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
This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that "baiting the trap"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said "excuse me. I have to go kill someone" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better.


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


user
Alicia Silverstone (pre-"Clueless") plays a modern-day crime-obsessed teenager attempting to solve the brutal slaying of a local girl. Pat Verducci wrote and directed this B-flick, which isn't especially well-made but is however surprisingly serious-minded in regards to its leading character. Silverstone is appealing and successful in carving out an interesting young woman here, despite the picture's kitschy undermining. The supporting cast (including Kevin Dillon and Michael Bowen) isn't bad, though the violence in the last act goes overboard. Not a cheesy camp-fest, but nothing exceptionally memorable either. *1/2 from ****


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


user
The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10


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


user
I try to be very objective when I view a low budget movie. I also apply a lower weight to independent and low budget productions versus the big budget productions. I expect near flawlessness from big budget productions and their studios. Therefore I apply tougher criteria to the major studio releases. But this movie was just a dud. Period. The premise was terrible. The main character, Mary Gordano (Alicia Silverstone), was unbelievable as a high school senior with an unquenchable desire to solve crimes. There was not enough depth in her character or her acting that pulled you into her world. Also, to make this movie more mysterious, the lighting in certain scenes did not set the mood, especially in the warehouse.
Once again another disappointing movie that I could only give three points to.


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


user
Underneath the dense green glop of computer graphics there gleamed the astounding art and skill of Ichikawa Somegoro. Alas: it got lost in all the goo. The scenes of Old Edo -- with the courtesan, drifting on the Sumida, rehearsing and acting in the Nakamura-za -- were all exciting and engaging, taking you back to an interesting and rich era. The action on the Kabuki stage, in which Somegoro excels and excites, was more enriching than any of the absurd high jinks that followed. The skill, the energy in the audience, the colors of the sets, were far more satisfying than all the nonsense that took over plot and performance. What a wasted opportunity! One of the best kabuki actors alive, and he gets lost in the dreck.


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 the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. These remarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing, worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately, squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy to withstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler like Shanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic tricks on, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploring here. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; which takes a lot of effort, but adds absolutely zero to the film. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. Mr Arkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project. The material is inconsequential. It just can't bear the weight of all this noodling. For a director trafficking in reality-based drama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceits back to reality; or to a coherent story. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous.
Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and getting that performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest, most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. But her treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperate decision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. The movie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60 seconds.
When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all for what?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Welles more to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity to the scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders what Shanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire, arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in love with filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance.
Overwrought, preposterous, unengaging.


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


user
If you are studying Welles and want to see just how far he fell after Citizen Kane, this film will prove it. The cheap excuse of making the protagonist a self-admitted dummy to explain how he might fall into such a half-baked scheme fails to explain the absurd courtroom theatrics and ridiculous plot twists that eventually ensue. Don't be taken in by the high rating of this film in the db as I was; all I can guess is that there are a lot of die hard old Welles and Hayworth fans out there.


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


user
Oh-so-familiar comedy story about low-key nice-guy Paul (Jason Lee), who after the night of his bachelor party, wakes up in bed with Becky (Julia Stiles), an attractive blonde he met just the night before. After lying about it to his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair), he's forced to tell more and more lies to cover his tracks.
I'm sure most of us have been witness to a story like this at least once before...on film or on TV. The movie is formulaic and EXTREMELY predictable, with an ending you may see coming a mile away.
At least the cast provides some interest and keeps it watchable. Lee is just right in the lead, and Stiles is a lot of fun in a light-hearted comedic role different from the very serious roles she usually plays. Becky is a free spirit who seems to change jobs as often as other people change their clothes.
But you know, this isn't exactly well-written. At least one question is left unanswered: for WHAT, exactly, is Ray (Lochlyn Munro), Becky's brutal ex-boyfriend, being investigated by the I.A.?
And I didn't like the character of Buck (David Koechner), Paul's stepfather; he's a super-obnoxious moron who got on my nerves so quickly I was begging for somebody to punch him.
Add another debit: a gratuitous, uncredited cameo by comic/actor Larry Miller, once again playing a grouch (in this case, it's a little justified - his character is an ultra-conservative minister).
Not good at all, but as usual for me, I give it a three out of ten based on the efforts of the cast alone.


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


user
I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.


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 so incredibly bad. Poor actors. You can tell they're trying really hard to polish a turd, but we all know you can't. The writing is so obvious and facile, it's sad watching them try to sell it. The humor and pacing are so labored, it's hard to believe any of these good actors signed on for this.
That said, it's so awful that we're having a hard time looking away from the screen. We just have to know where this trainwreck goes. But that's only because we caught it on TV. If we had actually PAID for this, we'd be disgusted.
So it gets 2 stars for being at least amusingly/fascinatingly bad. And the incidental music (as opposed to the trying-too-hard indie soundtrack) is laughably reminiscent of an episode of Scooby-Doo... but not as good.


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


user
Just a regular Jason lee movie, There were some parts of the movie that were funny. The undertone of the move is to live life on the edge I guess. These are the types of movies that I think 14 year old girls watch at slumber parties. It was an all right movie. It is kind of one of those movies you have on in the back ground and look up every now and then to when something catches attention. I think That Julia stiles and Selma Blair are a good combination and would like to see them in a movie with a good story and plot. Its just kind of a boy meets girl movie. This is that perfect movie they would show on comedy Central. I am glad that I didn't see this movie in the theater, I would have been angry. But I guess that's why I didn't see it in the theater.


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


user
Wow. That's about as much as I can say right now. Who writes this stuff? Who produces this stuff? What self-respecting actor would agree to 'act' in this stuff? Oh my GOD! I don't know how I made it through this movie, but I assume the fact that I had had like 8 cups of coffee that day was the key element in keeping me awake. Good Lord! It was one of the most droned-out and predictable pieces of cinematography I have ever witnessed...and for the record, I don't EVER plan to 'witness' it again.
I first saw the film when I bought the DVD (MISTAKE #1). I mean...I figured, hey! Julia Stiles. I like her. She's cool. I'll watch it as soon as I get home (MISTAKE #2). I tried to watch it without groaning every five minutes wondering when this bunch of crap would come to an end, really I did. But I was unsuccessful. It was one of the worst things I had ever seen. I mean...what is with that thing where he imagines what would happen then snaps back into real life? That was annoying enough when the father used to do that in 'Parenthood' like ten years ago. The 'jokes' - and BELIEVE me, it takes a LOT out of me to call them that - are stupid, the characters are trite and forgettable, the storyline is entirely predictable...altogether this makes for a movie that should be WIPED FROM HISTORY RECORDS! I should have figured something was wrong when I realized that I'd never heard of this movie. It was most likely a straight-to-DVD.
To anybody who may be thinking of watching this, I have one piece of advice. DON'T! For the LOVE of God...DON'T!!! I'm ashamed to have it in my DVD collection, and I can't get rid of it...Nobody, and I mean NOBODY wants to buy it from me! And I'm talking second-hand and third-hand thrift shops that would buy the mud off your shoes and stick it in the store window. That should let you know just how CRAP it is.


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


user
I just watched it. A couple of laughs, but nothing to write home about. Jason Lee looked like he was having fun. The (long) DVD gag reel consists almost solely of him having fits of uncontrollable laughter. Selma Blair seemed to be punching a time clock, but then again, her character was supposed to be a stick in the mud, so "well done" I guess? Jim Brolin was surprisingly funny. (Being married to Babs can't be a picnic.) The soundtrack was hip, and eclectic. Larry Miller, who played Julia Stiles father (hilariously), in 10 Things I Hate About You is funny here as well. He's great, but the best aspect of this movie was the casting of Julia Stiles. I could spend two hours watching her fold laundry, and I feel like I just did.


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


user
I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.
With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctivly help out Lee's character.
All I can say is AVOID. I gaurentee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$
3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)


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


user
I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.
With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctively help out Lee's character.
All I can say is AVOID. I guarantee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$
3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)


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


user
Jason Lee does his best to bring fun to a silly situation, but the movie just fails to make a connect.
Perhaps because Julia Stiles character seems awkward as the conniving and sexy soon to be cousin-in-law.
Maybe it is because she and Selma Blair's characters should have been cast the opposite way. (Selma Blair seems more conniving than Julia would be).
Either way this movie is yet another Hollywood trivialization of a possibly real world situation (that being getting caught with your pants out at your bachelor party not stooping your cousin), which while having promise fails to deliver.
There are some laughs to be sure and the cast (even if miscast) do their best with sub grade material which doesn't transcend its raunchy topic. So instead of getting a successful raunch fest (ie Animal House or American Pie) we are left with a middle ground of part humor and part stupidity (ala Meatballs 2 or something).


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 terrible, TERRIBLE, film! One of the worst movies I have seen in my life. I usually love movies like this, the whole "A guy meets an eccentric woman who he likes, but he happens to already be involved with someone, who not right for him....". I expected something predictable and I didn't mind. The movies are always entertaining mixing the right amount of romance with comedy, but not this one! Every single joke falls flat and the "romance" makes me want to vomit. The title character is one of the most "please kill me" characters that I have ever witnessed on my television, the "eccentric woman" isn't very eccentric, more like quirky and annoying. The "other someone" is the most reasonable, mature person in this film but also happens to be just as annoying. This films flat out sucks, there's no way around it, don't waste your time.


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


user
I had hoped this movie was going to be mildly entertaining, like other sorts of its genre. However, it was lame and I didn't find myself laughing very much. Watch it on HBO, maybe, or if you've got a free rental to waste and you need a movie to pass the time. But I don't recommend paying to see it.
The plot is simple and straightforward, and it could have been funny, maybe, if the script was better. Jason Lee can be hilarious, and he gets a few laughs here and there, but the movie falls flat. Just don't go see this one. The directing is lackluster, but for what it is, directing isn't that important. I guess its main drawback is that it is just not very funny. See something else, don't waste your time here.


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


user
"A Guy Thing" tries to capture the feeling of "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet the Parents" but comes off more like it was edited up out of cutting-room rejects of those two films. Thankfully I rented it on a 5-day rental because I couldn't sit and watch more than 20 minutes at a time.
The premise is decent and I liked the scenes where other guys automatically cover up for Paul's missteps (the checker at the Save-mart was great) but the script-writing is absolutely horrible. The dialog falls flat most of the time and just when you think that things are finally going to get on track some needless sight-gag is stuck in for no good reason. Plus how many toilet jokes does one movie really need?
Don't get me wrong, slapstick humor is great when it's smartly done as in the other films I mentioned, but this movie simply misses the mark. Too bad as I love Julia Stiles (Ten Things I Hate About You was great) but even that couldn't help me sit through this terrible movie. Save your dollars and go rent "There's Something About Mary" one more time.


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


user
The only redemption was the small part by Larry Miller. It seemed that the movie was trying too hard to be "Something About Mary," but I didn't even like that movie and it still fell short of those standards. The actor who plays Paul was great, but Selma Blair is stuck in the stupidity of her Cruel Intentions character. James Brolin was great, but Paul's father seemed like he was trying too hard to be the Randy Quaid character from the National Lampoon's Vacation movies.


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


user
Julia Stiles is a talented young actress, who with guidance from a reputable agent has a lot of potential. Obviously, the person who guided her into this travesty is not someone who cares anything about her career. I sat in the theater surrounded by teenagers who left in droves to find another movie to sneak into wondering who thought this movie would appeal to anyone. It was poorly written, the casting director could only have put 1 or 2 minutes of effort into the characters and the director obviously didn't care.


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


user
I think Jason Lee has huge potential, but this was the WRONG vehicle in which to attempt to break out as a star. The plot is awful, the comedy is awful. I laughed twice, I think for relief, because in retrospect, they were fairly lame jokes. I found myself scared for the future of Fletch, and had to console myself that it was the film that was flawed, not Lee.
Julia Stiles and Selma Blair are hot, but I recommend looking at the still photos on this website to figure that out, instead of this film. Save your time. 1 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 was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen I don't really know why Just your run-of-the-mill stories about guy who is about to get married, and starts to fancy someone else instead. Story has been told a thousand times. Nothing new or innovative about it at all.
I don't really know what was wrong with this film. Most of the time when these kinds of actors/actresses get together to make a film that have already been made a million times before, it's really entertaining. There are usually little clever thing in them that aren't really in any other. For some reason, this one just doesn't hold your attention. You can pick out some funny parts, or clever ideas in it, but for some reason they're just not funny, nor clever in any way I wish I new how to explain it, but I don't Just don't waste your time on this one


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


user
I never thought I see a movie worse than "Lisa Picard Is Famous", but this came pretty close. As repeated often throughout the comments, it was predictable; five minutes into the movie you know it will be a stranded at the alter outcome. This movie painfully references/rips off everything from "Something about Mary" to "Revenge of the Pink Panther". Writer Greg Glienna (Meet the Parents) needs some new material.
The only twist is the deranged boyfriend/police officer pursued by internal affairs, but even that opportunity is wasted. Lots of setting shots of the Seattle Space Needle necessary to disguise the obvious Canadian shooting locale. Some of the worst driving in the car scenes with almost no effort to disguise the fact that the car is being pulled through town on a trailer. Geez, at least turn the wheel or put the brakes on once in a while. Selma Blair is inert and the short haircut a crime. $3M to Jason Lee, for what? Guess it beats skateboarding!
So here's who should see this movie: Bee Gees fans who want to hear two actors sing 'Islands in the Stream' badly; People who can't get enough of Julia Stiles. 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
I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.
At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.
One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award.


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


user
Debbie Reynolds toe-taps, tangos and, yes, tap-dances her way through this ordinary thriller which has a distinctly fabricated '30s atmosphere. Two ladies, brought together when their sons commit a murder, try starting their lives over by running a tap-dance school for tots in Hollywood. Trouble is, one of them is plagued by neuroses. Can you imagine this thing 10 years earlier with Robert Aldrich directing Bette Davis and Joan Crawford...? Nahh, Bette never would have allowed Joan so much screen-time to strut her stuff, and I can't imagine Bette Davis in the other role, tap-dancing her heart out. This is a purely bogus piece of macabre, written by a slumming Henry Farrell (whose idea of a good "shock" is to stage the mass-murder of a group of rabbits!). Not an ounce of honest fun in the whole tepid package. *1/2 from ****


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


user
The film is almost laughable with Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters teaming up as the mothers of convicted murderers. With the horrible notoriety after the trial, the two women team up and leave N.Y. for California in order to open and song and dance studio for Shirley Temple-like girls.
From the beginning, it becomes apparent that Reynolds has made a mistake in taking Winters with her to California. Winters plays a deeply religious woman who increasingly seems to be going off her rocker.
To make matters worse, the women who live together, are receiving menacing phone calls. Reynolds, who puts on a blond wig, is soon romanced by the wealthy father of one of her students, nicely played by Dennis Weaver.
Agnes Moorehead, in one of her last films, briefly is seen as Sister Alma, who Winters is a faithful listener of.
The film really belongs to Shelley Winters. She is heavy here and heaviness seemed to make her acting even better. Winters always did well in roles testing her nerves.
The ending is of the macabre and who can forget Winters at the piano banging away with that totally insane look?


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


user
There's a lot the matter with Helen and none of it's good. Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds play mothers of a pair of Leopold & Loeb like killers who move from the mid-west to Hollywood to escape their past. Reynolds, a starstruck Jean Harlow wannabe, opens a dance studio for children and Winters is her piano player. Soon Winters (as Helen) begins to crack up. It's all very slow going and although there are moments of real creepiness (nasty phone calls, a visit from wino Timothy Carey), the movie is devoid of any real horror. Nevertheless, it's still worthy entertainment. The acting divas are fine and the production values are terrific. A music score by David Raskin, cinematography by Lucien Ballard and Oscar-nominated costumes contribute mightily. With this, A PLACE IN THE SUN and LOLITA to her credit, does anyone do crazy as well as Winters? Directed by Curtis Harrington, a master at this type of not quite A-movie exploitation. In addition to Carey, the oddball supporting cast includes Dennis Weaver, Agnes Moorehead (as a very Aimee Semple McPherson like evangelist), Yvette Vickers and Micheál MacLiammóir (the Irish Orson Welles) as Hamilton Starr, aptly nicknamed hammy.


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


user
W. Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage is supposed to be a English language classic. If so, much must have been missing from the film version here. Phillip's (Leslie Howard) attraction to Mildred (Bette Davis) is so utterly inexplicable as to make the scenario seem like the post-breakup retelling of a relationship from the man's point of view. Being a family lawyer I've heard many such accounts; the man depicts himself as noble and always correct, and the woman is a hellion who has had no other objective than to exploit the man.
Indeed, unless one is willing to laugh at the social assumptions of the film maker, this is an uncomfortable movie to watch. Phillip even indulges Mildred when she brings over a baby of indeterminate paternity, but the real high point comes when Phillip allows Mildred - enraged and now of dubious sanity - the free run of his flat, with predictable results. Bette Davis was attractive for about five years of her life, but that period didn't occur here. In fact, by the end of the movie she looks a lot like the Baby Jane character she would play thirty years later.
I note how Howard's character is always impeccably dressed and groomed. It tells me that Phillip craves middle class respectability. Someone like that could not run from a woman with a course Cockney accent fast enough. Phillip is, for most of the movie, a student; such a person would have been more believable if he had been younger, and had the disheveled looks that bespeak the low income and the low self esteem that often accompanies student status - an English Raskolnikov, as it will. And balanced that by allowing Mildred a modicum of charm.


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


user
Although Bette Davis did a WONDERFUL job as Mildred, I felt that the film wasn't the best I had seen. At the end of the movie I was left feeling like there was something missing in it.
Bette Davis did a perfect job, though, and she made me hate her and pity her all the while. Leslie Howard did very good as the lovelorn Philip Carey, and I so pitied him throughout the movie for being in love with such a horrible dame. It's such a sad thing when one finds him/herself in love with a bad seed. And especially if it's someone like Philp Carey, who is a sensitive person, though pathetic.
In the end, the acting was what came through and not the plot. The ending scene was particularly good, but I am not one to give it away. Although others may find this movie good, I was one who found it so-so. I should recommend this movie to those who like a bad seed so they can see what may happen to them if they find themselves in love with that horrible person.


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


user
First of all, I would just like to say to everyone who has seen this movie, that the actor who played the "Transvestite" Is one of my friends, his name is Robert Dugdale, he's a terrific actor, although it doesn't say much about his filmography, he's been in several plays and musicals. He is currently residing in Terrace B.C. that is where I am from, he comes over to our house almost every saturday *laughs* Okay, now about the movie, I wouldn't recomend this to anyone who HASN'T seen it, for it is not a movie worth watching, the main reason I found it to be a bad movie is it never stays in place, it keeps bouncing back between time, so kinda hard to follow at some points, and second, its really boring *laughs* Although the acting is great, the movie just doesn't compare.


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


user
Our teacher showed us this movie in first grade. I haven't seen it since. I just watched the trailer though. Does this look like a first grade movie to you? I don't think so. I was so horrified by this movie, I could barely watch it. It was mainly the scene with Shirley McClain cutting that little girl in half, and then there was the boy with ketchup! I was freaked out by this film. Now today, being 20, I probably would not feel that way. I just wanted to share my experience and opinion that maybe small children shouldn't see this movie, even though it's PG. Be aware of the possible outcomes of showing this to kids. I don't even remember what it was about, once was enough!


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


user
Roeg has done some great movies, but this a turkey. It has a feel of a play written by an untalented high-school student for his class assignment. The set decoration is appealing in a somewhat surrealistic way, but the actual story is insufferable hokum.


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


user
I'd heard about this movie a while ago from a friend and she recently got it on DVD. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement as we'd both heard that this was a terrifying film, really scary. How disappointed was I?? VERY!!!! Apart from that one scene (we all know which bit) NOTHING happened!!! I was expecting to see the woman in black a few times and for her to do a few more jumpy scenes, like appear at the window or walk across the hall or something.
Nearly all the reviews here say what a scary, gripping, atmospheric movie this is. I just didn't see it I'm afraid. Maybe there's a difference in what people find scary in the US to here in Britain.
A big let down after all the hyped reviews :(


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


user
Today, Bea Arthur died so I was cruising around the IMDb Web site and somehow wound up on a show called "Gloria." "All In The Family" was a brilliant show for its first four or five years and I bet I watched every episode more than once. However, I swear that I did NOT know a show named "Gloria" existed. Maybe, that's a good thing. Maybe, it means I had a life as a young adult rather than watching television.
On the other hand, it is pathetic that the "All In The Family" franchise had deteriorated so much that it begat a show I never heard of -- and one that is rated very poorly by the previous reviewers.
I rated the show a 1 for two reasons -- the system did not allow me to register a no vote and writers and TV execs should be condemned for starting a show that had no business being on the air and besmirches the memory of one of the greatest shows in TV history.
Shalom, ZWrite


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


user
Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian "sword and sorcery" item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier "giallo" period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least  seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bowso much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next  and thankfully unfilmed  adventure!


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


user
The plot and characters are ridiculous and barely qualify AS "plot" and "character". The biggest problem is the fact that everything is dark, out-of-focus, and blurry. The fact that Fulci filled the whole movie with mist doesn't help. On the other hand, the whole thing is completely bizarre and filled with sex and violence. The inconsistencies are pretty entertaining, one of the main characters says he has no friends, yet he latches onto the new guy in a minute of screen time, and has a whole gaggle of women on the side. Though he does show his anti-social tendencies by randomly putting an arrow in some poor b*****d who's just minding his own business!Images of blood or gore flowing get more attention than the characters but what do you want from Fulci. Maybe it ruined his career, but it wasn't really much more stupid than Zombie. Worth a rental if you like gory Italian flicks or are desperate for sword and sorcery or something bizarre. How do you sleep through someone getting sucked into a pit 2 feet from your head and screaming for help?


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


user
I like Fulci films, i really do and not in some boring ironic way either but i recognise that they appear hopelessly inept and garbled to lots of people.
Conquest is where Fulci tries his hand at the epic fantasy genre and doesn't really succeed. Structurally, it's like most Fulci films you've seen. Some stuff happens, some more stuff happens and occasionally one scene might be tangentially related to another. Really it's like Conan with no sets, no script, no real actors (yes, Arnold Scharzenfartz is hardly an actor either), no budget, stupid looking dog soldiers and a bunch of gore.
This one was a hard one to get through and i could've lived without the inch of vaseline smeared on the camera to give it that Hair Metal music video look.


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


user
Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is most
famous for "Zombie," and the absolutely unwatchable "The
Psychic" and "Manhattan Baby." Well, add this to the unwatchable
list.
The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a gold
mask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbed
stud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magic
because they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,
and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flat
action sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but not
before taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up with
my high school girlfriend.
Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen with
smoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make you
crave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects are
laughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo are
attacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches on
the film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have been
spent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurting
wounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in a
while, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.
I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anyway
just to see what the heck was happening.
There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let me
do a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,
you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does not
appear in the film in any context whatsoever. "Conquest" is a con
job. What MST3K could have done with this!
This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, female
nudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content.



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


user
Warning: This review contains a spoiler.
Wow. Almost impressively bad. Note I said, "almost". This is nothing more than lots of random scenes strung together in a loose attempt at a story. The protagonists (you CANNOT call them "heroes") shoot innocent bystanders for their food, and also rob same for similar reasons. There's also tons of homoeroticism, which was a turnoff for me. (SPOILER: It seems as if the villainess (who only is topless and not naked as other reviews claim) gets killed early on, but miraculously recovers, adding another 70 minutes of audience-torture.) I can't shake the feeling that animal abuse occurred numerous times in this cinematic abomination. If you're in a MST3K mood, you might find this watchable, but for the most part you can forget it. Go rent the original Conan DVD instead.


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


user
This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to "Conquest". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie.


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


user
I usually talk a bit about the plot in the first part of my review but in this film there's really not much to talk of. Just a mish-mash of other FAR better sword & sorcery epics. Lack of cohesiveness runs rampant as does banality. Even the main villaness refusing to wear clothing other then a loincloth is pretty boring as she pretty much has a chest of a young boy.Mildly amusing in it's ineptitude at best and severely retarded at it's worst. Lucio Fulci was scrapping the bottom of the barrel here and it shows.
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: Posters & Stills galleries; Lucio Fulci Bio; and US & International Theatrical trailers
Eye Candy: Sabrina Siani is topless throughout (some may consider that appealing, I did not); various extras are topless as well


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


user
I came at this film with high expectations. I was aware of Greenaway's work and 'The Tempest' and was interested in an adaptation. I first wanted to switch off after ten minutes, but felt that it would be unfair. There was a representation of a storm, but where in your mind do you conceive a small boy peeing over a toy boat? It is symbolic of what? I continued another ten minutes my finger twitching over the 'off' button, somewhere something would capture my interest. This is not Shakespeare, it is not cinema. There is a time and place for it, but I will not waste my time and there is no place for it in my studies of Shakespeare. After twenty five minutes I gave up and that was the end. I then read all the comments on this website and the pretentiousness of the film is only matched by its defendants. 'Its a painting.....then put it in a gallery', 'it's a ballet.....keep it on the stage then'. Shakespeare can be done intelligently, and the plays were performed to mass audiences, they were accessible, and this version helps put a wedge between Shakespeare and the general population at large - and I do not think that the Bard would be happy with that.


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


user
"Sir" John Gielgud must have become senile to star in a mess of a movie like this one.;
This is one of those films, I suppose, that is considered "art," but don't be fooled.....it's garbage. Stick to the "art" you can admire in a frame because the films that are labeled as such are usually unintelligible forgeries like this.
In this masterpiece, Giegud recites Shakespeare's "The Tempest" while the camera pans away to nude people. one of them a little kid urinating in a swimming pool. Wow, this is heady stuff and real "art," ain't it?? That's just one example. Most of the story makes no sense, is impossible to follow and, hence, is one that Liberal critics are afraid to say they didn't "understand" so they give it high marks to save their phony egos. You want Shakespeare? Read his books.


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


user
Every now and again you hear radio djs inviting listeners to nominate movies that the listener can't stand or never watched all the way through. This is the movie that I think of...days later.
It's got something to do with a play by Shakespeare. Not sure, but I think I bailed on this movie some 20 odd minutes into it...think I realised that my toenails wouldn't clip themselves, and they were looking at me imploringly to get cut.
This movie just seemed boring and pretentious to me.
Even though this is the first movie I've given such a low score to (which I've actually attempted to watch), I wouldn't want to put you off other movies by it's English director, Peter Greenaway. I remember thinking that his "The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" was a truly great British film even though its content was at times stomach churning-a brilliant movie, but I can understand why people would balk at seeing it.
Another good film by Greenaway was "A zed and two noughts". Again, it had some content that pushed the boundaries of good taste, but was intriguing nonetheless.
The other film that I usually think of too late for such radio show topics is "Brazil". Never managed to watch that all the way through either-kept falling asleep!
Unless you have a taste for self-important movies which are off-puttingly highly stylised, laboriously paced and difficult to follow, then steer clear of Prosero's Books.


assistant
0