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
Stephen King is generally known for the morbid, and that's fine, but this story is too morbid. Some movies, by the end you feel sad for the characters or the situations they were put through...here you just feel depressed. The movie has a nice feel to it (at first), with the family moving to the country, and creepy old Fred Gwyne greeting and warning them of the pet cemetery, but this plot leads nowhere. It starts with so much potential, but by the end, it loses the potential to be a good horror movie, and becomes corny, extremely stupid, and ultimately depressing.
Louis (Dale Midkoff), his wife Rachel (Denise Crosby), their kids Ellie and Gage, and their cat move to a new home in Maine. They are warned by the loony farmer neighbor Jud (Fred Gwyne) about the local pet cemetery and how it is cursed. Louis thinks nothing of this and everything's fine until the family cat is killed. He bury's it in the cursed cemetery and it comes back to life, constantly hissing at the family and wanting to be left alone. One day, infant Gage runs out in the road and is run over and killed by a truck, and Louis knows he must bury him in the cemetery. When Gage comes back to life, he is changed and wants to murder.
With many of Stephen King's works that don't translate well into films, I blame the directors and screenwriters. In this case, Mr. King was the screenwriter, but I'm going to blame him for his awful story. By the end it's so pointless, and though unfunny, the premise is laughable. A little boy comes back from the dead and manages to kill people with what looks like a tiny scalpel, and not only that, but he manages to lift their bodies and in one case, carry a body from the ground to the attic!(?) I know this isn't set in reality but seriously, how stupid can this get? The scene where Louis injects his deceased, now living again cat to kill it is strangely sad, because the cat did not deserve this. All it did was go around minding it's own business and he killed it. The scene where he injects his own infant son is almost unbearable. Not unbearably sad, but the whole situation is just awful to think of. After being injected Gage staggers drunkenly around before falling down dead....why did they need to make a movie ending with the death of an infant? But...even worse, the actual ending of them film involving Louis burying someone else (Not going to give away who) in the cemetery after Gage kills them....what did he expect? Why did Mr. King write this horrible story and why was it made into a movie? It's depressing and pointless!
My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. R for violence.


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


user
Pet Sematary , though a nice 80's Horror movie, with a nice Director and atmosphere, IS a copy of the Italian movie ZEDER by Pupi Avati. It's clear that Stephen King has copied almost all the ideas from this director (the movie Zeder was made before King wrote the book)
The cat, the ground, everything was copied, this is a case of plagiary , but, being Stephen Kind a famous American writer , it's totally normal that he can get away with this , it's obviously due to the huge difference between this kind of Italians movies with no -budget (and in part, it's crap itself ... ) but the original idea, I repeat it, it's Italian director Avati
Let the world know


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


user
Fot the most part, this movie feels like a "made-for-TV" effort. The direction is ham-fisted, the acting (with the exception of Fred Gwynne) is overwrought and soapy. Denise Crosby, particularly, delivers her lines like she's cold reading them off a cue card. Only one thing makes this film worth watching, and that is once Gage comes back from the "Semetary." There is something disturbing about watching a small child murder someone, and this movie might be more than some can handle just for that reason. It is absolutely bone-chilling. This film only does one thing right, but it knocks that one thing right out of the park. Worth seeing just for the last 10 minutes or so.


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


user
"Indian burial ground": If those three words appear anywhere in a real-estate listing, look for a different neighborhood. A young couple with a young daughter and a toddler-age son move into a Maine house adjacent to a pet cemetery--and, after a l-o-o-o-ng hike, an ancient Indian burial ground. Seems the Indian ground can bring Fido or Fluffy back from the dead--if you don't mind having a raving hell beast for a pet. It can do the same for dead people--if you don't mind having a homicidal zombie around the house.
Throw in a busy two-lane blacktop, speeding big rigs, a well-meaning (if somewhat dim) old neighbor, and one kid who really doesn't get enough supervision, and I think you can figure out what happens from there--an over-the-top, illogical mess, which, in all fairness, does offer up a few scares.
Well, there are worse Stephen King adaptations (such as "Maximum Overdrive," which King also directed). But there are far better ones, too (such as "Salem's Lot," "The Dead Zone," and both versions of "The Shining").


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


user
Stephen King adaptation (scripted by King himself) in which a young family, newcomers to rural Maine, find out about the pet cemetery close to their home. The father (Dale Midkiff) then finds out about the Micmac burial ground beyond the pet cemetery that has powers of resurrection - only of course anything buried there comes back not quite RIGHT.
Below average "horror" picture starts out clumsy, insulting, and inept, and continues that way for a while, with the absolute worst element being Midkiff's worthless performance. It gets a little better toward the end, with genuinely disturbing finale. In point of fact, the whole movie is really disturbing, which is why I can't completely dismiss it - at least it has SOMETHING to make it memorable. Decent supporting performances by Fred Gwynne, as the wise old aged neighbor, and Brad Greenquist, as the disfigured spirit Victor Pascow are not enough to really redeem film.
King has his usual cameo as the minister.
Followed by a sequel also directed by Mary Lambert (is it any wonder that she's had no mainstream film work since?).
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
For me this is a story that starts with some funny jokes regarding Franks fanatasies when he is travelling with a staircase and when he is sitting in business meetings... The problem is that when you have been watching this movie for an hour you will see the same fantasies/funny situations again and again and again. It is to predictable. It is more done as a TV story where you can go away and come back without missing anything.
I like Felix Herngren as Frank but that is not enough even when it is a comedy it has to have more variations and some kind of message to it's audience....



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


user
A young couple Mandy Pullman (Mitch Martin) and Roy Seeley (Matt Birman) are relaxing on a beach in the small town of Galen. They decide to start playing practical jokes on each other. Mandy hides in an old run down cabin, she is attacked and raped by an unknown assailant. Roy tries to help her after hearing her screams but is killed. Dr. Sam Cordell (John Cassavetes) and his daughter Jenny (Erin Flannery) are both new to Galen after the death of Sam's wife. Sam is called into action by Police Chief Hank Walden (John Ireland) when Mandy and Roy are found. He performs the autopsy on Roy and treats Mandy for her horrific injuries. Soon after a curator at the local museum named Carolyn Davis (Denise Furgusson) is also attacked and raped. A local journalist named Laura Kincaid (Kerrie Keane) reports the events and suggests to Sam that a similar string of rapes and murders occurred in the town 30 years earlier. More rapes and murders occur. Meanwhile Jenny's boyfriend Tim Galen (Duncan MacIntosh) has been having strange dreams and nightmares and is convinced that he has something to do with the horrific acts. Tim's story and digging into the towns past makes Sam become convinced of the existence of a creature known as an Incubus - a shape-shifting demonic entity that exists only to reproduce! Directed by John Hough this is one seriously dull horror film. The script by George Franklin based on the novel by Ray Russell is slow to say the least. Nothing interesting or exciting happens and it finishes with one of the most boring none event of a twist ending I've ever seen and frustratingly it just finishes suddenly. As the story plods along at a snails pace there are a few rapes, but none are shown on screen. There is only one gore scene in the entire film too. The monster itself is only shown at the very end and has all of three short scenes. Everything about this film production-wise is very static and flat, the film has no energy or pace. The acting is dull and you don't feel or care for anyone. Check out the scene in the autopsy room where you can clearly see the boom mike at the top of the screen on several occasions. The type of rubbish horror film making that you'll forget within a day. A real waste of time, don't bother.


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


user
Based on Ray Russell's dark bestseller, this John (WATCHER IN THE WOODS) Hough-directed bust has little going for it.
Though it does not lack gory violence, it lack narrative sensibility and "characters".
The "Incubus" of the title is a demon endowed with a mammoth penis that shoots red sperm into vaginas during intercourse -- or, to be more precise, rape.
John Cassavetes, moonlighting from his successful directing career, is convincing as a doctor who questions the circumstances of the bizarre attacks on young women.
Horrific possibilities of the victims spawning demonic offspring are not considered -- and neither is the audience's tolerance for slow moving garbage.
The script's reluctance to explore the dramatic repercussions of a fertile premise exemplifies the major problems with this vapid Big-Schlong-On-The-Loose exercise.


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


user
Seriously, I can easily stomach a lot of on screen blood, gore and repulsiveness, but what really makes this film disturbing & uncomfortable to watch is how the doctor character keeps on rambling about the physical damage done to raped women. He, John Cassavetes of "Rosemary's Baby", talks about ruptured uterus, dry intercourse and massive loads of reddish (?) sperm like they are the most common little ailments in the world of medicine. That being said, "Incubus" is an ultimately STRANGE horror effort. It isn't necessarily awful  although it isn't very good, neither  but just plain weird. The muddled & incoherent script initially revolves on the hunt for a rapist-killer of flesh and blood (even though the title clearly suggests the involvement of a supernatural creature) and it never seems to stop introducing new characters. None of these characters, especially not the main ones, come across as sympathetic and for some never-explained reason they all seem to keep dark secrets. The aforementioned doctor has an odd interpretation of daughter-love and continuously behaves like he's a suspect himself, the town's sheriff (John Ireland) appears to be in a constant state of drunkenness and doesn't even seem to care about who keeps raping & killing the women in his district, the female reporter is even too weird for words and the Galens (an old witch and her grandson) are just plain spooky. All together they desperately try to solve the mystery of whom or what exactly is destroying the towns' women reproducing organs. The sequences building up towards the rapes & murders are admirably atmospheric and the vile acts themselves are bloody and unsettling. Basically these are very positive factors in a horror film, but the narrative structure is too incoherent and the characters are too unsympathetic for "Incubus" to be a really good film. Also, there are quite a few tedious parts to struggle yourself through (like footage of a Bruce Dickinson concert!) and the usually very reliable John Hough's direction is nearly unnoticeable. The final shot is effectively nightmarish, though. For me personally, "Incubus" was a bit of a disappointment, but there are still several enough reasons to recommend this odd piece of early 80's horror to open-minded genre fanatics.


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


user
You know you're in trouble when John Cassavetes is operating at half-speed instead of full-throttle in a movie, and "The Incubus" is a dreadful, worst-case scenario of a great actor going through the motions to pay the bills. Actually, observing the hammy script and John Hough's 'baroque' art direction, one can hardly blame him. The movie has something to do with a series of rape-murders going on in a small town, with a lot of supernatural hokum mixed in. Somehow, the direction manages to suck tension and interest out of every scene, and Cassavetes seems visibly P.O.'ed at times. The Incubus itself, which doesn't show up until the last scene, is a well-done creation, but it's not worth waiting for.
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
Years ago a movie going friend and I went to see a horror film that we thought would be good because it starred John Cassavetes. For the uninitiated, John Cassavettes was an actor, screen writer and director (married to actress Gena Rowlands), nominated for Oscars three times, who wrote and directed a variety of good low-budget films using his income as an actor to keep himself afloat. Up until seeing The Incubus, we did not understand that John Cassavetes income was made from any movie that was offered to him. Had we known what the film was about before seeing it we may have avoided altogether. But we did not walk out. At the time, my friend and I jokingly indicated it was the worst movie ever made. Now frankly, this is not true. I have seen many poorly made films on Friday nights on Cinemax (did I just say that out loud?) that are far worse than The Incubus. Almost any movie starring Brian Bosworth is by definition a worse movie than The Incubus. Certainly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a worse movie than The Incubus. However, I have since consistently used The Incubus as a threshold below which I do not want to fall. When talking to this friend about a movie I may have seen I will always remark that it was better (or worse) than The Incubus.
http://thevillagevideot.blogspot.com/


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


user
I rented this back in the 80's and honestly can't remember anything specific about the movie - only that it is THE worst movie I have ever seen. This isn't one of those "it was so bad, it was funny". This isn't one of those "it was so gory, it leaves you with a bad feeling" movies. It wasn't even one of those "what the heck was that?" movies. I can't recall the performance of the actors, but it was poorly shot, the story was disjointed, and it had no definable style. When it was over, I was angry that I had wasted the time.
I've seen plenty of movies I didn't understand because of unfamiliar cultures, styles and/or story-telling, but it was clear that those movies had some of those properties. The incubus has none.
I actually contemplated NOT making a comment on this "piece" for fear that someone may watch it out of curiosity, but I am compelled to warn anyone who appreciates film to skip 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
"The Incubus" is a mix of the good (an interesting murder mystery), the bad (a disconnected script, a sloppy resolution, badly made attack scenes) and the weird (strong incestuous overtones, a strangely sleepy and stiff performance by John Cassavetes - was that character really meant to be so "wacko"?). Not nearly as offensive as it's reputed to be, but not particularly successful, either. (*1/2)


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


user
I've finally seen THE INCUBUS after waiting 20 something odd years to see it and well, it surely wasn't worth waiting all this time to see it. THE INCUBUS is strictly by-the-number horror film: unseen killer/monster is raping and murdering women in a small town.
The film goes like this: movie opens with killing; then blah blah blah; more blah blah blah; then another killing; even more blah blah blah; continuing with blah blah blah; yet another killing (surprising, huh?); blah blah blah, etc...
The film is totally predictable from beginning to end. Even the stupid "big" red-herring used throughout the movie wouldn't convince a 5 year old. And I figured out the secret identity of the incubus the moment I saw the character, so when the "shocking" surprise ending arrived, I wasn't shocked or surprised. In fact, it was so funny that I kept on chuckling days after I saw the movie. It's so silly!
Anyway, the film is so by-the-number that the "rock band" sequence is one of the few stand-out moments in this dreary flick. It's a stand-out scene not necessarily because it's good but because it's so funny and pointless: the movie playing on the big screen shows a rock video-like moment with a guy in red leather pants getting his obviously fake long hair cut, all of this edited with scenes of a girl who is being attacked in the movie theater's washroom by the incubus. The best thing I could say about this film is the cinematography, which I actually liked. But aside from that, there's almost nothing worth mentioning about THE INCUBUS, except that it's unintentionally hilarious.


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 just plain terrible!!!! Slow acting, slow at getting to the point and wooden characters that just shouldn't have been on there. The best part was the showing of Iron Maiden singing in some video at a theater and thats it. the ending was worth watching and waiting up for but that was it!! The characters in this movie put me to sleep almost. Avoid it!!!


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


user
I run a group to stop comedian exploitation and I just spent the past 2 months hearing horror stories from comedians who attempted to audition for, "Last Comic Standing." If they don't have a GOOD agent, then they don't even get a chance to audition so more than 80% of the comedians who turn up are rejected before they can show anyone that they have talent! If they do make it to an audition, I was told that it's "pre-determined" if they get a second chance. So what the TV audience sees is NOT the best comics in the US.
If the comics do make it to the show, then most of them don't get IMDb credits. I know this because I did the credits for all 6 seasons of, "Last Comic Standing" and I don't get paid for doing the Producers' job. It's really a disgrace. A month ago, I asked, "Last Comic Standing 7" on Facebook why the Producers aren't giving IMDb credits and I was banned from their Facebook Page!!! I am not a comedian so I do not have a personal stake in this. I just want people to know the truth. I don't like seeing ANYONE getting exploited and that's why I've been helping the comedians. Comedians get exploited on HBO, BET, TvOne and other cable networks but NBC is a BIG THREE network so those in charge should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this exploitation to happen.
Please watch this video of a comedian who was victimized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMb4-hyet_Y


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


user
Do you like stand up? Then stay away from this...
During the early rounds, there are in fact good comics, but unless they got some cute qualities, they got a snowballs chance. Any controversial material and you are OUT! ...and I think I hurt as much as the discarded comedians, when I see who the crooked judges are letting in.
1 out of my top 4 made it further than the preliminaries. Half+ of the finalists have given me 0 laughs. Several of them have lifted their material elsewhere, something the judges doesn't seem to have problems with.
It is more entertaining than a lot of what else is on TV, but incredibly hard to watch without contemplating what it could have been.
If the producers changed the name of the contest to "Last Clown Standing", all my criticism would loose validity. Maybe an idea?


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


user
For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer.
Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work.
It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.
Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again.
The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like "Ratso Rizzo" in this film and then going to be the "Rain Man" later on. Yes, "Ratso" is a character you'll never forget, and "Joe Buck" (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.
This movie isn't "art," and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.
I did like the catchy song, "Everybody's Talking'" that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name "Ratso Rizzo" kind of stays with you!
The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as "official" that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since.


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


user
Spoilers ahead -- proceed at your own caution.
My main problem with this movie is that once Harry learns the identities of the three blackmailers -- with relative ease -- he continues to cave into their demands. And then the whole scene with his wife being kidnapped, he decides to wire his classic car up to explode (with the money in it), which makes us take a pretty tall leap of logic.
Okay, so he wanted to keep his affair with Cini out of the public eye due to his wife's involvement with the DA campaign. This I can see, but why not hire someone to slap these turds around a bit, or even kill them once he'd determined there was no actual blackmail evidence (e.g, Cini's body?) This was a pretty interesting movie for the first 2/3 of it. After that, it sort of falls apart.


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


user
Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read "Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...
*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***
Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say "Tarka the Otter" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.
Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not...


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


user
Having read the comments on the site I feel compelled to write in for the first time. It seems this movie is like Marmite and has split the audience. I have to say that while I agree films don't have to make sense to be enjoyable (see MULHOLLAND DRIVE) they still have to engage you with the characters. Now while I was totally absorbed by the murderous lesbian affair in Lynch's opus, I have to say I couldn't give a turd about Mr Green or the other cardboard gangsters that inhabited this dayglo world.
Also, while so many people seem to try and say you didn't enjoy because you didn't get it I would have to disagree - I didn't enjoy because I was bored. I wanted the film to end and constantly listening to those quotes over and over again did not help. Call it clever if you will - I think it's repetitious.
However, my main reason for writing is to ask all the other reviewers a question - there were no end credits on the print of the film I saw. Just music over black. Did I watch a dud print or is this evidence of GR's pretentiousness? Or, did everyone involved in the movie watch the rough cut and have their name removed???


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


user
What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.
His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.
Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?
There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.
A waste of two hours of my life.


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


user
Guy Richie's third proper film (not counting the God-awful "Swept Away" is a complex action thriller concerned with gambling, gangsters and chess. Fans of Richie's previous efforts will probably hate Revolver as much as I did, with its twists and turns. Richie stalwart Jason Statham plays Jake, a newly-released ex-con, out to wreak revenge on the ridiculously named Dorothy Macha (a superbly OTT Ray Liotta) but instead gets embroiled with a couple of other cons, (one of which is Andre 3000 from rap outfit Outkast) who throw him and us the audience, a number of red herrings throughout the film, all of which becomes extremely tedious. The high point of this mess of a movie is the bit in the restaurant, where the dialogue gets turned down in favour of a superbly shot, slow-mo shootout set to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. All in all, Revolver is a flawed work, not truly awful but far from Richie's best. That would still be Lock, Stock. If this film was a school homework assignment it would be graded 'must try harder!'


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


user
Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics  'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club'  and still comes out empty-handed.
Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle "the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.
Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.
The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.
As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'.


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


user
Was convincing the world that he didn't exist...
This is a line that is probably remembered by a lot of people. It's from The Usual Suspects of course in relation to Kaiser Gold..I mean Sose..
I got another one like that: -The dumbest trick a director ever pulled was trying to convince an audience he actually had a storyline-
This movie is one of the saddest pieces of film-making I have seen in a long time. It starts out so well, with really fantastic cinematography, great acting and a very smart premise. But alas, the only way this movie is heading is on a course of self-destruction. And it does so, not by a single blow but with nagging little wrist-cuts.
Pay no attention to the comments here that marvel at the fact that they found a way to explain this donut. With enough booze in my brain I would probably be capable of explaining the very existence of mankind to a very plausible degree. I have seen and read about a dozen totally different ways people explained the story. And they vary from a story set totally in someones head, playing chess with himself, to a cunning way for a criminal to play out his enemies by means resembling chess gaming.
And that's all jolly swell. But at the same time it is a painful giveaway that there is something terribly wrong with this story. And apart from that, it is in any case a blunt rip off of a score of movies and books like "Fight Club, Kill Bill, Casino, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Magnolia and Shachnovelle. And we are not dealing with kind borrowing here, it's a blatant robbery.
What ultimately goes wrong here in this movie is that the storyline swirls like a drunk bum on speed. If this movie was a roller-coaster ride, you'd have crashed into the attraction next to it shorty after take off. There are so many twists in this movie which will never be resolved, that if it was a cocktail, you'd be needing a life supply of hurl-buckets to work of the nausea after drinking it. Nothing is ever explained and when you finally get some grasp of the direction you think it's going, you get pulled in yet another one.
I guess this story wasn't going anywhere on paper and Ritchy must have thought that is was awesome to make a movie out of it anyway, being the next David Lynch or something.
1/10 for totally violating one's own work (Ritchy: seek professional help). What could have easily been a gem instead becomes a contrived art-piece, food for pseudo intellectuals to debate on at sundayafternoon debating-clubs.
Spare your soul and stomach, avoid at all cost!


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


user
I don't think I've ever felt this let down by a film before. After loving Guy Ritchie's two previous films (I don't count Swept Away - he was pussy blind), I was so looking forward to seeing this.
The reviews were poor, then again, I don't trust the press anyway. More worrying was the fact that the internet buzz was that this was a bit of a stinker, so it was with some trepidation I handed over my £4.80 yesterday afternoon.
I'm not even going to try to explain this film, mainly because I haven't got a clue what was going on and at one point I was honestly close to standing up and asking if it was just me who didn't get it!
Unfortunately I think Ritchie seems to have fallen into his wife's trap of taking himself far too seriously.It seems it wasn't good enough for him to make films with good plots, laughs, snappy dialogue and good characters. It's almost as if he had a checklist of films he wanted to rip off, here are some of the ones I noticed:
The Matrix, Fight Club, Kill Bill, The Usual Suspects, Vanilla Sky...
I think the most frustrating thing is that the performances from the two main actors, Jason Statham and Ray Liotta, were actually very good and it was really the self indulgent story and editing / direction that let the film down.
So a big, big thumbs down from me.


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


user
I would rather of had my eyes gouged out with rusty ice picks than have had to sit through this abortion. There is no plot. There is no acting ability . Ray Liota has shamed himself and should be blacklisted from any more work. I am so sorry that the industry allows crap like this to be shown on any type of medium.
Rumor has it that Maddona threw herself to the floor to break her other arm so she could be taken away on a stretcher. Actullly, she deserves to be married to this loser and wanna-be-actor-director. I hope she stays in London and never returns to the USA. Please do not waste your money on this so called film. I beg of you.


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


user
Let this film serve as the death knell to the "big twist" films borne out of the 1990s. Known in some circles as The Kyser Soze Syndrome, this cinematic slight of hand has now been done to death by M. Night Shayamalan and even Ron Howard used a variation in A BEAUTIFUL MIND. However, in REVOLVER, director Guy Ritchie (known in some circles as "Mr. Madonna"), utilizes the Soze motif in a far more obsequious manner.
Jason Statham (with a highly questionable head of hair) stars as Jack Green (known to all as "Mr. Green.") He may or may not also be criminal mastermind Mr. Gold. Or, perhaps Mr. Gold is an irritable spirit who can possess members of the underworld. I'm not quite certain, but I certainly don't care. REVOLVER is one of the most overwrought examples of cinematic excess I've had the displeasure to endure in quite a long time. Witness the fractured time structure, the painful jump cuts, the ceaseless inner-monologues, and the painfully pretentious animated sequence. This "everything and the kitchen sink" directing style makes Quentin Tarantino's oeuvre look sedate. The cinematic smoke and mirrors only lead me to believe that Ritchie was as bored telling this trite tale as I was watching it.
The film is filled with moments of revelation that are supposedly shocking but they only come as news to Mr. Green. I wanted to like Green as I always enjoy Stratham as a character who is two steps ahead of everyone else. Here, though, he struggles along like a remedial reader in a University English Literature class. His lack of wit is only matched by the lack of restraint shown by his nemesis, Macha (Ray Liotta). Feasting on scenery like a starving man at a smorgasbord, Liotta spits, cries, and fumes through the film in an embarrassing display of overacting and leopard print speedos.
There are no redeeming qualities to REVOLVER. It's yet another filmic faux pas from Ritchie and might even outdo his wretched remake of SWEPT AWAY as his worst film yet.


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


user
Its like if you took the general themes of The Usual Suspects and Fightclub, take away all their style and class and mixed them together with a lot of pretentious new wave "i'm intellectual so my movie must be hard to make sense of" film maker rubbish, mashed in a few extra styles for good measure, chopped off the ending, there you have Revolver.
Yes, I did think about it for a little bit after watching, and yes it did kind of make sense, however that doesn't stop it being garbage.
Waste of money. Waste of time.
Up there as the worst Movie I have ever seen, with not even a bad movie novelty value to redeem it a little.


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 now my gauge against which all other movies will be compared...as in, "was it as stupid as Revolver?" I too was in the Toronto International Film Festival audience last night where a room filled with over 2000 people walked out in an eerie silence after being absolutely dumbstruck by 2 hours of sheer nonsense. Jason Stratham would have been amazing if only he had a purpose. Within the first 10 minutes he's given a proposition by Andre 3000 and Big Pussy (of Soprano's fame) which makes NO SENSE AT ALL! Then there's some shooting and then there's Ray Liotta wearing embarrassing bikini briefs, then there's some animation, Ray Liotta's naked butt, lots of shooting, teeth gnashing, art house wanna be pretensions and more of Liotta's embarrassing body that elicited laughs at every showing...which I'm not quite sure was the reaction he was looking for...not 5 times anyway. Everyone in this movie thinks they're smarter than the average bear and Guy Ritchie thinks he's Yogi Bear incarnate. The story lines might have went nowhere but the posturing was outta sight! The only way this movie could have been worse is if Madonna herself was in it.


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


user
When Ritchie first burst on to movie scene his films were hailed as funny, witty, well directed and original. If one could compare the hype he had generated with his first two attempts and the almost universal loathing his last two outings have created one should consider - has Ritchie been found out? Is he really that talented? Does he really have any genuine original ideas? Or is he simply a pretentious and egotistical director who really wants to be Fincher, Tarantino and Leone all rolled into one colossal and disorganised heap? After watching Revolver one could be excused for thinking were did it all go wrong? What happened to his great sense of humour? Where did he get all these mixed and convoluted ideas from? Revolver tries to be clever, philosophical and succinct, it tries to be an intelligent psychoanalysis, it tries to be an intricate and complicated thriller. Ritchie does make a gargantuan effort to fulfil all these many objectives and invests great chunks of a script into existential musings and numerous plot twists. However, in the end all it serves is to construct a severely disjointed, unstructured and ultimately unfriendly film to the audience. Its plagiarism is so sinful and blatant that although Ritchie does at least attempt to give his own spin he should be punished for even trying to pass it off as his own work. So what the audience gets ultimately is a terrible screenplay intertwined with many pretentious oneliners and clumsy setpieces.
Revolver is ultimately an unoriginal and bland movie that has stolen countless themes from masterpieces like Fight Club, Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. It aims high, but inevitably shots blanks aplenty.
Revolver deserves to be lambasted, it is a truly poor film masquerading as a wannabe masterpiece from a wannabe auteur. However, it falls flat on its farcical face and just fails at everything it wants to be and achieve.


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


user
I heard this film was much more stylistic than the films director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) had directed before, the problem is, it is possibly too stylistic. Basically Jake Green (Jason Statham) is released from prison after seven years in solitary,and within two years he gambles loads of his money. He is ready to seek revenge against the violence-prone casino owner who got Jake sent to prison, Dorothy 'Mr. D' Macha (Ray Liotta). In the process, doctors tell Jake that he has three days left to live as he is dying from a rare blood disease, oh, and Macha puts hit men on him. Loan sharks Zach (Vincent Pastore) and Avi (André Benjamin) are demanding Jake pays their cash back, and do some odd jobs for them. The film is filled with Jake narrating through some flashbacks, and through his last three days before coming to the big revelation about Zach and Avi, and Macha, well, I assume that's what it was. Also starring Terence Maynard as French Paul, Andrew Howard as Billy, Mark Strong as Sorter, Francesca Annis as Lily Walker, Anjela Lauren Smith as Doreen and Elana Binysh as Rachel. The are sequences involving a little bit of animation, repeating lines twice in different perspectives, and changing speeds for moments, and all of these are irritating to the point of confusion and boredom, making it a silly crime drama. Pretty poor!


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


user
There are so many comments on this film, yet I found them to be misleading. This a corner-cutting, over-used scenario where a normal human being becomes a partner in crime to someone of the opposite sex for no apparent reason. Boy meets girl. Girl holds boy up at gunpoint for something ridiculous. Boy is intrigued.
You know the drill: The antagonist turns out to be a wild, free spirit instead of a sociopath... Toss in a few words of wisdom from Alice Drummond and you have a recipe for Love. Sheedy's 'is she crazy or does she just need a hug?' role from The Breakfast Club simply reeks as a lead character. And all that is left is a truly ghastly turkey of a movie.


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


user
had to see this cos it looked like a great scary premise- prisoners finding magic book,oo err! claustrophobic terror ensues, etc.
but there didn't seem to be a story to go along with the great idea. rather than chilling/physcological horror, it relied on effects out in the open- fire and OTT body horror- , which didn't scare at all if your over 12.
The logic at the end is ridiculous, with characters being killed off for nothing other than bodycount. waste of good characters- which were the best thing about this film.
obviously low budget, which doesn't spoil it, the film really goes nowhere, and- icant believe im going to say this- it needs a Hollywood remake. you simply loose interest in this version. definitely not in the same league as other french films coming out in the last few years like crimson rivers which were at least watchable/entertaining, malefique isn't watchable to the end to be honest. and i bet you can guess the ending before you have watched the film. really really disappointing- impossible to recommend.


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


user
(Spoiler included, some would say)
This film is not possible to take seriously. At some parts it is so awfully stupid that I just can't help laughing at it all. Try me for the sequence where Stallone's character jumps some 20 meters with full climbing gear or (and this is really my favorite) snuffs a bad guy by sticking him onto a stalactite. Yeah, what ungodly strength did he muster to accomplish such feats? I dunno, but he sure gives reality a run for the money.


assistant
0