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
Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?


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


user
I sought out this film for one reason--Al Adamson. He is among the worst directors of all time--right up there with Ed Wood, Jr. and Ray Dennis Steckler and the pantheon of awfulness. However, I was a tad disappointed because although the film was indeed bad, it never approached the levels of awfulness of some of his earlier schlocky movies. Because of that, this film wasn't particularly fun to watch for us bad movie fans.
Now I was wary about watching this film, as the title "Naughty Stewardesses" makes the film sound like a pornographic film--something I wouldn't be reviewing on IMDb. However, this film appeared to be this at times--particularly the first 10 minutes. But, you could tell that the script underwent many changes, as for much of the film there isn't any titillation at all and towards the end of the movie there is a plot that comes out of no where that is violent and certainly NOT sexy! The result of all this is total confusion.
Sadly, none of the many parts are even good. For example, as a porn video, it shows surprisingly little AND it's incomprehensible why they would put a 71 year-old guy in some of the love scenes. Sure, for a 71 year-old Mr. Livingston looked pretty good--but he was still an old man and no one would want to see him getting it on with young nymphet! Then, when the final 20 minutes becomes very violent, as Livingston became a Rambo-like guy! Talk about weird and inappropriate.
Overall, there is little to recommend this sad movie. It's not bad enough or sexy enough to care about and the film manages to be rather boring even with such a crazy title like "Naughty Stewardesses".


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


user
Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.
That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.
These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.
The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.
The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.
I heartily recommend avoiding 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
From the start, you know this is a Sam Sherman film more than an Al Adamson film because as the credits roll, "A Sam Sherman Production" appears in letters as big as the title credit. Not only that, Mr. Sherman co-wrote the screenplay and it was his idea to use Bob Livingstone, a washed-up, 69 year old Western star of the old Hollywood era to be his male lead in a picture that Sherman thought would capitalize on the recent success of "Swinging Stewardesses".
Now why would you want to have a wrinkled old man as your male lead in what is supposed to be a soft-core exploitation feature? It defies explanation, but that is Sam Sherman for you. His obsession with old Hollywood colored a lot of his films for Independent International Pictures, and he and Al Adamson frequently tried to get has-been actors for their films (e.g. J. Carrol Naish, Russ Tamblyn, Lon Chaney Jr.,etc.). But Bob Livingstone? Tell me the drive-in demographic knew who this '40's second-rater was; it's ridiculous!
But then again, "Naughty Stewardesses" was a successful picture for them, so we can't just write this off as a Sherman fiasco. Still, by any aesthetic standard, it's an incoherent mess. Al Adamson wanted out of this picture, and it is easy to see why. First off, it has no genre focus at all and drifts around from super soft core (tits and ass/simulated sex only) to a kidnapping thriller (shades of Steckler's "Rat Pfink and Boo Boo"!) In between, we get subjected to painfully boring sequences of the stewardesses traipsing around Vegas to the hackneyed music of Sparrow, or Richard Smedley and Connie Hoffmann on a photo shoot in San Francisco. Worst of all, we get Bob Livingstone as a Jack LaLanne wannabe in a blue jumpsuit trying to be sexy...gag! (Thankfully, his big sex scene with Connie Hoffmann was deleted, but you can catch him slurping on her titties on the DVD in the Special Features section. Creepy.)
This is a terrible, terrible movie, but I'll give it three stars for Gary Graver's photography and out of sympathy to Connie Hoffmann for having to make it with "Wrinkles" Livingstone. "Naughty Stewardesses" is for Al Adamson completists and/or scholars of exploitation film as Sam Sherman's commentary offers vital inside info. All others, BEWARE.


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 truly brilliant. It ducks through banality to crap at such speed you don't even see good sense and common decency to mankind go whizzing past. But it doesn't stop there! This movie hits the bottom of the barrel so hard it bounces back to the point of ludicrous comedy: behold as Kor the Beergutted Conan wannabe with the over-abundance of neck hair struts his stuff swinging his sword like there's no tomorrow (and the way he swung it, I really am amazed there *was* a tomorrow for him, or at least, for his beer gut). Don't miss this movie, it's a fantastic romp through idiocy, and sheer bloody mindedness! And once you have finished watching this one, dry the tears of joy (or tears of frustration at such an inept attempt at storytelling) from your eyes because some stupid f00l gave these people another $5 to make a sequel!


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


user
What we have here is a downright brilliant piece of early 80's incompetence that will render even the biggest connoisseur of trash- cinema completely speechless! "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a very cheap and cheesy fantasy/Sword-and-Sorcery adventure that doesn't have an actual plot but does eagerly & shamelessly borrows elements from other films. Writer Ed Naha and Hector Olivera (who?) watched enough similar type of movies to know that they needed a handful of essential characters, but probably figured that all the rest would follow automatically. In order to make a fantasy-adventure you need: one super- evil villain (preferably with a black cape), one young hero in training, one lone warrior, one amiable type of furry pet, one wise midget living in the woods (optional) and a whole colorful collection of hideous demons, enslaved dwarfs, and winged gargoyles to serve as filler. The story is phenomenal and so original, with Simon the young son of a wizard having to flee from his beloved kingdom after the evil magician Shurka takes over the power and killed the king. Simon wants to go back and save the people, but therefore he needs his powerful ring which he lost during his escape. Simon befriends lone warrior Kor (the usually cool dude Bo Svenson who clearly needed the pay check), who assists Simon during the long and devastating journey full of ordeals, dangerous encounters and magical showdowns. Admittedly it doesn't even sound too bad thus far, but that's merely just because I excluded all the deliciously inept little details. Simon has a best friend named Gulfax, for example. Gulfax is an albino version of Chewbacca and evokes incontrollable chuckles whenever he opens his poodle-snout to yelp something incomprehensible. The obstacles during journey back home are hilariously irrelevant to the "plot" and simply serve as padding footage to cover up the lack of actual content. Simon has nightmarish visions inside the tent of a suspicious forest nymph, Kor settles an old score with the pig-faced nemesis whose sister he refused to marry and there's the supposedly horrible 'suicide cave' where you can only sing your way out of. But the absolute most unequally brilliant sequence  not just of this film alone but in the history of cinema  involves the resurrection of four zombie warriors. Simon awakes the legendary courageous warriors, hoping they will assist them in their battle, but the rotting corpses only take a few steps, complain about how tired they are and return back to their graves. That's it! So much for the zombie sub plot! Best sequence ever! I could go on listing unintentionally hilarious little details for several more paragraphs, but you get the idea. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a tremendously messed-up "so-bad-it's-good" film. Word of advice: do not watch this joyful piece of junk alone. Invite friends, preferably the dope-headed types with a wicked sense of humor, and watch it in group. It will be a night to remember


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


user
All these reviewers are spot on. I've seen many bad films over the years, believe me, and this beats the lot!
This is not just a "so bad it's good" exploiter waste of time, but a genuine, hilarious, movie atrocity.
CHECK OUT the white furry monster type thing!
WET YOURSELF LAUGHING at Thom Christopher's "spell-weaving" acting!
GAPE IN SHEER A**E-CLENCHING DISBELIEF! at the threadbare sets!
This is one of those "European co-productions". No wonder we have so many wars. I swear, some of the people taking part in 'Wizards of the Lost Kingdom' aren't actually aware they are appearing in a film!
FACT! I originally watched this movie on HTV Wales late one night while suffering from concussion and sleep deprivation. I had to track down a copy several weeks later to make sure it was really this awful. It is. Worse even than Lee Majors in The Norseman, more laughable than all of John Derek's films, this is, truly, the Citizen Kane of Trash.


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


user
If somebody wants to make a really, REALLY bad movie, "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" really sets a yardstick by which to measure the depth of badness.
Start with the pseudo-Chewbacca that follows around the main character ... Some poor schmuck in a baggy white "furry" costume that looks as if it was stitched together from discarded pieces of carpeting. Work your way slowly, painfully, through more not-so-special effects that thoroughly deny the viewer from suspension of disbelief. Add a garden gnome (just for the heck of it).
On second thought, skip this movie entirely and find something else to do for an hour and a half.


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


user
Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind.


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


user
Need a lesson in pure, abject failure?? Look no further than "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom", an abysmal, dirt-poor, disgrace of a flick. As we all know, decent moovies tend to sprout horrible, horrible offspring: "Halloween" begat many, many bad 80's slasher flicks; "Mad Max" begat many, many bad 80's "futuristic wasteland fantasy" flicks; and "Conan the Barbarian" begat a whole slew of terrible, horrible, incredibly bad 80's sword-and-sorcery flicks. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" scrapes the bottom of that 80's barrel, in a way that's truly insulting to barrels. A young runt named Simon recaptured his "good kingdom" from an evil sorcerer with the help of a mangy rug, a garden gnome, a topless bimbo mermaid, and a tired-looking, pudgy Bo Svenson. Svenson("North Dallas Forty", "Inglorious Bastards", "Delta Force"), a long-time b-moovie muscleman, looks barely able to swing his aluminum foil sword. However, he manages to defeat the forces of evil, which consist of the evil sorcerer, "Shurka", and his army of badly costumed monsters, giants, and midgets. At one point, a paper mache bat on a string attacks, but is eaten by a 1/2 hidden sock puppet, pitifully presented as some sort of dragon. The beginning of the film consists of what can only politely be described as bits of scenes scooped up from the cutting-room floor of udder bad moovies, stitched together in the vain hope of setting the scene for the film, and over-earnestly narrated by some guy who never appears again. Words cannot properly convey the jaw-dropping cheapness of this film; the producers probably spent moore moolah feeding Svenson's ever expanding gullet than on the cheesy fx of this flick. And we're talkin' Brie here, folks... :=8P Director Hector Olivera("Barbarian Queen") presents this mish-mash in a hopelessly confused, confuddled, and cliched manner, destroying any possible hint of clear, linear storytelling. The acting is dreadful, the production levels below shoe-string, and the plot is one tired cliche after another paraded before our weary eyes. That they actually made a sequel(!!!) makes the MooCow's brain whirl. James Horner's("Braveheart", "Titanic","The Rock") cheesy moosic from "Battle Beyond the Stars" was lifted, screaming and kicking, and mercilessly grafted onto this turkey - bet this one doesn't pop up on his resume. Folks, you gotta see this to believe it. The MooCow says as a cheapo rent when there is NOTHING else to watch, well, it's moore fun than watching dust bunnies mate. Barely. :=8P


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


user
Think of this film as a Saturday morning live-action program from ages ago. Even the small tykes will find this one hard to please because it runs like molasses! I can't fully understand how god awful it is to make something too typical and uninteresting, especially in the costume department! Too many warrior-wizard movies out there have used the same old plotline numerous times over, but this is mighty scarce considering its appeal to the little darlings. And who in the world would've let a topless mermaid be cast in the first place? I thought this was a "family" movie! MST3K, here's another fine gem for your 1999 TV season!


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


user
There's nothing I hate more than self-congratulating pretentiousness. Kevin Smith deserves to be hung up by his toenails for inspiring every white middle-class whiner to make a movie about why they can't get laid. I don't really mind inexperience and low-budget productions but when the writing is this obvious and cloying it really burns my potatoes. The money put into this could've gone to a real struggling filmmaker who actually has a chance like John Gulager. If you watch Project Greenlight you'll immediately recognize a talented visionary who is fighting against the system. Anybody could grab a camera and make a talkative picture that doesn't manage to say anything really, at all. When will we be saved from the Smithonites and Whedonettes of the world? The revolution can't come soon enough. Go watch a real first time effort by buying Desperado or searching out Friends With Benefits. Thank you and good day.


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


user
I admit, having come of age in the hippie-dippy age, I am a sucker for these kind of movies. I can enjoy some of the schlock of the hippie genre far more than most "normal" people. However, this movie is simply awful in every conceivable way.
Every trite perception of the hippie silliness is presented as gospel, cops kill a young long hair when he peacefully lands a plane. This movie is so horrible that it is not even funny to watch as a goof on the excesses of the hippie drone. It is like a left wing version of Dragnet, except without professional actors. The only reason I gave it two stars was because there are some obscurities of interest on the soundtrack, besides, I couldn't find a selection for negative stars.
No actors, almost no plot, sheeze, barely even a script...you got it, an "art" movie....All this done at root canal drilling slowness, dragging out each meaningless scene just to fill up time.
In a bizarre twist of life imitating art, the star "nonactor" of the movie joined a commune in real life and robbed a bank in Boston, one of his co-robbers was killed and he was sent to jail where he was killed in a suspicious weightlifting "accident".....and just think, he got to leave this behind as a legacy....Oy vey.


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


user
Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic "psychology" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the "wicked capitalistic" that wants sing up him in "La notte", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in "La aventura", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film.
I have reviewed yesterday "Zabriskie Point". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find "something different". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the "object women" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!
Sorry, today, half a century after the "revolution" of "La Aventura" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except "Le amiche" and perhaps "Il grido") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.


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


user
Here is one of those educational short films made to learn the unknown people out there about facts of life. This time the target audience is preteen girls, the fact of life is menstruation. This animated film, created by Walt Disney Pictures, apparently with some sponsoring from Kotex.
It starts with explaining how hormones make you grow and develop. With the help of animation and a female narrator it shows us how the body, especially the ovaries, uterus and vagina, work and why this all leads to menstruation. It is almost amazing, becoming the comic note here, how the subject of sex is avoided. Even the word is never mentioned although "furtilized" will pass once. I don't really know why I saw this, but since it is one of those rare short films that could give an impression of an innocent time, you might want to give it a try.


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


user
A bad one.
Oh, my...this is one of the movies, which doesn't have even one positive effect. Just everything from actors to story stinks to the sky. I just wonder how low I.Q. you should have to watch this kind of flick and even enjoy.
Is there something than this is worth watching for? Well, there is a lot of nudity involved, but it's nothing particular. And when you just think that it couldn't get worse, your realize that all the naked ladies looked like there are forty years old. C'mon guys, where did you search for these actresses. In elderly home, perhaps.
Anyway, the leading actresses has some sex-appeal and knows how to show it. Again, too bad, that she is too skinny & old. All in all, skip these one.
2 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
Istanbul is another one of those expatriate films that Errol Flynn was making in the last decade of his life trying to support his family and stay out of trouble with the IRS. It's a remake of the Fred MacMurray- Ava Gardner film Singapore from a decade ago.
Unlike that studio product, Istanbul has the advantage of that great location cinematography right at the sight of the Golden Horn. But Errol Flynn, who was aging exponentially before the camera in every film, was way too old to be playing these action/adventure types any longer. His scenes with Cornell Borchers really do lack conviction.
As for Cornell, she plays Errol's former sweetheart who through the trauma of being saved from a fire now has amnesia. She both doesn't remember Errol and is now married to Torin Thatcher.
But Errol's got some nasty people led by Martin Benson and Werner Klemperer who are after some diamonds which have come into his possession. Got to deal with them too.
Best reason to see Istanbul is to hear Nat King Cole sing and play the piano. Most people today don't realize that Cole was an accomplished jazz pianist, they only think of him as a singer. Actually he was a pianist first, the singing was an afterthought.
Istanbul is a routine action/adventure film for those who are fans of that type of movie.


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 rock, as others have said. I found it really boring and silly. The story is about this metal high school kid who idolizes this really bad heavy metal singer. The singer dies, but not before making one last album that is to be played over the radio at, of course, midnight on Halloween (which would actually make it November 1st, a much less potent date to be sure). The kid gets a copy of the record and it contains secret hidden back-play messages. It also is the key that opens the door so that the really bad metal singer can return to bring havoc and death to the world.
The first part of this film is not a horror film at all, but rather an After School Special. We see the metal kid (the outsider) tormented over and over by the popular kids. And he fails to learn the most important lesson in high school movies: When the cool kids who bully you suddenly invite you to a party, DON'T GO! It is a trap. Especially if it is a pool party. Anybody surprised when he ends up in the water?? It was such an After School Special that I kept waiting for Melissa Sue Anderson to show up and teach Jody Foster a lesson.
So back to the horror part of the film. So this metal kid gets some powers and instead of using them to kill the bully boys (which would have made much more sense), he freaks out and tries to protect all of the bully boys and girls from harm. What? A sensitive hero? What fun is that in a horror movie? Thank goodness Carrie White did not follow this lesson. He actually tries to PREVENT having the music played at the Halloween Dance, the very music that could unleash a power to kill all the kids who had been mean to him. If it were me, I would have put that music on, and pronto.
The rest of the movie is about this metal kid going around town trying to kill the horrible metal star he idolized. Why not partner with him and REALLY do some damage. Why you ask? It seems he is in love with one of the popular girls and does not want her hurt..more appropriate for a Molly Ringwald film. Is this a horror film or an episode of Beauty and the Beast? The movie just goes on and on at this point, with no scares, horror, or anything worth watching. If you went to high school in the late 80s like I did, this movie is fun to have a little flashback to fashions and big hair, but that is it for this film. Skip it and stay home and just listen to some KISS.


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


user
Skippy from "Family Ties" plays Eddie, a wussy 'metal' nerd who gets picked on. When his favorite wussy 'metal' singer, Sammi Curr, dies, he throws a hissy fit tearing down all the posters on his bedroom wall. But when he later gets an unreleased record that holds the spirit of his dead 'metal' idol. He first gets sucked into ideas of revenge, but then he doesn't want to take it as far as Sammi does. Which isn't really that far as his main victims only seem to go to the hospital. This movie is utterly laughable and has about as much to do with real metal as say, "Rock Star". OK, maybe a tad more than that piece of junk, but you get my point. And how ANYone can root for a guy played by Skippy from "Family Ties" I haven't a clue. The cameo by Gene Simmons is OK, and Ozzy Osbourne reaches coherency, I applaud him for that, but otherwise skip this one.
My Grade: D
Eye Candy:Elise Richards gets topless, an a topless extra at a pool party


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


user
How can a movie have Ozzy Osbourne and still suck? I just don't get it. Trick or Treat managed to do it. This sucks and likes it.
Trick or Treat is one of those movies I have to warn people about. It is a vomit-inducing vile atrocity just begging to be viewed so you can feel that much worse about yourself. Trick or Treat has no redeeming factors.
For a movie about heavy metal, it sure doesn't seem to grasp what heavy metal is or what it represents. This movie manages to make heavy metal look lame and this was in 1986, probably one of heavy metal's strongest hours. That is quite a feat, however negative.
Trick or Treat = so bad you will be angry at yourself for having watched it. That simple equation will hopefully keep you away from this brainless and gutless film.


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


user
This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2)


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


user
I have to agree with some of the other comments and even go a step further.
Nothing about this film worked, absolutely nothing. Delmar our central character makes the decision to become a surrogate mother in order to earn enough money to buy a restaurant but along the way fall for a wise ex-jailbird. At the same time her friend Hortense is trying to get her lawyer boyfriend to finally marry her. She also happens to be sleeping with Marlon who is desperately in love with her. Then there's Delmar's brother Jethro who gets involved with a former coke addict, Missy who reveals she was sexually abused by her adopted father. On the sidelines we also have the eccentricmother who has an assortment of equally odd friends, one of whom dies on the couch at the beginning of the film. So far so good but after introducing these characters and story lines addressing life, death, grief and love in the first half, the film simply loses direction.
If the writer had only selected one or two characters and allowed us to follow their stories maybe things would have been fine but equal screen time is given to all with the result that no one story or character is fully developed. For instance, why does Delmar think she will be able to hand over her child in exchange for money, especially when the prospective parents are a creepy bigoted lawyer and his semi alcoholic and depressed wife? Why is Hortense so desperate to marry a man who is a jerk and clearly doesn't love her? How is it Missy manages to kick her coke habit overnight? Is Jethro regularly drawn to women with overwhelming problems, or is Missy the exception? Has Delmar and Jethro's mother always been on the eccentric side, or is it a more recent development? Why is Jethro so keen on Cadillacs that he has one in the middle of his living room? Why did Moses spend years in prison for stealing a car, a relatively minor crime? How does Delmar manage to end up giving birth to Moses' baby when there is no suggestion that they ever had sex?
These questions are posed in the screenplay but sadly are never answered. I can only assume they were answered in the original novel and that is why the writer felt the need to include it all in the script. Big mistake. Losing several subplots especially the Hortense and Marlon story, which adds nothing to the overall film, would have tightened things considerably and allowed more time to develop the Delmar, Jethro and Moses characters who are clearly more central to the plot and underlying themes than anyone else.
Add to that the most pedestrian directing style seen outside of the average soap opera and the result is a huge missed opportunity for all, including Jorja Fox who does her best to rise above the material. I'm not surprised that this appears to have been the director's last film as this effort shows no evidence of a visual style or ability to tell a moving and intelligent story.


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


user
I had the opportunity to preview this film as a member of a test audience, and the only thing which kept me in my seat was the chance to fill out the post-screening survey. I felt the film's biggest problem was its lack of a main plot. Instead, it was composed of (too) many sub-plots competing for screen time. As a result, there is not a single character who is developed enough for the audience to form any sort of attachment. What the director and producer failed to do was show us why we should care what happens to the characters. In fact any one sub-plot and the characters associated with it could have been removed altogether without serious detriment to the film. (The time gained would have allowed for the much needed development of the remaining sub-plots and characters.) Simply put, The Hungry Bachelors Club's plate is overcrowded with side dishes and appetizers when an entre is desired.


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


user
not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to.
the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution


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


user
An interesting concept vampirism having something to do with a virus.(but done several times by now) Overall the movie is too long and drags a bit. The editing could have been tighter. I am sorry to hear about the problem with the credits. Maybe the movie was rushed to market. The lighting was too dark in places. But the worst technical problem is the audio. The level was good enough to hear the dialog, but many of the interiors have a echo sound to them, which is very distracting. Either they were not careful in the recording, or the sound mixing could have been better. Also too much background noise got through. The should have gotten someone to do sound effects for the martial arts scenes. The tinny clank of swords hitting together was not the sound of an epic battle. Especially in the combat scenes the editing needed to be tighter.
Also the acting was a bit flat. I am sorry, but when I see that the same person writes and stars in a movie, in my experience it is a red flag.
But it was a good effort so I gave it a 4.


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


user
Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: "What does that have to do with this movie?" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.
The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.
But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).
If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say "Ha ha, you had sex with your mom," which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.
I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight.


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


user
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but.....this is the worst "film" I've ever seen. Worse than The Avengers. Incompetent directing, disjointed writing, and awful acting are the only consistent elements throughout. Shot on very cheap video, it looks like a high school project, but without the emotion. The lighting frequently looks like a single Sun-Gun. The sound is slightly better than a single mic on the camera, but everything else about this thing is just awful. The plot heads off in strange directions with no foundation or later resolution, the techie elements are patently absurd, and the editing looks worse than a rough cut. It's not even bad enough to be funny. It's just bad. BTW, the packaging is intentionally misleading.
Lion's Gate owes me $4.00.


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


user
I can't believe that this movie even made it to video, and that video rental stores are willing to put it on their shelves. I literary asked for a refund. Take away the fact that the movie has no historical truth it, and it is still the worse movie ever found in a video store. It is not even good enough to be called a B rated movie. Do not waste your money or your time on this movie. Just listing to the voice over and the horrible music made me sick. Anyone involved with this movie should be pulled from the union, gives the industry a black mark, but after watching most of this movie I really don't think anyone involved is a union member.


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 must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 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
This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.


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


user
Awful, awful, awful.
A condescending remark at the start and a few nasty autopsy photos does not a good movie make. Once again I'm amazed at the determination and skill that some people have in achieving a movie production and yet they don't have the pride to realise that what they have made is an utter pile of crap.
I sat and tried to think of a redeeming feature so that I could at least balance my criticism but the only one I could think of was that the opening track by Pink was pretty good....I wonder if she has seen this?
Watch this at your peril, the boredom may kill you.


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


user
Zodiac Killer. 1 out of 10. Worst acting ever. No really worst acting ever. David Hess (Last House on the Left. No the one from the seventies. Rent it it's really good) is the worst of the bunch (Pretty stiff competition but he is amazingly god-awful.) One would be hard pressed to find a home movie participant with such an awkward camera presence. The film actually screeches to a stunning painful halt when he is on the screen.
Not that the film actually has any redeeming qualities for Mr. Hess to ruin. It is filmed with a home movie camera and by the looks of things a pretty old one complete with attached boom mike. No post production either. Come on there has to be some shovelware a five year old computer could use that could clean up this picture. Throw in bizarre stock footage pictures of autopsy's and aircraft carrier takeoffs and this is one visually screwed up picture. The autopsy pictures are interjected the way Italian cannibal films interject those god-awful real life animal killings. And the Navy footage is supposed to be some anti war statement (Cause we know all the bloodthirsty maniacs join the Navy) What in the world is Lion's Gate is doing releasing this garbage? It would embarrass Troma. The plot is about the Zodiac Killer (Last seen in Dirty Harry . No the one from the seventies. Rent it it's really good) Somebody gets shot in the stomach in LA and the cops assume the Zodiac Killer is back? Uh-huh. What can you expect from a movie that doesn't know that DSM IV is a book not a psychiatric disorder and where the young killer older man relationship resembles that of a congressional page and closeted congressman? Yeah eighties haircuts and production values meet a Nambla subplot. Sign me up.


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


user
Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual "warning" on the film. When it started the following "warning" was displayed: "The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic." I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: "I'm at the glue factory." It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big "twist" was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an "army of one" because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at "Satanic Worship" by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great "computer hacker" was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use whitepages.com. There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.
So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!


assistant
0