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


user
I couldn't believe some of the horrible dialog coming out of people's mouths, and the end reel of bloopers attached to body of the film was a real hoot. And we get titty shots of Angelique Pettyjohn (sort of) and Loren Crabtree to boot.
A teleportation device activated by psychic Angelique Pettyjohn brings an alien container to an underground lab out in the desert. According to director Fred Olen Ray, they were leftover sets from the Klaus Kinski film, ANDROID which gives the film an increased value beyond how cheap it looks.
Inside the container is a midget alien (played by Ray's son) who starts clawing people to death. It was pretty funny watching this little 'creature' in a black reptile suit with what looks like large beetle shells attached to it, running around in the dark. We even get to see the little thing stamp and tear at a poster of ET, which I thought was hilarious.
And then there's what looks like a snake that also comes out of the container that gets hammered to death by William Fair, after the mini creature chews into Frank McDonald's neck in the kitchen. A low budget take on ALIEN, I suppose...
The whole thing ends abruptly, looking like they ran out of film at the end before the blooper reel comes in with the end credits. Talk about a lack of funding...
Fred Olen Ray also mentions in the director's commentary that they also weren't sure if Aldo Ray would make through the shooting and remember his lines. He barely did.
Low budget cheese sneeze. It's fun to watch, I'll grant ya that.
4 out of 10


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


user
If you're watching this movie, you're either a Fred Olen Ray fan, you found it on the $4.99 shelf at Suncoast and thought "what do I have to lose?", or you spun around the video store with your eyes closed and rented the first movie your finger touched.
This movie is hysterically bad. It's got everything a terrible movie needs: a screenplay featuring jaw-dropping dialogue and baffling detours in the plot, wacky science involving psychics and other dimensions, continuity that seems to travel through wormholes in time and space, actors that are not only wooden, but seems to border on befuddled, gratuitous nudity (not all of it is what you necessarily would ask for), and of course, a 5' monster played by what I assume is Fred Olen Ray's kid.
Underneath it all, however, there is something resembling heart -- as if Mickey & Judy decided to get together all the kids in the neighborhood and make a monster movie (hey! my dad can direct it! yeah! We can use red paint from my johnny's dad's hardware store, and I know this ex-stripper who can act in it!).
Watch for the blooper reel over the credits -- you get to find out why the final cut of the movie was so crappy.
Incidentally, Biohazard II...the Alien Force is also worth a look, but doesn't have the same enjoyably crappy veneer this one does.


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


user
I was always curious about this film because it is so tough to find, so when I stumbled upon it on Ebay I forked over the $10 and bought it, now I understand why its so rare! This film is SO bad, so terribly written and hopelessly low budget that the ending credits, which show all of the cut scenes where they fumbled their lines, are literally the movie's highlight. The film is about a psychic (Pettyjohn, cast for one obvious reason, her topless scene) whom uses her powers with an experimental machine to pull objects from another dimension into this reality. When she pulls in some kind of box like object the military nonchalantly throws it into the open back of a truck with one soldier to guard it, and gee, what do you know? SURPRISE! A kid in a foam-rubber monster costume pops out, instantly kills the soldier with a scratch across his face, then escapes to a nearby city. But rather than deploy half the armed forces of the county to find it and protect the public those in charge just leave it up to Pettyjohn and Ray to find it on their own, but no matter, this movie blows all its credibility LONG before then. This barely escapes being voted a 1 by me only because of unintentional laughs, somebody needs to alert the producers of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" if they don't know about it already! 2 out 10, really, REALLY bad!


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


user
Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, but does takes an extremely inordinate amount of time to say it. ***


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


user
"Boom" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.
The sad and disturbing fact of "Boom" is that is seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with "Modesty Blaise" and "Boom" (some may wish to add "Secret Ceremony"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful "Go-Between".
Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in "Night of the Iguana" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and "Suddenly Last Summer". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied "if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams". Had Gielgud seen "Boom" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.
Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.
Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British "angry young men". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuses, that from the man who claimed such a talent.
The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier.
"Boom" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested.


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


user
Boy, this was one lousy movie! While I haven't seen all of the Burton/Taylor collaborations, I can say with confidence that this is the worst. This rich but ill woman (Taylor, of course) owns this beautiful island in the Meditteranean, ruling over a put-upon staff when she's suddenly visited by this traveling poet, who mouths platitudes. In fact, the whole film is just a talk fest, with much of the talk making no sense. Even in 1968, no one could make heads or tails of this pretentious nonsense, and the passage of time makes that even more clear. If it weren't for the beautiful cinematography and scenery, it would deserve a negative rating. The only thing this film is good for is its unintentional laughs at the expense of the stars.


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


user
This astonishing waste of production money is filmic proof that the rich and famous can be just as stupid and wasteful as politicians. From a (silly) play by Tennessee Williams and directed (with a dead hand) by Joseph Losey and starring Taylor and Burton and Noel Coward - this project filmed in a spectacular cliff-top mountain island mansion in the Mediterranean must have seemed a sure fire winner when presented to Universal in 1967. The result is so absurd and tedious that it almost defies belief. Visually the film is spectacular but that is the force of nature that has allowed the setting and the fact that a real home is used instead of a set. The shrill antics of a screeching Taylor, Burton's half asleep wanderings, the loony dialog, Noel Coward laughing at himself, the ridiculous story and plot devices and the absurd costuming simply irritate the viewer. BOOM is a disgrace, a waste of money and talent and clear proof that lauded famous people can be idiots just like the rest of the planet's plebs. Not even fun. Just terrible and mad shocking waste.


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


user
WOW! Pretty terrible stuff. The Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor roadshow lands in Sardinia and hooks up with arty director Joseph Losey for this remarkably ill-conceived Tennessee Williams fiasco. Taylor plays a rich, dying widow holding fort over her minions on an island where she dictates, very loudly, her memoirs to an incredibly patient secretary. When scoundrel Burton shows up claiming to be a poet and old friend, Taylor realizes her time is up. Ludicrious in the extreme --- it's difficult to determine if Taylor and Burton are acting badly OR if it was Williams' intention to make their characters so unappealing. If that's the case, then the acting is brilliant! Burton mumbles his lines, including the word BOOM several times, while Taylor screeches her's. She's really awful. So is Noel Coward as Taylor's catty confidante, the "Witch of Capri."
Presumably BOOM is about how fleeting time is and how fast life moves along --- two standard Williams themes, but it's so misdirected by Losey, that had Taylor and Burton not spelled it out for the audience during their mostly inane monologues, any substance the film has would have been completely diluted.
BOOM does have stunning photography---the camera would have to have been out of focus to screw up the beauty of Sardinia! The supporting cast features Joanna Shimkus, the great Romolo Valli as Taylor's resourceful doctor and Michael Dunn as her nasty dwarf security guard...both he and his dogs do a number on Burton!


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


user
Whatever rating I give BOOM is only because of the superb location photography of Sardinia and Rome. Otherwise, this is only for hardcore addicts of ELIZABETH TAYLOR (her downward phase), and RICHARD BURTON (his miscasting phase). Tennessee Williams wrote "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore" and is supposed to be very fond of this adaptation of his play--but apparently, he was the only one. Taylor reportedly hated it and Burton needed the money.
Whatever, it amounts to a hill of beans with Taylor posturing and fuming in her shrill manner, exploding at the servants and exchanging bad baby-talk with no less than NOEL COWARD who seems to be a visitor from another film when he finally appears.
It's so campy that among Taylor fans it's probably considered a "must see" kind of thing. But if you can sit through this one without a drink in your hand, you're way ahead of me. Sadly, this is the film that signified the end of Taylor being taken seriously as a film actress, even after winning two Oscars. For Burton, it was equally disastrous and the critics called it a BOMB. Judge for yourself if you dare.


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


user
Is rich, ailing Elizabeth Taylor courting the Angel of Death on her island fortress in the Mediterranean, or is she just overreacting--or more precisely, overacting--as usual? Actually, both are applicable in director Joseph Losey's wandering, meandering mess called "Boom", appropriately titled since tempers in the lush, luxurious setting are nearly ready to explode. Richard Burton climbs Taylor's mountain uninvited; she dresses him in a samurai's robe complete with saber. Though great-looking in widescreen, the picture is otherwise quite deadly, a failure even Liz 'n Dick-philes should shun (the stars' collective "what the hell!" attitude to their late-'60s film careers reached an ego-mad nadir here). Pointless, confused, and maddening, "Boom" is a catastrophe--although screenwriter Tennessee Williams, who adapted his own unsuccessful play "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore", was said to be quite fond of it! * from ****


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


user
I have an awful pan-and-scan videotape of "Boom!", and I want to see it in all its widescreen glory. So I voted "1" and hope you will too. Together, we can pull this movie down into the pits of cinematic dross, and hope that someone will see an opportunity for BIG MONEY in releasing "Boom!" in its Director's Cut Extended Version. The movie is one of my howling favoritesyou just look at the people involved, the director, the actors, the cameraman, and you say to yourself, "Yep, I guess you can fool some of the people for a lot of time." Producers considering the DVD release of "Boom!" should note that, everywhere it's been shown, there have been sellout crowds in the theaters. But it hasn't been up to Frostbite Falls yet.


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


user
The movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.
Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly.
Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in " Meet the parents", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.
The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.
4 out of 10.


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


user
I realize several Ben Stiller movies are out or will be out this year, but perhaps he should insist on quality, not quantity.
I was dumbfounded at what the filmmakers thought passed for comedy in "Along Came Polly."
Stiller's Reuben is grating, charmless and ranks as one of the worst performances of the year. Stiller's schtick is getting tiresome. He undoubtedly has comic talent, but he needs to either find another schtick or take a break, find some material that is actually funny. Because his movies are going from painfully humorless to excruciatingly bad.
There's absolutely no chemistry between Stiller and Jennifer Aniston, which is a shame because she's a good, smart actress with a promising career. As long as she keeps making more movies such as "The Good Girl" (in which she's terrific) and less like "Along Came Polly," she'll have a career of which she could be proud.
Aniston tries desperately to overcome the limp material with which she's working, but it's a daunting task for any actress. With the exception of a few moments with Alec Baldwin, as Reuben's boss Stan, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reuben's best friend Sandy, there's nothing funny in this awful film. Other supporting characters, including Debra Messing as Lisa and Hank Azaria as Claude, are annoying. Azaria's accent is not only stupid, it's terribly unfunny.
The premise of "Along Came Polly" certainly showed promise. Unfortunately, it needed a writer who could actually turn it into a good comedy, instead of this lame, dull, boring excuse for a comedy.


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


user
I saw this for free, thankfully, and wish it was better than it was, but it's really the same old stuff that movie studios seem to foist on us in the last ten years.
Ben Stiller and Jennifer Anniston play a couple who are opposites- and yet they are attracted to each other.
If that plot line doesn't take you by surprise and thrill you, the movie won't either.
Lots of sight gags and fart jokes. Halfway through the movie I began to realize that Ben Stiller really isn't that funny, but he tries VERY hard. And Jennifer Anniston really isn't that pretty, but her HAIR looks great. And Hank Azaria and Phillip Seymore Hoffman must have got paid a great deal of money to be in this kind of average ho-hum movie, I've come to expect more from them.
What was interesting was that I saw this after I saw American Splendor, which is a truly funny and original movie- and I compared the two in my head, and found myself wishing that the movie executives would be forced to sit through those two movies back to back- perhaps that would knock some sense into them and
they'd start making better movies with unknowns rather than this formulaic stuff that plays best on airplanes.


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


user
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The DVD was given to me free with an order I placed online for non DVD related items.
No wonder they were given away, surely no one could part with money for this drivel.
How some reviewers can say they found it hilarious beggars belief, the person who includes it in the worst five films ever has got it spot on.
How on earth a talented actor like Philip Seymour Hoffman could get involved in this rubbish is unbelievable. Mostly toilet humour and badly done at that.
Anyone wanting to be entertained should avoid this at all costs.


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


user
Okay, I absolutely LOVE Ben Stiller, although I am lukewarm about Jennifer Aniston. I do not think this girl can act in the least. Every movie or sitcom I've seen her in is very hard to get past her fake acting. It sounds like she is just standing there reading right off the script. This movie only had one good thing about it, and that's that Ben Stiller was in it. This plot is so used and abused it's ridiculous. How many movies have this same type of plot?? Can we say "Forces of Nature??" Not only is the plot so old, but the outcome is so predictable, it's boring. I knew everything that was going to happen before it did. It was a bore, but watching Stiller is always a delight!!!


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


user
Make no bones about it. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie. It's clichéd the whole way, not very funny, predictable, and illogical. Let's start at the beginning: characters. There's the boring, luckless guy - giving Stiller another notch in his boring, luckless guy belt - the allegedly wild, but in reality just fairly normal, love interest - whom Aniston plays well, but really needed no effort to do so - the fat, jovial friend, and then the assortment of clichés: an annoying daredevil Australian guy, a confident Spanish guy, etc. The storyline: the beginning is slightly unusual, but thereafter goes into the standard any-movie style, with every plot turn as predictable as your average knock-knock joke. The biggest problem was that Stiller's character's "development" really seemed to come from nothing - like your average school play, the writers knew where he started and where he ended, but didn't put enough stock into properly telling the middle bit. Finally, the alleged 'jokes' were nothing but highly watered down versions of standard gross-out humour; there was a regulation chunder scene, sweaty fat men, etc.
In conclusion, the simple fact about this movie is that learning the meaning of the word 'shart' was the only good thing. Hamburg really dished up a dog's dinner here, and the sugar coating of Stiller and Aniston may have lured the viewers, but the taste left at the end was just as rancid.
Final comment: This film may have been dreadful, but Aniston still picked a better between-Friends-seasons movie than Kudrow's odious 'Marci X.'


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


user
This film offers absolutely no imagination in it's premise nor in it's execution but these are just two things that come to mind after watching this so-called comedy that has no energy to speak of. Story is about nit-picky over analytical insurance risk manager Reuben Feffer (Ben Stiller) who finds his new wife Lisa (Debra Messing) cheating on him with a scuba instructor (Hank Azaria) after only one day on their honeymoon. Upon returning home Reuben and his best friend Sandy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) go to a party and run into Polly Prince (Jennifer Aniston) whom they went to school with years earlier.
*****SPOILER ALERT***** Polly is forgetful and sloppy and lives carefree which is the opposite of who Reuben is as a person but they start to date and Reuben starts to change as a person as he starts to try out new things such as salsa dancing and eating spicy foods. But one day Lisa comes back and wants to remain married to Reuben but he really doesn't want to but Polly decides to leave as she doesn't believe in marriage to begin with.
This film is the second directing effort by John Hamburg who wrote two generally unfunny screenplays in "Zoolander" and "Meet the Parents" but those two films seem like classics compared to this stale piece of drivel. It's very easy to say something is not funny but I think with this film it's even easier to figure out why. This film is totally and utterly predictable from start to finish with every scene looking as if it's only happening because of the ridiculousness of the script. Hamburg who also wrote the script seems to have written this without any thought of trying something different and at times he seems to be trying to generate the same energy as "There's Something About Mary" but instead the events seem incredibly forced. Did anyone really think the blind ferret was funny? If you do, your easy! A few times during the film characters would inexplicably have these emotional speeches that are supposed to summarize everything but all they achieve is overstating the obvious. Stiller works a lot but maybe he should work less and just wait for the better scripts to come his way because this film doesn't work as a comedy or as a romance.


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


user
Considering the potential this move had, the reality was disappointing. While it's always nice to see Jennifer Aniston in a movie, even that couldn't turn this around. Most of the action was predictable. The jokes were flat to mildly amusing. And the characters were not very interesting. I wanted to like this film, but it just never happened. Ben Stiller was hilarious in "There's Something about Mary". Here it looks like he's just going thru the motions. If they have to lift plot points from "Friends", they should have known something was wrong. The toilet humor should have stayed in the closet :-).
Watch "50 First Dates" instead.


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


user
Ben Stiller doesn't so much act as react. And he does it very well. He is very dependent on the comedy going on around him. In There's Something About Mary, the stand-up hair scene only works because of Stiller trying to keep a straight face. When he confronts Mary's other two suitors, he is the unfunniest guy in the room but the scene is hilarious.
In Along Came Polly, the formula breaks down for reasons that are difficult to fathom. Stiller is surrounded by an array of comic talent. Hank Azaria and Philip Seymour Hoffman get the best lines, of which there are too few. Having said that, Hoffman relies a little too much on bodily humour - you know we are in trouble when they go to the fart jokes to raise a laugh. A basketball scene where Hoffman hams it up is completely overplayed (though it throws up one predicament in the form of a shirtless opponent that does raise a smile - noticeably through Stiller's reaction). However, everyone seems to be acting in a bubble, there is very little reaction. Hoffman and Stiller's characters could have played off each other much, much more. Aniston again reprises her Rachael role, but Stiller is no Ross. It is more of a "Joey with a crush on Rachael" scenario.
Polly is a by-the-numbers rom-com and that is its failing - it lacks heart. You don't root for the characters. With a little bit more work we could have had a deeper story, but in the end the film's failure comes down to poor writing. Worth watching if it pops up on TV on a slow night, but you'll regret forking out cash to see 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 I saw that this movie was being shown on TV, I was really looking forward to it. I grew up in the 1980's and like everyone else who has grown up in that era, have seen every 80's teen and summer camp movie out there. So I couldn't wait to see this movie that totally spoofs that film genre. What a disappointment!! The movie was nothing but a bunch of really bad jokes and gags over and over, with hardly any plot and no substance. And the filmmakers attempts at dark humor totally failed-some of these so-called jokes didn't come across as anything but downright cruel and offensive. The only good things about this film were the wardrobe, music, and acting. It was nice to go on a nostalgia trip and see all of the summer clothing styles from the 80's, and the same goes for the music. And the acting was top-notch throughout: almost all of Hollywood's best comedians were present. Too bad they didn't have better material to work with.


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


user
I was dying to see this once I saw the ridiculous MEATBALLS poster and divined that it had to be the best satire ever. What a brilliant idea for a satire--the genre is rife. Unfortunately, the finished product (as I think all involved probably realize) is a catalogue of missed opportunities, not-quite-there performances and (thankfully!) a few extremely hilarious, inspired bits. Janeane Garafolo, who is very striking, looks really bad here, probably because she is uncomfortably struggling to make her flat role funny. David Hyde Pierce is just sad to watch, trying to hard to be funny and looking like a Castro nerd. Molly Shannon is so funny just SEEING her makes you laugh, but somehow her segment fails to snowball into something hysterical. Paul Rudd had great teen mannerisms and was sexy as hell, the other guys are also really funny (the nerdier ones). I think the problem is the director just doesn't move things along at the right pace. He starts out very deadpan, and that sets the monotone. But when he lets things get really outrageous (the drug sequence is the second funniest moment I've had all year in movies, the first also coming in a lame movie: Andrea Martin in ALL OVER THE GUY complaining about the movie IN & OUT), it's just plain funny. I wanted this movie to work so badly, but it just didn't. The clothes and styling for 1981 are 99.9% PERFECT, and the very few songs used are also perfect. This ends up as a medium-bad MAD TV episode, complete with frustratingly overlong sketches.


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


user
IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.


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


user
If you can believe it, *another* group of teens return to *another* lakeside cabin three years after *another* one of those fatal 'accidents' claimed one of their number. Low and behold, a psycho wearing a patterned hockey mask (a cheap papery one at that) turns up to waste them one by one. This mechanical 'Friday the 13th' knock off gained slight notoriety as one of the first digitally-shot features, but that's where the interesting facts end and all that remains is a predictable, amateur production with sub-par performances and a recurring boom-mic intrusion. A last-second twist does little to lift the spirits, and 'Memorial Day' is something best tossed in a lake and forgotten about. One for insane slasher collectors only.


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


user
I have to say although this movie was formulaic throughout with a plot stolen from films like Friday the 13th/I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't as bad as most of the Horror films Hollywood has released recently. The killings although at times a little too imaginative were in most instances just that, original. The cast was mediocre which is to be expected from low-budget features but much better than what that much bigger studio Artisan/Lions Gate has been offering. My only real complaint that wasn't due to the film's budget, which must have been small, was the contrived "twist" ending. I'm sorry but this is what put this film in the bad category for me. The ending was just stupid and tacked on. Before that I was a little bored, but actually enjoying it. 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
Three years ago, Rachel(Therese Fretwell) was partying at the lake with her friends when her brother falls out of a boat and drowns. Rachel's friends think it is time for her to stop beating herself up and taking blame for something she had no control over. So grab the brew and something to chew and head back to the same lake that has been in Rachel's constant nightmares. As expected, a bloodbath has already started when two of the friends are splattered before even heading to the party. This flick has the feel of a high school play where everyone forgot their lines and 'winged it'...very badly! Writer Marcos Gabriel gave himself the meatier role as Rachel's boyfriend Leo. Outside of Fretwell and Gabriel there are some pretty lame acting and a few characters you would like to choke the crap out of before they get 'offed'. Giving attention to a few more players that had the nerve to appear: Erin Gallagher, Andrew Williams, Jasmine Trice and Derek Nieves. This is one MEMORIAL DAY you wouldn't mind missing.


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


user
First off, I had my doubts just looking at the DVD box and reading it saying that it was about of bunch of teens gathering at a lake where they will find do or something. Any movie that has a premise like this has failed miserably, even as a slasher movie, except for the first Friday the 13th.
I wanted to get up and stop watching the movie at least 10 times, but I just kept thinking that it had to get a little better. It didn't. Usually, I think every movie has something that you can take from it. This has nothing.
Do yourself a favor, and find something constructive to do for 80 minutes. Like, give yourself papercuts, or eat dirt.


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


user
It seems evident from this adaptation that he did not. Not only did he leave the plot behind, he made up his own! The things that he chose to leave in were so ridiculously unbelievable that I was happy he chose to leave out some of the most important parts of the novel. The plot was hazy, inconsistent and choppy to say the least. I don't want to say anything mean-spirited about the actors, but they can't act! Dickens is difficult, of course, but this is pathetic! Micawber was nothing more than a mid-nineteenth century Kramer, and the less said about Betsy Trotwood the better! If you want to see the real Copperfield, watch the wonderful 1999 BBC adaptation. As for the screenplay writer,I think he read the Cliff's Notes!


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


user
I wouldn't recommend this unless you're keen on David Copperfield and want to "complete the set". There are some good performances (e.g. Uriah Heep) and well directed moments (e.g. the beating), but on the whole it really pales in comparison with the 1999 BBC version, as well as earlier versions.
There are inexplicable changes to the story that really serve no great purpose except, possibly, to dumb it down (the stolen jewels being a case in point). The American cast were poorly chosen: Sally Field is a good actress, but she is wrong as Betsy Trotwood, and her English accent is only slightly better than Dick Van Dyke's cockney. I can see why Michael Richards was chosen to play Mr Micawber; he hams it up rather too much, however, and becomes irritating. He also speaks his lines in an accent that goes beyond eccentric and becomes simply preposterous. Anthony Andrews is menacing as Mr Murdstone, but one almost expects him to don a black cape and tie David's mother to a railway line (though this is perhaps partly the fault of Dickens).
I got this for free with a newspaper. It helped pass a Sunday afternoon, but I felt more disappointed than charmed at the end of 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'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade.
If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.
There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.


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


user
Right up until the end the bad guys have the upper-hand - always - which kind of put into question the competence of the good guys. A couple of innocent-man-accused-of-a-crime plots are irritating. Some unnecessary dialogue in which various dull legal issues get debated. This is just a mediocre dumb old western, so what's this nonsense about trying to keep things "realistic"? Cagney's atypical presence in a western is one of the few - if not the only - entertaining thing about the movie. Somewhere around the middle there is a ridiculously-timed marriage proposal; sort of like "Where is the Kid hiding??!! Where is he?!... Oh, and by the way, will you marry me?"


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 goofy things about this movie that I can't possibly name but a few:
BOGART's character: 1. His name  Whip McCord (too easy, so I'll leave it at that. Boy, it makes `Humphrey' sound good.) 2. His long, curly hair and silly sideburns. 3. His Black Bart get-up, complete with spurs! 4. Not sure what shade of lipgloss they've got him wearing, but it ain't none too flattering.
CAGNEY's character (Jim Kincaid ): 1. His lipstick doesn't do him any favors, either. 2. The man is being swallowed by his hat during the entire film! Could they not find a hat to fit him? Even a LITTLE?!!?! 3. His pants are too tight in the rear. 4. He blows the smoke off his gun one too many times, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
If you are a casual Bogart or Cagney fan, and figure it might be a change of pace to see them in a western, do yourself a favor and forget that thought. EVEN THE HORSES LOOK EMBARRASSED! (That is, when they don't look bored.)
In all fairness, I admit that westerns are my least favorite film genre, but I've still seen much, MUCH better than this.
On a comedy level, or as high camp, The Oklahoma Kid works. Otherwise, it's viewer beware. Therefore, see this only if a) you must see every western out there b) you are a TRUE Cagney or Bogie completist c) any of the above comments appeal to you. Woah..


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


user
In Hollywood in the 1930's and 1940's, I think that every studio can make a western, except Warner bros. The few times they try, it always ridiculous (except, perhaps, for They Died with their Boots on - which is a cavalery western.) I have read that Humphrey Bogart, seing James Cagney with this big cowboy hat on his head, said that he looks like a mushroom. True! Cagney and Bogart are too urban, too XXe century to be credible in a western movie. The story here had no suprise, and it did't help. Every 10 minutes, I figure I can see Bogart and Cagney drops their little guns and put hands in a machine gun to get away from the set in a 1930's black car.


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


user
I started watching this movie expecting some barely tolerable Hammer horror film wannabe... and I wasn't far off. There's a fair amount of glimpsed gore, and they threw in lots of nudity, but the latter half of the movie presents a few ironic twists. Holy cow, they actually put a little thought into the story, and didn't completely fall into the predictable stuff one expected at the outset. And dare I say it, some of the "gratuitous" nudity wasn't so gratuitous after all, because it fit in with the story and setting.
Don't get me wrong, it's still overall a bad movie, but as bad movies go, it's a shade more intelligent than the REALLY horrible tripe like Mesa of Lost Women and Robot Monster.


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


user
Man, what the hell were the people who made this film on? And more importantly where can I get some? The opening scene sets the tone for the film: a woman writhing naked in a circle of fire, transforming into a werewolf. And this is no Rick Baker 'American werewolf' transformation, folks. We're talking some of the worst makeup ever captured on film here. I can just imagine some stoned Italian spreading glue on naked Annik Borel (who plays Daniela, the film's protagoness (is that a word?)), and asking her to roll in fur. That's how bad it is.
From here on in it doesn't get much better. Minutes are wasted as the scenery chewing male actors waffle on about Daniela and her condition or something (I can't remember, but the dialogue is so bad if you don't laugh at it you'll cry).
The funny thing is Daniela isn't even a werewolf, she's a psycho who goes mental whenever there is a man around (understandable, as she was raped as a child) so she thinks she becomes a werewolf like her ancestor (the opening scene). She can't help but tear out the throat of every man she meets, and she only wants to be loved! Things start looking up for Daniela as she meets and falls in love with a buff stuntman who doesn't trigger her 'episodes'. Check out the montage here, one of the cheesiest you'll ever see (laughing and hugging after diving headfirst through a window).
Daniela's luck doesn't hold out as the film takes a brutal turn, she is suddenly viciously beaten and raped by a group of thugs who kill the stuntman. Reminiscent of "I spit on your grave", Daniela extracts bloody vengeance on her rapists.
This is 100 minutes of my life I will never get back. But hey, that's the game you play when you're a film geek.


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


user
Don't listen to the misleading title "Werewolf Woman". The Europeans are well known for putting an emphasis on sex and nudity over actual scares in their horror films, but this one here is just a bit too much. "Werewolf Woman" seems to have a sleazy sex scene copped off with the title character going crazy and brutally killing her partner. Fun the first few times, but a hundred minutes of this becomes very monotonous quickly. Shes not even a werewolf, but a schizo chick whose ancestor was hanged for lycanthropy. The film can't even decide its tone, with the first ten minutes (a flashback) being legitimate supernatural horror (I thought I was in for a trash classic after these) to a rather poor character study of the female being repeatedly abused and tortured to a revenge thriller. At the end, the director insists this is based on a true story. Yeah, all right.
To be fair, there are a few entertaining aspects of the production. The title werewolf woman is a looker and there are a few nice gore effects and nude scenes. However, these become rather monotonous quickly. Also, the dubbed dialog is pretty hilarious in a camp fashion, especially the worlds most swinging doctor (he drinks on the job). Unfortunately, the film becomes pretty irritating fast. There's no actual plot or anything else really. Its a shame, because reading a description I felt the film had some real potential. "Werewolf Woman" is far overlong, slow moving, and a bit too pointless, even by the standards of the exploitation genre. (4/10)


assistant
0