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
As long as you can suffer it! If you like watching people waking up, getting up, getting dressed, having a shower, preparing dinner, watching each other, having sex in the dark, then going back to bed to sleep... if you like tacky flats, narrow bedrooms and kitchens, long minutes of silence.... if you like getting bored for two hours, feeling the thrill of "real intimate false art", then you will like it. But if you don't, just try to see a good movie, there are thousands. "As long as you are here", but do we want to stay? This German movie got the award of the Torino gay film festival: Italian journalists still don't understand why the jury took such a bad decision, as the festival presented lot of talented movies. Maybe to be nice with a German, as they don't often get awards? Well, "The Lives of Others" did... but this one is excellent but not gay. So maybe it is a question of fashion. Germans are they "in" again? No matter what? Or maybe only for a hustler's glance of some directors?


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


user
I liked this show! I think it was nothing with wrong with it! Only that Spidey don't punch anyone but only for that the show doesn't suck! Some people only think this show is bad because of that. The story was great and it was fun when other heroes appeared like X-men, The Punisher, Daredevil and Iron Man! To bad Sandman never appear but i kinda like it! Best Spidey show ever!! My favorite episodes are: 1. Turning Point 2. Spider Wars 3. The Hobgoblin 4. The Alien Costume 5. Mutant Agenda
But there are some episodes that was really really bad like: Rocket Racer and The Spot which was embarrassing to watch. And i don't like Morbius and Hydro Man. First of Morbius suck plasma instead of blood and i don't like vampires. And it irritates me that he was almost the main villain in Season 2. Of course i have to mentioned Hydro Man! He was terrible! I rather see Sandman! His last appearance was so terrible. And i don't like Spidey as the Man-spider!
But i guess everything than this was bad!


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


user
"Houseboat Horror" is often regarded as the worst Australian film ever made and described as a typical slasher film,which carried the promotion 'See the movie that can't get an Academy Award'.An underground disco band members begins to die slashed to death by burned maniac as they are attempting to shoot a music video on a remote lake in the Australian outback.Badly acted and written slasher flick with zero suspense and annoying characters.It certainly delivers the gore:heads are split in half with a machete,throats are cut and a woman is killed with a horseshoe.If you like cheesy slasher movies you can give this one a try,but you have been warned.At least it's better than Swedish "The Bleeder".4 out of 10.


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


user
Houseboat Horror is a great title for this film. It's absolutely spot-on, and therefore the only aspect of the film for which I can give 10 out of 10. There are houseboats, there is horror, there's even horror that takes place on houseboats. But if there were ever a tagline for the film poster, it would surely be 'Something shonky this way comes...' for Houseboat Horror is easily the worst Australian horror film I've ever seen, not to mention one of the worst horror films I've ever seen, and a fairly atrocious attempt at film-making in general. The good news is, it's so bloody awful, it sails straight through the zone of viewer contempt into the wonderful world of unintentional hilarity. It's worth watching *because* it's bloody awful.
The category of 'worst' comes not from the storyline, for the simple reason that there actually is one: a record producer, a film crew and a rock band drive up to the mystifyingly-named Lake Infinity, a picturesque rural retreat somewhere in Victoria (in reality Lake Eildon) to shoot a music video. Someone isn't especially happy to see them there and, possibly in an attempt to do the audience a favour, starts picking them off one by one with a very sharp knife. Even more mystifying is how long it takes the survivors to actually notice this,
On the surface, it looks like a very bog-standard B-movie slasher. You've got highly-annoying youths, intolerant elders, creepy locals (one of whom, a petrol station attendant, would easily win a gurning competition), and let's face it, my description of the murderer could easily be Jason Voorhees. Ah, but if only the acting and production values were anywhere near as good as the comparative masterpiece that was Friday The 13th Part VII. Unfortunately, Houseboat Horror is completely devoid of both these things.
But in the end, this only makes what you do get so ridiculous and amusing. Fans of one-time 'Late Show' and 'Get This' member Tony Martin will already be aware of some of the real dialogue gems ('Check out the view...you'll bar up!'), while the actual song to accompany the music video is so bad it has to be heard to be believed - I can't help wondering if writer/director Ollie Wood hoped it would actually become a hit. The horror element is comparable I think to B-slashers of the genre and particularly of the period, but there were times when I couldn't help imagining someone biting into a hamburger off-screen and seeing a volley of tomato sauce sprayed at the wall on-screen.
Indeed, if you've been listening to Tony Martin recommending this film as hilarious rubbish like myself, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Any fans of 'so-bad-it's-good' horror should not pass up the opportunity. Whether you'll 'bar up' or not though is another matter. If, on the other hand, you are in search of genuine excellence in the Australian horror genre, get yourself a copy of the incomparable 'Long Weekend' and don't look back.


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


user
I just finished watching this on TV and what can I say but this is the worst film I have EVER seen! I'm embarrassed to be from Melbourne, where the film was made. Diabolical acting, amateurish makeup effects and a REALLY bad soundtrack. As for the plot, well, thats even MORE stupid! Some of the scenes just left me stunned as to how bad it was. There's a reason they put these types of films on late night TV - because they're utter rubbish! 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
This absolute trash is based so closely on the Friday the 13th series that is practically a carbon copy, accept for it being an Australian film with people who can't act.
Once upon a time a young boy got burnt up accidentally during the filming of a music video at Lake Eildon. Now, a number of years later, the boy is all grown up and taking revenge on anybody who comes to the lake to film a music video. It is cliche-ridden and a waste of time and money, see it only out of curiosity, or if you're an aspiring actor trying to learn how NOT to (not be able to) act. Lead role Alan Dale used to star in the television soap opera Neighbours, but ended up in The X Files - how did THAT happen?


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 not classify as cinema. Although it is over 10 years old now, it should never, ever have gotten funding, and is a blight on the Australian Film Industry, which is now producing such brilliant films as "The Dish"
The Actors cannot act, The music is.. to be blunt, not music, the storyline is completely nonexistent and is a struggle to sit through.
Do not watch this film. It is a complete waste of your time.


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


user
Why was this film made? Even keeping in mind the generous tax concessions that Australian film investors were given, there can be no reasonable explanation for this film being given the go-ahead. For goodness sakes, the actors cast in this film are Aussie b-grade celebs (not actors, people like John Michael 'Hollywood' Howson, the original drummer from the band in Hey Hey Its Saturday, and the voice-over guy in Countdown. But in saying that, this is still very watchable as long as you give it the brain attention it deserves : none. The script is bad (even for a self-confessed b-grade horror) and the acting and film quality is worse. It often looks as though it is a home movie, but even a home movie has 'realism'. Anyone interested in Australian cinema, please, for the love of God, pretend this film was NEVER made.


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


user
In this extremely low-budget ( I've seen home movies made with better production value) Australian utter rip-off of "the Burning" & "Friday the 13th", a band is planning to make a music video while on a houseboat. They're stalked by a serial killer who was burned years before. This movie is even proclaimed to be 'the worst Australian film ever made' in it's DVD promotional material. That's it's only selling point! Complete and utter rubbish in every considerable way. Perhaps a few chuckles here and there for bad movie lovers, but it still made me want to burn out my retinas.
Eye Candy: a quick flash of barely existent itty bitty titties in a lame shower scene
My Grade: F


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


user
It is very unfortunate when a movie such as this is made. A great deal of work and money has been put into a film that is amateur at best.
The editing drags on, there are obvious mistakes that could have been corrected easily in a second take, and the soundtrack is unimaginative. So much more could have been done with this video movie. I guess they ran out of time, or videotape.
Hand-held shots have a distinct amateur feel to them.


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


user
The Radar Men from the Moon is a pretty typical fare of 1950's serials. The special effects are pretty cheap, the lunar rovers are obviously World War II surplus jeeps with painted plywood over them, and the like. The acting is only so-so. It does inspire the imagination of children, to whom I believe this was directed to. By today's standards, it's boring, cheap, and bad. There's also a hefty amount of stock footage in the first 9 episodes of natural disasters.


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


user
This serial is interesting to watch as an MST3K feature, but for todays audience that's all it is. I was really surprised to see the year it was made as 1952. Considering that fact alone makes this a solid (lowly?) 2 in my book. The cars used don't even look contemporary, they look like stuff from the 30's. It's basically Cody (the lone world's salvation? Sheesh talk about an insult to everyone else, like the military), anyway it's Cody in his nipple ring flying suit against Graber and Daley two dumb*ss henchman who sport handguns and an occasional ray gun thats pretty lame in its own right, enjoy. If you want to watch a really good serial see Flash Gordan, it's full of rockets that attack each other and a good evil nemesis and also good looking women, this has NONE of that. And Flash was made 15 or so years before this crap so you can give it some slack. Something made in 1952, this bad, deserves a 2. Nuff said. give it a 6 if your watching it as a MST3K episode, those guys have some good fun with it; a tweak of the nipples here, a tweak there and I'm flying! And now as an added bonus, I bring you the Commander Cody Theme song as originally sung by Joel and his two character bots Tom Servo and Crow aboard the satellite of love for episode eight The Enemy Planet:
(Singing at the very beginning credits);
(TOM SERVO SINGING) YOUR WATCHING COMMANDER CODY.... HE IS THE NEW CHARACTER FROM REPUBLIC,
HE GETS IN TROUBLE EVERY WEEK... BUT HE'S SAVED BY EDITING,
JUST A TWEAK OF HIS NIPPLES... SENDS HIM ON HIS WAY,
A PUMPKIN HEAD AND A ROCKET PACK.... WILL SAVE THE DAY,
(JOEL SINGING) HIS LABRATORY IS A BOXING RING... WHEN BAD GUYS COME TO MIX IT UP,
SOMEBODY ALWAYS GETS KIDNAPPED... AND CODY HAS TO FIX IT UP,
HE DRINKS HIS TEA AT AL'S CAFE... AND FLIES ALONG ON WIRES,
HE BEATS THE CROOKS AND FLIES WITH HOOKS... AND PUTS OUT FOREST FIRES,
(CROW SINGING)
BAD GUYS BEWARE... CODY IS THERE,
YOU'LL LIKE HIS HAIR IT'S UNDER HIS HELMUT... AND BECAUSE WE CAN'T THINK OF A GOOD RHYME,
THAT'S THE END OF THE COMMANDER CODY THEME SONG... SO SIT RIGHT BACK WITH A WILL OF GRANITE,
AND WATCH CHAPTER EIGHT, CAUSE THAT'S THE ENEMY PLANET


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


user
Oh, man, how low serials had fallen as by 1952! This dull thing is precisely the kind of serial that annoyed Annie Wilkes (from Misery). Not only the heroes escape the traps by adding scenes that weren't there in the previous chapter (and that COULDN'T possibly be there - tell me that when the baddies blow up the plain in episode 7 to 8 they wouldn't see the characters jump), but I think this serial has the World's Record of Stock Footage. I mean, most of it is stock footage! And not just from another serials (apparently all the flying sequences come from King of the Rocket Men, and the cool "molten rocks" scenes of episode 2 to 3 is from Adventures of Captain Marvel), but from itself! The whole "trip to the Moon" sequence (which is probably the shortest ever, it's 30 seconds long and the characters never seem to leave Earth's atmosphere) from episode 1 is repeated in episode 8! And episode 10 is ALL scenes from previous episodes! (Ever wondered why MST3K never did episodes 10, 11 and 12? Well, they had to stop after 9 so they didn't have to do the whole thing again!).
Don't get me started on the science factor. Prepare to see the sunniest Moon ever! And Moon men that can not breathe on their own world? What were they smoking?
And if this is not enough, it's too talky and the stunts (usually the best thing in serials) are few and far. Visually-wise, am I the only one who thinks that Commando Cody's bullet-shaped (or is it lemon-shaped) helmet is totally ridiculous-looking? The Rocketeer's was way cooler, no matter how bad that movie was (and man, was it awful). The tank-like vehicle isn't much better, it looks like a bunch of kids made it for Halloween. The only positive thing I can think of about it is that the actor who plays the hero is homely instead of the usual muscular hunk (hey, everybody has the right to be an hero!), but then he's so unappealing...
Not even worth watching for nostalgia's sake. See Captain Marvel instead. 2/10.
(BTW, check out the Memorable Quotes section for a real Women's Lib pearl).


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


user
Really, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.
A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as "the moon" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.
The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).
Enjoy.


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


user
...and Ethel Merman buffs, too, will love her loud, bossy vocals as the wicked witch Mombi, but this cartoon sequel to "The Wizard Of Oz" is bereft of real imagination, substituting fantasy and excitement with noisy action (and cheaply repeating its footage like a bad music video). Little Dorothy is whisked back to Oz, which has gone to ruin, and meets old and new friends. The inelegant animation is stuck somewhere between the weakest Walt Disney and the less-inspired shows from Hanna-Barbera, however many of the songs are good, particularly Dorothy's sweet lament "It's a Far Away Land", superbly performed by Liza Minnelli. You can count on Minnelli for energy, which is why the movie perks up whenever Dorothy is around. Much of it is unmemorable, and I'm not even sure baby-boomers will get a charge from it since it has been out of circulation for so long. As a curiosity item, just fair. ** from ****


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


user
My kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time.


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


user
The number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt.
While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.
Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power.
Seriously, MCG could have done better.


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


user
According to IMDb, as well as to every other website that holds a review; this "thing" doesn't have a director. Well, that would surely explain a lot! Just a bunch of people that gathered together to shoot some perverted porn sequences and throw in an ultra-thin storyline about devil-worshiping and women sacrifices inside the walls of a secluded sanitarium. "Hardgore" is a prime example of totally demented 70's smut, as it's really made with a minimum of production values and scripting inspiration. Horror movies about satanic cults were hugely popular during the early 70's and pornography as well, so why not combine the two? Here we have a simplistic story about a young nymphomaniac girl who's committed to a mental asylum, and from the first night already, she's drawn into a network of drugs, psychedelic orgies, rape, torture and dildo-action. Really, a LOT of dildo-action. The friendly lesbian nurse tries to warn her, but she has her throat slit even the same night. The horror aspects are truly poorly elaborated, going from laughably un-scary Satan masks to virulent severed penises attacks. The photography and acting performances are almost intolerably amateurish, but what do you expect from a film that features footage of sperm-firing dildos and talking amputated male reproduction organs? Leading lady Justina Lynn is a rather good looking girl with a ravishing body, but most of her co-stars (male & female) are hideous and excessively haired sleaze balls.


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


user
Former private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the film noir genre, without enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in the screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his "Chandler" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this '70s variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to any kind of a boil. *1/2 from ****


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


user
I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.


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


user
In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **


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


user
The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was "simplified."
It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.
I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!


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


user
Mae Clarke will always be remembered as the girl whose face James Cagney showed a grapefruit into in the same year's THE PUBLIC ENEMY. She will not be remembered for this weird little story about a a hood's girl who finds that her past will always be with her.
In some ways, this looks a bit antique for 1931, almost as if you are looking at 1928's famously inert LIGHTS OF NEW YORK. But don't be fooled. Although Ted Tetzlaff's photography is still in the big scenes, there's lots of movement, indicating distraction to the moviegoers in the set-ups to them. But in competition with the fast-paced stuff that it seems that everyone was doing at Warner's, this attempt to bring the woman's viewpoint into the genre as a tearjerker doesn't work, nor is Mae Clarke the actress to carry the effort.


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


user
VERY BAD MOVIE........and I mean VERY BAD...THe plot is predictable, and it's EALLY cheesy, the creativeness of the battle and the dance scenes for the time are the only reason I didn't give the movie a one, other than that...this is def a movie one can def afford not to watch.....I feel while watching the movie, the idea behind the movie was an interesting one tho kind of cliché....bringing country bumpkins to the city blah blah blah, but I feel it might have been at least a little better if it just wasn't so cheesy, very poorly portrayed from idea to screen, i think. The Plot is somewhat predictable at times, tho the dancing I can say AT TIMES, is pretty good, The break dance battle twist was good.....IF u just pop the movie and watch the dance scenes and make up your own dialog maybe it can be a 5...lol


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


user
because you can put it on fast forward and watch the inane story, without having to listen to banal dialogue, and be finished in 10 minutes max. Come to think of it, even 10 minutes is too much to waste on Enid-Blyton-meets-struggling-wanna-be-artists. Vomit.


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


user
Mona the vagabond lives on the fringes of French society, in a life without meaning, purpose or direction.
I watched this because of all the stellar reviews, but I'm afraid I must have missed something. The character of Mona has little or no personality while drifting through life being rude to people, getting high and contributing nothing to anyone's life. She's not interesting or exciting. She's just useless.
I've seen and known enough people like that: there is no secret meaning to what they're doing. They are just lazy bums. I wouldn't want Mona anywhere near me, as she tends to steal anything that isn't nailed down and leave her friends in the lurch. Sure she's enigmatic - because there isn't anything to her. Lots of junkies, winos and bums I've seen are enigmatic; I wouldn't want to see a film about them either.
Possibly there is something there that I totally missed. Otherwise I'm assuming that all the reviews are from people who assume anything done by a French female director is high art.


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


user
The last couple of weeks in the life of a dead vagabond woman is told in flashbacks. Like the vagabond, the film wanders aimlessly and rather pointlessly. Mona, the lazy, sullen, and drug-addicted title character, is not likable and Bonnaire does little to make her interesting. Although there is some pretentious dialog attempting to explain why Mona has chosen this miserable lifestyle, her motivations are never really clear. The episodic nature of the film, involving some random characters, becomes tiresome after a while, making it seem much longer than its running time. It is also hard to believe that an attractive young homeless woman would not draw more attention from men.


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 . . . I don't know. Why they would take such an indellible character as Pippi Longstocking and cast the singularly charmless Tami Erin, I will never know. Why they would spend money on art direction and some not-all-that-bad special effects, then not bother to edit it properly, I will never know. Why the sets and costumes are sometimes in period, and sometimes bizarrely not, why they commissioned SUCH bad songs, why the script doesn't make any sense whatsoever (not even on a silly, children's film level) . . . . what were they thinking?? Nothing about this movie is quite as it should be. Every single part is dubbed (and always poorly,) every sound effect is slightly wrong, every edit is in the wrong place, every performance is bad in some way. It does manage to create an appropriate atmosphere, despite all the problems, but it NEVER captures the magic that is Astrid Lindgren's creation.


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 North East Florida production, filmed mainly in and near by to Fernandina Beach and the Kingsley Plantation. I was rather surprised the company was able to take over the main street of Fernandina Beach as long as was necessary to achieve the street scenes. The film is pretty, and pretty bad. Tami Erin is cute, but overacts. Eileen Brennan overacts even more. Good for small kids, or for those who like fluff in large doses. A 4 from the Miller-Movies formula.


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


user
This appalling film somehow saw the light of day in 1988. It looks and sounds as if it had been produced 20 or 30 years earlier, and features some of the worst songs ever included in a major motion picture. I weep for the parents and children who paid top dollar to see this.


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


user
while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the "spoilers" explanation, "'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film." well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...


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 about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.
Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month.


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


user
This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen "aleopathic" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- "the doctor said there was no cure," "the doctor said it was cancer" etc. Well, "no cure" doesn't mean "no treatment," and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt.


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


user
The peculiar charisma of Martin Kosleck brings a certain believability to his character of the frustrated artist. He imbues his dialog with an odd sense of realism, making the sculptor Marcel a convincing individual. The character manages to come across as a real person and not so much a typical B movie villain.
The story line is nothing to write home about, and many scenes are dull. What makes it work is the strange chemistry between Kosleck and Rondo Hatton as the Creeper. Kosleck's talkative, philosophical character is contrasted with Hatton's low key, monosyllabic approach. The character of the Creeper isn't developed much beyond a basic monster level, but Hatton suggests undeveloped possibilities and makes you wonder about his back story.
This movie was on Shock Theater a lot when I was a kid, so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for it. It's worth seeing once, anyway, for those who enjoy Forties horror movies.


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 typical late Universal Horror flick: its technically comptent, if by the numbers, with a cookie cutter plot and some serious overacting. The most interesting part of this film is its stunt casting of Rondo Hatton, a man with a bone disease as the film's "monster". Its sad to see this man exploited, but he probably made good use of the money they paid him. Hatton is less horrifying than the studio hoped, as I more often felt pity over fear or even loathing. Martin Koslack is on board as the film's mad artist, and he is very amusing in this part. I for one enjoy seeing Koslack in just about anything; for some reason the man amuses me. The only other part of the film that entertained me is the film's absurd take on the art world. Here we are shown evil art critics who revel in their ability to break artists; this is side by side with the film's male "hero" who is an "artist" who paints...get this...pin up girls. Somehow our hero's work is reviewed side by side with the villan's absurdist sculpture. Also amusing is the film's chief nasty critic, who at one point claims that he despises the hero's pin up art because "women like that don't exist" to which our heroine replies with an assurance that the critic just doesn't get out enough. Finally, there's a bit of a subplot about the heroine's (who is an art critic herself) domestication by the leading man....completely anti-feminist and ridiculous to witness. Overall this film is a rather mediocre picture with a few amusing elements.


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


user
This low-grade Universal chiller has just been announced as an upcoming DVD release but, intended as part of a collection of similar movies that I already had in my possession, I decided to acquire it from other channels rather than wait for that legitimate release. Which is just as well, since the end result was not anything particularly special (if decently atmospheric at that): for starters, the plot is pretty weak  even though in a way it anticipates the Vincent Price vehicle THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973)albeit without any of that film's campy gusto. What we have here, in fact, is a penniless sculptor (Martin Kosleck)  whom we even see sharing his measly plate of cheese with his pet cat!  who, upon finding himself on the receiving end of art critic Alan Napier's vitriolic pen one time too many, decides to end it all by hurling himself into the nearby river. However, while contemplating just that action, he is anticipated by Rondo Hatton's escaped killer dubbed "The Creeper" and, naturally enough, saves the poor guy's life with the intention of having the latter do all the dirty work for him in gratitude! Although it is supposedly set in the art circles of New York, all we really see at work is Kosleck and commercial painter Robert Lowery (who keeps painting the same statuesque blonde girl Joan Shawlee over and over in banal poses  how is that for art?) who, conveniently enough, is engaged to a rival art critic (Virginia Grey) of Napier's! Before long, the latter is discovered with his spine broken and Lowery is suspected; but then investigating detective Bill Goodwin gets the bright idea of engaging another critic to publish a scathing review of Lowery's work (I did not know that publicity sketches got reviewed!!) so as to gauge how violent his reaction is going to be! In the meantime, Kosleck deludes himself into thinking that he is creating his masterpiece by sculpting Hatton's uniquely craggy  and recognizable  visage which, needless to say, attracts the attention of the constantly visiting Grey (we are led to believe that she lacks material for her weekly column)much to the chagrin of both artist and model. Bafflingly, although The Creeper is fully aware of how Grey looks (thanks to her aforementioned haunting of Kosleck's flea-bitten pad), he bumps off Shawlee  who had by then become Goodwin's girl!  in Lowery's apartment and, overhearing Kosleck talking to (you guessed it) Grey about his intention to dump him as the fall guy for the police, sends the slow-witted giant off his deep endeven down to destroying his own now-completed stony image. Curiously enough, although this was Hatton's penultimate film, his name in the credits is preceded by the epithet "introducing"!


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


user
Although this isn't a "great film," there's something compelling and memorable about it. Like another commenter on the film, I saw this in childhood. It's been thirty three years since 1952, but I have never forgotten the story or its ridiculously cumbersome title. See it if you have the opportunity. You'll feel like a voyeur of small town life as it evolves through the decades. More than any other film, this one brings a human face to the historical drama of early twentieth century "progress." It's engaging enough for a young viewer and memorable enough for an older one. Furthermore, it's easy to like the characters and watch their passage through time.


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


user
Although i had heard this film was a little dry, I watch whatever Scott Bakula is in. At the start of this film I had high hopes for the classic cheesy but enjoyable Scott-gets-girl ending and until 20 minutes before the end it was going great. The plot twist was crazy and unexpected and very clever. I kept my fingers crossed that it would work out and it would all be some horrible misunderstanding, right up until when the credits rolled and I realised that there was not going to be a happy and contented ending. Unfortunately i was left regretting that i'd watched it and hurriedly putting on some quantum leap to restore my faith in the goodness of the Great Scott!


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


user
Oh a vaguely once famous actress in a film where she plays a mother to a child . It`s being shown on BBC 1 at half past midnight , I wonder if ... yup it`s a TVM
You`ve got to hand it to TVM producers , not content on making one mediocre movie , they usually give us two mediocre movies where two themes are mixed together and NOWHERE TO HIDE is no different . The first theme is a woman in danger theme cross pollinated with a woman suffering from the pain of a divorce theme which means we have a scene of the heroine surviving a murder attempt followed by a scene having her son Sam ask why she divorced ? And being a TVM she answers that the reason is " That people change " rather than say something along the lines like " I`m a right slapper " or Your daddy cruises mens public toilets for sex " as does happen in real life divorce cases . And it`s young Sam I feel sorry for , not only are his parents divorced but he`s as thick as two short planks . Actually since he`s so stupid he deserves no sympathy because he`s unaware that a man flushing stuff down a toilet is a drug dealer , unaware that you might die if someone shoots at you , and unaware that I LOVE LUCY is painfully unfunny . If only our own childhoods were so innocent , ah well as Orwell said " Ignorance is strength " . Oh hold on Sam is suddenly an expert on marine life ! Is this character development or poor scripting ? I know what one my money`s on . And strange that Sam the boy genuis hasn`t noticed that if the story is set in 1994 then why do people often wear clothes , drive cars and ride trains from the 1950s ? But as it turns out during a plot twist it`s the mother who`s the dummy . Then there`s a final plot twist that left me feeling like an idiot for watching this


assistant
0