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've waited a long time to see DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON and after I watched it, I was really disappointed by it. It's not the Baroque film I expected it to be. The trailer (which I saw on a Something Weird DVD) is much better than the entire film, which is remarkably forgettable. There are almost no stand out scenes in it and the look and feel is interesting but it doesn't even come close to other Baroque styled movies out there, from Fellini or Jodorowsky. The characters are dull and there's almost nothing dramatic going on, even though we see rape, crucifixion, insanity, etc.
The main problem with DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON was the fact that it was a talk-a-thon more than anything else. It was almost like watching a book. I just wanted the film to have moments of silence or mood or something, instead we see/listen to the main characters chit-chat endlessly about dull stuff.
A missed opportunity.


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


user
A stupid rich guy circa about 1800 wants to visit a nearby mental asylum to see how a famous doctor cares for his patients. Despite an initially hostile response, he is soon cordially invited in and given a tour by the good doctor. And, as the doctor shows him about, he talks and talks and talks!!! And as he talks, loonies run amok here and there doing nothing especially productive. While there is SOME action here and there (and some of it quite disturbing), it's amazing how dull and cerebral the whole thing is--lacking life and energy, which is odd for a horror flick. Even a guy who thinks he's a chicken and dresses like one becomes rather tiresome. The further this tour takes the guest, the more disturbing it becomes until ultimately you realize that the inmates have taken over the hospital and are torturing their keepers. Yet again, despite this twist, the film is amazingly lifeless in many places--particularly when it moves very slowly as a bizarre ceremony is taking place or people are just wandering about the set. Only when the workers from the asylum found in a prison cell, starving, does the film have any real impact. Considering this plot, it sure is hard to imagine making it boring, but the people who made this cheap exploitational film have! Now with the same plot and competent writing, acting and direction, this COULD have been an interesting and worthwhile film.
You know, now that I think about it, this was the plot of one of the episodes of the original "Star Trek" TV show! You know, the one with "Lord Garth--Master of the Universe" and Kirk and Spock are held prisoner by this madman and his crazed followers.
A final note: The film has quite a bit of nudity here and there and includes a rape scene, so be forewarned--it's not for kids. In fact, considering how worthless the film is, it isn't for anyone! However, with the version included in the "50 Movie Pack--Chilling Classics", the print is so incredibly bad that it's hard to see all this flesh due to the print being so very dark.


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


user
Dr Tarr's Torture Dungeon is about a journalist who travels to an insane asylum to write about a new technique they use with their patients. However, the journalist soon finds out that things are not what they seem to be, and the asylum is being run by the patients, and the doctors are in cages. First of all, some parts of the film are just plain boring and just makes you want to fall asleep, and the interesting parts are interesting for all the wrong reasons(A guy who thinks he's a chicken, for instance). I have to admit that the story is actually pretty good, but the film itself bombs. The music of the film is really odd and like something you would hear in some insane comedy, and yes, there is a scene involving dancing chicken men, which pretty much made me want to shut off the screen. Watch this film at your own risk!
Rated: R for Violence and Nudity.


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


user
I read reviews on this movie and decided to give it a shot. I'm an open minded guy after all and I’ve given good reviews to some pretty bad flicks. As the end credits rolled on this one I searched for meaning and something nice to say. Here goes: "This film was mercifully short." That's all I got.
Okay, Okay. The sets and visuals were well done and the music helped lend to the mood of asylum life but the film was painful to watch and the endless dialogue took away from the good bits. I did find myself laughing at this film but the way you laugh at your best friend who just embarrassed himself in front of a large crowd.
By the time of the "chicken dance" at the finale I had just decided to tuck and roll with the film and let the bodies fall where they fall. I don't know what could have salvaged this film. The acting was not bad and it looked like it had a budget but there just wasn't any way to make it watchable; not even the presence of beautiful bare breasts. Maybe I should have sparked a doobie or drank a LOT of beer to get the full experience of the film. Either way, I'm not watching this film again unless I'm really depressed. Then I can tell myself “At least I wasn’t in ‘Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon.’ I’m better than those guys."


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


user
All the other comments already said what I was going to say, here goes anyway. I thought this was Italian at first, sorry about that, Italy. I wasn't bored because I kept waiting for something to happen. Who did that song about Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather way back when? Was it Alan Parsons? Saw this on a Brentwood 10 pack and the quality was as expected, terrible. Full of streaks and stuff. The movie was an incoherent mess. Goofy music and clueless characters. The main guy should have known in the first minute that the doctor was nuttier than the patients. I thought the "doctor" directing the "battle" scene was never going to end. Had some good looking babes though. It seems these dumb ass movies always throw in a naked chick or two and that gets you hooked. I gave it a 2 for the nekkid women. That bird people dance made me want to pull out my own eyeballs. Poe probably did about 3,000 rpms in his grave when this thing came out because it was loosely based on a story of his.


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


user
Although I rated this movie a 2 for showing a complete lack of effort in trying to create a quality horror film it was a 10 on the unintentional funny scale. I couldn't figure out what was going on in the movie or who the people were but I didn't care because I knew every scene was going to have something to make me cry with laughter. Dialogue is a minimum throughout the movie but I believe this is because they started filming without a script. The fact that there is no plot line makes the movie extremely versatile. It doesn't matter if you sit down and watch the movie from beginning to end or if you watch it in rewind you will be confused with enjoyment. I particularly like the scene in which the inmates are taking turns running around outside beating each other with sticks. I believe the doctor refers to this as treatment. Genius!


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


user
I got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by "gems", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.
My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.
The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. "WHAT STRENGTH!" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.
The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.
And Mr. Chicken PWNZ.


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


user
I feel much less generous with this film than others of its ilk. The portrayal of madmen in this century is always done with them being so totally bizarre as to be a different species. Their antics are so outrageous as to be totally fictionalized. Everyone is Napoleon or some other historical figure; or they have a fascination with chickens. They are on the make or beating each other up. It's as if the scriptwriter said, what can I make up for them to do, without an sense of what insanity or even mental illness is. Watch the wonderful human portrayal in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" where the illnesses are believable and real. I once worked in a State Mental hospital. I didn't see any of these guys. These are too smart and calculating to make them come to life.


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


user
If this movie were any worse, it would have been directed by Uwe Boll. This nonsensical mess makes Ed Wood look like Hitchcock. It has been a while since I have seen this steaming pile , but I do remember that I wanted to do grievous bodily harm to all those involved. How anyone can give this movie any more than 1 star amazes me to the graciousness of all those that viewed this tripe. I give it one star because there is not a rating lower. All copies of this movie should be burned the ground sowed with salt and reserved as a landfill for the most toxic of waste. No, one copy should be kept under ultra hi security and shown only to film makers as an example of how not to do it.


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


user
Absolutely dreadful Mexican film supposedly based on a short story by Edgar Allan Poe about a newsman wanting to go into the confines of an asylum hidden in the woods to write a story about how it works, etc... When our hero, Gaston, is given the grand show by Dr. Maillard, head of the asylum, we see all kinds of things which are suppose to be horrific, such as men hanging around long in a dungeon, and comedic, such as our hero being joked upon by soldiers as he climbs down a ladder hanging over the side of a building. Then there is one sight which might have been meant to be both: a human man dressed as a chicken, yes, that's right a chicken, that pecks around the ground for chicken feed. The scene was to be a comedic highlight of the film, but, at least for me, it was the film's low point and really most revolting when you considered that grown men and women thought this might even be remotely entertaining. Ah! That is indeed the real horror that is Dr. Tarr and his Legion of Name Changes. And that brings me to this salient fact about the film which is most films that undergo multiple title changes usually have some kind of serious problem. Yes, this is obvious, but some have distribution problems and others, of which this is one, have numerous title changes so that someone might unsuspectingly buy the same garbage more than once. This is definitely garbage. It has very little going for it. The only performer worth having a look at is Claudio Brook as the head of the asylum. He is one huge slab of ham as he laughs maniacally, bellows orders, sashays with sword in hand, and praises the chicken. I got so tired of hearing him talk about the "soothing system" as his means to cure the mentally sick. What a bunch of ludicrosity(Hey, a film like this with a script like this deserves this kind of word). It won't take you long to figure out what is going on in the asylum nor will it be any more interesting. Cinematic chicken scratch!


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


user
The one sheets and newspaper campaign suggested (as often they did) a far more lurid and violent piece than showed up on the drive-in screens. Claude Brook is actually an Americanization of Claudio Brook, who worked in films for years. This one's quite hard to find anymore; I'd love to see it again to compare it to other international horrors of the day, but don't remember particularly impressed way back when. Chances are it was a chopped up version that made it to U.S. theatres and video. But oh, that one sheet...still a gem of my later horror collection.


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


user
I went to a prescreening of this film and was shocked how cheesy it was. It was a combination of every horror/thriller cliché, trying to comment on many things including pedophilia, Satan worship, undercover cops, affairs, religion... and it was a mess. the acting was pretty washboard; the kid and the Jesus dude were alright, but apart from them.... Anyways. I admire the effort (though slightly failed) on the attempt at showing the Christian people in a different way...even though they did that, the way it presented the gospel was a bit stock and kiddish. But then again, it may have to be since he was talking to a little kid... no. actually, I've decided it's just all around bad. music... oh my gosh... horrible... toooo over-dramatic. Okay. I felt bad for the people who made this movie at the premier; It seemed like a poor student project. I'm going to stop ranting about this now and say bottom line, go see this movie if you want to waste an hour and fifty minutes of your life on crap. there you go.


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


user
Body Slam (1987) is a flat out terrible movie. The low budget reeks, the direction is pedestrian (at best) and the writing and acting is lame. But if you're into old school wrestling (circa 1970's through the mid-80') then you'll be more entertained than the average viewer. I have to warn you, this movie stinks on ice. I gave it a two because I felt like being generous. This turkey was "directed" by stunt master Hal Needham. The stars are Roddy Piper, The Tonga Kid and a bunch of scrub wrestlers and c-list actors (Dirk Benedict).
The synopsis of this "movie" is about a promoter who wants to combine "hair rock" and wrestling. But their are others that don't want him to succeed. There's more but I don't want to SPOIL it for you. If you can stomach the bad acting and inane storyline, there's a few surprises near the end for die-hard wrestling fans.
I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy (and I mean it).


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


user
My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie "Frogs", "Night of the Lepus", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!
See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in "Stargate"!
See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).
Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes "Chicken Soup For The Soul" sound like BF Skinner
Feel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.
For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert "Mike Brady" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness.


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


user
I went for this movie believing it had good ratings. Firstly, it is ridiculous that they're releasing a movie originally made in 2001, seven years later in 2008 here in India. Everything in the movie looks dated. Even for 2001 the movie looks like its been made on a shoe string budget. There is a scene where a taxi hits a man to elaborate how low budget you can get. Anthony Hopkins doesn't seem to know what he is doing in the film. He ends up giving a long monologue towards the end. If the film had bright sparks during that scene, I missed it as I was sleeping on my seat. Nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt resembles a Devil. She wears ill-fitting trite clothes and scowls at random kids. As for Alec Baldwin a scene where he goes to meet Webster for the first time is not to be missed. What a waste of money! As Anthony Hopkins rightly put it, "Go back home and write better!"


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


user
Once again the same familiar story about a man (writer here) who sell his soul to the devil in order to have his most desired ambition in life: success. Unfunny script (we should "go home and write better"), ridiculous lines in order to understand the "strong" "Christmanish" message (our only aspiration in life is to find love, respect and a good friendship) and a very long trial scene at the end where the agent Hopkins beat the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt is no sexy or evil at all) for all the bad things she made to this unlikable character. Not bad efforts from the actors (Baldwin also as a director, Cattrall in a "Sex and the City" role again, Aykroyd with some funny lines in his limited role). P.S. Try also a not so popular film from Greece called "Alloimono stous neous", a brilliant adaptation of this myth (an old man give his soul to the devil to get back his youth)


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


user
I had high hopes for it when I heard that it was being made back in 2001 because I read "The Devil and Daniel Webster" when I was a kid and I found it very interesting. They made some changes to the story that don't make much sense to me. Daniel Webster in the story was a famous lawyer from New Hampshire in the story. In the movie he is an editor. A lawyer makes more sense since he ends up representing Jabez Stone against the devil him/herself (he was a man in the story, but was a woman in the movie) in a trial where both of their souls are on the line. As an editor, it doesn't seem likely that Daniel Webster would have the skill to do this.
The acting was decent by all except for Alec Baldwin and Dan Aykroyd. These are two actors that I like, they just did an awful job in this movie. It was as though they thought they were acting in a comedy, but the movie was more a serious one than a comedy. This might be partly due to the fact that the movie was filmed with a particular vision in mind, and was then re-edited by somebody else. Given this fact, it's surprising that it was at all coherent. I was surprised to see a fair amount of SNL cast members in the movie, which further leads me to believe it may have originally been filmed with the intention of it being more of a comedy.
All in all I would have to say it wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't much good. If I could get the hour and a half back and do something else with it, I would. The ending was especially disappointing. As in the original story, Daniel Webster defeats the devil in the trial. Jabez then starts out again at the beginning of the movie...literally, we are just brought back to the first scene with Jabez, and then the movie abruptly ends. It actually looked as though they just replayed Jabez' first scene over and called it the end. There is no indication that Jabez has the benefit of any of the knowledge or experience he gained, so who is to say he didn't just repeat his mistakes over again, and perhaps over and over in an endless loop? It was an extremely disappointing end and did not make a lot of sense. The decent cast, and the acting of everyone except for Baldwin and Aykroyd are the only things that keep this from being a complete and total crap sandwich.


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


user
This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.


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


user
I saw this film awhile back (while working on a trailer for the film's production company) and it was TERRIBLE. Hewitt is mediocre at best, Hopkins phones his performance in (but still blows away Hewitt in their scenes together) and Alec looks bored. Trust me on this: you should avoid this film like the plague if it ever gets released. It seems to go on forever as the tired plot unfolds at a snail's pace. It is relentlessly unfunny, the cinematography is crappy and the direction is pedestrian. Alec Baldwin should go to film school if he plans to direct again. In terms of his acting, his character is totally unlikable, which makes it impossible to root for him. Dan Ackroyd is pretty funny and the surprising makeup of the jury near the film's end is cute, but this film is just plain awful.


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


user
Believe it or not, "The Woodchipper Massacre" gave me full-blown gonorrhea! That's right, I've got a rainbow of discharge spewing from me just because a group of kids went playing around with a camcorder and somehow made a deal with the Devil and got distribution. It's beyond my comprehension how anyone with moderate intelligence could tolerate this pant-load of a film. The only reason I managed to sit through the whole thing (not without several suicide attempts along the way) was because, well first off, I was delirious with boredom, and second - I guess I wanted to further explore this newly discovered type of hate I was experiencing... This movie is a 'shot-on-video' "horror/comedy" about three siblings who are left for the weekend in the care of their bitchy elderly aunt. The youngest kid ends up stabbing the old lady accidentally with his Rambo-replica hunting knife. They then get to dismembering auntie with various tools (apparently she didn't have a single drop of blood in her body!) and heave her into their dad's rented wood chipper... Her convict son then stops by looking for his mom and the kids end up grinding that jackass too... I don't recall ever seeing a cast of annoying actors that actually caused me nausea. Seriously, that one blond chick's voice had me wincing in pain constantly. ALL of the actors were downright atrocious - literally just screaming their phony sounding dialog and cracking jokes that must've been written by a chimp that just didn't care! Now, I can usually appreciate independent efforts, but only from those who can realize that people other than their relatives might be watching this! I don't need to see a 3 minute shot of a car pulling out of a drive-way and a torturous, painfully long lawn grooming montage with some ridiculous, fluttery music playing over it. Plus, why the hell does the box of this movie have a bloody piano on it?! There WAS a piano in ONE scene and no one is killed near it! I'm through with reminiscing about this movie. Unless you like insufferable crap, I would advise anyone with half a brain to avoid this trash.


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


user
The only reason I even gave it a 1 out of 10 is because the option to give it zero out of 10 was not allowed. This was the biggest waste of time I've ever endured. For roughly 75 minutes, you are subjected to the WORST acting (and I don't mean that in a good way either, like as in KILLER NERD which had great horrible acting) and a plot that is not only ridiculous but also has absolutely NOTHING to do with a massacre. The reason I even rented this piece of crap was because it has massacre in the title. That said, there was only one killing in the entire movie and it was pretty lame at that. You spend more time watching the kids bickering and doing yard work than anything. Speaking of the kids, the little boy actor is probably the most irritating child actor since bob from house by the cemetery. Did I mention it was shot on video as well? If you want to throw away money and over an hour of your life, then by all means watch it. But if you savor your hard earned dollars and time, then stray as far away as possible.


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


user
Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease!


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


user
This movie could have been very good, but comes up way short. Cheesy special effects and so-so acting. I could have looked past that if the story wasn't so lousy. If there was more of a background story, it would have been better. The plot centers around an evil Druid witch who is linked to this woman who gets migraines. The movie drags on and on and never clearly explains anything, it just keeps plodding on. Christopher Walken has a part, but it is completely senseless, as is most of the movie. This movie had potential, but it looks like some really bad made for TV movie. I would avoid this movie.


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


user
This is a total waste of money. The production is poor, the special effects are terrible. In my country they had the courage to put this film on video named as "The Mummy" because of the success of Brendan Fraser`s film. I`m sure that you can find better horror movies.


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


user
This movie is more deceiving than ever, using a suspenseful looking actor like Walken to play in this piece of junk made it look like he had nothing better to do than play a boring role like this one! And the fact that the movie was supposed to be about some witch and you really don't see that until almost the end of the movie but meanwhile you have to sit and watch this boring film while it gets, or tries to get to the meaning of the point and you have to go through this whole trail of boring actors and actresses thinking the whole time of how you passed off another movie and decided on this one and how you have just waisted your money just makes the whole point of time useless sitting there. I'd rather watch cartoons for goodness sakes. Leave this one alone,please!


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


user
Upon concluding my viewing of "Trance," or "The Eternal," or whatever the producers are calling this film, I wondered to myself, "Out of all of the bad movies I could have seen, couldn't I have at least seen one that was entertaining?" Even if a film is not well made in terms of acting, directing, writing, or what have you, it can at least be fun, and therefore worthwhile. But not only is this film bad in artistic value, it's incredibly boring. For a plot of such thinness, it moves awfully slowly, with little dramatic tension. At the very least, in a low-brow attempt at entertainment, the deaths of the characters could have been cool and/or gory, but the creators of this dreck failed in that department as well.
What does this movie have going for it? Pretty much nothing, unless you get entertainment out of watching Christopher Walken, who is capable of being brilliant, put so little effort into his acting that he falls into self-parody mode (WHY did he decide to do this film anyway?).
I give this film 3/10, because, God help us, there actually have been worse movies made before.


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 takes what could have been a good idea, a mummified 2000 year old witch and completely destroys it. Nora and Jim are alcoholics who go to Ireland to dry-out. They go to stay with her Nan and Uncle. The uncle has discovered a 2000 year old witch preserved in the peat. He revives her and she takes the form of Nora. She cannot be killed conventionally,(more is the pity). Nora, however, works out a way to do so.
This is a Gothic horror movie that has been done on the cheap. It is a sprawling mess. I have to ask why anyone would want to make such a bad film. I am tempted to learn witchcraft in order to make it disappear.
AVOID 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
A young American woman visits her Irish roots and fends off a druid witch who is out to possess her. Sounds intriguing but after an interesting start, I got lost and spent most of the time wondering where it was going. The movie seems to be dithering in two directions -- are we watching the travails of the Irish-American woman battling her alcohol problem or are we watching a straight off horror flick about an evil witch that returns from the past? The director can't seem to decide. The two doesn't seem to gel and in the end you get nowhere. This could be so much better done and the story seemed to drag towards the end. This was most boring and disappointing.


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


user
I thought that I was never going to find a horror movie as bad as "The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but this film compete with it.
I´m not a person that get asleep when watching a movie, but I did it 15 minutes after the Trance started. I woke up, and started to watching it agian. Why did I deserve that? All the movie was a torture, I have to use fast forward to watch it complete.
I can´t stand why one of my favourites actors of all time (MR. WALKEN) could done this thing. I have to think that he made the director a favor, or he was really in the need of money, because film after film he is doing, he is ruining himself; and so fast...
What about the movie? it´s not scary, stupid plot, characters are awful (but I really liked the one played by Jared Harris), effects are very poor, lack of deaths & blood, etc; in three words, it has anything. And I mean it. Can´t stand how a director can make a film like this.
Anyway, When I got more disappointed was when I saw in the video cover, that the film was presented by "Stephen King", I think he could never present this crap, no? (I rented it in Argentina). I not recommend it in a million years.
I rate this movie with a 2 out of 10. (As I say in my "Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre" review, there will be always a worse movies, thats why it don´t deserves a 1 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
This is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I love Almereyda's Nadja, but this is just absolute dreck. Aside from a few moments of interesting cinematography and music this film is just nonstop bad acting and dumb material. Jared Harris is particularly bad, but no one in this is remotely good. The plot is a joke, but not the haha kind. I don't even know if you can forgive movies that are this bad. Please erase the last hour and a half of my life. How did this director make Nadja and Another Girl Another Planet?


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


user
1st watched 5/26/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Michael Almereyda): Weird story about a druid witch who tries to capture eternity by inheriting her granddaughter's body. At least I think that was the relationship. A kind of eerie quality is held throughout this film not unlike Stephen King's The Shining. The difference is that there was campiness in Nicholson's performance that isn't at all in this film. This is all taken very seriously until near the end when some lame one-liners and attempts at litening up the mood don't work at all. The performances are not the problem here, but the story is. Everything doesn't seem to come together very smoothly and the viewer is left with a lot of pieces of information and no real understanding of what happened in the film. There is a very small throwaway performance by Christopher Walken as the uncle of the granddaughter which, of course, gives him top-billing in an attempt to sell the film. Don't buy into this gimmick and avoid this film.



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


user
Dooohhh! My Bwainn Hurrrts! Well it certainly does after this endurance test of a film. How on earth I managed to keep going without hitting the fast forward button lord only knows.
Maybe it's me!!Maybe I don't get the premise of the film... or maybe I don't appreciate it's alleged mystical atmosphere. In my humble opinion though the film has about as much mystical atmosphere as a trip to McDonalds.
In addition the characters were all dreadful and there is more character development in a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yaarrrghhh! Why do I do it? why do I watch such tripe? It's enough to make one run away and join a monastery or the Foreign Legion!! YAARGH!! An absolutley dreadful film in just about every respect. Apart from that it's not to bad.


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 sorry but I didn't like this doc very much. I can think of a million ways it could have been better. The people who made it obviously don't have much imagination. The interviews aren't very interesting and no real insight is offered. The footage isn't assembled in a very informative way, either. It's too bad because this is a movie that really deserves spellbinding special features. One thing I'll say is that Isabella Rosselini gets more beautiful the older she gets. All considered, this only gets a '4.'


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 has all the earmarks of too many cooks spoiling the stew. Based on Shielah Graham's autobiography, it seems like the powers that be couldn't leave well enough alone. They couldn't decide if this was to be Graham's story or Fitzgerald's story, and also how much they should soft-pedal whoever's story it turned out to be. So a film that could have been a story about two fascinating (Fitzgerald) and notorious (Ms. Graham)personalities becomes a dreary disjointed soap opera about that tells us little about either. Added to this there is absolutely no period feel other than for 1959. Clumsy scene follows clumsy scene and we have no idea where we are in the story or how much time is passing. However - and this saved the film for me - Kerr has never looked lovelier, and Peck is as always a very handsome man. They truly make a beautiful, mature couple, and I only wish they had better material to work with. There is one scene that does work - Scott goes after Shielah while in a drunken state, and to see these two normally refined stars knock each other around is very disturbing and gives some fleeting idea of what goes on in a relationship such as theirs. Other than that, the movie is a wasted opportunity and achieves nowhere near the classic stature of other Wald produced soaps of the 1950 (PEYTON PLACE, THE BEST OF EVERYTHING).


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


user
There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This "dramatic scene" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either.
Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.
The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question "why did they even choose to make this in the first place?". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.


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


user
Based on a self-serving novel by one-time girl friend and groupie of F. Scott Fitzgerald, gossip columnist Sheila Graham wrote this trashy story. Gregory Peck carries on in shameless excess as a forceful be-drunk-or-be-damned alcoholic; in contradiction to the gentle and soft spoken real Scott Fitzgerald. Focusing on Fitzgerald's Hollywood writing era, late in his life, the much-honored author was, in fact, living a quiet life and effectively fighting his alcoholism at a time when AA was not yet well known. Fitzgerald was none-too-proud to be recycling his flapper stories in order to support both his wife (in a mental hospital) and his daughter (in college). Living in a small apartment and driving a second hand Chevrolet his life was 180 degrees different than as portrayed in this movie.
Virtually every 20th Century-Fox movie made during Daryll F. Zanuck's leadership, as well as virtually every film directed by Henry King, was a work of excellence. Beloved Infidel was the exception.


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


user
Im proud to say I've seen all three Fast and Furious films.Sure,the plots are kinda silly,and they might be a little cheesy,but I love them car chases,and all the beautiful cars,and the clandestine midnight races.And Ill gladly see a fourth one.
Wanna know what the difference is between those three and Redline?Decent acting,somewhat thought out plot,even if they are potboilers,and last but not least,directors who have a clue.All three were made by very competent directors,all of them took the films in a different direction,equally exciting.Redline looks like the producer picked out a dozen women he slept with on the casting couch,and made them the extras,then picked up his leads from Hollywood's unemployment line.And the script.Yikes.Its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad.This is 70's made for TV movie bad.
Yeah,the movie had a few cool cars,but you don't really get to see that many in action,and the action is directed so poorly you cant get excited by the chases,and if the cars aren't thrilling you,why go to a movie like this?
Im in the audience with a bunch of teenagers,and I cant stop laughing out loud.Im getting dirty looks,but this was just a debacle.
Rent the F&F movies.Go to Nascar Race.Go to a karting track and race yourself.Whatever you do,avoid Redline like bad cheese.


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


user
After seeing the previews I felt that this movie was going to be a nice improvement over that fast & furious series. So, I already expected it to have a lacking storyline, but at least this time it won't be loaded with a bunch of powerless civics with fart cans. Unfortunately, I was wrong. If you could only imagine a Fast & Furious movie with a worse story line than by all means this movie is for you.
This is the absolute worst movie I had ever seen (I'm being nice - no I would not take baseball bat to my nuts like what others have said). Not only was the storyline non-existent, but the action was crap too. I guess the director thought that they could just throw bunch of females and exotic cars and then call it a movie. For an example, there is a point in the movie where the guy pushes the nos button and his Lamborghini takes off in the air and flies over a SLR McLaren to win. And after the bit where Eddy Griffin got in a fight with one of his "girls" (an Imus comment would work in this case) the girl asks to pull over and get out of the PLANE and of course they do in the middle of the desert. After this wonderful scene I couldn't take it anymore. So, I only got to see half of this monstrosity. This is the first movie I had ever walked out on. Afterwards, I had to stop for some drinks to kill all of my corrupted brain cells.
I gave it a 1 because 0 is not an option. You're better off going to the local car show and stopping at a strip joint on the way home. I will keep all viewers in my prayers.


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


user
Whoever wrote up "Redline" as a great car movie must be getting paid off by Daniel Sadek to promote this ultra crappy flaming, steaming pile of amateur crap. Easily the worst automotive movie or any movie ever made. This makes Showgirls look like Citizen Kane.
Take every cheesy cliché out of an 80s action TV series, put in some really crappy special effects and lame characters with no relevance and you have living proof that Daniel Sadek should not write screenplays and produce movies but should remain in the real estate business.
This is such a lame movie with such a lame plot and the most contrived action sequences ever. What offends me is not that the makers of this film are idiots but that they consider the movie going public to be idiots enough to fall for this crap.


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


user
Before watching this film I had very low expectations and went to just see the cars. Eventually I even regretted going for that reason. Plot is almost non-existent. Character development is non-existent. So many clichés and so much jaw-dropping cheesiness existed in the movie that I could only stare and wonder how it was even released. If not for the exotics, I wouldn't have even rated this movie a 1. An attempt at a coherent story line is destroyed by the sheer absurdity of this elite racing cult and the laughable characters that make up its members. In fact, the movie's plot is so predictable and simple-minded that an average child could foretell the majority of the storyline. Bad acting, bad plot, bad jokes, bad movie.
Don't see it. Play Gran Turismo HD instead and it'll satiate your thirst for fast sexy cars without leaving a bad aftertaste.


assistant
0