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


user
I love a good war film and I fall into the "been there, done that" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.
It started off with me shouting at the TV saying "you wouldn't do that" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.
There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.
The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the "Contact Right" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?
Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.
Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good storyline...it was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)
The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.
There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry folks...it just ain't!
Not recommended...it will just bore you.


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


user
As usual, I am making a mad dash to see the movies I haven't watched yet in anticipation of the Oscars. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie as it seemed to be right up my alley. I can not for the life of me understand why this movie has gotten the buzz it has. There is no story!! A group of guys meander around Iraq. One day they are here diffusing a bomb. Tomorrow they are tooling around the countryside, by themselves no less and start taking sniper fire. No wait here they are back in Bagdad. There is no cohesive story at all. The three main characters are so overly characterized that they are mere caricatures. By that I mean, we have the sweet kid who is afraid of dying. We have the hardened military man who is practical and just wants to get back safe. And then we have the daredevil cowboy who doesn't follow the rules but has a soft spot for the precocious little Iraqi boy trying to sell soldiers DVDs. What do you think is going to happen??? Well, do you think the cowboy soldier who doesn't follow rules is going to get the sweet kid injured with his renegade ways?? Why yes! Do you think the Iraqi kid that cowboy soldier has a soft spot for is going to get killed and make him go crazy? Why yes! There is no story here. The script is juvenile and predictable! The camera is shaken around a lot to make it look "artsy". And for all of you who think this is such a great war picture, go rent "Full Metal Jacket", "Deerhunter" or "Platoon". Don't waste time or money on this boring movie!


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


user
COULD CONTAIN SPOILERS.....I'm surprised by the high rating of this film to be honest..really am. All I saw was a slow moving propaganda movie with nothing much to say. (Note to self must check the rating for Platoon on here)This movie was so black and white...Americans good...anyone else either evil or useless. I take it the British troops in it were meant to be SAS (one of the most elite units in the world most would agree with I'm pretty sure) they lost 3 men and the others ran away while the US troops who weren't even Elite soldiers in the fighting sense held the ground and opened up a can of whoop ass on them evil sneaky Iraqis. Aye dead-on strings to mind. The only good thing I have to say about this movie did come in this sense when the sniper took out the SAS man...muzzle flash from distance, good noise used...really well done that bit but the rest...Spare me what am I 10 years of age over here??!! Well I'm not and can see nonsense propaganda in a movie and boy did this movie have it.
SPOILER...Oh aye and in the main crazy,wild guy can't stay at home with his wife and young child..no he has to sign up for another year to fight in a nonsense lie of a war!! Why...because young men need thrills or something apparently. Like say I'm surprised by the high rating of this movie really am.
P.S. I'm not hating America I'm hating the message of this movie that seems to not even want to confront issues of an illegal war (in my eyes) which OK fair enough because clearly there are people out there who think it's a just war for whatever messed up reason (wanted to say something else her but censored) but hey that's up to them. But to churn out a movie so one-sided like it's black and white...good v evil is lazy and treating me as a child. In war there is a lot of grey and it's two (sometimes more)sides who believe in what they are fighting for. Not Star Wars with something something dark side verses the goodies. F' sake Hollywood at times you really do take people for mugs...then again 7.8....well maybe you are right to but I'll not be buying it. Glad I downloaded this movie tell you all that for nothing. ;)


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


user
There is no artistic value in this movie to deserve any award. Well, it does not deserve an audience as well. Ironically, one of the awards is for cinematography but frankly, the camera movements are disconcerting to say the least. Every frame, you feel you are getting the "full picture", its like someone is "cropping your view" from the edges. The story is pathetic. Well, I will be honest, I could not bear to watch the entire movie. The part that sucked the most was when I saw the soldiers partying in their barracks and one of the soldiers coaxed to drink liquor. These and many other similar scenes reminded me so much of Steven Seagal.
Take my advice, stay away from this piece of crap.


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


user
I am definitely in the minority opinion on this one. "The Hurt Locker" has won more "Best Picture" awards from the critic groups than any other film this year. However, not only did I not like it, I found it hard to sit through.
There is minimal plot and little character development. They disarm bombs, fight, and disarm more bombs. That is the entire movie.
But the worst part was that the camera never stops moving and is constantly shaking. This has been a recent fad in film making and it is supposed to make it seem more real because it has a cheap, documentary look to it. The camera was shaking so much it was making me nauseous to look at the screen.
I normally don't care for war movies and "The Hurt Locker" was no exception. But you don't need to take my word for it because the critics love it.


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 too had heard read all the breathless reviews and comments about how this movie might deserve the Best Picture Oscar so I went to see it today. What a major disappointment! 1) If you read the other reviews you will learn from members of the U.S. military who served in Iraq how unlikely the events of this movie are. They mirrored my own thoughts; as the movie played I - a complete civilian - kept thinking to myself, "say WHAT? there's no way that would happen like that.." 2) There's very little that actually happens in terms of plot. A new bomb disposal guy shows up to replace one who was killed (a death that isn't really clearly explained). The new guy gets an adrenaline rush from his work. His attitude puts others at risk. THAT'S IT! 3) This movie is nowhere near as suspenseful as claimed. If you want suspense try one of the Bourne movies. If you want to see a war movie that's emotionally powerful, try renting Go Tell The Spartans, which is about the Vietnam War, and stars Burt Lancaster (who told me PERSONALLY in a serendipitous supermarket encounter that it was a film he was immensely proud of and one he viewed as some of his finest work, and which he was still upset had been largely ignored in the wake of the over-hyped Apocalypse Now), or an old WWII black and white classic Sink The Bismark, which, especially for an English film, is unbelievably heart-wrenching. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON Hurt Locker.


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


user
Who did the research for this film? It's set in Baghdad in 2004, however all the Soldiers are wearing ACUs and have all Universal Camouflage Pattern gear. No one was wearing that stuff in 04.
I just saw this film while deployed overseas and I can say that the overwhelming feeling from the audience was WTF? This movie made no sense, had characters come and go with no explanation, and people doing ridiculous things that would NEVER happen in real life. I realize that it's a movie, but it's obviously trying to portray something realistic. It fails miserably, but it's trying.
It's like someone came up with a bunch of random ideas, chewed them up and swallowed, then vomited out a film. I would not recommend this film to anyone. I'm still not sure why I sat through the whole thing. GI Joe was one that really made you think compared to this. STAY AWAY!


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


user
REALLY???
I am truly amazed to see the glowing reviews here!
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is one big pathetic, grainy, cliché. I would have laughed out loud, and a lot, but was on a date with an ex-military guy. I could not hide my other response, BOREDOM. Yes, I think my date, a flat-line "good old boy", liked it. That's not a compliment. I know an actor wants to work.... Fine for the others. But Ralph, come on.
It was a painful tease from Ralph. I vote a 2 only because Ralph looked SO STUNNING. But I must plead, Ralph, how could you? And, why??
I'm going to go watch The End of The Affair to heal and recover now.... C1


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


user
This whole film should have lasted 45 minutes - maximum. Although an interesting concept/theme, it really did not develop as a story. Once the initial idea of a brave (stupid?) bomb disposal expert (cowboy?) are introduced, and this happens very early in the film, the rest is repetitious. Characters were not explored, and aspects of the location and politics were ignored. There was some nice insight into the appalling difficulties faced by troops in such a foreign environment, and the difficulties in differentiating between friend and foe. But the way in which the unit operated stretched belief! Individual performances were good, and special effects were adequate, but not enough to overcome the basic lack of content.


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


user
... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.
Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.
Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first.


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


user
I decided to watch this one because it's been nominated for Oscar this year. I guess as many folks here I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and disappointed. First scene was OK but the whole rest of the movie in "shaky hands" camera mode is really annoying.
i guess the main reason for making such a movie and nominating it for Oscar is this:
American "military machine" (people, who makes money on war) urgently need an excuse or justification of war in Iraq by bungling up something (sort of) patriotic.
why these "heroic" efforts of director and the main character to _inspire_ the audience with an idea of "loving-war-like-a-drug"?.. Oh, please, come on! what a bore!
watch this to get an idea of how low the movie academy can fall...


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


user
I went to see this movie simply to see what all the hype is about, and I was as disappointed as surprised about how it got 6(?) Oscars and 7.9 rating on IMDb as of today.
Kathryn Bigelow should be the luckiest director ever to win the best picture and best direction Oscar for this sort of a really really bad movie and I wonder why? Did the totally unrealistic 'cowboy' bomb disposal-man storyline mean anything to somebody that I failed see? Why did I keep getting the mental image that this movie was a remake of some old bad Western movie about a cowboy doing 'brave deeds' in the Wild Wild West infected with 'evil' Red Indians; but just that it was set in a different background this time? Was it given the Oscars because the director being ex of James Cameron, and made it a nice underdog (gossipy) story for day time TV shows to munch on? Or was it some sort of Emperor's Clothes syndrome - where most people realized it was junk but just couldn't say so because others didn't seem to be saying it out aloud?
And finally what was with that sniper scene where they showed the shell casing dropping in high-resolution-super-slow-mo as if to convey a 'deep message' or something? Something in the lines of 'EOD guys make good snipers all of a sudden and they will get the filthy terrorists all the time'? Was it just me who felt like there were so many bits and pieces here and there in the movie squeezed in for no apparent reason? And you can get the Oscars for editing and directing for that??
If you haven't seen this yet, don't waste your money on tickets. Wait till they run it on TV in a few years. You are not going to miss much.


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


user
Let's start by the simple lines. From the viewer's side, there a couple of good "director details", some points of view at the movie scenes that are nice. The special effects are good enough, a good acting/good scenery also. But the story is way too simple. It shows how a elite Army bomb squad unit lives, acts and sometimes dies. It shows the drama of living in war. In my movie experience as a serious action movie "addicted" guy, I missed that click that gets my eyes and mind stuck on the screen. One of the things that need to be present in a movie in order to I consider it a good one is the ability of immerse the viewer in the movie reality and time. It didn't happened to me. I stayed "conscious", for the entire movie.
Honestly speaking, I think that this movie gained its place in fame based on the "subconscious" appeal of American patriotism, a healthy and genuine feeling, but not the adequate use as a movie fame generator. More than a movie about war, it grows its popularity based on that.
A simple thought: if this was a world war II or I movie, only changing time, with everything remained the same, would it be this awarded? Sure not. Why? Because there are great ones that elevate the bar way to high.
Compared against its rivals in the Oscars, I don't think that all of the prizes it won are correctly awarded.


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


user
Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal are already preparing a sequel about a young US corporal in Afghanistan. He also happens to be a highly-qualified surgeon and is roaming freely around Kabul, operating on wounded NATO soldiers. On a particularly difficult mission, he casually picks up a sniper rifle and shoots Osama Bin Laden from a distance of about 3000 yards. He is then finally promoted to sergeant, but is unable to decide between a sniper and surgeon career, so he quits from the Army altogether. One year later, frustrated with civilian life, he joins the Navy and the last scene shows him proudly wearing a white uniform.


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


user
I was looking forward to Kathryn Bigelow's movie with great anticipation after the endless hype and 6 Oscars which it was awarded. Unfortunately it really isn't a good movie. The depiction of the situation certainly seemed to be accurate and believable on all counts, but beyond that the story simply came across as incomplete and the direction of the movie appeared to be uncertain and haphazard. The actors put in a good effort, but for me I didn't really get what the movie was trying to be. It's not as atmospheric and gripping as Full Metal Jacket, not as epic as Band of Brothers, not as action packed as...well, anything. I certainly can't see why it was nominated for so much, nor why people are 'hyping it up' to these epic proportions. Mind you, given the calibre of movies in the last couple of years I suppose there's not a lot to choose from.


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


user
Yes, this movie is a real thief. It stole some shiny Oscars from Avatar just because politicians wanted another war-hero movie to boost the acceptance (support?) for the wars U.S. is still fighting today. I do not really want to go here into politics, but come on, this is more clear than the summer sky. Hurt locker does not really have anything outstanding, no real plot at all. I really feel myself in the 50's of Hungary when the party told the people what to like and what not to like. The same propaganda movies were produced that time, only with the exception that those were black and white. Even if we consider this title a reasonable piece of the "U.S. wars are cool" genre, you surely have much better movies to choose from.


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


user
i was intrigued to see how a little-seen 2008 film had somehow won the Oscar for best picture of 2009 and thus went to see The Hurt Locker. sadly, all i got for the two hours invested was the grim confirmation that this film had won awards purely for off-the-screen reasons.
the direction and visual style of this film is some of the weakest you will ever see. when it's not busy being yet another Bourne Identity homage with dire, annoying "shaky cam" visuals, it shows off all the hallmarks of a second rate daytime soap opera in terms of lensing.
the "plot" is threadbare, the characterizations are about as well developed as rejected Beetle Bailey comic strip ideas and the dialogue - on the instances where the film gives up on being "minimalist" and for no apparent reason turns one or two soldiers into right chatterboxes - is some of the worst ever recorded. in fairness, the actors do the best they can in the circumstances, just not enough to obscure how bad the project is.
the whole film has the feel of it being intended as some kind of "mockumentary" that they clocked was bereft of humour and thus re-edited as best they could so as to pass it off as a serious drama.
if you spend two hours on this film they are two hours you will never get back, and two hours wasted that you will regret for the rest of your life.


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


user
I rented this film on Netflix after it won all the Oscars, to see if it was really that good.
The Hurt Locker is a very realistic portrayal (for the most part) of a group of soldier's rotation in Iraq. The film centers around Will James, a reckless soldier who gets his adrenaline fix from taking risks, and defusing bombs.
Where this film seems to lack in my opinion is the Plot and Direction of the movie. This film has no clear plot unlike other films such as Black Hawk Down. What this film tries to do is focus more on the characters, and their different attitudes about the war. Bigelow does an okay job of focusing on the characters, but there are many points in the film where the dialogue seems to drag. Hurt Locker is 131 minutes long, yet it feels like a 3 hour movie.
One scene in the movie that was particularly awful, and ruined the films perfect credibility, was the sniping scene halfway through the movie. It was both unrealistic, and very long.
Overall, I thought this film was OKAY, but the reason I gave it a 6 instead of a 7, was because it was a major letdown for winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I felt like this film could have been so much better considering Saving Private Ryan lost Best Picture, but was much better than this film. Another notable mention is Black Hawk Down which only won 2 Oscars. I honestly do not know how this won best picture.
If you are looking for an action packed war flick, rent Black Hawk Down. This film will be forgotten in a year or two.


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


user
REALLY? REALLY???? I know if you make a political war movie you will get noticed but this movie was just garbage. Horrible in every sense. Terribly inaccurate in so many ways. I have an easier time believing the president of the United States suiting up, flying a jet fighter, and shooting down aliens. It is easier to note the few things that were right. My jaw dropped when I saw some one say that this movie was the best in the last 25 years. It was overacted, seemingly pointless plot diversions, and had questionable cinematography at times.
X-box, YouTube, ACUPAT utilities did anyone check that these things did not exist in 2004? It's not like you had to do extensive research, it was only five years before this movie came out. I am an Iraq war Veteran and if you spent ONE day with an infantry platoon or an EOD squad you would realize how B.S. this movie is. To compare this to Platoon or Saving Private Ryan is ludicrous. Why don't you just throw Commando and Red Dawn in there too; I think those might be more accurate.
If for some reason you can see past the unbelievable plot, the historical and factual discrepancies, then this movie might just be OK. Nothing more. If you keep on hearing "Oscar buzz", and have to add your own pompous review, go right ahead. As for me, I am writing the director to see if I can get my 131 minutes back.


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


user
As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.
It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.
This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part 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
I picked up TRAN SCAN from the library and brought it home. We have considered taking a trip out east and thought it would give us a feel of what it was like. The film was a total waste of time, if I went out to buy it I would call it TRAN SCAM when I saw that it costs $49.
The DVD ran for 8 minutes and showed a roller coaster ride across Canada with my stomach feeling ill as they went up and down and around curve with the film at high speed.
There was a lot of footage they probably shot on this and you would think that they could have made a better product. If I would of done this project I would of provided more footage, paused on road signs to let people know where they were and linger in places to view the scenery. To make a film like this it should of been 60 to 90min. Oh yes the case said it was in stereo, the whole film was a hissing sound from sped up car sound, thet could of at least put some music to it.
If you want a good cross Canada film watch The railrodder / National Film Board of Canada starring Buster keaton (the one of the last film he made) in this comical film Buster Keaton gets on to a railway trackspeeder in Nova Scotia and travels to British Columbia


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 movie as meant to discourage people from doing drugs, it fails. I was ready to start using them I got waiting for something to happen and nothing ever really did. This movie is neither horror or drama. It's just the paranoia of meth users. This movie may win an award for the using the "F" word so many times and so uselessly. It was not well stated, but I felt like they were making Meth to replace Meth they owed to someone. Hector just got worse and more paranoid as the movie went on and the girl just got more hopeless. The ending really made no sense. The movie made no sense unless it was just showing how annoying is is to be stuck in a house in the middle of nowhere with a meth-head. I relied on the other feedback when I decided to watch this movie and the rating on this movie should be a much lower average.


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


user
I see what the director was trying to do but he missed the mark. The main actor was really good but the editing around his moments takes you out of it. The camera work, ie lighting and exposer is kind of amateur which I could forgive if the direction was more fluent but it wasn't. The sound was a bit off and that takes you out of the film as well. I see could see this director doing a little bit better in the future so not a total right off but don't expect a dv movie nearly as good as 28 days later or anything, keep your expectations low and you'll get more out of it. At least it was only an hour and a half. Oh yeah and other than the lead the acting was pretty bad if you ask me. But I'm a movie snob so take that for what that's worth.


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


user
Judging by the hype, and other reviews on this site, I was ready for an awesome horror movie focusing on junkies. What i got was complete crap focusing on junkies. I wonder if there's another movie called "Cookers" that these people reviewed? There are only 3 main characters, and none of them struck me as well-written or well-acted. Basically the whole movie I just spent shaking my head and marveling at the stupidity of these drug addicts.
Do yourself a favor. Don't rent this movie. Rent "Cabin Fever" or some other decent horror movie. Hell, rent "Mary Poppins"! The animated penguins are scarier and more convincing than anything you'll find in "Cookers."


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


user
I wanted to like this movie, but many elements ruined it for me. The use of a fisheye lens throughout and choppy editing did not give me a sense of being in the world of the meth head, but it did make me think I was watching MTV for a few short moments. The movie never did seem to go anywhere and the acting was truly an excellent example of over acting. I love movies that give us a glimpse into the seedy underworld, but this film couldn't decide if it was a bad horror film or an even worse serious commentary on the horrors of addiction.


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


user
Lame plot and two-dimensional script made characters look like cardboard cut-outs. Needless to say, this made it difficult to feel empathy for any of the characters, especially the fiancé; He looked and acted more like a cartoon. In summary, I guess you could say it was on par with your typical made for TV drama. It uses just about every cliché in the book. The tortured classical musician who wants to break-out and play salsa. The free-spirited fiancée engaged to a "bean counter" personality she doesn't love. I won't list them or else it would be a spoiler because I'd be giving away the whole plot. The dancing was OK but nothing special. I've seen worse. 3 stars for good music. The band was really tight. I saw it on YouTube. Thankfully I didn't pay good money to see it at a theater. I'm still a little shocked at how many great reviews this movie has garnished.


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


user
After having red the overwhelming reviews this film got in my country, I but wanted to see it. But - what a disappointment! To see a bunch of one-dimensional characters in a plot that lacks of originality is not worth the money and the time to spend. I sometimes wonder about the filmcritics in switzerland.


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


user
Fiction film (it lists as based on a story though it does have a "documented by" credit) about a group of scientists going into the wilds of Canada to try and find a Bigfoot.(They want to capture one and then attach a tracking device). Its lots of scientific mumbo jumbo mixed in what is really a dull film of a bunch of people wandering around in the wilderness. There are some attempts at creating tension and scares, but to be perfectly honest there is nothing here worth seeing outside of some great looking shots of the wilds. This is a perfect definition of an exploitation film, it promises you so much, a look at Bigfoot, but in reality it delivers very little. Recommended for insomniacs only


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


user
As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.
It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used "eyewitness sightings" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the "creature" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.
I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10


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


user
This is a typical low budget 1970's mess. It's supposed to be a docudrama about a crew hunting Bigfoot through the Pacific Northwest. Every character is a stereotype, from the Native American to the cynical cowboy. The acting and narration are a complete joke. If you're hoping to see a lot of bigfoot footage - keep hoping. There won't be much, and what there is you could do in your backyard with a cheap costume and a camcorder; it would look better than this movie.
It's not that I don't like 1970's low budge fare; I do. It's that this is such a mess of bad acting, bad characters, lousy story and no thrills that you just can't enjoy it. It does not fit into the "so bad it's good" category, nor can you get a laugh out of how bad it is without the help of illicit substances. It's mostly a lot of boring footage of the people camping, hiking, riding horses, and watching wild life. There is a bigfoot attack which is completely stupid; supposedly our friend Sasquatch is throwing rocks down on the campers from above while they fire their rifles back at him. By that point you are rooting heavily for bigfoot to drops some rocks on the filmmaker's heads and stop the whole thing.


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


user
I was about 7 when this DIRE MONSTROSITY of a film was released. In the UK it was advertised on the TV in the summer of 1977 for weeks, as if it were some incredible blockbuster film. It was actually the first film I ever saw at a cinema, and I was put off going for years to come. The following week I was invited to go and see the new film "Star Wars" and I declined. To this day I have never seen it, in protest at having to watch Sasquatch! Seriously, even at the age of 7 I could tell that I was watching garbage. It's just so bad, it's almost unbelievable. Rambling nonsense that should NEVER have made it to a cinema. I was however amused to read all these years later that the director never directed again, just as well as far as I'm concerned. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!


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


user
When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures ("Rosemary's Baby", for example) have accomplished this; others (like "Necromancy") haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*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 imagine that the young people involved in the making of "Necromancy" (aka "The Witching" plus a bunch of other titles) must have felt a little weird being on the set of a horror movie with the man who: participated with John Houseman in the production of a proletarian play ("The Cradle Will Rock"); scared people into thinking that aliens were invading ("The War of the Worlds"); and directed and starred in the greatest movie of all time ("Citizen Kane"). And now Orson Welles was starring in a third-rate flick about a satanic cult.
There's basically nothing creative about this movie. Lots of nudity, but the background music always proves really distracting. Even if the movie wasn't particularly predictable, it still wasn't worth seeing. How low Welles had sunk. Fortunately, over the final thirteen years of his life, he narrated the documentary "Bugs Bunny Superstar" (about the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 1940s) and hosted the documentary "The Man who Saw Tomorrow" (about Nostradamus). I recommend those two, but not this one. Just avoid it.
Also starring Pamela Franklin and Michael Ontkean.


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


user
Like most comments I saw this film under the name of The Witching which is the reissue title. Apparently Necromancy which is the original is better but I doubt it.
Most scenes of the witching still include most necromancy scenes and these are still bad. In many ways I think the added nudity of the witching at least added some entertainment value! But don't be fooled -there's only 3 scenes with nudity and it's of the people standing around variety. No diabolique rumpy pumpy involved!
This movie is so inherently awful it's difficult to know what to criticise first. The dialogue is awful and straight out of the Troma locker. At least Troma is tongue in cheek though. This is straight-faced boredom personified. The acting is variable with Pamela Franklin (Flora the possessed kid in The Innocents would you believe!) the worst with her high-pitched screechy voice. Welles seems merely waiting for his pay cheque. The other female lead has a creepy face so I don't know why Pamela thought she could trust her in the film! And the doctor is pretty bad too. He also looks worringly like Gene Wilder.
It is ineptly filmed with scenes changing for no reason and editing is choppy. This is because the witching is a copy and paste job and not a subtle one at that. Only the lighting is OK. The sound is also dreadful and it's difficult to hear with the appalling new soundtrack which never shuts up. The 'ghost' mother is also equally rubbish but the actress is so hilariously bad at acting that at least it provides some unintentional laughs.
Really this film (the witching at least) is only for the unwary. It can't have many sane fans as it's pretty unwatchable and I actually found it mind-numbingly dull!
The best bit was when the credits rolled - enough said so simply better to this poor excuse for a movie 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
The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.
Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!!
The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.
Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!


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 given up trying to figure out what version of this I'm watching. The copyright at the end indicates 1983. And though this is not the important bit of my objection to this film, I will say that watching a film obviously made in the Aquarian Age (including long haired hippie chicks and odious station wagons) but with a 1980s synth soundtrack is unsettling. Extremely unsettling.
My main objection here is HOW DARE THE FILMMAKERS BURY CUTE-AS-A-BUTTON PAMELA FRANKLIN ALIVE. HOW DARE THEY.
Seriously she's all like adorable and stuff but in the two movies I've seen her in - this crapfest and the otherwise excellent Legend of Hell House - they kill her off.
I would like to put the film industry on notice. Pamela Franklin has apparently retired from the business but if she ever decides to do another film and some blasted cur of a director attempts to kill her off I SHALL ASK HIM TO STEP OUTSIDE.
NO ONE BEATS UP ON PAMELA FRANKLIN AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. I AM QUITE CROSS. THE FURY HAS BEEN UNLEASHED.
For B-movie fans seeking out a crapfest, you could do much worse than this. On the plus side, this is not a film which involves Satanism in a peripheral and circumspect way - this movie is a hardcore satanic film.
Wall-to-wall satanic ceremonies, baphomets, hallucinations, a ludicrous rat attack - what else could you ask for.
This excellent stuff is quite nearly ruined by the baffling grafted-on 1980s synth soundtrack, which is about as mismatched to a film as it is possible to be. The soundtrack reminded me of something you'd hear on The Equalizer. It's really bad.
Also, they made Pamela Franklin squash her charming English accent, which was also quite rude, if not a cruel atrocity (against the viewer) such as you might find covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I say that we have a right to hear Pamela Franklin speak in her own voice. Who's with me? I could forgive everything else about this film if they didn't abuse Pamela Franklin. And so I throw the gauntlet down, sirs -- ANYONE WHO MESSES WITH PAMELA FRANKLIN MESSES WITH ME.
EVEN IN A FICTIONAL CONTEXT.
GOOD DAY, SIRS.


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


user
I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun!


assistant
0