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
There's perhaps a special reason why The Fox and the Child hit a special note in my heart. Having just said goodbye to my new fiancée - of oh...one day - for an unknown period of time, I was a bit overwhelmed with varying emotions and was suffering the fallout from putting on the brave face she needed to see.
I watched a few movies and TV shows, but my interest darted from what I was leaving behind to what is out there and what I haven't seen. For that, I have this movie to thank.
Being a nature lover and having heard about the film beforehand, I was sure I was going to like it anyway. But I didn't just like it, I loved it.
The technical mastery is astounding. How did they do it? How did they capture the animals in the way they did?? It's just wonderful.
The moral of the tale is a good one and while the ending is oh so French and ambiguous, it's a happy/sad one. Again, it caught me a bit off-guard. As a man who usually keeps his emotions to himself, the ending was tough going while on a plane full of people I would be seeing for the next 15 or so hours! Perhaps it's because the ending made me think back to what I left.
But for those few hours on the plane, I was happy to see something new and original. And that's life. Sure, there are those things you love and feel comfortable around...but the great outdoors holds many a mystery. So the next time I see something out of the ordinary while out in the open; I'm going to explore it, observe it and embrace it. That's precisely what happens in this movie and that's precisely what you should do with this darn good movie/nature doc too. 8/10
P.S. It's two months on from the plane journey. We still don't know when we'll see each other again, but we will.


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


user
I love cinema so what I'm about to confess embarrasses me deeply. I had given a thumbs down to "Che, Parts 1 and 2" without having seen the film. Terrible I know. But I felt into a trap perpetrated by...who? I don't really know but there has been a negative word of mouth that spread like wild fire and, no matter how smart I think I am, I fell into it. But, thankfully, I bumped into an Argeninean film director, Martin Donovan, a man I love and admire. When I told him I wasn't going to see it because I knew the film was a failure he looked at me as if he was ready to punch me right on the face and Donovan is a pacifist! He took me aside and told me how much he loved the film and why. I went to see both parts straight away and, "Che, part 1 and 2" is the best film I've seen in 2008. It is, of such purity that it will remind you of the work of some of the great masters of the past. The regard for its audience is something that we're not used to anymore. I don't know if we ever were. Riveting, moving, without concessions and Benicio del Toro is just extraordinary. We can see his soul, we can actually perceive it. The humanity of the man is overwhelming. So, thank you Martin Donovan once again for educating me so honestly. Bravo Del Toro, Bravo Soderbergh and everyone involved in this landmark film. Don't commit the mistake I was about to commit. Go see it, now, on the big screen


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


user
A lot of the problem many people have with this movie is that they seem to think that the story should have been more entertaining (ignoring it is based on a true story) or ranting against a film that glorifies Che (which it really doesn't). This film is very close to Jon Anderson's definitive bio on Che and gets the story right. Soderburgh does an excellent job of setting the mood for the unraveling debacle that was Che's Bolivian adventure. You really get the impression of the total timidity and bewilderment of the Bolvian peasant to Che's revolutionary ideas or of the difficulties that his men faced with hunger and the terrain. Sorry to bore the attention challenged movie fan out there but that was how it happened. So don't go into this movie expecting a Rambo shoot em up, its a true story!


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


user
Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.
As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.
Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10


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


user
Many reviews I've read reveals that most people tend to like Part One better than Part Two. I feel exactly the opposite. Part One played around a bit much with trying to find different ways of showing Che Guevara's personality through different types of film stock, different locations, and cutting back and forth between an interview and the Cuban revolution. For the most part it was structured finely but somewhat distracting. In Part Two, Che enters Bolivia, and along with changing geographical location, the rules and the structure changes. Gone are the spacial jumps and switching between stocks, the "documentary realism" and the treatises. Instead, now we are literally trapped with Che in a desaturated, depopulated landscape where the only people who exist are burdened too far with their lives for anything but survival to be an option. I posit that it's the dark turn of Che's life that is the real reason why most people prefer Part One to Part Two.
The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.
But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.
--PolarisDiB


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


user
I came to watch Guerrilla, part two of Steven Soderbergh's biopic of Che Guevara, without having seen the preceding film and without more than a cursory knowledge of Che's life. At the same time I was rather apprehensive that this would be both a heavy-going history lesson and an unrepentant love-letter to the iconic revolutionary. As it turns out, this film far exceeded my expectations.
Guerrilla works remarkably well as a standalone film. The story of Che's failed attempt to lead a revolution in Bolivia, then under military rule, is a compelling tragedy. The initial impetus brought by Che's arrival incognito to lead the guerrilla war is lost as misfortune follows misfortune. The odds stack up against the revolutionaries. US backing for the Bolivian army, hostile conditions in the rainforest, suspicious locals and Che's failing health are just some of the difficulties which beset the nascent rebellion.
Soderbergh's portrayal of Che is largely uncritical, but this film is no hagiography. The style is refreshingly undramatic, with a subtle and effective soundtrack by Alberto Iglesias adding quiet drama to many scenes. Che is undoubtedly the centre of the film but there are very few close-ups of his face and we are encouraged to see the people fighting alongside him and sometimes against him too. Where Soderbergh wishes to demonstrate Che's virtues we see it in small episodes such as the loyal acolyte who upbraids two fellow guerrillas when they question Che's leadership, and emphasises the sacrifice that he has made in leaving behind Cuba to fight again for revolution.
The direction throughout is superb. Part two feels tightly edited despite its narrow focus and is able to communicate a great deal through images without the need for a narrator to spell things out for the audience. At the start of the film we see a few short clips of lavish parties in post-revolutionary Cuba, immediately furnishing us with ideas as to why Che would sacrifice his old life to fight again in another country. Later on, the portrayal of guerrillas marching through the unending rainforests stands out as a strikingly beautiful scene and helps to create a feeling of the enormity of the task before this tiny band of revolutionaries.
If there is a problem with the film it is the distance between the viewer and Che, which, though it does allow us to appreciate the context of the insurgency and the people around him, makes it hard for us to understand him better as a person. True, Benicio Del Toro is utterly convincing in the lead role  so much so that it is difficult to remember that you are watching an actor and not the man himself. However, watching Guerrilla as a standalone film means that we are given precious little insight into what is shaping Che's thoughts, words and actions. It is to be hoped that this is more to the fore in the first part of Soderbergh's biopic (I cannot comment on that yet), and certainly the strength of part two is making me look forward eagerly to seeing the prequel.


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


user
Che: Part One was a fascinating experiment, which did not only tell a very interesting story, but it also tried to do something different with the "biopic" genre.Che: Part Two is the excellent culmination of this experiment.
This movie offers all of the same attributes from the first one, from the extraordinary performances (specially from Benicio del Toro) to Steven Soderbergh's brilliant direction, without forgetting its intention of breaking with the conventional rules from the biopics.That is what I admire from Soderbergh's experiments...they always try to do something different and unusual, and they succeed most of the times.
The final message from this film is perfect, and it includes everything we have been told about Che Guervara's life.The only fail I found on Che: Part Two is that a few parts felt a bit irrelevant.
In summary, I give Che: Part Two a very enthusiastic recommendation because, as the first one, it is a brave and fascinating experiment which challenges the spectator and leaves us thinking.


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


user
It surprises me that I actually got the courage to watch the bio flick or flicks "Che: Parts 1 & 2". Why? Because if my Cuban exile parents would ever found out I saw this movie about this despicable mass murderer of the Cuban revolution, I would be grounded for life. Hey wait? I am an adult, they can't ground me no mas. Director Steven Soderbergh, and newbie commie (sorry Steven, but I had to take Soder shots here) divides the movie in two partes on Commander Ernesto "Che" Guevara's revolutionary life. "Che: Part 1" presents how Che in the mid 1950's joined Fidel Castro's guerilla crew in their revolutionary quest to overthrow Cuban President Fulgencio Batista's regime; which as we all know was a revolutionary success for them, but a gargantuan guerilla disaster to many Cubans as it revolted into Communism. "Che: Part 2" presents Che trying to revolutionize the T-Shirt industry by pitching T-Shirts with his appalling bearbado face to T-Shirt manufacturers. OK, I am che-chatting a lot of crap towards your way! I meant to say the 'Che: Part 2" focuses on Che in the late 60's trying to bring back the revolution, this time to a poverty-stricken Bolivia, but with far different results. In fact, Che ended up being dead meat enchelada when he was captured and killed by the Bolivian militia in 1967. Soderbergh does not include the in-between time of those two instances in Che's life when he commanded the despicable La Cabana Fortress Prison in Cuba, where he mass murdered many Cubans who opposed Communism. That is where I think Soderbergh executed a cinematic injustice by not showing the viewers how atrocious Guevara really was. I did decide to see "Che" in hopes that Soderbergh would not glamorize him, but instead present how disturbed he really was. Unfortunately, Soderbergh did not do the latter and sadly decided to present Guevara as a Revolutionary hero, which he was not. He was a sick man who thank God is now probably at the bottom of the devil barrel. Now, I do have to be an objectivistic reviewer and must admit that Benicio Del Toro's performance as Che was extremely commanding, and worthy of merit. And that Demian Bichir was a haunting dead-ringer as Fidel Castro in his meticulous performance. But the rest of the cast of "Che" was primarily comprised of mediocre performances of actors portraying Guerilla soldiers. And as much as I do admire Matt Damon, why did Sodebergh throw him in the revolutionary mix in a Spanish-speaking cameo performance portraying a Bolivian delegate? Soderbergh did not have to present this biopic which is mostly "too much talk and not enough action" in 4 hours and 30 minutes. We have had too much of Che already, even posthumously with those ridiculous t-shirts, so why give us too much more of him? But I guess when you have the Del Toro by the horns (as you did here Steven), I guess it is your saving grace for not totally executing "Che: Parts 1 &2". *** Average


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


user
I've read up a little bit on Che before watching this film and you wanna know something, he was a real hero for the people because he only wanted to see equality for everyone and that he hated what the oppressive forces were doing to his people as well as all other Latin Americans in general! Now, I don't know about others, but to me he did the right thing by wanting socialism so that everyone had to pay their fair share. However, the powerful elite obviously weren't going to go for that. So, rather than understanding what Che Guevera wanted, they were forced to kill him in attempting to suppress the revolution. It didn't work since there were too many of his other followers who only picked up where he left off. A good example of this was when Castro continued his leadership in Cuba. As far as I'm concerned and as Che said it himself right before he died: "If you kill me, that's fine. But you're only killing a man, you'll NEVER kill the cause!" I couldn't have said it any better myself.
But ... ANYWAYS.... that's why I give this film a 7 out of 10.


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


user
I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it.


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


user
From what I've read a lot of people were disappointed by this film, compared to Part 1. Initially I could understand this but after a bit of thought I think they are wrong to be. Soderbergh continues his fact based telling of Che's life that he started in Part 1. Part 1 told a story of a revolution moving from unpromising beginnings to an ultimately successful conclusion. Part 2 tells a story of a revolution that moves from unpromising beginnings to a completely unsuccessful conclusion. It is not Soderbergh's fault that these 2 parts of Che's life had completely different outcomes. He bravely chooses to tell both in a fairly straightforward way. The viewer may feel a lot better coming out of the cinema after Part 1 than Part 2 but that is the reality of Che's life and not in my opinion any fault of the director. The film is far from perfect. It is probably too long. At least in Part 1 we saw different aspects of the war as the guerrillas had successes. In Part 2 they can't catch a break and we see their numbers constantly being reduced by death and capture. Che's capture and death are dealt with well. The film is greatly enhanced by the dialogue being in Spanish. Benicio Del Toro is again excellent as the charismatic Argentinian. So if you've seen Part 1 you will see a very similar telling of a very different story in Part 2.


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


user
The first one meant victory. This one means defeat. It takes place in a Bolivia, there the guerillas are sick and wary and don't meet that much sympathy from the farmers. If you know your 60s history, you understand how it ends. You will understand it even without that knowledge.
Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.
The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded.


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


user
Part II or formerly known as GUERILLA, is also a great achievement but not quite as entertaining as PART I because this is where we begin to witness what might have caused the fall and death of Che Guevara. Once again, I'm impressed by the cause-and-effect that both parts have in their interconnecting stories. We're reminded again and again that the lead character, Che Guevara is an Argentine. Some of the men in Fidel's army chose not to take orders from a Foreigner and now that Che has chosen to leave the comfort of victory to continue the revolutionary in Bolivia, he doesn't get much respect from his new army and the natives either, only because he's a foreigner.
As far as technical goes, I think Part II would've been more helpful if before everything else, right after the display of the map, it would show some highlights from the previous installment just to refresh memory about his characters and what he's set himself on doing, to make the audience understand why his methods was successful in Cuba but they don't work in Bolivia. It is clear now in this segment, that Che is not as charismatic as Fidel Castro. In Bolivia, he's dealing with a bunch of soldiers whose hearts are not fully in it. It's said that the ingredient for revolutionary is love.. well, they don't give a damn that much about their country so it's a tough sell. It's excruciatingly painful and difficult for Che to get the others to buy into his vision.
I like one particular scene that illustrates Che's deteriorating condition, a scene in which his horse would not go no matter how badly Che tries to direct it, and then his temper took the better of him and for a moment there, he forgets he's a doctor, and he becomes this desperate soldier who's stabs his own horse. His army is like a horse that doesn't want to be led. But at the same time, the film drags, it relies on small cameos from familiar faces that you'll recognize just for the sake of brief entertainment and for the most part, you get pounded left and right by one obstacle after another, but maybe that is the intention of Part II, if so.. then it definitely works. Standing ovation to the cinematography that gives us a first person view at the moment of Che's last breath. This movie may not answer the questions of why Che Guevara was so stubborn, why he was so determined he could pull it off even wen the odds were against him and why he deeply wants South America to have the same fate as Cuba but the movie CHE is a story worth telling.


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


user
The year is 1964. Ernesto "Che" Guevara, having been a Cuban citizen for the last five years,disappears from the face of the Earth,leaving a glum Fidel Castro to announce that he is probably dead,when in truth, he has left Cuba to move to Bolivia to live an assumed identity. Whilst living in La Paz,Guevara undertakes an idea to overthrow the corrupt,bourgeois government there. Once again,Steven Soderberg takes up where 'Che:Part One' leaves off (only better this time). The pacing is more on target,the job of acting is ever so fine (including a turn by a sickly looking Benecio Del Toro,as Che Guevara). Suffice it to say,it's probably best if you see both films,to get the true story of Guevara & what kind of a man he was (I had the rare open window of opportunity to see both films at one screening----talk about a long haul!). As with 'Che-Part 1:The Argentine',this film has no MPAA rating, but contains enough salty language & violence to easily snag it an 'R'.


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


user
I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty.


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


user
I can not quite understand why any of the "reviewers" gave this documentary "0" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both "sides" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!!


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


user
This is something new.
There's a coup d'etat and a couple of irish documentary filmmakers are right inside of it.
A democratically elected president who uses his power to bring literacy to his people and encourages them to read the constitution is being slandered by the private media openly as dictator, mentally unstable, new hitler, etc. without repercussion from the governments side (like, say, silencing them via bullets and other traditional dictatorial methods). Oh, and they still claim that they are being suppressed, of course.
See how the media gloats about their own role in the coup d'etat on TV after they toppled the government with the help of rouge generals (how much more stupid can you get?? ).
And see how the people of Venezuela march to the palace, holding the constitution in their hands, and reinstall their elected government.
This sounds like a Hollywood fairytale, but it happened for real, against the explicit wishes of the USA. The documentary is a historical masterpiece, shot from the center of the action, acute and totally embarrassing for the prime supporters of the coup: The good, democratic, freedom loving, benevolent USA (who still channel large amounts of money to Chavez' political opponents).
Also highly entertaining and exciting. 10 points.


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


user
I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.



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


user
I collect Horror films from all over and I have seen the good and the very bad - Zombie Bloodbath is a low budget video. Sure, the acting is bad, the storyline is basically a mix of all zombie movies thrown together and the quality is low in some spots. The thing you seem to be missing is that it's still entertaining and really very fun. The effects range from, like someone on here has said, pasty-faced zombies that look like KISS rejects to really good ones with some amazing latex work. But the reason you buy a movie with a title like this is for the gore and this film is amazing in that area. The effects are very good for such a small film. Someone called it a Party movie and it is. 100% fun party movie. I have heard from various websites that this is actually a "rough cut" of the film that got general release but the actual "director's cut" is coming on DVD and it is very nice quality. I will buy it and judge for myself.
Story is basically a Nuclear power plant goes bad and makes zombies. The gov't closes it down, hides the story and sanctions houses to be built over it. Some of the plant is still underground and these undead come up and attack the area. A few actors do a great job, there's some pretty straight social commentary that is insightful and true, good music, great lighting, some effective suspense and tons of blood and sick gore. One guy gets attacked and ripped from the lower area all the way up, if you know what I mean. Then his guts are shoved out of his mouth. Another is torn in half like in Day Of The Dead and they did a great job of that effect. There are a million gore gags and it's almost ALL action. I say stop being a prude, enjoy life and get more movies like Zombie Bloodbath and Meat market. Two great undead epics.
OK - UPDATE!!! I just got the DVD set and here is what I thought:
MUCH better picture quality and for once I was able to see the actual DIRECTOR'S CUT of the film and it is a much better movie. I liked it before, but now I can see what Todd Sheets was actually trying to do with this one. And the commentary helps too, hearing Sheets talk about the film in detail, He knows it's a trashy zombie movie, but he does show respect to all people involved. Also, Sheets has a great sense of humor and some humble integrity that others could learn from in the movie field. The behind the scenes of Zombie Bloodbath is pretty fun as well. I felt it was almost as entertaining as the film it was made for. There are some great interviews and behind the scenes footage, mixed with news stories about the film from some major places like CNN, FOX and MTV. Over all, a fun little film that is VERY rough around the edges, but still had me laughing and enjoying the ride! I have seen many DV films, and some shot of video films, and many are quite dull, but this one really wasn't. While newer DV films are technically superior, they just aren't this much fun!
PS - I heard they are now remaking this on a big budget???


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


user
This in my opinion is one of the best action movies of the 1970s. It not only features a great cast but is also loaded with wild shootouts and explosions that are still impressive today. The story is about a Vietnam vet (Kris Kristofferson) being recruited by his brother (Jan-Michael Vincent) to help clean up the criminal element in a small town and what happens when Kris starts taking advantage of his position and becomes as bad as the criminals he was hired to get rid of. It's great seeing Kris play against type. Bernadette Peeters and Victoria Principal both offer great support as the respective ladies of the two male stars. Jan-Michael shows real movie star persona in this film. I don't think Vigilante Force is on video but it occasionally shows up on TV. It's a great flick for guys who like movies.


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


user
This movie could only originate in the 1970's!! It's a bizarre action movie set in a small California workers town. Some sort of mill or plant is closing down, so suddenly, rampant bad behavior is occurring in the streets! The townsfolk's are fed up! So Ben Arnold (Jan Michael Vincent), goes to another town to recruit his brother, Aaron, played by Kris Kristofferson. Aaron is a Vietnam Vet who looks and acts a littleoff balance. He hangs out with a bunch of other surly Vietnam vet's. They come into town to clean it up (they become deputized), but underneath their good deeds, they are actually running gambling houses, asking for protection money, etc.!!! It takes a while for people to catch on, and in a biblical Cain and Abel showdown, Vincent has to take on his older brother. There's an interesting blue-collar sleaze atmosphere to this movie, which makes it interesting (note the cock-fighting scene!). Vincent is almost too angelic in this role  he thinks so highly of his brother, he cannot conceive of him committing the evil deeds he's accused of. He finally comes to his senses  his girlfriend, Victoria Principal, is brutally shot in the back & he himself is beaten up in his home. Kris Kristofferson is creepily effective as Aaron. He coolly denies any wrong-doing, and even gently coos and talks to Vincent's young daughter (she refers to him as 'Uncle Aaron') even while he's threatening her father's life, all the while smiling! Vincent and Kristofferson have good contrasting chemistry with each other. Bernadette Peters makes an interesting appearance as a 'saloon' girl who attracts Aaron's attention. This is a good 70's action movie, if you can find it!! It is NOT available on DVD yet


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


user
Anarchy and lawlessness reign supreme in the podunk hick hamlet of Elk Hills. The town elders deputize tough, cagey Vietnam veteran Aaron (a wonderfully robust and engaging performance by Kris Kristofferson) and several of his fellow vet buddies to clean up the place. The plan goes sour when Aaron and his cruel cronies decide to take over Elk Hills after they get rid of all the bad elements. It's up to Aaron's decent do-gooder brother Ben (amiably played by Jan-Michael Vincent) to put a stop to him before things get too out of hand. Writer/director George ("Miami Blues," "Gross Pointe Blank") Armitage whips up a delightfully amoral, cynical and wickedly subversive redneck drive-in exploitation contemporary Western winner: he expertly creates a gritty, no-nonsense tone, keeps the pace brisk and unflagging throughout, and stages the plentiful action scenes with considerable muscular aplomb (the rousing explosive climax is especially strong and stirring). The first-rate cast of familiar B-feature faces constitutes as a major asset: Victoria Principal as Ben's sweet hottie girlfriend Linda, the fabulous Bernadette Peters as flaky saloon singer Little Dee, Brad Dexter as the feckless mayor, David Doyle as a slimy bank president, Andrew Stevens as an affable gas station attendant, John Carpenter movie regular Charles Cyphers as one of the 'Nam vets, Anthony Carbone as a smarmy casino manager, John Steadman as a folksy old diner owner, Paul Gleason as a mean strong-arm shakedown bully, and Dick Miller as a talentless piano player. Moral: Don't hire other people to do your dirty work. William Cronjager's slick cinematography, Gerald Fried's lively, harmonic hillbilly bluegrass score, and the abundant raw violence further add to the overall trashy fun of this unjustly neglected little doozy.


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


user
This is a pretty strange movie. It does comes across as an exploitation film with over-the-top violence and unrealistic situations, but unusual for being constructed around rural characters at war with each other, as opposed to an invading 'other'.
The movie is an excessive stereotype of Vietnam veterans, in a long line of films that portrayed the vets of that war as dangerous psycopaths. Kris Kristofferson's last line is 'I ain't lost a war yet', as he meets his demise after wreaking a long trail of murder and destruction, including the town's chief of police and his brother's girlfriend in a particularly chilling scene. However, Kristofferson is a good enough actor, and charismatic enough, to carry this villain with a surprising depth. Vincent is clearly the golden boy, but with enough intensity layered over his clean cut goodness. The movie bears some plot resemblance to Winchester 73 where Jimmy Stewart tries to tolerate a criminal brother until being forced to act against him.
The movie has b-movie grade action, though the presence of Kristofferson, Vincent, a gorgeous Victoria Principal and Bernadette Peters give it an A-grade lineup.
I give it a 7 for being a long lost view into an American psyche of post-Vietnam/pre-Reagan introspection, paranoia, and confusion, and a movie industry that was willing to address such topics at that time.
Seen on the THIS channel, a great network that keeps playing lots of old movies of the 70s through 90s, regardless of political bent.


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


user
I remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.
I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...
I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.)


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


user
***1/2 Out of ***** While I am not concerned with the fact that this is an English dubbed version as some reviewers have mentioned, it should be noted, as it seems to reside in many Quebecois native hearts. However, this was a movie as a child that I was a fervent admirer of; keeping in mind now that it was made for children, I rate it on a relative basis. The story is of children on winter break building an awesome snow fort, and jostling back-'n-forth for control with weapons such as snowballs and other concoctions, as idle hands and free time equal winter break lessons. If I had children, this definitely is a film I would try and get them interested in, as the snow fort wowed me when I was young, and I think even children today would agree, albeit with Pixar and all the computer animation, maybe I am out of date and just don't realize it. In addition, the movie's message is wonderfully allegorical and a positive one at that, for children (and adults alike).


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


user
This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful.


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


user
What can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed!


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


user
But the rest of us, who love a good sentimental and emotional story that is a lock to get you crying..enjoy!
Tom Hulce is magnificent as Dominick, a mentally slow trashman who loves professional wrestling and his brother, Eugene, played by Ray Liotta, who is a doctor and who works very long hours.
Due to Eugene's work schedule, Dominick is alone a lot of the time and tends to make questionable judgment calls. He really just wants to be a good boy, to do the right thing, and to make his brother proud of him. He stops in church to pray at one point and expresses his emotions so openly and so well that the character has you crying before the damn movie even gets really started.
Not about to give anything away here, but the movie is extremely involving and sad and heartbreaking. Those unafraid of these things will have a field day with this beautiful story, its loving characters and a great song I cannot quote here, that has nothing to do with the movie at all but is strangely appropriate..but you hear it in a bar.
I thought Tom Hulce would be nominated for this movie, since he was for 'Amadeus' I figured that might give him the inside track to actually winning. No such luck. Liotta is just as good but has less of an emotional impact, but then he does later on. All I can say about Jamie Lee Curtis is that she doesn't have much of a part here but it was nice of her to lend her name to a small drama set in Pittsburgh about two brothers who you will never forget.


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


user
I want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.
Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.
This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.
My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.
But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing.


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


user
This film was excellent - the emotional power of Tom Hulce and Ray Liotta's performances brought tears to my eyes and joy to my heart - this film shows us that there is still hope in the world. If this film had come out at the end of 1988, instead of Rain Man, Hulce would certainly have been at least nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Definitely a must-see!


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


user
If you have any kind of heart and compassion for people, this is a tough movie to watch, at least in the second half of it.
It's in that segment where we see nice little kid get beaten up and then a retarded (mentally- challenged) man go off the deep end after he witnesses this brutal act against the child. It's not pleasant material.
However, it's a good movie and the acting is good, too. The story will sit with you awhile.
"Dominick" is the mentally-disabled guy and is played by Tom Hulce. I think this might be Hulce's best role ever. He's looked after by a med student, "Eugene," played by Ray Liotta, who became a star the following year with Kevin Costner's "Field Of Dreams."
Dominick is a goodhearted garbage man who reads "Hulk" comic books and loves wrestling. He's the type of "slow" guy that you can't help but love and root for to live a happy life. When he freaks out, it's for several good reasons and...well, see the film for the whole story. It's worth your time but be prepared to go on real emotional roller coaster and possibly be very upset at some things you see.


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


user
Words are seriously not enough convey the emotional power of this film; it's one of the most wrenching you'll ever see, yet the ending is one of the most loving, tender, and emotionally fulfilling you could hope for. Every actor in every role is terrific, especially a wise and understated Jamie Lee Curtis, a tightly wound and anguished Ray Liotta, and a heart-stopping turn from Tom Hulce that should have had him up for every award in the book. (He's the #1 pick for 1988's Best Actor in Danny Peary's "Alternate Oscars.") The last half hour borders on melodrama, but the film earns every one of its tears--and unless you're made of stone, there will be plenty of them.


assistant
1