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
An actor's first film is usually something one can afford to miss - it's often that first job where the lack of film experience by everyone involved is truly on display, and this film is no exception.
But worse than that, even by 1982 standards this is so bad, it's hysterically funny. Filmed entirely in the Chicago area on an obviously small budget, most of the acting by the entire cast is stiff, wooden, and cartoonish - a cross between a high school play and bad community theater. Noise from nearby traffic often drowns out the dialog, and the dialog is truly bad, very declarative in a way that comes off as forced and expedient rather than natural and organic. Scenes are contrived and choppy, and even though the characters go through a span of years, neither the children nor the adults age at all.
I do believe it's possible to make a Christian film that's palatable to a large, secular audience, but too often the creators of such films are so focused on 'The Message' or in this case, their own autobiographical ties to the project that good film production values are tossed aside. (I'm sure it's no coincidence that the main character has the same name as the producer/director/editor - and cast member.)
Luckily, Michael Madsen was much more interesting - and believable - to watch in his subsequent films. Careers like his are certainly not built on films like this one.


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


user
THE TEMP (1993) didn't do much theatrical business, but here's the direct-to-video rip-off you didn't want, anyway! Ellen Bradford (Mel Harris) is the new woman at Millennium Investments, a high scale brokerage firm, who starts getting helpful hints from wide-eyed secretary Deidre (Sheila Kelley). Deidre turns out to be an ambitious daddy's girl who will stop at nothing to move up the corporate ladder, including screwing a top broker she can't stand and murdering anyone who gets on her bad side. She digs up skeletons in Ellen's closet, tries to cause problems with her husband (Barry Bostwick), kills while making it look like she is responsible, kidnaps her daughter and tries to get her to embezzle money from the company.
Harris and Kelley deliver competent performances, the supporting cast is alright and it's reasonably well put-together, but that doesn't fully compensate for a script that travels down a well-worn path and offers few surprises.


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


user
"The Secretary" is one of those cheesy, cliched, "thrillers" that one is subjected to watching on a Sunday afternoon, when there is virtually nothing else on. While the plot (a demented woman becomes jealous of all who succeed over her in the office and decides to do whatever she can to stop them) may be one of a kind, I recognized countless plot twists, probably taken from other TV movies that I had been subjected to for the very same reason.
To make matters worse, I was not wild about the cast. Mel Harris is one of those actresses who appears in so many TV movies as either a "mom" or some sort of "victim" of foul play or abuse, that one must wonder the kind of life she leads. In this one, she gets the joy of playing a mom AND a victim of psycho secretary Sheila Kelly, who was not a very good choice as the villain. While Sheila Kelly has made some good career moves(Singles, Breaking In, and I guess, Law and Order), she is also beset by a string of pitiful TV movie roles, and this one just adds to it. As for the others, I don't have any clear memories of them, so that must say something.
This one WILL play on the Lifetime network(I think that's where I saw it), but don't bother watching it, unless you are too bored for words. Not that it will make you any more excitied...


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


user
A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.
My Grade: F


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


user
I will keep this as short as possible as this piece of crap barely warrants a mention. ZOMBIE 90 is one of the worst films ever made - right up there with Schnaas' other horrible zombie entry - ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3). These films suck so bad that everyone involved in their creation should be shot. I somehow managed (barely...) to sit through ZOMBIE DOOM - but ZOMBIE 90 is so horribly inept - even when compared to Schnaas' other horrible film - that I had to fast-forward through everything after the first 10 minutes. ZERO acting skills, inept gore, horrible camcorder-style camera-work, ridiculous dubbing...it just goes on and on. I really can't find a single thing redeeming about this garbage - and I can usually find SOMETHING redeeming in just about ANY film. This truly is one of the worst films ever made - You've been warned...1/10


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


user
Beyond dirt cheap, this shot-on-video exercise in ineptitude was difficult to get through. It's got the typical gore that you'd expect in a zombie movie, but none of the required atmosphere to make it worth while.
What's strange is that this is an amateur German video, and the version I saw is English-dubbed! The dubbers seem to be American fans (penpals of the Germans?!) who can't decide whether they want to play it straight or turn it into a comedy. One character (a white German, of course) is dubbed by a black guy apparently, who speaks with thick ebonics! 'Kno wahm sayin', Comrad?


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


user
What in God's name happened here? How does one go about creating what is practically a cheap knockoff of Redneck Zombies? Was Zombie '90 ever supposed to entertain someone ...anyone, or even make a dollars profit? But mainly, what happened here?
Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence was directed by a lunatic by the name of Andreas Schnaas, who specializes in earth-shattering gore films, such as Goblet of Gore, and Anthropophagus 2000, and some of which contain profanity in the titles. In the gore department, this one isn't much different than the rest. Although, the level of ineptness ...well, earth-shattering.
Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence is as bad as Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive is gory, think about it.
Getting too specific with the story would be a waste of time. An accident, involving chemicals causes the dead to come back, and eat the living. Never has the concept been treated in such a manner. The gore effects are a whole, new low. Just a Z-grade nightmare. I can't tell whether, or not this was originally meant to be funny, somehow, I doubt the English dubbing was being very true to the original script, but stranger things have happened. The whole thing just reminds me of a shot-on-video introduction to a Troma movie, except it lasts a hell of a lot longer.
I've seen only one film that was worse than this, The Chooper.
For proof that Andreas Schnaas is an actual director, I would highly recommend Nikos The Impaler If you think you have no standards in what you look for in a bad movie, give Extreme Pestilence a try, but you've been warned. It takes nerves of steel to make it all the way through. But if gore is all you're here for, then you might be able to stomach this one. Other than that, no atmosphere, no, and I mean NO budget, no entertainment value, but mostly, no pride. Show some pride, Schnaas. 1/10
Updated 7/5/09: After a few more viewings of Zombie '90, I've had a change of heart, or I guess I just get it now. Zombie '90 is hilarious, so nevermind the harsh words, Although, Extreme Pestilence still only deserves one star.


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


user
This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it.


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


user
This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..
As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the "directing" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.
The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..
I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.
It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category.


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


user
Wow, not only is this film a "new lesson in real bad taste," but also a lesson in "real bad film making." Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the concept of 'Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence,' but at the same time one must realize when a movie is terrible. In case you missed out on the storyline, the plot of 'Zombie '90' is about a government plane carrying toxic chemicals that so happens to crash into the wilderness, causing the chemicals to spill, turning locals into hideous looking zombies. The next thing you know, zombies are all over the city eating people alive, while a goofy-looking doctor and a government agent are trying to figure out the disease that's making these people eat one another - hence the name "Extreme Pestilence." From then on, all we see is zombies having a field day on every local in sight - nothing but extreme and sickening disembowelments and dismemberments accompanied by endless buckets of guts and gore. Since this is a German film, the film had to be dubbed into English and when you're not laughing at the feeding frenzies of the zombies, the voice-overs are quite hilarious and entertaining as well. As user UnratedX mentioned *SPOILER* *SPOILER* *SPOILER*, there is a scene in the film that crosses the line between what's acceptable and not acceptable, hence the scene in which a woman, who is carrying her infant baby, is being wheeled around in her wheelchair by some dude and a horde of zombies come out of nowhere and attack them. One zombie grabs the baby and rips it into pieces, eating its organs as you hear the baby crying. Wow, that is a new lesson in REALLLLLLLLLY bad taste. Atrocious I tell you, atrocious.


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


user
First, I am not really a fan of the whole "things eating flesh in disgusting new ways" genre of film but I am a bad movie afficionado so my next door neighbor said he had the worst movie ever. This one. So we start watching it. First and foremost - it is recorded on a camcorder sans tripod! Second the voice of the skinny white doctor is dubbed by a large black man! Third, none of the dialogue makes any sense. Fourth, the zombie scenes, though unconvincing and chockful of poor makeup and tomato paste, lead me to believe the director (and my next door neighbor) are in need of psychological help. It's funny for about 5 minutes but it gets old fast. It's so amateurish it's like watching a poorly dubbed high school video yearbook.... with zombies. A note to anyone involved with this movie - I want the 20 minutes of my life I spent watching this, before I fell asleep, back.


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 god awful. Not one quality to this movie. You would think that the gore would be good but it sucks bad. The effects are worse and the acting if you can call it acting is the worst I've ever seen. This movie was obviously shot on a camcorder and runs on a budget around 500 dollars probably. If you want to watch a good Zombie movie than watch Dawn of the dead or Day of the dead. If you want to watch a good cheap shot on video Zombie movie like this but way better than watch Redneck Zombies. Please avoid this movie at all costs. It is unwatchable and pointless. You've been warned. I've got nothing else to say about this stupid 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 really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame "special effects" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week´s holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).
This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.
Keep away from it, as far as you can.


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


user
A movie best summed up by the scene where a victim simulates disembowelment by pulling some poor animal's intestines out from under her T-shirt. Too terrible for words.


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


user
I've seen the original non-dubbed German version and I was surprised how bad this movie actually is. Thinking I had seen my share of bad movies like Ghoulies 2, Rabid Grannies, Zombie Lake and such, nothing could've prepared me for this! It really was a pain to sit through this flick, as there's no plot, no good acting and even the special effects aren't convincing, especially the so-called zombies, wearing nothing more than white make-up and their old clothes, so their good set wouldn't be ruined by ketchup and marmalade stains.
If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then watch it, for all the others, don't do it, because you WILL regret it!


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


user
Like some of the other folks who have reviewed this film, I was also waxing nostalgic about it...before I had the misfortune to actually watch it again. Alas, my childhood memories of this film were completely untrustworthy, and The Perils of Pauline is now revealed to be an embarrassing exercise in banal, racist, and plain boring film-making. Even the presence of old pros Edward Everett Horton and Terry-Thomas can't overcome a rancid screenplay, a horrible theme song, and some wretched 'special effects'. In addition, the stereotypical depictions of African and Arab characters make for painful viewing, especially considering this was produced in the immediate wake of the Civil Rights movement. Michael Weldon's original Psychotronic Encyclopedia reports that The Perils of Pauline was originally produced for television but inexplicably ended up getting a theatrical release. Judging from the results, that is a completely believable (and baffling) scenario.


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


user
While not exactly offensive, the 1967 version of "The Perils of Pauline" is certainly moronic. The title might lead you to expect a tribute to Pearl White (the original Pauline in the 1914 silent 20 episode serial) but for that you would be better served by the 1947 version starring Betty Hutton. This 1967 version is like a mix of "Casino Royale" and the weakest of the Elvis movies. Worst of all it is not a blend of these but more like someone scotch-taped together segments from each so that the thing skips back and forth between the two styles.
What unity there is in the production comes from the pairing of Pamela Austin (Pauline) and Pat Boone (George Steadman), a good match because both lack even the most basic of acting skills (imagine Mandy Moore playing opposite Dan Quayle).
Austin would later play opposite John Aston in "Evil Roy Slade", with the talent disparity between them actually painful to watch. In the mid-60's she was the "Dodge Rebellion" girl, as such she was featured in a similar series of perilous situations-imagine Sandra Dee in a dark blue jumpsuit. When the automaker's ad agency replaced her with the "Dodge Fever" girl someone got the bright idea to showcase her in a feature film.
What story there is here begins with Pauline growing up in the Baskerville Foundling Home run by the actress who played Mrs. Chatsworth Osborne Sr. on "Dobie Gillis". George falls in love with her (Pauline-not Mrs Osborne) and sabotages several opportunities she has to be adopted. George leaves to seek his fortune and 19 year old Pauline gets a job tutoring a young oil rich Middle Eastern prince. When he tries to add the attractive blonde to his harem she runs away and goes from peril to peril. These include African pygmies, a 99½ year-old millionaire who wants to freeze her until his one year-old grandson is old enough for marriage, the movie industry, and the Russian space program.
All this is intended to be silly and charming but manages only the silly part. There is some effort to incorporate a silent film look to the action sequences by simulating the under- cranking of a camera (which speeds up the action). Unfortunately everything else (film stock, production design, editing) is depressingly 1960's. Nothing here even approaches the images of Pearl White strapped to a log moving toward a buzz-saw or tied to railway track waiting for the approaching train.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


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 noticed how all the other reviews of this film mention how "wholesome" and "entertaining" it is. These people need to get out of the house more often. I don't know why they're shilling for this vapid, insipid, brainless piece of fluff. Pat Boone has absolutely no acting talent whatsoever, and his ineptness is exceeded only by that of his co-star Pamela Austin, a former model (yet one more reason to outlaw the insidious practice of inflicting talentless models on an unsuspecting moveiegoing public, a foul habit that unfortunately persists to this day). A good supporting cast (Terry-Thomas, Edward Everett Hortyon, among others) tries hard to make some sense out of this, but to no avail. I noticed that two directors shared credit, although "credit" isn't the word I would use (neither is "director"). As for "wholesome entertainment," there are plenty of those types of movies available without torturing your loved ones by forcing them to sit through this. Find one of those films, and skip this one.


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


user
This is one of those films that's more interesting to watch from an academic perspective than from an entertainment perspective. I do my ratings based on how much I enjoyed or was entertained by the movie, so I'm giving it a 4. If I were to rate it as an academic film, though, it would get a 10.
It is shot in a very interesting manner, like a pseudo-silent film with elements of sound effect and reality. It's meant to convey disjointed memory and fragmentation of the mind, and it is interesting in these respects.
However, the film has a lot of disgusting elements to it that I didn't find all that entertaining. They're mainly just disturbing. It has some very interesting imagery too, and some interesting concepts, but some of the character relationships (especially between the mother and son) are pretty disturbing.
In all, this film will either appeal to you or it won't. For me, it was interesting from an academic perspective, but it wasn't a good watch, and I'll probably not go back to it a second time.
4/10 if you're looking for entertainment. 10/10 from an academic standpoint.


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


user
I should have never watched this movie. The style of filming may be considered artsy to some, but it is considered migraine-inducing to me. I think it may have had an interesting plot, but since I couldn't watch it for long stretches at a time I missed a lot. The flickering pictures and stop motion filming branded my brain. I stopped watching mid way through and won't be back for a second try. I suppose if I were home alone in my own lighthouse some dark and stormy evening, this might be just the ticket... PS Not sure if the lighthouse/ film style thing can be considered a spoiler, but I don't want to be blacklisted on my first review ;)


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


user
I didn't know this was a silent movie with narration. I don't care for silent movies - the corny humor, flickering lighting and film, etc. I'm sure that attributes to the low score I assigned it. It was about chapter 8 before I found any interest in this story and had I had popcorn I may have thrown it at the screen. Maybe this appeals to the sci-fi crowd? The only thing missing was a zombie scene and a brain transplant. I went with two other people on a Friday night and there were a total of 6 people in the entire theater. Isabella Rosselinni narrated this movie - the one enjoyable aspect of the movie. No one left commenting how much they enjoyed this nor appreciated the unusual approach to telling this story. I cannot recommend this 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 is a wonderfully goofy example of a self produced, written and directed vanity project ...while I was working as a crew member John Carradine commented to me (before the burning at the stake sequence): "This is the worst piece of sh*t I've ever worked on ...and I've worked on a lot of pieces of sh*t." Also An interesting moment earlier when Jim Mitchum was having trouble with his lines and started cursing in the courtyard location of the Santuario (a religious shrine in Chimayó) - at which point one of the local "vato loco" low-rider onlookers growled "...show some respect man", which apparently caused Jim to remember where he was, as he then made a very profound and heartfelt apology for his inappropriate behavior. In any case the crew did the job on deferment and were never fully paid - but came away with plenty of particularly bizarre stories - like the night we caught the producer/director's 10 year old son entertaining himself by constructing miniature Burmese tiger traps for us to break our legs in. Like they say: "Ya gotta' love the Biz..."


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


user
Hey HULU.com is playing the Elvira late night horror show on their site and this movie is their under the Name Monsteroid, good fun to watch Elvira comment on this Crappy movie ....Have Fun with bad movies. Anyways this movie really has very little value other than to see how bad the 70's were for horror flicks Bad Effects, Bad Dialog, just bad movie making. Avoid this unless you want to laugh at it. While you are at HULU check out the other movies that are their right now there is 10 episodes and some are pretty decent movies with good plots and production and you can watch a lot of them in 480p as long as you have a decent speed connection.


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


user
Monster is a mind numbingly awful movie about an evil American concrete factory (are there any else in Hollywood?) polluting the waters of the small Colombian town of Chimayo somehow creating a catfish-like beast with a predilection for lamb and loose women. James Mitchum is Bill Travis the man who is sent down to Chimayo by his foul-mouthed boss Barnes who himself can't keep his hands off of his secretary's rear to get to the bottom (pun intended) of the story. While in Chimayo Bill must contend with an annoying reporter who apparently broadcasts all of her stories in perfect English directly back to America. I guess in the seventies there was a market for news from small South American towns. There is also a radical named Sanchez that wishes to sabotage the factory for polluting the water which, by the way, also supplies the town with jobs for the locals, but why let cold hearted economics get in the way of touchy-feely enviro-marxism. Pete the factory boss is unwittingly aided by the monster when he has sex with his ex-girlfriend on the beach, tells her that he is seeing the mayor's daughter Juanita and it's over between them, then she is promptly eaten that night. A little side action without the evidence. My hat is off to you Sir. John Carradine rounds out the cast as a priest that believes the monster is sent by God to punish sinners. You can see the contempt he has for being in this movie in his face. Might as well filmed him running to the local currency exchange to see if his check didn't bounce.
Supposedly based on a true story, so much so they say it twice in the opening credits, this film is awful on all fronts. Filming began in 1971 and was abandoned until eight years later when Kenneth Hartford put his foot on the throat of Monster by adding his two annoying children as new characters, even putting his daughter, Andrea in top billing with Mitchum and Carradine. The sound quality is nonexistent and most of the scenes seem as if someone smeared tar over the camera before filming. This is made even more tedious during the many scenes done at night. The monster itself is laughable as it rears its ugly rubbery head for the anticlimactic ending. James Mitchum along with his brother Chris are proof that nepotism in the acting industry needs to be curtailed. Utterly unwatchable dreck. Shame on you John Carradine.


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


user
Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-seventies TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase.


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


user
I could barely keep myself from either nodding off or just turning off this turd, but I decided to stick it out if only for the reasoning that maybe *something* would happen. This is the work of a writer/producer/director/special fx, Kenneth Herts, who wants to make a statement on ecological damage while making a monster movie. That's what he wanted, anyway. What it turns out to be is a lot of acting, either slightly hammy or just mundane and without much merit, and scenes that seem to repeat themselves as the monster ATTACKS in the river waters (oh, and what luck, a woman just happens to be naked in it... even though there have already been DISAPPEARANCES!)
This is just nonsensical stuff, but I suppose it's not too harmful; it's not very obnoxious at the least and once or twice we get a semi-interesting peek at Brazilian "culture" (which is the father walking through town with his flock or other pieces of a semblance of 'hey, this is NOT America!'). But whatever hope the director had in casting Mitchum or Carradine is squandered on at best pedestrian and at worst excruciatingly banal and dumb dialog. It doesn't help that when we finally get something of a good look at the monster and the "action" happens, it too is stupidly staged and with only sleazy appeal. Usually I would feel sorry for a filmmaker who had a lot of problems getting a particular picture finished- in this case it took the better part of the mid 70s- but with Monstroid or Monster or whatever it's called... nah.
If you happen to get the Elvira DVD double-feature of this (bad print with bad transfer quality) with Blue Sunshine, make sure to skip this one. Unless, of course, you're an Elvira die-hard and can't help yourself to hear her luscious commentary; personally, I'd rather get Joel or Mike Nelson with the robots from Mystery Science Theater on this roast turkey.


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


user
"True" story of a late monster that appears when an American industrial plant begins polluting the waters. Amusing, though not really good, monster film has lots of people trying to get the monster and find out whats going on but not in a completely involving way. Give it points for giving us a giant monster that they clearly built to scale for some scenes but take some away in that it looks like a non threatening puppy. An amusing exploitation film thats enjoyably silly in the right frame of mind. (My one complaint is that the print used on the Elvira release is so poor that it looks like a well worn video tape copy that was past its prime 20 years ago.)


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


user
This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review.


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


user
This could be a cute movie for kids My grandson watched it once. he was watching it a second time I was watching some of it with him.
When the little bear gets lost on the ice burg and he is in the water he is trying to get to a piece of ice it says "Come back stupid ass fool".
I don't want my 3 year old grandson watching movies with words like this in it.
That is why its rated for children. Should be child friendly. That is what I would expect. put out by warner brothers and G rated I would expect this to not have cuss words in it. The words don't even fit the movie in most places as it seems added later. And the movie drags out in many parts.


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


user
What a load of rubbish.. I can't even begin to describe how awful this film was. The rating it has here is really hard to believe.
Avoid... Particularly if you enjoyed the first ginger snaps. The first one was well written, well directed, well executed.. a brilliant film with a fantastic aesthetic and atmosphere. The second one was 'alrite'- decent as a self-standing film, but clearly not up to the level of the first... The third is an insult to the series, period. I rate the films: 10, 6, 1. It's that bad.
Oh, and yes it really is set in the past, the sisters are still called Ginger and B Fitzgerald... all muddled in with some half-assed native American mythology. The sisters don't have any real story, or progression, or even a clear relationship... They're just trying to survive and be 'together forever'. That's about as deep as it gets.
Staggered that the girls agreed to be in this pile-of-shite, after reading the script.
Oh and another thing, staging of action was terrible- people appearing from nowhere regularly, like the girls turn around and there's an elaborate candle-lit setup with a mystic native American woman just sitting there, about to go into a speech. Sets were terrible, couldn't get away from the fact that it was all obviously based in a set, which really didn't help. Also, there was consistently snow outside the camp, but not a trace inside (..on the set).
Arrghh,,, so bad! I really was hoping it would be at least as good as the second one.


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


user
Am not familiar with the trilogy but came upon this film last night on Showtime. The film looked very well done with the set design and the cinematography, but the screenplay was stilted and wooden. The acting was fairly bad- thought the two female leads were serviceable. You never really believed anything the supporting actors said though. There were the stereotypes- bible-thumping Reverend without a hint of nuance, authoritative Captain, hot-headed soldier, etc. I am sorry to say that based on these deficiencies I clocked it straight away as Canadian without knowing it to be such-the Telefilm Canada end credits gave it away. I know I'm a horrible person.
Maybe I missed something in the beginning but the hostility towards the girls is never explained. Here they are besieged in a fort by werewolves and the men are wasting time and energy brutalizing two young women for no reason. FOCUS people. There's a bit more of a pressing situation beyond your walls than whether or not these girls are lesbians-that's just my inference for the hostility directed towards them. If they can aim and fire a gun you might as well make nice with them. The question of their "immortal soul" can be resolved later.
Also, I guess this relates to the rest of the trilogy, these girls are supposed to be the protagonists? One of them murdered the Indian guy at the end that saved one of their lives. I guess one is just a victim of her condition who can't be necessarily blamed for her actions, but the other is just a murderer who doesn't deserve her happy ending.


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


user
For a good half hour or so, I remember myself thinking: "Hey, this could very well be Bill Rebane's best achievement ever!". The opening sequences are atmospheric, there immediately are some scary moments to enjoy and our director even refers to his own notorious stinker "The Giant Spider Invasion" in a playful way. The concept is shamelessly stolen from William Castle's "House on Haunted Hill", with three old and extremely bored millionaires luring nine losers to an isolated mansion to win $1,000,000 in an elimination game. Naturally, the participants start vanishing quickly and one by one, and it takes the remaining greedy boneheads too much time before they realize either the old folks are sadists...or there's another murderer amongst them. The film begins & ends with an odd narrator telling a lot of senseless stuff that isn't relevant or even interesting to the plot, but there's some nice T&A to admire in the first ten minutes and that dumb bimbo (Shelly, I believe she's called) is really hilarious to observe. After the first half hour, naturally the inevitable happens and "The Cold" turns into a textbook Rebane-production with retarded plot twists, the dumbest dialogs ever and a total lack of excitement. There wasn't any budget for bloody murder sequences but our multi-talented director (?) tries to compensate this with endless footage of disco dancing girls and an amateur rock band. The film also has four or even five different climaxes and none of them are a slight bit satisfying. Maybe it was an inspiration for LOTR: Return of the King? Avoid this film, you'll live longer and happier.


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 had what sounded like a good premise: 9 people facing their fears to win one million dollars. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be a good movie. There are several scenes that are way too long and really pointless like the dancing scene. A few scenes are just an excuse to point the camera at female body parts. The acting is bad, but some of the lines are amusing in their awfulness. What's really strange is that towards the end of the movie it turns into like a 5 minute western, and at the end, the twists, of which their were several, don't make sense with the rest of the movie. It seemed as though the director just added stuff on because he thought it would look cool, while conveniently ignoring the plot of the movie up to that point. It just didn't make a lot of sense. The only creepy thing was the old people dancing down the hall, but that doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of this mess.


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


user
This is one lowly film. It has no real plot. We never are made privy to motivations, other than wealth. The characters are some of the worst actors ever to be put on film. The threat seems to be supernatural, but then it's being controlled by these three older people. Why are they doing what they are doing; in order to strike fear into other members of the group? I don't know. There is some mist from a fog machine that rolls around in the halls and everyone seems to be scared of it. Does it do something? I don't know. There's some nudity for its own sake. I'm always surprised to see this in films this old. Things have actually settled down in this regard these days. Anyway, the people run around like chickens, ready for the ax. They have no plan; no resources; no nothing. There are about five silly climaxes in the film. Who are these people and "is" there a ghost or demon. What happened to the other people? I challenge anyone to tell me this with any confidence. What a mess.


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 one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this 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 complete mess of a movie was directed by Bill Rebane, the man partly responsible for the truly infamous anti-classic Monster a-Go Go. As I was nearing the end of The Cold I came to the unbelievable conclusion that this film was in fact even worse than that 60's shocker. The story  such as it is  is about three eccentric millionaires who invite a group of people to their remote mansion to play a series of macabre games. Whoever manages to last the pace and survive to the end will win $1,000,000. It's a very simple plot but Rebane still somehow manages to make proceedings verge on incomprehensible. Things happen. Characters are completely forgotten about. Nothing makes too much sense. And then it ends. Weirdly. I mean what the hell was that ending all about exactly? I guess you are left to draw your own conclusions. Production values and acting are without question of a pornographic movie standard. In truth Pamela Rohleder (Shelly) isn't even that good. She is so unbelievably terrible she's compelling. Sadly the same thing cannot be said about this crap-fest as a whole, it's just a bargain basement rotter.


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


user
A real head scratcher of a film by Bill Rebane who appeared to be getting worse in his trade throughout the eighties. Three crackpot millionaires invite nine people to a remote hotel to compete in a last person standing contest in which the final contestant will be given $1 million provided he or she makes it that far. A series of lame pranks are pulled on some of the guests while the others engage in what most adults would do under the circumstances namely get shatfaced at the hotel bar. Most scenes are merely an excuse to focus the camera on various female body parts including an opening dance number that is a crossover of American Bandstand meets geriatric aerobics complete with hookers. If there was any hesitation that white people can't dance this scene hammers the final nail in that coffin. Pay close attention for the nipple slip. This continues on for about forty-five minutes until Bill Rebane begins throwing darts at various plot twists and whatever he hits becomes the inspiration for the next scene making this one incoherent mess. It's a game until it's not a game. The three old coots are in complete control until they're not. The hotel is possessed by a supernatural force until it becomes just props. They're dead until they're not. Even the narrator at the end replies that he doesn't know what the hell happened. I defy anyone to reason where Rebane was going on this one. The acting is dinner theater caliber minus the dinner. Most of the actors probably went back to their day jobs at the local Stuckey's. I give it a few points for the scene where the yuppie broad opens the closet and a skeleton is inside skull humping himself. Let's see Gone With the Wind do that! This Chilling Classics collection is really becoming the bane of me. Bane, Get it! Like Rebane! I hate myself.


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


user
This God forsaken film is about three dumb millionaires who gather a bunch of people to play a deadly game, and the winner gets a million dollars. First of all, the acting is terrible, and the movie makes absolutely no sense at all. It is not scary in the least bit, it is so stupid that it made me laugh, which is why it earned that 1 star.The movie is not violent at all, but is pretty sleazy and focuses mostly on the women's breasts the whole time, and some of the characters are very annoying and whiny. Plus, the monsters in this movie are so cheesy and fake and not scary that it just makes you want to throw something at the screen. Last, but not least the ending is terrible. I don't want to give it away, in case you actually are strange enough to see this piece of junk. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!!
Not Rated (But should be R) for Nudity, Profanity, and Mild Gore.


assistant
0