all of them, are quite good. That's what kept me from turning it off. To bad their talents went to waste, The film is well shot, too: the light, the motion etc. of every episode -- that's all in place. It's just the meaning that's missing.


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


user
In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus.


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


user
It's hard to tell if Noonan and Marshall are trying to ape Abbott & Costello, Martin & Lewis, Curley & Larry, or some other comedy team, but whoever it was they were trying to imitate, they failed miserably. There's barely one weak laugh in this whole incredibly stupid picture. Noonan (who helped write the alleged "script") and Marshall have no chemistry whatsoever; Marshall seems to be trying for a Dean Martin type of devil-may-care coolness, but he doesn't come even remotely close. God knows what Noonan thought he was doing, but being funny sure wasn't it. He seems to think that flapping his arms and legs a lot and staring dumbly at everyone and everything is the height of screen comedy; maybe for him it is, but not for the audience. I remember seeing this in the theaters when it came out. It was on the bottom of a double bill with a three-year-old Jeff Chandler western ("Pillars of the Sky," which was pretty good) and a Three Stooges short ("Sappy Bullfighters", which wasn't), and about 20 minutes into this thing all the kids in the audience were throwing stuff at the screen; it was so staggeringly unfunny that it didn't even measure up to the worst of the Three Stooges shorts. I stayed around for the end of it (not that I wanted to, but my folks weren't due to pick me up until after the movie ended), and by the time this mess was over, I was the only one in the theater. I saw it again about 15 or so years ago on cable one night, and stuck around to watch it to see if it was as bad as I remembered. It was worse. The only thing it had going for it was Julie Newmar, who was as smokingly hot as ever; other than her, this thing has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it. The two of them also play Japanese soldiers, and the way they do it makes Jerry Lewis' infamous playing of Japanese characters as thick-lensed, buck-toothed, gibbering mental defectives look benign by comparison. Marshall went on to host "Hollywood Squares," and Noonan kept trying his hand at making movies, but most of them were almost as bad as this. Not quite, though, as I don't think ANYTHING could be quite as bad as this. A truly pathetic waste of film. Don't waste your time on it.


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


user
The Rookie suffers from so much. There are the random musical songs interspersed through the movie, the long pointless script and enough grating slapstick to make Jerry Lewis blush. Noonan and Leavitt just don't know when to quit. It takes a full hour before the story finally gets to the main plot and the characters are shipwrecked. Then the guys start playing Japanese sailors with the standard racist caricature of the day. It is a shame the funniest parts of the movie are when Noonan and Leavitt are playing the stupid, stereotyped Japanese guys. But, it gets pretty tiring after switching back and forth between two sets of characters. Then it just abruptly ends. Even a naked Julie Newmar in a towel can't save this one.
There is really little charm in the movie and it is over a half hour too long. The story just flounders along trying to set up funny situations and failing. Stick to Martin & Lewis. At least Deano had charm and Jerry had that animated face.


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


user
This service comedy, for which Peter Marshall (Joanne Dru's brother and later perennial host of The Hollywood Squares) and Tommy Noonan were hyped as 'the new Lewis and Martin' is just shy of dreadful: a few random sight gags are inserted, everyone talks fast and nothing works quite right -- there's one scene in which Noonan is throwing grenades at officers and politicians in anger; they're about five feet apart, Noonan is throwing them in between, and the total reaction is that everyone flinches.
In the midst of an awfulness relieved only by the fetching Julie Newmar, there are a few moments of brightness: Marshall and Noonan engage in occasional bouts of double talk and argufying, and their timing is nigh unto perfect -- clearly they were a well honed comedy pair.
It isn't enough to save this turkey, alas.


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 was slow but tedious and the acting often drifted into the land of ham. Redgrave's character was unappealing as the 60 something woman trying to compete with Thurman's 20 something for the love of Fox's character (why is beyond me). The title of the movie should have been "Shallow people on the lake". The actors played like they were in a rehearsal. A dreadfully predictable ending to boot. I can't believe this is on this website as a comedy!


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


user
Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable.


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


user
You believe in God or you don't. You believe in Jesus or you don't. You believe He is the Son of God or you don't. The choice is up to you.
Director Denys Arcand has really done everything he could to bring back Jesus to a mere historic figure, social worker, son of two humans, instead of the Son of God the Holy Spirit and Mary, Who opened Heaven again for us. Encouraging the Big Bang, a world come from evolution, instead of seeing the beauty of creation. The film depicts a theologian bringing some "modern findings" to the actor who plays Jesus in the Passion Play, who happily incorporates them in his play.
The depicted priest who runs the sanctuary where the Passion Play is performed in Montreal has a sexual relation with one of the female players of the Passion Play instead of showing his love for God through celibacy. More often than not the director's abhorrence of the Church is clearly visible.
The director has tried to make a parallel between Jesus' life and the Passion Play actor's life. This is an admirable attempt, but depicting the Resurrection with the transplantation of the Passion Play actor's organs in other bodies signifies how the director thinks about Jesus.
My opinion is not important, God's opinion is, but I wouldn't want to stand in the shoes of the director and actors when standing before Jesus' throne.


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


user
As I sat in front of the TV watching this movie, I thought, "Oh, what Alfred Hitchcock, or even Brian DePalma, could have done with this!" Chances are, you will too. It does start out intrigueing. A British park ranger living in Los Angeles (Collin Firth) marries a pretty, demure brunette woman (Lisa Zane) whom he met in a park only a short time ago. Then, one day she dissappears. The police are unable to find any documentation that she ever existed, and Firth conducts his own search. So far, so good. Just as he's about to give up, he turns to his womanizing best friend (Billy Zane), and they stumble onto her former life in L.A.'s sordid underground of drugs, nightclubs, and ametuer filmmaking, and then to her history of mental instability. At that point, Firth's life is in danger, and the film falls apart. None of the characters from Lisa Zane's past are remotely interesting. The film moves slowly, and there's very little action. There is a subplot regarding missing drug money, but it's just a throwaway. No chases, no cliffhanging sequences, and no suspense. Just some dull beatings and a lot of chat by boring characters. One thing worth noting, Lisa Zane and Billy Zane are brother and sister, but they never appear in a scene together. By the end of the movie, you're torn between wondering what might have been and trying to stay awake.


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 at first. A naive park ranger (Colin Firth) marries a pretty, mysterious woman (Lisa Zane) he's only known for a short time. They seem to be happy, then she disappears without warning. He searches for her and, after a few dead ends, stumbles upon some of her abused childhood and sleazy recent past, which may include criminal activity. And then, it seems the filmmakers didn't know what to do with the story. The beginning, while not as suspenseful as it sounds, is at least watchable. Then it ceases to be interesting or even make much sense. And the ending is so lame, so dull, and so devoid of any excitement or intelligence, you'll think the screenwriters didn't know what to do with it and got bored trying. What a sorry waste of a good idea!


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


user
I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End.


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


user
I love B movies..but come on....this wasn't even worth a grade...The ending was dumb...b/c THERE WAS NO REAL ENDING!!!..not to mention that it comes to life on its own...I mean no lighting storm or crazy demonic powers?? Slow as hell and then they just start killing off the characters one by one in like a 15 min time period...and i won't even start on the part of the thing killing the one guy without its head....and then you don't even get to see what Jigsaw even does with his so called "new jigsaw puzzle"....Unless you have nothing better to do...Id watch paint dry before Id recommend this God-forsaken movie to anyone else...oh and to make it even better the other movie totem you can see the guy throwing the one creature in the basement scene from the window..that was funny as hell and probably the only good part of watching that waste of film


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 not sure who is writing these
glowing reviews for this movie but trust me it STKINKS. I have seen hundreds of horror films and slasher flicks and this one is LAME it is only about 80min long and believe me that is all I could take. Plot is terrible, acting is even worse. And there is no development at all.
Even the David Cocteau films are better than this. RUN AWAY from JIGSAW . I expected to hate the acting, which can be forgiven in direct to video movies, if the plot is good.
This had no scares, very little Gore,
and a truly unattractive cast.
I watched this with three other friends
who I hope are still talking to me!
They wanted me to fling the disc out the window. I can not believe anyone could have
given this tripe a good review.


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


user
Whether you want to spend nearly 2 hours of your life watching this depends how you like your horror movies. If you like them so god damn awful they're hysterical, watch away. Jigsaw is without a doubt the worst movie i've seen in my life (and i've seen 'Long Time Dead'), and i say this as a fan of the low-budget horror/gore genre and having seen a good few to compare it to. I'm not even going to go into the specifics of what makes this movie was bad as it is, the only good thing about it is it's so so terrible it's one of the funniest things i've seen in years. If you can find this to rent cheap it's definitely worth watching, if you were involved in making it - shame on you. :o) IMDb need to introduce a 0/10 ranking especially for this movie, it thoroughly deserves it.


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


user
OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.
The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason.
The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.
My ratings:
funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100


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


user
Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better.


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


user
"Creepshow 2" is little more than a pale imitation of the original, designed with little purpose other than to cash in on the name of the previous film. It even amplifies the flaws of its predecessor, which was often predictable and heavy-handed. Still, the first time around, there were enough thrills to make up for it's periodic lulls, resulting in an uneven but overall fairly entertaining effort. The sequel has few worthwhile moments, so the transparency of the stories are even more apparent. Once in a while, it delivers, but most of the time, it just lingers there.
As in the original, all the stories revolve around the common theme of revenge and just desserts. A wooden Indian comes to life, wreaking vengeance upon the killers of its owner. Teenagers are devoured by an aquatic monster. A hitchhiker returns from the dead to pursue a careless motorist. None of these premises are inherently bad in themselves, but they are utterly lacking in inspiration. There are few surprises and no scares. This a textbook example of unmotivated, by-the-numbers filmmaking. It doesn't help that this cheap-looking movie suffers from a flat directorial style, although to be honest, there wasn't much to work with. In the end, the second story comes off best, but not by much.
For the most part, the performances are okay at best. George Kennedy, as the ill-fated general store owner, does an adequate, if not particularly inspired job. Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand, is quite good as the guilt-ridden motorist, evoking sympathy for her plight despite the predictable, redundant material. However, most of the characters are pretty thin overall.
One would think that "Creepshow 2" would have turned out better. George Romero, who directed the original, returned to pen the screenplay, based on more of Stephen King's stories. Makeup effects artist Tom Savini turns in some good, gory work. So why is the film a letdown? I guess Romero didn't really want to make a second film, but was forced to do so for financial reasons. It was a decade of horror sequels, clones, rip-offs, and whatnot, so this one was certainly inevitable. I can imagine the guy writing the script in a hurry, picking up his paycheck, and running off. I guess he had to do what was necessary to get his own projects financed; we can't blame him.
Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)
Released by New World Pictures


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 a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it.


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


user
Sequels have a nasty habit of being disappointing, and the best credit I can give this is that it maintains that old tradition. These three tales aren't anything as good as any from the original Creepshow.
By far the best of the trio involves a wooden idol which comes to life to take revenge on the thugs who killed its owners. The second story is about a lake monster which seems to be nothing more than a lot of floating slop, makes you wonder how anybody could possibly be scared of it. The third story includes a cameo from Stephen King as a truck driver, but other than that is a pretty unmemorable tale concerning the victim of a road traffic accident who comes back from the dead for the person who knocked him down.
Watch the original Creepshow instead, or if you already have done then be happy with that.


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


user
Five years after the original Creepshow, another inferior horror sequel is penned by George A. Romero and Stephen King: Creepshow 2. This time there are only three stories instead of five. None of the three stories is really original or distinguished either. The first story is a horror staple, formulaic story about a wooden Indian statue seeking revenge against the killers of its owners. The effects are really neat in this story, but it's just too familiar to be compelling enough. George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour play the elderly store owners. The second story, "The Raft", is a Stephen King story. It's about four teenagers that unwittingly spend the day on a wooden pallet in the middle of an isolated lake. Soon the kids are screaming for their lives as a watery blob does each of them in for no apparent reason. However, instead of being suspenseful, the kids are saddled with bad dialog and dopey-headed behavior, preventing us from really caring about what happens next. There is also some unintentional humor in this segment. The third and final story is "The Hitch-hiker", which is actually a retread re-adapted for Creepshow 2. The original story, by Lucille Fletcher, was filmed in 1953 as a film noir suspense film. Then it was adapted for a famous Twilight Zone episode featuring Inger Stevens. "The Hitch-hiker" works the best out of these three offerings, but it's not without its problems either. Lois Chiles plays a cheating spouse, who ends up running over a hitch-hiker, or so she thinks. However, we don't know whether to sympathize with her or condemn her. As in many average stories of this type, the characters exist merely to tell the stories with their twists and turns. The wrap around story with the bullies seems a bit out of place. Tom Savini appears as the "creep" in this installment. The good thing is there haven't been any more sequels. *1/2 of 4 stars.


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 it because the second segment traumatized me as a little kid. I snuck downstairs really early one morning, started watching HBO, and The Raft (segment 2) terrorized me good. This time around, I still enjoyed The Raft, although I couldn't tell whether it was for nostalgic reasons or if it was actually a good short. The other two segments were complete trash. I can't believe a producer somewhere payed to make this junk. All I've accomplished by watching this was to ruin one more childhood memory. Creepshow 2 will now join Rad among my list of tainted childhood classics. 4/10


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


user
Andy Lau stars in another cop undercover tale. Daniel Wu plays Nick who is working for the cops and is also close to the top of a drug dealing gang(Lau). The movie begins as we watch the police try to make a drug bust only to see it go to pieces. We then are introduced to the young drug addicted mother and her daughter living near Nick and to his cronies and the cops, and 45 minutes in I shut off the movie and put on the news. Well acted and great to look at this is as uninvolving a movie as I've seen in a long time. Its not bad as such its just you really don't care. I mean I really didn't care at all. I actually started to do something else completely forgetting I had on a subtitled movie on, thats how much I didn't care. I wish I could have hated the film but the film is such a nonentity that it made almost no impression on me (its not even something I could sleep to its just something to ignore). Come on the box called it the Chinese Scarface,what after he was dead? This is one to avoid.


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


user
Protégé runs in a linear fashion; expect no fast-paced action, and neither will you find yourself with baited breath because there are simply no seating-on-the-edge moments.
There is not much of a crux, so don't expect one either. I would not fault the acting - the show would have been much worst if not for Wu's acting which was the film's only saving grace. And, oh that cute little girl too.
The humour is at best, weak, and the show must as well pass off as an anti-drug campaign which employs the usual shock-tactic (esp in the scenes with Zhang) to tell us stuff that we already know - i.e. drugs break up families, heroin drives you crazy, it is not so easy to wean off, you will fall into a vicious cycle.
I know it may seem all a little harsh, but I feel that the show is far from seamless and somewhat patchy (*SPOILER ALERT*: Take for example when Andy Lau got brought to the police station: what? we were just told 'oh we have all the tapes and evidence against you since 1997', and THAT is how he got caught. Nope, no chasing-car action, just a jump-of-scene, which kind of undermined Wu's role as an undercover in the first place.) I suspect the lack of creativity is attributed to the fact that it is after all, a production of Mediacorp Raintree - a Singaporean production film company.


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


user
Whoa. In the Twin Cities, we have a station that shows a "Big Bad Movie" Monday through Friday. Tonight's nugget was a film with Carrie Fisher called "She's Back" about a really annoying woman who ends up getting murdered when thugs break into her house. Bea (Beatrice) comes back to haunt her husband. She wants him to seek revenge on her killers, hence "she's back". And she won't let him rest until he does so. She irritates him endlessly... and the viewers, too! This movie is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Hey, I like bad movies, though (my fave movie is Xanadu). I was really shaking my head throughout the whole film, wondering who thought this would be a good idea for a movie. Bea is just so annoying. The plot is silly; the acting is bad; the story... well, you get my drift. Anyway, if you wanna see a really bad movie - really really bad movie, check this one out. You won't be disappointed. Heh.


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 should be number one on the bottom 100. The acting is so horrible that when my son and I watched it we nearly got physically ill. And the story is worse. I could go on and on about how bad it is but all I really wanted to do was add a warning to frankbob's review as I see no one else has gone to the trouble of doing so yet. Don't waste your time, money, energy or anything else on this movie. Thank goodness we saw it on TV so we didn't spend anything on it. Had we, I would have been forced to write the people responsible for this abomination and be forced to hurl an execration in their general direction. In conclusion, I would like to say that I have always enjoyed watching Carrie Fisher act. But I am sad to say that she is not worth watching in this particular film. Don't spoil your opinion of Carrie by viewing it.


assistant
0