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


user
The thing viewers will remember most is the bad headache the movie has given them due to the overly flashy, shaky, camera-work and the fast, confusing cutting. I am not against those kind of stylistic devices if they are done right like Oliver Stone and Steven Soderbergh proof with most of their movies, but in this case there was WAY too much. It seems like the jump-cuts and light flashes that accompanied every flight over Mexico city and every important scene were there to distract you from realizing that the story is quite thin and the whole thing was very predictable. The biggest disappointment lies in the fact that you can easily figure out how the whole thing is going to end. For a movie that pretends to be violent, ruthless and morally corrupt it is inexcusable that it's story has been told so many times and with a lot more depth and character development. That is another disappointing aspect of the movie. If I want to watch an over the top action flick I do not need any justification, but this movie tried to justify the killing spree of Denzel Washington's character and poorly failed in delivering any believable performances. The first half hour or so nothing much happens except that dumb archetypes and clichés are portrayed and when the action machine starts rolling it is so quickly cut that you do not know what really happens. So the movie does not work either on the level of a believable drama/thriller , nor as a pure action movie. Of course the movie is not as bad as some oft the totally messed up blockbusters of the last years, but I absolutely cannot understand why so many people claim this movie to be something fresh and so cool. For a video clip it is way too long and for a movie it has too little substance.


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


user
Don't get me wrong, I love action and revenge flicks, I've seen many of them since I was a kid, including Dolph Lundgren's latest "The Mechanik" which is quite good. And Tony Scott certainly know how to use a camera and even might be a genius shooting and editing films.
But with "Man on Fire" (and even more then with "Domino"), Scott shows that rather than using his film-making "genius" skills intelligently, he uses it puposelessly to show off and compensate a lack of substance that his material doesn't offer him. "Man of Fire" is close to 2 hours and half when it really should have been at least an hour less.
The way Scott shot and edited this film also makes you wonder if he really wants you (the audience) to sit through his film because his constant camera moves and flashes really are a torture for the eye and makes you wanna leave the theater or turn it off after 5 minutes into it.
At times where the MPAA and studios have questionable attitudes regarding ratings, violence and making PG-13 movies, I find also suspicious that a $70 million movie is made of a B-movie script with a character who cuts fingers, puts a bomb in a man's ass and blows a guy's hand with a shotgun, all this to avenge the death of a little girl who ISN'T even dead! Go figure then why a studio will pass a better script because of the language or violence... Thus said...


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


user
Trust me, this is one let down movie that you want to avoid and this comes from one huge Denzel Washington fan. The frustrating part is that it's 1/3 of a GREAT film. The first part of this movie does an exceptional job of setting up the characters and the new relationship between Creasy and the girl he's paid to protect. The trailers to this movie all mention that she is kidnapped. So, I'm giving nothing away when I say that the film degenerates into an almost unwatchable mess after she's kidnapped. Whatever the director was trying to accomplish, all he succeeds in doing is making the audience literally nauseous. Rapid, frantic and choppy cuts follow for the next half-hour as Creasy tracks down the perpetrators. These cuts are so unnatural and nauseating that all they do is to jolt you out of the story. I'm sure the director thought that this unsettling way to present the story signified a change in Creasy's character and signified that a different movie was to follow. Well, he was right. The movie that followed was complete and unsatisfying crap. The result of which is a depressing ending that ruins even the quality first forty minutes of the movie.


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


user
### Spoilers! ###
What is this movie offering? Out of control editing and cinematography that matches up with a terrible plot. It is sad to see Denzel Washington's talents go wasted in trashes like this.We are certainly hinted how the Mexicans cannot save themselves, outside forces needed, possibly militaristic, American ones. And we know the father is a shady character, he is a Mexican after all, unlike the wife who appreciates Creasey more because he is American. He killed all of them thinking she died. And did she? Of course, she won't, she is a young kid and you are not supposed to hurt the sensibilities of the Hollywood fan. The trade off scene was the only thing that prevents me from rating it below the "implausibly successful"(as some critic pointed out)'Taken'. The nausea of such movies will take time to go. It is in the rating of such movies that we have to doubt IMDb's credulity.7.7 for a movie like this and 7.0 for My Own Private Idaho. Go figure! Mine will be in the range of 3.5-4.0


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


user
If this documentary had not been made by the famous French director, Louis Malle, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15 minutes, as it was an incredibly dull look at a very ordinary Midwestern American town in 1979. This is not exactly my idea of a fun topic and the film footage closely resembled a collection of home movies. Considering I didn't know any of these people, it was even less interesting.
Because it was a rather dull slice of life style documentary, I wondered while watching what was the message they were trying to convey? Perhaps it was that values aren't as conservative as you might think--this was an underlying message through many of the vignettes (such as the Republicans whose son was a draft resister as well as the man and lady who thought sex outside of marriage was just fine). Or, perhaps the meaning was that there was a lot of bigotry underlying the nice home town--as several ugly ideas such as blaming Jews for financial conspiracies, anti-Black bigotry and homophobia all were briefly explored.
The small town of 1979 was explored in great depth and an idyllic sort of world was portrayed, but when the film makers returned six years later, the mood was depressed thanks to President Reagan. This seemed very disingenuous for several reasons. First, the 1979 portion was almost 90% of the film and the final 10% only consisted of a few interviews of people that blamed the president for just about everything but acne. What about the rest of the folks of this town? Did they all see Reagan as evil or that their lives had become more negative? With only a few updates, it seemed suspicious. Second, while it is true that the national debt doubled in the intervening years, so did the gross national product. And, while Malle shows 1979 as a very optimistic period, it was far from that, as the period from 1974-1980 featured many shortages (gas, sugar, etc.), strikes, high inflation and general malaise. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan because government growth did NOT slow during his administration, the country, in general, was far more optimistic than it had been in the Ford and Carter years. While many in the media demonized Reagan (a popular sport in the 80s), the economy improved significantly and the documentary seems very one-sided and agenda driven. Had the documentary given a more thorough coverage of 1985 and hadn't seemed too negative to be believed (after all, everyone didn't have their lives get worse--this defies common sense), then I might have thought otherwise.
Overall, not the wonderful documentary some have proclaimed it to be--ranging from a dull film in 1979 to an extremely slanted look at 1985.
By the way, is it just me, or does the film DROP DEAD GORGEOUS seem to have been inspired, at least in part, by this film? Both are set in similar communities, but the latter film was a hilarious mockumentary without all the serious undertones.


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


user
I got this film from a private collector and was very curious about it. It had a 7,8 in IMDb (9 votes only) and some external comments were pleasant. But I have to say that it is a very usual and uninteresting giallo. Yes, great cinematography, the film is well directed, but it never freaked me out. It starts well, but although it not bored me at all, the story is so ordinary and the things that occur so normal, that I didn't like it very much.
You can make a few laughs. And you can see some little tits. But if you like the kind of giallos I like (bizarre, surreal, nonsenseful, gory, atmospheric, brutal murders...) you won't appreciate much this film.
I give it a 4 for the good directing and editing, and the final twists, that make the film entertaining. But it could be much better.


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 does not really promote kids to be nicer and have better attitudes, as a family movie should, and this wouldn't be considered family anyway because it has some things in it that children shouldn't be seeing. Not the best ABC Family film if you ask me. If there were less sexual themes in the movie, then maybe it would be better. Hollywood isn't doing anything to make a movie better by adding in sexual situations. There's really no reason for them. At least this is a TV movie. I wouldn't want to waste my money on this garbage by renting it. If you have other things to do other than watch this movie, please proceed 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
with this ABC family attempt of the hit blockbuster "cheaper by the dozen" comes an obnoxious amount of corny dialogue, shallow plot lines, and cheesy comebacks. With about two good actors among many wanna-be's, this movie was a major disappointment. Its a Hollywood-wannabe ditto of an already bad plot. Then, because they needed a lot of actors, that meant that they'd probably be more lenient. So the acting wasn't five-star. The plot moved fairly fast, and the twists were bad and had horrible timing. The junction of characters and the "end relationships" were also too mushy and clichéd for me. Spare yourself and rent something better.


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


user
I usually comment only on movies that I like, figuring "everyone to his/her own taste," but here I want to make an exception. The premise of this movie, which somehow seems to get lost in the shuffle, is that these two self-centered adults have a perfect right to go off to Las Vegas, get drunk, get married, and inflict incalculable suffering upon their respective broods of children. Even allowing for the culturally sanctioned inebriation, they have neither the courage nor the sense of responsibility to wake up the next morning and undo what they have set in motion. After all, "love" is all that's important, isn't it? To hell with everybody else. Whether or not things "work out in the end" is really not the point; in fact it's quite irrelevant. The point is that disrespect for others, especially if they are young persons, and especially if they are in a position of dependency, is made light of and thereby reinforced by this movie. There are far more innocuous behaviors these "parents" could have performed that would have brought down an army of social workers on their heads in a heartbeat.


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


user
I simply give this a three because it fulfilled what my buddies and I hoped it would do: entertain.
I wasn't stupid enough to rent this thinking it would be a zombie film up there with the likes of Romero or Fulci, but what I rented it for was a laugh.
If you are looking for a film for amusement, or a film to make you shake your head in embarrassment, go for it. This is perfect for junior- "Mystery Science Theater" fans, but the only downside is that it is so bad, it makes fun of itself.
I, personally, think it is a shame to relate this to any other Hollywood title that we may know, because when a film sucks like this, it has its own genre.


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


user
The first mistake you make in titling a film is to use "of the living dead" without really having a budget for real zombie FX. Sure, this was a low budget zombie flick - really low budget. I thought it was a film school project. Amateur actors and amateur effects.
It was really not too bad considering the above, and it presented an interesting twist to the zombie genre. If you are going to get an "R" for violence, you might as well give us some good shots of the babes being attacked. The women were so little used in this film that it could almost be classified as "gay interest."
And, I am staying out of Oakland. There was a heck of a lot of shooting going on and no cops in sight!


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


user
2 stars, and I'm being generous. (minor spoilers) Look, this is a low budget zombie movie set in gangland Oakland. As the plot goes, a scientist wants to bring his dead brother back to life after being killed in a drive-by.
The main problem with this movie: what zombies?! All the "zombies" do is growl (which doesn't sound even remotely scary) and drip fake red blood from their mouths! No scary eyes, no decaying flesh, just a bunch of people growling pathetically and running around like idiots.
The cover is also misleading. There are only about 6 zombies in the whole film, so it's not like the whole "hood" is plagued with zombies or anything, it's just a few, and is contained in no time.
The acting actually is so bad it's hilarious. No one can act at all in this movie (except maybe one of the gang members) and it really seems like a bunch of friends got together, decided to cast their family, and made a movie one weekend.
Final note: since when do Doctors wear tracksuits?! Skip this one, please!


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


user
...you know the rest. If you want a good zombie movie, DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE. If you want a documentary-esquire look at "hood life" you're at the wrong place as well. If you're looking for a laughable piece of film, this is a real winner! The acting is as flat as a piece of paper. The best example of this is definitely the officer investigating the drive-by. I can tell that he did the voice for the 911 operator as well by the flat tone of his voice. If I could hear a cardboard box talk, it'd probably sound like this guy. Oh yea, and the "zombies" did their best snake impression which is on par with their FANTASTIC acting overall (note sarcasm...HOW DID THIS NOT WIN AN Oscar FOR BEST MAKE-UP) The Quiroz......did not do any sort of directing. I felt like I was watching an improvisational period piece (the period is more like 1990's LA) The direction is however one-uped by the worst script I think to ever grace a movie. I haven't heard such lovely lines, like the epic one word beginning to the movie "F**k!", since Ice Grill which was another "urban" thriller. This only works of course in conjunction with the also-epic hip-hop soundtrack! All 3 or so songs of it! All in all, what the hell did you expect from a movie entitled "Hood of the Living Dead"? I rented this movie with full intention to laugh at its every scene, and boy it delivered and MORE! I would definitely recommend this to anyone who wants to get together with a bunch of guys and laugh at a low budget horror (yea right...) movie for the night. A memorable experience for sure!


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


user
I happened to spot this flick on the shelf under "new releases" and found the idea of a hip-hop zombie flick far too interesting to pass up. That's how it was billed on the box, anyhow, and I thought to myself, "What a great idea!" Plus there's a "Welcome to Oakland" sign on the cover, too. How could I resist? Unfortunately, the hip-hop part only lasted for as long as the opening theme. Neither hip-hop music nor hip-hop culture had much of a role in the movie. Having lived in Oakland myself, I know that there are many aspiring hip-hop artists there, so the low budget of this flick was no excuse not to have a fitting soundtrack. Any number of struggling artists would have jumped on the opportunity to contribute to this flick. Why the Quiroz Brothers didn't take advantage of this is beyond me.
Once the film got rolling, it was a completely typical zombie movie with a cast that just so happened to be completely black and Latino. You might think that this would put an unusual slant on the movie... but it didn't. Somehow, the Quiroz Brothers vision of "urban culture" boils down to drive-by shootings and dropping an F-bomb in every line in the movie. The rapid-fire use of the word "fuck" is probably this movie's most distinguishing characteristics; there were single lines that contained the word three or four times, and no line didn't contain it at least once. I'm not at all squeamish about swearing in a movie, but the feeling here was that it was the result of a lack of ideas on the part of the writers (also the Quiroz Brothers), and the script was generally very poor.
The film was generally a disappointment. It would have been interesting to see a genuinely "urban culture" zombie flick, but "Hood of the Living Dead" doesn't deliver on that count. The characters in the movie could just as easily have been white or eskimo or anything else. There was no distinct flavor to the movie. It's just another run-of-the-mill low budget flick with bad acting, lousy writing, amateurish direction, bland cinematography, a cheap soundtrack, and nothing at all to recommend it.


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


user
This movie is yet another in the long line of no budget, no effort, no talent movies shot on video and given a slick cover to dupe unsuspecting renters at the video store.
If you want to know what watching this movie is like, grab a video camera and some red food dye and film yourself and your friends wandering around the neighborhood at night growling and "attacking" people. Congratulations, you've just made "Hood of the Living Dead"! Now see if a distribution company will buy it from you.
I have seen some low budget, shot on video films that displayed talent from the filmmakers and actors or at the very least effort, but this has neither. Avoid unless you are a true masochist or are amused by poorly made 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
Hood of the living Dead is about a young scientist named Rick who lives with his brother in the town of Oklahoma where drug dealers and prostitutes fill the streets. Then one night, Rick's brother gets shot by a gang driving down the street who fought with him earlier. Desperate, Rick calls his scientist partner to bring over the latest formula they've been working on that brings sick blood cells to health. The formula hasn't been tested on a human, or even a dead body but Rick is determined to bring his brother back to life. He gives the body a double dose of the formula but nothing happens. So Rick calls 911 and the body is carted away only for it to come back to life and feast on human flesh. Now Rick must find his zombie brother before the whole hood is transformed into a neighborhood of the dead. Hood of the living Dead is one piece of trash. The plot is a direct rip off of Resident Evil, the acting is just horrible especially with Rick' s fake crying for his brother, the guns are so fake because every time the weapon is fired it sends sparks out, and the make up is just lame. It's only fake blood covered over the actors face. The zombies are also modified. They run, growl, and must be shot in the heart to die! Zombies should only scuffle, moan, and must be shot in the brain to die! This film is so horrible, the outtakes is the only true good moment of this film. Hood of the Living Dead gets a 3 out of 10, a little entertainment here and there but it only succeeds as a low budget cringe fest.


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


user
Hood of the Living Dead and all of the other movies these guys directed look like they got together and filmed this with their buddies who have zero talent one afternoon when they were bored (lines are completely unrehearsed and unconvincing). I find that 95% of amateur movies and 90% of home video footage is better than this film (although the similarities between them warrant the comparison). "Hey lets see if anyone is dumb enough to buy our movies!". Hopefully nobody ELSE wasn't. My apologies to those involved in the flic as this review is somewhat harsh but i was the dope who read your fake reviews and purchased the movie.


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


user
It was a painful experience, the whole story is actually there so I won't go into that but the acting was horrible there is this part in the very beginning when the scientist brother goes to work he actually wears a white coat at home before leaving to work, I thought working with biohazard material meant that you should wear sterilized clothes in a controlled environment and the lab itself looks like a school lab there is this monitor on top a file cabinet that has nothing to do with the whole scene its just there to make the place look technical and a scientist is actually having breakfast in the lab and next to him is a biohazard labeled jar and his boss walks in on him and doesn't even tell him anything about it...not to mentioned bad acting very bad can't get any worst than that my advice don't watch and I thought nothing could be worse than house of the dead apparently Uwi Boll's movies look like classical Shakespeare compared to this!


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


user
This movie is about a young scientist who creates a serum that re-animates the dead. He first uses it on his brother when he is shot dead in a drive by. His brother then infects the other gang members.In some scenes the zombies are seen walking very slowly and in other scenes they run pretty fast which makes little sense. The acting is mediocre but the story doesn't help the film. The makeup consists of blood on the face of the zombies. The budget for this film I'm sure was very limited. I believe the film could have been better made had the story been more original and with a better budget. If you wan't to see a good zombie flick don't see this one.


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


user
I watched this today, partially attracted to the all-star cast and partly because I have enjoyed so many other films of this ilk. However, this is one to avoid. There are dozens of badly cut scenes where the continuity just does not flow, the billiards challenge at the start, for example. The fighting scenes with the natives are about as good as you would remember in those old black and white Tarzan movies, you know where you see a spear fly through the air and camera cuts to a dead native lying motionless on the floor with it sticking from his thigh. Is that instantaneous death? There are also several quite unnecessary scenes which have nothing to do with the plot, like the little girl being rescued while collecting flowers. The really badly animated clay toys are too painful to watch. If you do see this movie the crabs which inch forward at about 5kph are the highlight. Somehow one manages to creep up on David Mccullum and give him a nip. Its as if there was no time to get out of the way, like when the obelisk in the city falls over, the native has all the time in the world to take a 2 step to the left, but no he screams and it falls on him. I only give this a 2 because of Ekland. And why does Mccullums voice develop a stutter as the movie progresses?


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


user
From the mind of Harry Alan Towers comes another piece of cinematic sludge. Supposedly based on the work of H. Rider Haggard, the only similarity it bears to anything Haggard actually wrote is that it takes place in Africa (albeit an Africa that has dinosaurs - which our intrepid adventurers use to pull their canoes!), and has some characters with the same names.
Our heroes (David McCallum, Patrick McNee and John Colico) set out to seek treasure, armed only with a medallion, and end up precisely where the treasure is, purely by chance. On the way, they meet a motley assortment of extremely lame monsters, pick up a French chef, and McCallum has an affair with the Queen of Phoenicia.
It's so ridiculous, it's a hoot. That's the only reason I didn't give it a 1.


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 deserved a working over on Mystery Science Theater. Even though it has nothing whatever to do with King Solomon it's worth a watch because it is an unintentional laugh-riot. Really! It's worse than "Destroy All Monsters." Be sure to check out the following: the cheesy medallion (looks like the Shriners have been here), the obviously polyester Norfolk jacket on "Allan Quatermain," David MaCallum's badly done stutter (which does draw attention away from his even worse acting), the incredibly bad process work on all the "monsters," the monsters themselves - the hand puppet which menaces the little girl, the giant snake that menaces Macallum while he sinks in oatmeal, the red-lighted eyes on the motorized crabs, the amazingly hilarious boat (oh, brother!!) which appears to be made of plywood mounted on an old sand dredge and looks like a leftover from a Jr.Sr. prom ("Voyage into the Future with the class of '71"), the Phoenician city - where they wear Roman Imperial armor but which inexplicably has Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions -(the Phoenicians invented the alphabet-come on!),and worst of all, Macallum and Ekland (with her fright wig) playing smoochy-face -oh the horror! The best parts are that the intrepid explorers manage to lose the comic Frenchman ,and the African guy -Snuffleupagus or whatever - evidently chose to die heroically rather than be in any more scenes.


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


user
Man, was I disappointed.
1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends'
2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.
3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.
4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.
5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying "Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!" This was a bad attempt at making another "Love At First Bite".
I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed.


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


user
Whack!!! I got this movie because Elizabeth Hartman was in it. I was disappointed to find out she was in like two short scenes towards the end. Other than that I was basically hitting the fast forward button the entire time. Some teenager goes on a trip to Romania with his Dad and gets bitten by a wolf and turns into a werewolf if there's a full moon. He kills his father and friends. About 30 years past but he doesn't age a bit and enrolls in a high school. There he meets a shy teacher whom he ends up biting and then has kids with her. This movie sucked and I don't recommend it to anyone. Read War and Peace instead. Only Ms. Hartman did a great job. Check out a very young Bob Saget in this one!!


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


user
A surprising misfire from the usually reliable Larry Cohen (God Told Me Too, Q, etc.), Full Moon High tries so hard to be funny and fails miserably, even with decent turns by Ed McMahon(!) and Kenneth Mars. Alan Arkin looks embarrassed throughout his performance and son Adam simply looks numb. This makes Teen Wolf look like a comedy classic.


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


user
I've seen better teenage werewolf movies in my time, this one however, takes the cake. More comedy than horror, "Full Moon High" puts the "c" in cheese-fest. The star quality in this movie is not bad. Just the way it was made just sends in rolling downhill. Adam Arkin plays Tony, an all-American high school football player of the 50's who ends up not aging due to a werewolf bite in Transylvania. The most annoying part of the movie was the violin player. He drove everyone batty! Ed McMahon plays his ultra-conservative father who met his end of his own bullet. Adam's father Alan plays a shrink who seems to be not top of his game. After all these years Tony seems to be very out of place due to the attack, and then he'll get the chance to catch in his state. More laugh than blood shed, this movie is just a start in the 80's, "Teen Wolf" was an improvement from this! 1 out of 5 stars.


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


user
No, this wasn't one of the ten worst films of the 1980's, but it certainly skirts the bottom 100 somewhere. This movie looks like it was put on the shelf for two or three years and then released in 1981. How else would you explain special effects pre-dating "An American Werewolf in London," disco still being considered cool, and Ronald Reagan not being the 40th President of the United States? While we're at it, let's not overlook those 1970's hairstyles in the 1950's and '60's. I've seen more of that here than in "Happy Days" & "Laverne & Shirley" combined.
The one woman who elevates this movie to the "so bad, it's good" category was the late, great Elizabeth Hartman, but just barely. Biff plays as Miss Montgomery, the mousey high school teacher who becomes a sexpot, a stereotype that's been done to death and is still being churned out by Hollywood today, but even as a "hot chick" she retains her mousey qualities. Her call for help is evidence of this. She also looks much better as Miss Wimp. "Seven bucks at the beauty parlor, shot to hell." She wasn't kidding.
This isn't to say that there aren't any good parts elsewhere, they're just few and far between, and I'm not just saying that because I like Hartman. Incidentally, "Teen Wolf" was better than this. "Teen Wolf Too" was better than this, and that wasn't even so good.



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


user
What is this?! Is it a comedy, a horror movie or just nothing?? This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Especially the scene in romania when he becomes the werewolf, that must be the worst scene that has ever been made. This movie isn't funny, it isn't scary and not entertaining at all. Please do yourself (and me, i don't think anyone should suffer through this movie) a favour and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!! If you get is a present, just throw it away and chop it in to pieces.


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


user
Being a fan of movies like "Fire Sale", "Where's Poppa", "Airplane" I saw this because it was mentioned favorably in the context of real comedies and satires like the aforementioned. Well, WRONG CONCLUSION!
Not only is this not funny, it makes you angry because it isn't bad in a schlocky, likable way but in a really bad way. It's bad-bad. The script does not contain a single funny line which is rather in the way when you're trying to entertain your audience with humour.
Adam Arkin's speech impediment is probably the single most annoying thing in this movie. Still this cruelty of nature doesn't prevent him from being smug throughout the movie and he has a hard time not looking into the camera. This amateur without charisma fits in nicely with the constant continuity errors and bumbling along of the story - if you can find one.
Ed McMahon - I had to think of Jay Leno, another late night talk show person, who always refuses to call himself an actor. Well, I've seen a few Leno movies and he's Laurence Olivier compared to McMahon.
Kenneth Mars is good, though. In the few lines that he's given. I'm not easily frightened by bad comedies so I kept watching and looking for all the quasi-jokes every 5 minutes or so.
The movie actually becomes sort of a comedy as soon as Alan Arkin takes over - he literally does: Starting 75 minutes into the movie he's in every scene. But it's too little, too late.
When movies try to fool you into believing their lack of professionalism is the reason you're supposed to like them because they have the right intentions they remind me of pupils that haven't prepared for an exam. In those cases you have to remain strict and the grade has to be an 'F'. (But please don't assume I'm a teacher. That is a profession with a respectability somewhere between politician and child molester).
If you actually look for a likable schlocky horror/scifi movie that is fun to watch and does contain jokes try "Man with the Screaming Brain" by Bruce Campbell. Or watch Sunshine/Core if you prefer modern loud shallow SciFi Schlock. Those are equally funny, albeit involuntarily.


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


user
Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever .
You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie
People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen
Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie


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


user
Just saw this movie on TV and I have to admit, I was a bit surprised it was even on. There were so many goofs, mess-ups, and bad editing that an old episode of Sesame Street would have been better to watch. The acting was OK, but please, you can really feel the "Straight to Video" feeling. The cast/crew made this movie a bad melodrama. Yes, there is a message in the movie, but just wait until ten minutes before the ending to hear it. Trust me, you wouldn't even tell the difference.


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


user
Could this be by the same director as Don't Look Now or Bad Timing? Poorly
acted, clunkily edited. You only have to compare the various accident scenes in this with similar ones in Don't Look Now to see how much Roeg has lost his
touch.
Even the generally reliable Teresa Russell (looking a bit chunky these days, I'm afraid to report) cannot save this one. The plot is pure pseudo-religious hokum, the acting is wooden and Roeg's attempts at his trademark dislocation of time are pitiful.
Avoid this one like the plague.


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


user
This movie was strange... I watched it while ingesting a quarter of psilcybe cubensis (mushrooms). It was really weird. Im pretty sure you are supposed to watch it high, but mushrooms weren't enough. I couldn't stop laughing.. maybe lsd would work. The movie is a bunch of things morphing into other things, and dancing. Its really cheesy for todays standards but when it was released im sure it was well... one of a kind. I could see how some people would think this movie was good, but I didn't think it was very interesting, and I was on mushrooms at the time. If your having a party or something and everybodys pretty lit, pop it on you'll get a few laughs.


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


user
We actually watched this twice in the theater because we could not believe how bad it was the first time. Maybe we'd missed something... nope, what's missing was missed from the beginning of preproduction. I actually went back to Robbin's novel to see if I could find the problem, and I discovered that what I thought was funny and exciting back in the day is now just so much disconnected and fuzzy-headed junk.
So, the initial problem with the film was deciding to do it at all, and the rest of the train wreck progressed from there. Absolutely nothing works - not a blessed thing. Some beautiful exterior photography gets steamrolled by random camera placement in interior shots. All of the actors look at least uncomfortable - Angie Dickenson looks positively mortified - except for Rain Phoenix, who gives the impression that she is too unaware to realize how awful her performance really is. The dialog is one, long, unwavering cringe. Scenes don't make sense from second to second, and the connections between them are nonexistent. And yet, the movie stumbles blindly on, convinced that it is saying something profound.
This is too bad to even be funny; it is simply excruciating. Gus Van Zant has done other good-to-great movies which I encourage you to see, and I'm happy he survived (and appears to have learned from) this mess.


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


user
I love movies. I love independent efforts and major studio productions. I love films with stars and I love those featuring unknowns. I love dramas, comedies, action-adventures, science fiction, mysteries, westerns, any genre except horror. I love foreign films as well as those in English. I love good movies and I even love bad ones, because almost no film ever fails to entertain or amuse on some level. Except for "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues."
When I attended a late-night showing of "Cowgirls," I joined an audience of around 10. Less than halfway into it, I alone remained. Soon not even I could tolerate the disturbing mess unfolding before my eyes, and I left as well. To this day "Cowgirls" remains the only movie I have ever walked out of.
I don't quite know how to describe this incoherent, vacuous, trashy, meaningless film, or how to adequately convey its lack of redeeming value. Suffice to say that it ranks as one of the worst major films of all time, preposterous and inexcusable on every level. It tries to be clever, but its conception of feminism seems hopelessly anachronistic. It tries to be funny, but its humor is coarse and cringe-worthy. This is one of the few films which manages to profane its own ethos, by depicting protagonists in so off-putting a manner that you revolt against them and their values. If you want to watch a movie, watch "Waterworld," "Ishtar," anything but this. Except for the new "Alexander." If you're choosing between that and this, read a book instead.


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


user
I absolutely love all of Tom Robbins books, so I was very excited and interested to see a movie made after one of his books. I knew that there would be no way that the movie would capture even half of Robbins' magic, but after seeing the movie, it made me never want to read the book again. The movie Even Cowgirls Get the Blues doesn't include an eighth of the content in the book, and it seems to focus more on the love connection between Bonanza Jellybean and Sissy than anything else. Along with the incredibly weak plot line in the movie, I think that better actors definitely could have been chosen to play the characters. The only actors in the movie that I thought played their roles fit to Robbins' descriptions in the book were Julian's friends, in their five minute clip in the beginning of the movie. Those who haven't read the book might enjoy the movie, but as a huge Tom Robbins fan, this movie was nothing but a disappointment.


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


user
Uma Thurman plays Sissy, a young woman with a gypsy spirit (and freakishly large thumbs) who hitchhikes cross-country, eventually finding her true place amongst a group of peyote-enlightened cowgirls on a ranch devoted to preserving the Whooping Crane; Rain(bow) Phoenix is their lesbian leader, Bonanza Jellybean, who falls in love with Sissy, thumbs or not. Gus Van Sant directed and adapted Tom Robbins' book, but his satire has no primary target and just skitters all over the map, like Sissy (maybe that was his goal, but it's not involving for an audience). Notorious box-office flop wasn't so much panned as it was ignored, and one can see why: it's a series of sketches in search of a plot, and the performances, directorial touches and cinematography are all variable. Thurman is a stitch posing alongside the highway trying to get a ride, but this pretty much put the kibosh on Phoenix's career. Writer Buck Henry (who didn't write this, but perhaps should have) gives the most assured performance as the doctor who works on one of those thumbs.
Two thumbs down.


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


user
No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.
Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries.


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


user
I couldn't believe how lame & pointless this was. Basically there is nothing to laugh at in the movie, hardly any scenes to get you interested in the rest of the movie. This movie pulled in some huge stars but they were all wasted in my opinion. I think Keanu Reeves must've taken some acting lessons a fews years after this movie before he stared in The Matrix. Uma Thurman looked very simple & humble. Luckily i got this movie for a very low price because its certainly not a movie to remember for any good reasons. I won't write anything about the story of the movie, but as you should know that she is meant to be the most famous hitchhiker across America because of her huge thumb. I would give this movie a 2 / 10. Before I watched this movie I was wondering why this movie has only got a 4.0/10, & now I know why. A very disappointing movie. Don't buy it even if you see it for under $5.


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


user
I missed this movie in the cinema but had some idea in the back of my head that it was worth a look, so when I saw it on the shelves in DVD I thought "time to watch it". Big mistake!
A long list of stars cannot save this turkey, surely one of the worst movies ever. An incomprehensible plot is poorly delivered and poorly presented. Perhaps it would have made more sense if I'd read Robbins' novel but unless the film is completely different to the novel, and with Robbins assisting in the screenplay I doubt it, the novel would have to be an excruciating read as well.
I hope the actors were well paid as they looked embarrassed to be in this waste of celluloid and more lately DVD blanks, take for example Pat Morita. Even Thurman has the grace to look uncomfortable at times.
Save yourself around 98 minutes of your life for something more worthwhile, like trimming your toenails or sorting out your sock drawer. Even when you see it in the "under $5" throw-away bin at your local store, resist the urge!


assistant
0